Wikipedia

Talk:Jelena Janković/Archive 1

< Talk:Jelena Janković
Latest comment: 4 years ago by LH7605 in topic retired
Archive 1

Montenegrin

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

She decided to play for Serbia.

Montenegrin is removed because she doesn`t play for Montenegro, and that language has not ISO 639-1 code. --Goran.Smith2 18:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Born in Belgrade, studied in Belgrade, plays for Serbia. Does anyone have a source for "Montenegrin origin"? I'm not an expert on the topic, but the Montenegro thing seems to contradict what's in the article bio. -[dM] 05:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I deleted that information. If someone wants to put that information, put some references (from some news agencies, or her web site,...). --Göran Smith 11:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't contradict anything. Her father is Montenegrin, who moved to Belgrade, Serbia, then part of Yugoslavia. The family considers itself to be Montenegrin. After Montenegro declared indepenedence, she was undecided whether she should play for Montenegro or Serbia. I shall add references promptly. I see no need in erasing that informative data, considering Jelena obviously holds her origins to be important. What would be the point of that, anyway? She considers herself to be Serbian now, as she grew up in Belgrade and accepted their identity, but that doesn't change her origins, obviously. Jelena certainly considered it important enough to be puzzled about which country she should represent after Montenegro declared independence in june this year. Quote from the New York Times article I am about to add: "Jankovic, who is the middle child between two brothers, talked of a possible nationality conflict at Wimbledon. Her father, Veselin, is from Montenegro, and her mother is from Serbia. Montenegro voted for independence from Serbia this May." See [1] I presume this should be enough, as it is NY Times after all, but data on her Montenegrin origins abound...just google around for more. Anyways, it is always better to have more data than less. I see no justification in deleting this information anymore. Please do not erase sources and verfiied data. Regards P.S.: I didn't add the NY Times link as a typical reference, as it would seem to be the only one in this article, and I didn't want that. Article needs to be properly referenced throughout, where ever it is needed. So I just added "(See [2])" after the sentence mentioning her origin and undecidedness. Anyone who wants to add this link and others as proper references, is welcome to do so, but it may be a painful job to do for an article this long. --213.240.2.254 05:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be what I wanted. Cheers. I said it seemed to "contradict" not because it was "wrong" but because there was nothing else verifying it in the article which, instead, seemed to suggest the opposite. -[dM] 12:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Read this(I presume you know Serbian,or if you want Montenegrin):www.b92.net/sport/vesti.php?yyyy=2006&mm=09&dd=05&nav_id=210695
My favorite part:"100% sam Srpkinja. Ovde sam jer tamo nemamo takve uslove, nemamo mnogo betonskih terena. Skoro svi srpski igrači imaju neke baze van zemlje. Ja sam 100% Srpkinja, odande sam i tamo pripadam" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.66.169.125 (talk) .
She is very Serbian, there are numerous references to this within the Serbian media. Having non-Serbia parentage of Serbian nationality (eg. Bosnian Serbs, Montenegro Serbs) while holding to the Serbian nationality and identity is not uncommon. I believe her motive for the comments as quoted in the NYT would be to be more politically correct since her comments are very different in the Serbian-speaking media. That being said, I do believe that a reference to Montenegro is in order, although I doubt she ever seriously considered representing the country. Final thought, with regard to her father, would it be correct to say 'Serbian Montenegrin' rather than just 'Montenegrin', since there is now a big difference and her father is the former (I believe that the nomenclature for nationalities and languages in the Balkans is beyond ridiculous but that is a whole other conversation) Cubrilovic 18:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of her nationality, the article states that she was the first Serbian to win a grand slam title when she won the mixed doubles at Wimbledon in 2007 with Jamie Murray. I am not a tennis expert but I am pretty sure that Monica Seles had Serbian nationality at the time of at least some of her grand slam singles titles. The Wikipedia article on Seles seems to confirm this.Mother shipton (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Singles Runner-up

Whoever keeps changing it back to the table, stop. No other player has a table for their singles runner-up page, even Schiavone who only has runner-ups. Leave it as is. It's cleaner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.176.139.59 (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Bosnian?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does she really speak Bosnian? I mean, ok, Serbo-Croatian and Bosnian are all the same with only some minor differences but I think it's more of a cultural thing. It defines which country you are from so I think it should be written that Jankovic speaks Serbian. Does anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.81.195.43 (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion concerning this article

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion that may affect the name or title of this article is ongoing here. Please voice any opinions or concerns on that page. After the discussion concludes, this article may be moved to a different title, in accordance with Wikipedia's Naming Conventions. Thank you, Redux (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 2008

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The name of this article should be changed to "Jelena Jankovic" because that is the name used on the English-language websites of the official governing bodies of tennis, which are the Women's Tennis Association and the International Tennis Federation. That also is the name used on the English-language websites of Fed Cup, the US Open, Wimbledon, the French Open (Roland Garros), and the Australian Open. Tennis expert (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2008 (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.

Request for wider input on discussion at Wikiproject tennis

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Any chance of putting a pronunciation, maybe with a native-speaker .ogg file, and a reference to satisfy doubters? I hate "misconceptions" wording, but the TV mispronunciation (yeh-LANE-uh) really annoys me. (It should be, approximately, YELL-en-ah, which is not at all hard to say in English; that's why I'm so mystified at the stubborn perseverance in error shown by the TV announcers.) --Trovatore (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Greek and Han Chinese origin

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I deleted that nonsense! So many people edit this page these days, it's hard to keep track. :( --Göran Smith (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor quality of many articles

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See here for discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclover565 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


She is more of Avar orgin than serb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.138.234.17 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammer

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just noticed that in the opening paragraph, it says that 'she was be the No. 1 ...". I would have fixed it, except for the fact that I am not sure if it should be 'will be' or 'was to be'. Could someone who knows more about this than me please correct it?The Editor1 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Jelly

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where exactly in the UK is she called "Jelly"? I've certainly never heard it. 81.108.87.117 (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago49 comments19 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


Jelena Janković → Jelena Jankovic – She is listed as "Jelena Jankovic" at WTA, ITF, Fed Cup, movie database, magazines, wimbledon - Then we also have a couple personal pages for her. She has her own facebook page (which allows diacritics) in which she lists herself as Jelena Jankovic - She also has her own official website where again it's Jelena Jankovic (even with a signature). For an English based wikipedia this should be enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose, unless I'm mistaken, Facebook doesn't allow multiple variations on a name. You can't enter a name one way and then have it automatically redirect to a canonical form. In this case, it's understandable that her PR team would choose a non-diacritic form for Facebook. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Did you look at the facebookpage and how she spells it? I agree she chose her English spelling for facebook because of it's common use but isn't that what this article title is all about? And what about her own personal webpage spelling and signature? This one seemed like an easy call. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I suppose this is the last stand for application of ITF-names to en.wp following my own RM at Talk:Gerard Solves (ie. Gérard Solvès) which aims to bring the remaining 15x anglicized-name European tennis articles into WP MOS "consistent with the titles of related articles" with 899,000 other BLPs on en.wp (which de facto use Chicago MOS not NY Times MOS in naming). Admittedly romanization of Serbian is slightly problematic for one characteristic - the letter Dj, which is a hangover from the original Gaj's Latin alphabet. In this case however Janković (surname) has no "Dj", and is a completely standard surname on wp, as can be seen by the other 30x Serbian Janković bios. The only ones spelled "Jankovic" are Serbian Americans. Yes http://www.jj-jelenajankovic.com/ has an English website with her anglicizing her name. Good for her. However WP is an encyclopedia and we don't normally take websites, or Facebook, affiliated with BLPs as the primary WP:BLPSOURCES. Like it or not the name of this Serbian citizen is as much Janković as any other Serbian Janković on WP and unless/until she emigrates this is the correct, accurate, and verifiable spelling of Serbian citizens called Janković. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Not even close to the last stand. And we certainly do use player's own written words as part of our sources. In fact we have been told that primary sources for draw sheets is perfectly fine. We use everything in this case and though it may lose this go around it is still a verifiable fact that in English it's Jelena Jankovic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Kauffner, sorry but that's a flawed search, since your methodology is skewed towards diacritic-disabled sources. (i) most of those books are populist and diacritic-disabled, no better than an ATP website. (ii) search for Jelena+Janković will only give results for one person with this surname. If he/she is in non-encyclopedic sources, you'll get a non-encyclopedic result. Now try and repeat the search with just the surname Janković in Google Scholar post 1990 and it is evident that encyclopedic sources overwhelmingly spell the Serbian surname Janković correctly. Sorry, but this comment should be disregarded due to the error in search methodology. A search of higher sources produces the opposite result. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it should be noted that this user is currently deleting diacritics from sourced article ledes contrary to WP:MOSPN, WP:RS, and WP:Naming conventions (use English) which states "If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians,...)" In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
IIO, that's a grossly inaccurate and misleading characterization of events. You are the one who's going around on a one-man crusade adding diacritics to pages left, right and center that to date had none and adding RMs to diacritic version of BLPs. And you're doing so all the time while we're having an ongoing discussion on diacritics on BLP that you yourself initiated. Frankly, your combined actions and comments on this issue, including the above, make it very hard to (still) believe you're acting in good faith.--Wolbo (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Please read the first paragraph of WP:BLP again, and then please go back to the Czech bio stubs where you have followed me, and restore those people's names according to the sources in articles. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Technical and/or policy limitations do not make a name English. Just checked the Serbian article to see the spelling and sourcing used there. Found a great feature of the wiki Software - once registered you can set your preferences not just to the interface language as you might expect but also to the content language script. Guess what her name in Latin script is .... Agathoclea (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
What feature are you talking about? Please share. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The automatic conversion of cyrillic content into latin script and the other other way around. Agathoclea (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Question to the opposers, a genuine one. Where are the reliable sources we need in order to support the inclusion of any diacritics? There seem to be plenty where we don't. And bare in mind this is English language Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
But wiki's are not reliable sources, is there an answer to the question about English-language reliable sources citing the use of a diacritic? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, answer = Google Scholar. Google Books consists largely of diacritic disabled sources which fall below even NYTimes/Economist MOS, let alone Chicago MOS and WP:MOSPN. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I meant specifically in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
In this case we would first need to input the surname Janković into Google Scholar post 1990, or Athens if you have a password. Then having established how this surname is habitually spelled in quality sources, check that there are no exceptional circumstances such as the individual having emigrated. The same methodology would be good for a name with Stéphane or Frédéric. One wouldn't input the whole name string with surname into a populist databank. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should do that then because right now there are a heap of traditionally reliable sources claiming Jankovic. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't say any of those sources Kauffner has produced in Google Books are reliable on the spelling of Slavic surnames. Kauffner's results show that only 2 of the books followed Chicago MOS and both of them, 2 out of 2, had search string "Jelena Janković". Which isn't surprising. Why would books mentioning a tennis player follow an academic MOS? Božidar Janković would probably be a more suitable Janković to search for. The results on surname Janković in GS. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Well we're trying to provide reliable sources that this specific person is called Jelena Janković or otherwise. Can you provide me with reliable sources that supersede all those in reports in such as The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The New York Times, The BBC etc where she is universally referred to as "Jelena Jankovic"? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but why would anyone search for this specific person? That doesn't make sense unless there's reason to believe this Janković BLP is somehow uniquely different from all other Serbian Jankovićs. We already have Serbian sources to verify the name Јелена Јанковић. The only issue then is how high-MOS academic sources treat transliteration of Јелена and Јанковић. (not "Јелена Јанковић" as a unique string different from all other Јелена and all other Јанковић). The Times, The Daily Telegraph (inconsistently), The New York Times are all Economist-MOS, they only allow French, German, Spanish and Portuguese names so they are not reliable sources for diacritics unless French, German, Spanish or Portuguese. WP is not Economist-MOS, WP encourages Slavic and Swedish diacritics, see WP:MOSPN or category:Serbian female tennis players. This is why I said Google Scholar, because it operates on a MOS equivalent to WP. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, my misunderstanding then. I thought this was a requested move specifically related to this BLP, not to the general use of diacritics on a particular surname. I thought we referenced BLPs specifically and not by relation to other similarly named people? So once again, I guess I ask the question, what references are there that this person is called Jelena Janković and not Jelena Jankovic per multiple traditionally acceptable reliable sources? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
No, we can't reference BLPs in isolation without relation to other similarly named people because of WP MOS "consistent with the titles of related articles". We'd need a reason to state why this Janković is different from the other 29 Janković or we'd need to move all 30x.
As to sources, we only need two, the two Kauffner found, the two Chicago-MOS sources which Kauffner found which are compatible with WP:MOSPN treat Jelena Janković as Jelena Janković. For the purposes of a Chicago-MOS encyclopedia Kauffner just verified that Jelena Janković is the correct name. Again the Times and Telegraph are not an acceptable reliable source for spelling of Eastern European names. If we used the Times and Telegraph we'd have to rename around 200,000 of the 899,000 BLPs on WP. You're free to nominate all 200,000, or even just the other 29x Janković, but as it stands Kauffner verified that Jelena Janković is Janković in Chicago MOS sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not in the slightest bit interested in mass nominating anything. Frankly, I'm in the "redirects are fine" camp, so either way it doesn't really bother me, hence why I haven't supported or opposed, but just asked questions as to why two "Chicago MOS sources" outweigh thousands of other reliable sources which don't use the diacritic. Are suddenly the BBC, The New York Times etc no longer reliable for names? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course not, it's just an illustration of where WP MOS "consistent with the titles of related articles" would take us if we moved from Chicago MOS down to Economist MOS. The New York Times is getting more reliable, I'm not sure when it adopted use of French, German and Spanish names. The BBC is getting more reliable too. BBC Music Magazine and Radio 3 have recently moved from Economist-MOS they used to favour to the Chicago MOS of Gramophone and Diapason. I'm not sure exactly when it happened but BBC music publications suddenly went umlauts (Arvo Pärt) to full Slavic diacritics like Janáček. This means that some BBC publications are now reliable for diacritics. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, this has been both interesting and enlightening. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
You're very welcome, nice to chat. User:Prolog/Diacritical_marks has much more. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME actually says "Ambiguous or 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." Simply stripping diacritics is a translation error and thus would be an inaccurate name so we would not use it even if it is used more frequently by reliable sources. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:CONSISTENCY is mentioned, but that guideline is clearly about consistency within a given article, not consistency with other people that have the same family name. So this has nothing to do with deciding on this article's title. It is not because other people named Jankovic have kept the diacritic in their name that Jelena Jankovic should do that too. It's really amazing how some policies and guidelines are being "interpreted" to make them into support for the diacritics case. We will get a couple million hits for "Jelena Jankovic" in English-language sources. The rendering with a diacritic on the final "c" has not entered English-language usage. So, if our WP:UE policy is still alive, then this is a clear-cut move to anglicized title, as has been done with Novak Djokovic and Ana Ivanovic. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
MakeSense64, welcome back. The correct link to WP:MOS main lede is WP MOS "consistent with the titles of related articles". I take it you're in agreement that Miss Janković was born Janković and has Janković on her passport and is Janković in Serbian-Latin sources. So your objection to WP MOS "consistent with the titles of related articles" is what exactly? What makes this Janković different? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
How Jelena Jankovic was born and what's on her passport and how her name is spelled in Serbian-Latin sources is completely irrelevant for the English wikipedia. The title of her article here depends on the spelling of her name in reliable English-language sources per WP:UE policy. "Related articles" doesn't refer to people having the same native family name, since that doesn't imply they are related. "Related articles" means articles that fall within the same domain or scope, for example articles about astronomical bodies or articles about chemistry... that are "related articles" and we generally try for consistency in naming the articles that are within the same scope. Articles about professional tennis players are also "related articles". So we should look for consistency with Novak Djokovic and Ana Ivanovic here, which becomes an argument in favor of the requested move. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
We've just been through this - Kauffner searched the string "Jelena+Janković" and could only find 2 sources which were enabled to use Gaj's Latin alphabet that even mentioned this particular Janković. This goes back to the question of would you search for the colour of a rose in book of black and white photos? Do you get the analogy? I agree that there's some mileage in your argument about the related articles in category:Serbian female tennis players and category:Serbian male tennis players.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't think even the most ardent supporter of diacritics would disagree the large majority of English-language reliable sources do not use the diacritic for Jankovic's name. My interpretation of WP:UE and WP:UCN is that we should follow what the majority of reliable sources do. I do not feel that The New York Times, the BBC, the many books published by respectable publishers and so on can be dismissed as unreliable. What's most telling to me is that, while the Serbian version of her personal website uses the diacritics, the English version does not – clearly even the subject sees dropping the diacritics as a valid translation of her name into English. Jenks24 (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The name without diacritics is merely a spelling of convenience, not an encyclopedic one, which requires greater accuracy. Doremo (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
No, it is the spelling that Jelena uses to identify herself in English. She could easily use a foreign diacritic spelling but she does not. This case really should be open and shut in favor of the English alphabet in this English wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Reply. That's true, but we do not have any policy or guideline asking us to use native spelling in article titles. What we have is a policy asking us to depend on English-language usage WP:UE. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Rambling Man, I'm pretty much done with this subject now, but I think the COMMONNAME section quoted by HandsomeFella is saying the opposite, that there are very many reliable English sources (reliable on which games played when etc.) which have "Jankovic" and that Chicago-MOS sources like John Grasso Historical Dictionary of Tennis 2011 Page 150 "Jelena Janković began playing tennis as a nine-year-old in Serbia and was a member of the Red Star Tennis Club in Belgrade." are very much the exception, but that as COMMONNAME says "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." The same test would almost certainly produce the same result for 20+ of the 30x names on the Janković list, but in each case the accurate name Janković in (minority of) reliable sources, is preferred to the inaccurate name in (majority of) sources reliable on other things than names. Why, someone may ask, is the romanization ć for c wikt:inaccurate? Because c is c. Compare Ilija Bozoljac whose name ends with -c in Gaj's Latin alphabet (= cyrillic -ц "-ts"), but Janković doesn't end with -c "ts", it ends with -ć in Gaj's Latin alphabet (= cyrillic -ћ, pronounced "tɕ"). To English speakers that's approximately the difference between Yakoveech and Yankoveetz, one is accurate, using the spelling found on the Sports pages of Blic, one is as inaccurate as writing Francois for François, which Wikipedia doesn't do for French BLPs, nor for François Clemmons who is as American as apple pie and the federal government budget deficit. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually in favour of Americanizing foreigners who spend too long in the US, meaning more than a few years of college or being picked in the NHL draft and playing 2 games, but there's no evidence that Janković is any different from any of the other Janković, except "Weird Al" Yankovic who isn't a Serbian living in Serbia. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Reply. - There is currently a discussion about that 2nd sentence in WP:COMMONNAME, here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Questionable_phrasing:_Ambiguous_or_inaccurate. The actual meaning of that sentence has nothing to do with spelling issues. It is about "more authoritative reliable sources" contending "in our sources" that a certain common term is inaccurate ("heart attack" was brought as an example). Then we can forego the more common name for the more accurate term. That doesn't apply here, both alternative names identify the subject with sufficient "precision", so we should use the more common name per English-language usage. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Full protection

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

The edit warring on this article regarding diacritics has reached an unacceptable level. I've fully protected the article as a result. This is a talk page, discuss the matter here in a WP:CIVIL manner and move on. Thank you. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

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.
Closing statement follows:

When asked for relevant policies to this discussion, after the two sentence statement listed above, editors cited a number of policies, including but not limited to WP:UE, WP:AT, WP:OPENPARA, as well as discussions such as the one noted below at WT:TENNISNAMES. What no editor thought to bring to this discussion was the policy on edit warring, which is the precise issue that the article was protected for. First, is this an edit war? Let's look at the definition.

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.

I think it's indisputable that, across a substantial number of biographies, there is a specific war (which is part of a larger accent-driven war) over the question of including alternate un-diacritic'd forms of the name, along with the diacritic'd form, as a "significant alternate title."

WP:EW provides a limited number of exceptions to the types of edits that are considered edit wars. Most of the exceptions are inapplicable here, perhaps the closest exception to the current situation is this: "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required."

So, what policies are we disrupting the encyclopedia over? Are they as overriding as WP:BLP?

The warring I specifically indicated regarded the "alternate undiacritic'd title. WP:UE doesn't seem to apply. WP:OPENPARA's examples suggest (very strongly) a treatment but don't explicitly address the narrow question, WP:AT comes close but not close enough, ditto the consensus RfC. Barely, the "alternate forms" treatment is not unambiguously in violation of policy.

More importantly, none of these policies gives any reason to imagine that they are an overriding concern, none is within a light-year of being an exception to WP:EW.

My initial judgment, which I've taken nearly a week to reconsider, appears correct. This is an edit war, and doesn't meet any recognized exception to WP:EW. Moreover, it's an egregious edit war. Editors here have warned each other of this risk, it's hard to plead ignorance. I doubt any significant, intelligent participant in the full-scale Great Battle of Diacritics was unaware of the risks. Neither were participants unaware of how contentious the Great Battle of Diacritics has proven on all fronts. As near as I can tell, editors had the perception that they could continue this behavior and continue to disrupt the functioning of the editing community with impunity. That perception must end to protect the encyclopedia and the editing community. a few blocks will be issued toward that end.

As a result, my "close" is that I'll be blocking a few editors participating broadly in this the edit war shortly. I'll explain my specific rationales to the editors so blocked.


As multiple editors asked how to address the underlying diacritic question, I'll attempt an answer, but this answer is not an official closure, merely advice:

  1. Don't edit war, and at this point, leave a margin between yourself and the edit warring. At this point, you may be wise to consider, at *most*, a WP:1RR on diacritic-related issues if you've had any involvement at all in this Great Battle of Diacritics.
  2. Get a clean policy consensus with an RfC on this narrow question: "Should unaccented forms of accented names be included as significant alternate names with respect to the language at WP:AT?" Do this at WT:AT. (Or, better yet, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies.) I suspect an RFC will find consensus there. Many intelligent, pragmatic arguments were made here, but it's not my role here, today, to decide WP style policy where it has not yet gained a broad consensus.
  3. Recognize that the majority of Wikipedia editors care more about the edit warring policy and having a functional editing community than they do about which way we handle accents in names. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

END OF CLOSING STATEMENT

JD, I'm unhappy that two articles have both been frozen at the same point with the long-time information removed as opposed to in place. This particular problem is not about diacritics, it's about policy and censorship. I've asked advise from administrators, I've re-written the structure 4 or 5 times, it's been at ani where my point was agreed to by the sole replier who gave his opinion, I've asked for page protections. It's required by UE#Treatment_of_alternative_names and we've talked on my talkpage. I'm not sure where else to go with this stalemate but advise is certainly welcome. Pages have gone from title: common name, lead: common name > title: common name, lead: common name, and I added an extra lead: foreign name. That wasn't good enough. It then went to title: common name, lead: foreign name, extra lead: common name. Not good enough. Then article: foreign name, lead: foreign name, extra lead: common name... still not good enough. And now a handful of editors want article: foreign name, lead: foreign name and no mention of the fact that the governing bodies of tennis, almost all English sourcing, and players own registrations have an alternate spelling. You'll note that even Encyclopedia Britannica makes sure it add the alternate spellings in Ilie Nastase... and they use the Common English spelling as the title. Now to a degree we work by consensus here and titles and lead placement have been going the rounds lately by voting. You haven't seen me reverting those diacritics even though I believe they are dead wrong in this English encyclopedia with regards to tennis players. I haven't read up on governing bodies of music or painters so I leave them alone. But tennis I've followed and written about for multiple decades.
This isn't about one article or it would really just be a content dispute. This is about the complete censoring out of any mention of authoritatively recognized alternate spellings of tennis players. Why, for our readers sake would we ever want to do that? It's not like the information isn't sourced. It is and others agree with me. At the ani an admin? wrote: "Hang on - the tennis player in question IS also known by the accentless form of her name, as can be very quickly seen by following the WTA and ITF external links (and the French language link from the French Open). It seems sensible to at least mention this spelling of her name..." Other admins and editors have said the same thing, plus it's policy that if there is another commonly used spelling, to have it listed in or near the lead. It's one thing to prefer diacritics or no diacritics but to censor out the English spelling as if it doesn't exist is not acceptable at all. That's why I've tried several versions that would hopefully find some compromise. I've tried different placement, different wording (alternate spelling:, known professionally as:, English spelling is:, registered tennis name is:) but the answer from a handful of editors is to eliminate everything. It seems this handful wants to back me into the tiniest of corners so wikipedia is forced to take action. If you look at steps taken throughout this process I feel I'm the one who has tried to be reasonable. There's only one editor who I have nothing to do with after all the exchanges due to personal attacks, but the others we've conversed with... want the complete elimination of all English name versions for every tennis player. I've nowhere else to go other than to agree to that redacting of English spelling... I can't do that. So please tell me the next step because I can see the same thing happening for many many other tennis articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fyunck, as part of WP:TENNISNAMES having been overwhelmingly rejected by RfC, you should accept the follow the following guidelines as part of that conclusion:

Consensus is that the answer to the question posed in the title of this RfC is "no". Additionally, a great majority of participants express a preference for retaining diacritics in the title of articles, either generally or as applied to tennis players in particular.  Sandstein  18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

For reference, paste WP:AT section: Treatment of alternative names

By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended. (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc. There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historical contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City).

All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should be made to redirect to that article. If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term. Note that the exact capitalization of the article's title does not affect Wikipedia search, so it is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations unless these are likely to be used in links; see Naming conventions (capitalization).

Piped links are often used in article text to allow a subject with a lengthy article title to be referred to using a more concise term where this does not produce ambiguity.

Note that "Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig", not "Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig and Gdansk." Evidently the guideline does not consider that newspapers which represent Gdańsk as "Gdansk" create a new name. The same goes for sports websites or Wimbledon scoreboards unable to represent René Lacoste or Björn Borg.

For reference Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies

Shortcuts

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version. For example:

  • (from Fidel Castro): Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (born August 13, 1926) ...
  • (from François Mitterrand): François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand (October 26, 1916 – January 8, 1996) ...
  • (from Brian Jones): Lewis Brian Hopkin Jones (28 February 1942 – 3 July 1969) ...

In some cases, subjects have legally changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well:

  • (from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) ...

Note no "known as Francois" in example above, as per tennis players François Jauffret (1942-), Jean-François Caujolle (1952-), François Blanchy (1886-1960), Françoise Durr (1942-), Jean-François Bachelot (1977-). In ictu oculi (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

First, thank you both for your detailed responses. Let me summarize what I've read so far, see if I have it right, and ask a couple questions, if I might.
  • Questions for User:Fyunck(click):
    1. I was somewhat taken aback by your use of the word censorship in this discussion. When I hear that word, I hear an implication of a subtext, a political motive, etc. As you attempting to suggest an ulterior motive beyond "good editing"? If so, can you tell me what that is, in your view? Is there a nationalist, religious, or political overtone to the use or non-use of diacritics and the like that I am unfamiliar with?
    2. Would it be more or less correct to say that it is your view that "Jelena Jankovic" deserves to be treated as we describe "significant alternative names" in our policies?
  • Questions for In ictu oculi:
    1. Would it be more or less correct to say that it is your view that "Jelena Jankovic" is a trivial re-rendering of "Jelena Janković" as opposed to a significant alternative name, and that your example of Gdańsk demonstrates that by example?


Finally, two comments:

  • I note that my use of "diacritic" or "accent" in this discussion may be imprecise here. If that is the case, my apologies, and I hope that my meaning remains clear despite this imprecision. (I had thought, by the way, that that distinction might be pertinent here, however, the fact that this same discussion has essentially been replicated at Lefèvre leads me to believe that the dispute does not resolve against subtle linguistic issues.)
  • Fyunck(click): I note your unhappiness that in both of the two cases I've been involved in I've protected the Wrong Version. In both cases, I protected the version as I came to what appears to be an edit war, and protected at the current version as is our policies in such cases. Luck of the draw, if you believe I have acted in any inappropriate way, you are welcome to bring the issue to ANI, or what have you.

Thank you for your patience as I review this. Best regards, --j⚛e deckertalk 18:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

See Toni Androic, Miljan Zekic, Frederic Fontang, Germán López, André Miele, Tomislav Brkić, Juan-Sebastian Vivanco, Roberto Maytín, Saša Hiršzon, César Ramírez (tennis), Óscar Burrieza, Roberto Argüello, Nikola Čačić, György Balázs, Manuel Sánchez (tennis) and probably many, many more. In all of these, Fyunck(click) has insisted on adding the non-diacritic version in the first sentence of the lede (in the form of a parenthetical "also" or "professionally known as"). The objection to this is that it adds no information to the article: everyone already knows that diacritics are omitted by some sources, especially non-scholarly media, and anyone can easily "see through" the diacritics to figure out the ASCII version without requiring it to be spelled out. This is about as useful as writing "(also Roger FEDERER)" simply because the Wimbledon scoreboard writes players' last names in all caps. It seems a bit petty and the cries of "censorship" seem a bit battlegroundish. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Joe
Yes it be correct to say that that "Jelena Jankovic" is a trivial re-rendering (due to typographical/manpower limitations) of "Jelena Janković" as opposed to a significant alternative name, and that your example of Gdańsk demonstrates that by example. Danzig is an exonym, see List of German exonyms for places in Poland, English however has no exonym for Gdańsk - the Lonely Planet uses Gdańsk.
Likewise the List of English exonyms includes only a few personal names, like John Calvin (French "Jean Calvin").
There is no significant difference between "accents" and "diacritical marks": User:Prolog/Diacritical_marks.
The number of articles with these recent WP:TENNISNAMES ledes is 100+. But mainly non-famous players. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • @Joe Decker. I'll do my best to answer your queries.
On the questions for me. 1. You have to remember where I'm coming from on this. In my opinion Jelena Jankovic is far more common, is her registered name in ITF tennis, is used by the ITF, WTA and Fed Cup. I have trouble comprehending how it is not the article title but it went through the RM process and failed to move. That's fair enough. Per other administrators comments to me when tennis articles were at the common English spelling I added the foreign spelling too right there in the lead. It seemed common sense and no one removed those additions. Now when articles are being listed and moved by a select few editors they are also demanding that there is no trace whatsoever of the fact that these players go by different spellings per the governing bodies of tennis etc... If it one or two articles where this was happening I would say we are having a content dispute and probably move on. And one editor in particular has probably made thousands of moves over many wikis to remove the common spelling, replace with the foreign spelling, and then left no trace whatsoever of the names used throughout Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open, French Open, etc... That is censorship in my book. If there's an agenda you'd have to ask him. Now the alternate would also be true. If a group of editors tried to systematically remove from wikipedia, all traces of a player's foreign spelled name as though it doesn't exist... that would be censorship in my opinion also. Ana Ivanovic would be an example of a player who, in English, spells her name without diacritics (two of her own personal websites and signature). But it is spelled with diacritics in her homeland and there are foreign sources to back that up. So with her we must include that other significant spelling.
2. yes. And the advise I was given early on by an administrator.
Under questions for everyone: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_34
other guidelines: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Pseudonyms
I think that's about it. The tennisnames listing a few others talk about is an interesting beast all its own. A discussion on a Personal Essay about whether we should do away with all English sourcing and use ONLY ITF registration for all tennis naming. I never use it nor was I in favor of it. As for the luck of the draw comment... that's why I asked and I shall certainly take you at your word. Thanks for the clarity. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. To add a bit more perspective to this discussion you may want to read a few very recent discussions on Jimbo Wales' usertalk. Here he expresses the opinion that we are already overusing diacritics on WP: [3], and here is another interesting topic: [4], where he strongly agrees with the closing of RM that moved an article to Ivory Coast away from the official name of that country:[5]. The idea is that we try to serve our readers and rather use an anglicized name that everybody knows, instead of an official name that is difficult to spell for English language users (and editors).
A group of editors have been busy moving as much names as they can to native spelling titles (even when these foreign spellings hardly ever appear in English language sources). But when we now see articles being moved to Vietnamese spelling which almost no English reader can type or read, shouldn't we wonder: what is the purpose? And it would be one thing if articles are moved to native spelling titles when there is a concensus to do so, but some editors then proceed to remove all traces of English spelling of these names in the article. As if anglicized spellings of foreign names need to be hidden. Our guidelines and policies ask us to mention significant alternative names, including alternative spellings, in the lede of an article. But what we are doing in this case is mention the alternative names, except when it is an anglicized name. That's an interesting approach on the "English" wikipedia.
There is a very simple reason why we better mention anglicized names even if they differ in only one letter or diacritic. Not every person is equally famous and not every wp reader is an expert on the given topic. E.g. a reader finds an article on wp and the name is written with diacritics. He has seen the same name in newspaper or tv, but without diacritics. Is it the same person or not? How is the reader supposed to know if we do not mention it in the lede of the article? If two or more reliable sources for an article use an alternative rendering of a name, then it is better to mention that alternative name in the lede. We try to be accurate, but we also try to be complete for our various types of readers. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll plan to close this discussion later tonight. (e.g., somewhere between three and seven hours from now.) Apologies for the delay. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:57, 22 July 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.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jelena Janković. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jelena Janković. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Jelena Janković. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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) 02:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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) 02:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

retired

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

so, is Janković retired? her wta profile lists no matches since 2017, but i can not find any official retirement statements. does anyone know more about her? --LH7605 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jelena_Janković/Archive_1&oldid=1239794997"