Talk:Marko Djokovic

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

The result of the proposal was move. The requesters have provided evidence that Djokovic is the preferred form of the name in english. The opposers have not provided evidence that the original form is preferred.

As in the case of Novak Djokovic, evidence suggests that "Djokovic" is the prefered rendering in the English language.

Official Tennis Organizations:

• Association of Tennis Professionals
• International Tennis Federation
• Wimbledon
• The Australian Open

English-language Sports and General Media:

• BBC Sports
• Sports Illustrated
• ESPN

--Yano (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

The name of this article should be changed to "Marko Djokovic" because that is the name used on the English-language websites of the official governing bodies of tennis, which are the Association of Tennis Professionals and the International Tennis Federation. This also is how his brother's surname is spelled on English Wikipedia, Novak Djokovic. Tennis expert (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Serbian for this issue. --Komischn (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of several sections which exists under the overall header When no commonly accepted form exists in English. The nom has presented a prima facie case that Djokovic is commonly accepted in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, PMAndersonyou are able to write two words in foreign language (it is Latin, do you know?) . That is really "amazing".--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I thought that the prima facie here would be the fact that this person is a Serb with a Serbian name. Húsönd 02:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, despite the title, the page linked to is a proposed naming convention, not a current guideline. Dekimasuよ! 13:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on present evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on evidence. Looking forward to army of impassioned Eastern Europeans who will probably disagree. To them and those that agree with them, if you can verifiably establish that English convention supports your preferred spelling, I will be on your side. Please do not simply say that "Đoković is his name" and call it an argument. Erudy (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your wariness about repeated arguments, but I'm not sure how is the argument you cite in the last sentence completely invalidated. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Rules must apply for all articles, not just for these two. I think, you must first find consensus on general usage of letter Đ on English Wikipedia, and then chance or keep these articles. --Göran S (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC) I'm also for Djokovic, in general, but, I think it is more important to have rules which apply for all, and not for this articles who collect more supporters of changing the names. You should raise the question somewhere else on Wikipedia, definitely not here. --Göran S (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Rules do apply to all articles see policy

  talk) 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support If we are to use rules, then we should follow
  WP:UE, because this is the English Wikipedia, not the Serbian one. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "If we are to use rules" then Raikkonen is English usage. But this rule, like Erudy notices, applies only to Eastern Europeans.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The current spelling is causing some confusion in relation to the subject's brother Novak. --Yano (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because the article on his brother should be using the diacritics, not the other way around. Will you be proposing to move thousands of other similar articles next? Húsönd 02:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Diacritics are accurate and rightfully applied on this name. Besides, tradition on Wikipedia is to use diacritics whenever applicable; there are thousands of articles in the same circumstances as this one and virtually all of them use diacritics (this person's brother being one of them, with a current ongoing proposal to include the diacritics). Húsönd 02:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • tradition on Wikipedia is to use diacritics whenever applicable. Only in Husond's mind; since when is this worth lying about? Tradition, such as it is, supports using diacritics when English has adopted them; there may also be a tradition of giving in to the spam of self-pitying nationalists; but there certainly no general tradition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my mind, it is your remarks that are befitting of a self-pitying nationalist. Not to mention that in most circumstances such attitude against specific groups of Wikipedians could be simply branded as subtle xenophobia. Húsönd 20:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I defend no nation; I defend English usage from all of them (including the rivalries of the English-speaking world, when they arise.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • "PMAnderson, a great defender of English language... whose legacy is bigger than Shakespear's , Faulkner's or Joyce's ..." joke of the month, year, century ... --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Đoković is simply the correct spelling. MTC (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Đoković is simply the correct spelling. Añtó| Àntó (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Neither of the above supply any evidence or argument. This unfounded claim should be discounted accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're anything like me, you're probably flabbergasted by the people here who think they are above the burden of proof. No one opposed to this move has produced any evidence that this man's legal name is anything other than "Djokovic." When asked, they only chide and insult, and one of those people is, quite inexplicably, an administrator... --Yano (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After having the same discussions a thousand times with the same users who just won't give up their agenda, you simply deplete your patience for providing proof, or anything else but the raw acknowledgment that you are against these eternal proposals. We haven't been here for two days. And nobody's insulting, just lacking patience. Húsönd 19:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a confession of what is indeed the case; Husond has no evidence, and never has had any; he merely has an agenda to refashion the English language. His claims should be given a weight proportionate to their basis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wish. Húsönd 07:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Anto, MTC, Husond and other people still adhering to common sense. If someone doesn't recognize Đoković and Djokovic as same, I wouldn't trust him on using
  pwn. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Correct spelling in English means "usual spelling". If this were the usual spelling, there would be some evidence for it; the oppose !votes have supplied none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong. Usual spelling in this case means limited-keyboard-spelling, which we don't follow on Wikipedia. Oh look, sometimes a source goes the extra mile for accuracy as well! Húsönd 18:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This does not describe the evidence; strictly limited keyboards are rare, and writers will sensibly and demonstrably avoid diacritics when writing English even when they are available. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • How nice for them. But we're an encyclopedia here, and we have the sensitivity to provide quality as opposite to such carelessness. Húsönd 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Contrary to the impression of the non-anglophone nationalists among us, the quality of this English Wikipedia does include whether it is written in English, not Serbian. It would worsen this Wikipedia to massively replace Belgrade by Beograd wherever it occurs; so here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of this encyclopedia is also hinged on people following the guidelines. Going rogue and stonewalling a legitimate page move because you don't like it is not helpful. --Yano (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • Once again you single out groups of Wikipedians, Pmanderson. Everybody around here is an anglophone, otherwise none would be editing this place. I believe you refer to non-native speakers of English, whom you seem to despise. Bear in mind though that all users with no exception have the right to read, write, and voice opinions on this Wikipedia. "Belgrade" will never be replaced by "Beograd", as "Belgrade" is the English version for the name of that city. Totally unrelated and uncalled for this discussion. As for you Yano, nobody is going rogue or stonewalling. There's people disagreeing with the proposal, and that's perfectly normal. Húsönd 00:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, my regard for those who insist on illiteracy instead of English is not dependent on whether they are native speakers or not; it is based on the harm they would do Wikipedia, and the frivolousness of their arguments. Native speakers can be equally contemptible.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Djokovic is demonstrably the English version of this surname; just like Belgrade - or Handel. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • User:Husond how do you know that it is "Wrong"? If main stream English language newspapers (which are not limited to "limited-keyboard-spelling") do not use diacritics are they wrong? You says "There's people disagreeing with the proposal" but we are meant to be working towards a consensus and as
                  talk) 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
                  ]

• • • • • • • • • • @PMAnderson:1.) About what nationalists do you talk about? Those from United States of Fooland??? 2.)I think we have seen enough your "literacy" . English orthography and grammar are "constitution" . All laws (WP:NC ) must be adjusted according to it! And this is example how some users (you and couple of others) try to impose some rule which is totally "unconstitutional"--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • We
                  have no constitution. We do have a mandate to be written in intelligible English; this does not include About what nationalists do you talk about? or have seen enough your or you and couple of others. Learn to write English, and then come and discuss it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • • OH, mom....those nationalists took my lolipop. It is my, my.... bring it back! .

• Really? Where? Link please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English orthography textbooks such as: [1][2] written by experts (unlike you)--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 2) About my English:I will keep writting here... no matter what you think or smbd like you think. If you have problem with that there are proper places to be solved.[reply]

• • • • • • • • • • • P.S. I don't know if you realize what are you talking about when you talk abou "nationalism"? Do you know the meaning of that word?

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • • • • • • Yes, I have an ostensive definition before me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • • • • • • • Obviously and unfortunately:You don't know! Otherwise you'd recognize yourself in your own words.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move, we should be guided by what Reliable English Language sources use as per
  talk) 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose per
  WP:CYR#Serbian. "Marko Djokovic" is not English, it's just a diacriticless form of his own name. (English might be Mark Jokoson or something similar). — AjaxSmack 03:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Once again, that's not a guideline, it's a proposal. I think the "move" argument here is that there is a "conventional English spelling", anyhow. Dekimasuよ! 04:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • AjaxSmack is the spelling of
      talk) 09:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Just to comment, Johann Strauß is not a correct spelling of the person's name in German. Paris is used that way both in English and French and the spelling of Vienna is backed up by history and pronunciation, neither of which can be applied to "Djokovic". Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • A slip of the keyboard, probably; the relevant example is the Bavarian politician Franz Josef Strauss, so spelt in English, but not in German (outside Switzerland). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I differentiate between diacritics (e.g.,
            WT:UD#Proposal for details of my reasoning. — AjaxSmack 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
  • Ajax, that section only applies, to quote the main header,When no commonly accepted form exists in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand but I don't feel that merely dropping diacritics makes a sequence of letters "English." — AjaxSmack 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither do I. I do not believe, any more than you, that dropping diacritics by itself makes something English; but there is significant evidence (all the sources to the article, for example) that Marko Djokovic is what English writers use, and Marko Đoković isn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Djokovic. We
  outside the bounds of discussions on Wikipedia. Parsecboy (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Not when they interfere with the
    first pillar. Húsönd 07:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • A counterfactual assumption; the first pillar is verifiability, and there are verified sources that the subject's name, in English, is Djokovic; one of them is Montenegrin. Indeed, it is Husond who proposes to make the completely unsourced assertion that it is Đoković. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly; the first pillar states that we should "
        provide references". As far as I can tell, those favoring retaining the current move have yet to provide a single reliable source to back up their position. Parsecboy (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Whatever!! I think the first reliable sources are his birth certificate, and other his personal documents.And there is not written "Djokovic" for sure. --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those haven't been published, and they have very little to do with common usage. Even if you had seen his birth certificate, using it would constitute original research. --Yano (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nor is it English. I know someone whose name is Elaine, but whose baptismal certificate says Ilini, because the Greek Orthodox priest insisted on a saint's name. This particular problem may be unlikely for someone born in Yugoslavia, but there are others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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