Talk:Novak Djokovic

Playing style?

as a top 10 player I think he deserves a playing style section like the other top players, can anyone better than me take care of this? Habibko 13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Impressions

I think this deserves a mention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.236.237 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

They were added here but they were reverted, most likely because the information OR. Anyone wondering about this can see Djokovic's impressions at http://www.usopen.org (currently on the highlight reel). -- Yano 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)´

It could be mentioned under "personal." But definitely not by creating a trivia section with subjective evaluations of his impersonations.--HJensen, talk 21:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about his citizenship

Novak Djokovic's mother is Croatian and his Father is from Monte-Negro. So he is a Croat, he doesnt even live in Serbia but in Monte Carlo! greets.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.113.228 (talk • contribs) 15:23, September 11, 2007 (UTC)

He is a citizen of Serbia and plays his tennis for Serbia. He is Serbian. K. Lásztocska 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously he is Serbian. Some Croats are jelous,since their best sportsman are Serbs. So please, take no aspect to such nonsense talking. Look at picture --90.157.200.224 11:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

His father is NOT from Montenegro, he's from Kosovo, which until recently was a part of Serbia. 99.250.153.148 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

article

Instead of wasting time arguing about the article title, why not put that energy in actually improving the article contents? // laughing man 02:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia policy is worth following, and because making articles easy to find and understand is as important as improving article content. --Tkynerd 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many redirects. We can make more if you think it's hard to find. In the first sentence, there is an explanation that he is called Djokovic in some English media. We can make it even more easy to notice if you think people won't notice it. --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer HJensen's version. That way readers know up-front that they're getting a dollar's worth of accuracy at the cost of millions in practicality. -- Yano 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving it to the correct title would be an improvement to the article, if WP policies and guidelines mean anything at all. (I do sometimes wonder.) Though, cleaning up the rampant use of peacock terms would be a good step, too. (I'm tempted to speculate that both issues in fact have similar sources.) Alai (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

.ogg

It seems that when the .ogg file is played when you want to listen to the pronunciation of Novak Đoković, you only hear Novak, and not the surname. I recorded a new clip, and it's still the same. This is only if you play it on Wikipedia, but if you open the file with an external player, you hear the whole thing. Can we fix this somehow? --GOD OF JUSTICE 18:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It would immediately appear as if Wiki only "accepts" a certain length of a clip. I had similar problems with some music clips I made, where they are cut short of what I prepared. But then I just checked a "featured music clip" that was 2+ minutes, so it cannot be due to some general wiki principle concerning length. I am puzzled.--HJensen, talk 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Addition: I just tried to upload a revised version of your file here [1] (I just fiddled with the equalization to make a different file), just in order to check whether something weird had happened. But the problem persists. So, indeed, something weird is happening.--HJensen, talk 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone else mentioned this on my talk page recently. If you actually download the file, it plays fine. (Goto vorbis.com, and download the codec for your platform if necessary). There's definitely a problem with commons java applet player "Cortado". Can you guys try with codec please? // laughing man 19:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(Codecs didn't make a difference for me.) I have temporarily "solved" the problem by "brute force". Since it appears that endings of soundfiles are cut off, I have simply added a second's silence to the file. Now it works. So I have now linked to this new version of GOJ's original file. God of J: Could you please replace it with yours on the Commons when you have the time? (I don't have a commons account.) Thanks!--HJensen, talk 22:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done --GOD OF JUSTICE 00:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Tournament finals tables - background coloring

I can not understand how some people don't see how confusing it is to color backgrounds of one table in one scheme, and the next one with same (or very similar) colors, that have a different meaning. Please respond, and let's fix this issue. Jdjerich 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean more precisely? All the BG coloring was discussed, I think, last summer. There must be some on the talk archives on the Tennis Project page. Haven't time to check today -sorry.--HJensen, talk 08:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In section "Career statistics", table shows runner-up Grand Slam finals, and just few lines below you can see legend for table colors that shows the same color as one used for Tennis Masters Cup finals. Do you get it? Sorry for not being present when the discussion was underway, but confusion is still present, by my opinion. Jdjerich 12:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Politics

Novak has expressed quite a few pro-Yugoslav opinions in his public interviews (particularly in interviews since his reaction at the Montreal Open where he was announced as a Croat). Obviously he is not a politician but these comments are quite significant because he is the among the few (very few) popular figures to express such sentiments since the dissolution of Yugoslavia in the early 90s. Is it worth noting this in his wikipedia bio? (JBT 15:42, 26 October 2007)

Yes, I would think that it is. Please find some good references and add the text to the article :-) --GOD OF JUSTICE 00:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I found this, which unfortunately isn't in English http://www.vecernji.hr/newsroom/sports/tenis/2923307/index.do

appropriate? (JBT 22:01, 26 October 2007)

I think it's appropriate, yes. Vecernji.hr is a reliable web-site. --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2007-8-13-djokovic in montreal.jpg

Image:2007-8-13-djokovic in montreal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ranking

There seems to be a contradiction in the article. In the intro, it says "His highest ranking on the ATP Tour is World Number 2", but on the right side, player stats it says: "Highest ranking: No. 3 (July 9, 2007)". I am unsure which is correct, but I don't recall Nadal ever dropping from #2, even briefly, however, I may be wrong. (Neosystems (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

EDIT: Resolved (Neosystems (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

The difference between the two is Djokovic has reaching a career high ATP Ranking of 3, but the ATP Tour has both a Ranking and a Race position which are two different ranking systems. As of January 28, 2008 Djokovic has reached a ATP Ranking of 3 and an ATP Race position of 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.137.102 (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Weight

Novak is 80 kgs in weight, which converts to 176 lbs. But, on hear the infobox convertor converts it to 180 lbs. How can this be fixed? --Criticalthinker (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem; this is an effort to avoid spurious precision. Novak is not an ingot, which would be precisely 80 kg, or 176.4 lb; his weight should vary by some kg over the course of a day.

If we wanted to do something about this non-problem, we could take out the template and state the conversion by hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That was unnecessarily rude and immature. Grow up. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I regret having appeared to be rude; but on rereading, I don't see how: This is not a problem, and there is a straightforward fix for anyone who disagrees with me and thinks it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't regret it. If you did really regret it you wouldn't have added that last part. I hate false apologies. Anyway, I've fixed it to my liking.

Kosovo

Novak Djokovic is very proud of his family connections to Kosovo and is a part of the Kosovo is Serbia campaign; he visits the Kosovo Serb enclaves from time to time and has even opened a tennis school in Zvecan for the local Serbs. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources for that? Per WP:BLP things claimed on talk pages can warrant sources. --HJensen, talk 22:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:I could swear that I added an article from Time, which said that he supports Kosovo is Serbia movement. As for every other claims, I don't know. Was it removed? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, misread. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking in front of 700.000. people on "Kosovo is Serbia" relly

He addressed the people through the video-link on 21.february 2008. in Belgrade.

BBC,CNN and others reported it...Its not hard to check...It should be added

89.216.101.61 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It was there, but has been removed. I couldn't see why from the edit history (sorry if I have missed a valid argument). I have inserted it, as I think it is a rare political action from a professional top athlete. So I think it is worthy of inclusion (although the reference does not support the 700.000 crowd, but that is immaterial as I do not mention any number). --HJensen, talk 08:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's not so hard to check, why doesn't the anon add it himself? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I included it yesterday. :-) --HJensen, talk 10:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion concerning this article

Although this article already conforms to Wikipedia's Naming Conventions, there is a discussion that may affect the spelling of the player's name on other tennis-related articles. It is ongoing here. Please voice any opinions or concerns on that page. After the discussion concludes, the instances where the player's name is mentioned may be altered to conform to the standards of the English language and Wikipedia's Naming Conventions. Thank you, Redux (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Name presentation - Script order

I'd like to raise the following issue: I wish for it to be known that I wholly oppose this new measure which is aiming to remove diacritics from the names of articles in English. The "reasons" are pathetic and all down to sheer stupidity and ignorance. However, seeing as "backward" is "forward" on English Wikipedia, I am compelled to accept this. It now opens a new can of worms, that being the presentation of the individual's names. Since the popular choice is the remove diacritics so as to present the article as it would appear in tabloid and other subhuman media, it needs to be realised that you (who supported the removal of diacritics) have unwittingly shifted the name of the individual in question to the position of an exonym, though not in the technical sense I know. Still, where there is variation between English exonym and the autonym, it warrants a requirement for the local language spelling. So far, we are all agreed. Now the age-old policy for presenting names based on Serbian is to place the Cyrillic first, followed by its Latinic counterpart, a practice which one would expect with Arabic, Greek, Russian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Persian, Ukranian and all other languages whose primary alphabet is non-Roman. If the Serbian Latinic name needs to be listed, it comes second; furthermore, there is no requirement for the "Gaj's alphabet" presentation. One clicks on Serbian language, and all of the information is there. The practice is to use the standard print for the Cyrillic, and immediate italics for the transliteration. Examples for subjects with parenthesised Serbian variations for one reason or another are as follows: Sylvester Levay, József Kasza, András Ágoston, Félix Lajkó and Magdolna Rúzsa; as well as Timişoara, Democratic Party (Serbia), Republika Srpska, Impure Blood (film), Tito and Me, Belgrade, Red Star Belgrade. The list is endless, there really is absolutely no reason why the two transliterations have to be listed by their page names, any more than for the follwing non-Serbian articles: Arben Xhaferi, Gülhan Şen, Pomaks and Macedonian Muslims. The diacritcs have been rejected, now no part of the local language name belongs to English, and therefore it is presented as a translation. As such, it follows the procedures as laid down elsewhere: no reason to give titles to the variations, and definitely no reason ever to place Latinic first except in cases where that Latinic name is still being used for the actual article (in which case, one can mention Serbian Cyrillic if one so wishes, eg. Vojislav Šešelj, Milo Đukanović etc.) The only other time Latinic can come first is when it is not placed by the title, but where it forms a part of the English speaking text (actual example: -cracy, from the ancient Greek krateín (κρατείν), meaning to govern). So please bare this in mind. Nobody would contemplate presenting Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria with the following translation: Latin: Grazhdani za evropeysko razvitie na Balgariya, Cyrillic: Граждани за европейско развитие на България. It is sloppy, misleading and irrelevant. Also, I ask Admiral Norton not to remove the second romanised name "Djoković", as indeed it is perfectly acceptable in every strand of society among persons who choose to write in the Roman script to use "Dj" instead of "Đ", it is not a practice confined to persons using old imported typewriters which could not produce the relevant diacritics; if it had been, the other letters would have had alternate forms. The point is that some even favour "Dj" in handwriting. Just check the search engines for articles where "Dj" plus the other diacritics are used in the same text and you'll find that there are millions of them. Evlekis (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should read WP:CIVIL again. Tennis expert (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, please keep in mind that this is the talk page for the article on the tennis player Novak Djokovic. It is not the appropriate place to share personal sentiments on general issues. --HJensen, talk 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To Tennis Expert. My statement was in no way supposed to be uncivil. I accept that it was long-winded and opinionated in parts in a negative manner but I assure you that I was not attacking any one individual. I'll bare this in mind when I make future points, such as now: to HJensen, you're right that this is not the page to discuss other issues. But I was only using them as examples rather than discussing them, examples for the presentation question hanging over this page too. Naturally, this type of discussion at the moment has no centralised page, and so I mentioned the points here. My ideas for resolving this are actually positive. I know you have your reasons for wishing to present Novak's name as you did and I'm happy to read them. Thinking about it, I believe there is a third way in which we can all be happy if this present one does not please you. Evlekis (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The centralized discussion of article-naming concerning tennis subjects took place here. Tennis expert (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Name (again, again)

The name for this article has undergone intense discussion on the talk page; see Talk:Novak Đoković/Archive 1 and Talk:Novak Đoković/Archive 2. Eventually, consensus was reached that the English spelling "Djokovic" should be used, not the Serbian spelling "Đoković". Obviously, by WP:CCC things are not set in stone forever, but making unilateral changes against consensus as, e.g., User:Pokrajac has been doing recently using arguments as "per all Serbian names" and "please stop depressing Serbian language, is not in accordance with WP:CONS. --HJensen, talk 05:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Again Again - yes

Tell me, HJonson!!

Do you agree do change the existing article names :

Søren Kierkegaard into Soren Kierkeegard

Niels Jørgen Cappelørn into Niels Jorgen Cappelorn

Jeppe Aakjær into Jeppe Aakjaer

Martin Andersen Nexø into Martin Andersen Nexø

according to the WP:UE

--Anto (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether this question is directed towards me, but I can nevertheless briefly offer my opinion on a case-by-case basis, even though this is the talk page on the Djokovic article, and not some random Danish writers. So any continued discussion should proceed at the relevant talk pages:

Søren Kierkegaard into Soren Kierkeegard

If Soren Kierkeegard can be verified as common usage in English, I am for it (however, I have never seen the "ee" spelling before).

Niels Jørgen Cappelørn into Niels Jorgen Cappelorn

If Niels Jorgen Cappelorn can be verified as common usage in English, I am for it.

Jeppe Aakjær into Jeppe Aakjaer

If Jeppe Aakjaer can be verified as common usage in English, I am for it.

Martin Andersen Nexø into Martin Andersen Nexø

That is not a suggestion for change.

--HJensen, talk 12:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Random Danish writers- yes, this is not page about them.

With names containing letters "ø , æ " and other characters with whom are familiar only the speakers of North Germanic languages - but not English speakers! Like other non-English letters.

It is easy provable that writers about these persons usually prefer not to use them. Especially not in the title and especially not if they are amateurs.

So , herr Jonson , that is "commons English usage" as for Danish, Icelandic ,Spanish names. I saw there was a similar attempt on Kimi Räikkönen-but failed.

So ,the question what are those universal criterias which character are acceptable and which not??

But I am sure that you will figure something else as excuse not to obey WP:UE in this case. :(( --Anto (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my comment at all? I favored your (in a few instances peculiar move proposals - one was a no change proposal) if common English usage are in accordance with what you suggested (after all, this is the English wiki). Furthermore, "I'll figure out nothing", as that would be WP:OR which is not allowed. Why would I want to disobey WP:UE? Frankly, I am not so nationalistic that I get all heated up over a few letters. I actually feel a bit sorry for people whose national identity apparently resides in letters. Never mind, what are you actually trying to discuss here? --HJensen, talk 22:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, herr Jonson, I have read your comment completely-although it was nothing new that you might say. As you have ignored the fact that there cca 100 thousand of biography article with title that contains non-ASCII character (So automatically they are "common English names" -because anglophones use no diacritics-usually! ) As for Serbian sport people, Danish writers, Mexican singers.... It is the common practice using originaly name spelling for every person in all the Latin-script based wikipedias. Including this -English . And nobody protested .Until recently, when some people decided to become "bigger catholics than Pope himself"  :((

"I'll figure out nothing"-that is what you say. Now! WP:OR has no connection to this article. His name spelling is something verifiable-you can see it in legal documents! His anglified spelling has no any legal background as well its transliteration into Japanese or Hebrew script.

What you presume about somebody's identity is not matter of any discussion-epecially not this one. So, keep it for self, please!

--Anto (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What does "What you presume about somebody's identity is not matter of any discussion-epecially not this one. So, keep it for self, please!" actually mean? I mean, I have no presumptions about anybody's idendity. As for legal backgrounds, I find nothing of that in WP:UE, so I am unsure of what to do about that. So what are you trying to argue for here? --HJensen, talk 16:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am telling you that name forms in English language sources are not dogma what you and other guys are trying to make it. --Anto (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't "tell" me things. And please don't put words and actions into my (and other "guys'") mouth(s). Just present you own arguments. That is much easier to understand for others, and much more productive.--HJensen, talk 22:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, we are sensitive a bit ???

I was referring to your sentence: [2]

I actually feel a bit sorry for people whose national identity apparently resides in letters

Which is obviously your "diagnosis" about somebody . This kind of describing your opponents is ... hmm ... I don't want to use that word. And NO - we are not interested in your feeling about somebody! If you want to talk to somebody about your feelings there are proper places for that. This is not one of it for sure. Nobody was talking about your national identity . --Anto (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Let's leave it at this. You apparently don't want to inform us about what you really want to discuss. I thought this was about nationality since you on this page came up with a number suggestions of changing article titles of Danish writers (me being Danish). You never reacted to my response, but continued to make comments that I had a hard time to understand, and you even wrote that "But I am sure that you will figure something else as excuse not to obey WP:UE in this case. :(( ", after I had agreed to those of your suggestions that actual involved changes. That, combined with your deliberate - but funny - misspelling of my username, made me believe you had a nationalistic agenda. I am glad to hear that you didn't. In any case, you likewise don't seem to understand me. When I write "I feel," it is an English style variant of "I think that"; it is definitely not intended as a literal expression of my inner feelings, and I certainly don't intend to diagnose somebody. I am not a medical doctor. Finally, why do you think that I see you as an "opponent"? I don't know what you are discussing, and the only thing I have understood, I agreed with.--HJensen, talk 12:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a precedent where diacritics in article names have been retained in some cases thanks to a peaceful compromise. I think this might help a little: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) Maybe there can be a policy on tennis-related articles based on this? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic vs Goran Ivanišević

There are no consistency issues here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimEviL (talk • contribs) 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.. Although I prefer to leave in the diacritics, I don't think this issue is worth such a lengthy debate that it has generated so far. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem in both placing or removing all the diacritics, but, offcourse, it makes much more sense to permit the use of diacritics, specialy because there is only this single case, simply because Novak's name is exposed in american/brittish media... and that simply can't be a legit reason for a ruthless name change... --PrimEviL 23:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The diacritics were removed per English-language Wikipedia policy and after a very long and often heated discussion. There was nothing "ruthless" about the removal. Tennis expert (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet, the diacritics weren't removed on this page(named above all because it's an article about other tennis player), nor they were on MANY other pages... I say "ruthless" - ruthlessnes was shown in the force to change the name in spite of all valid arguments were given(that Djokovic is not his real name - Dj in serbian language does stand for đ, that's correct, but c ≠ ć - it's just that simple; that english wikipedia uses native spelling in latin-script based languages) and the only argument pro the name change was the fact that it's represented as "Djokovic" in english media... Now, if you insist that this abomination of writing should be used, at least be consistent enough and change ALL names with diacritics into "english media" names... @elonka - thank you :) --PrimEviL 17:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Abomination," huh? That's a little harsh. In any event, there is a proposal to rename all tennis biographies on English-language Wikipedia in accordance with reliable English-language sources. That would often (but not always) result in the elimination of diacritics. By the way, I recommend that you review WP:OSE. Tennis expert (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to be gentle. If all tennis biographies are to be changed, ok, but, until it is done, i see no reason why this article should stand on his own like this. If it is a preceeding other articles name change, i guess i can start renaming each and every one of them, and as a reason for name change to link on this article? You simply can't have it both ways. As for WP:OSE - this is an arguement about a person's name, not about the form of an article... - you either write them all correctly or you write them all in "english media" way... again - you can't have it both ways. It's interesting, though, that before Novak didn't made it into top3 his name didn't make that much of a controversy... There are redirects for people that don't want to be bothered... But their slacking surely can't make a valid reason for a name change of a living person. That's just proving that a little bit of effort doesn't pay off in a long run. --PrimEviL 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) See WP:CIVIL. (2) No one is changing the name of a living person. This is an English-language Wikipedia article, not a legal proceeding in Serbia. (3) As for changing the names of all English-language Wikipedia tennis articles to omit diacritics and citing this article as the reason, you're certainly welcome to try it. Let me know how it goes. Tennis expert (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) I was nothing but civil. Being gentle has nothing to do with being civil. And the word "abomination" is a just name for the travesty of writing that is applied on some parts of Wikipedia(this one being the one of them). (2) The man's name isn't Novak Djokovic, it's Novak Đoković(or Djoković). So, yes, the name change has been done. If you can't see the letters with diacritics(and offcourse you can), let me know and we'll work something out. (3) So, you're admitingly mocking the fact that here it "can" be done and on other articles it "can't" be? Now, that's nice. --PrimEviL 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Names/words with diacritics used in this very article, other than his name written in serbian language(shall we purge them all?) - Đorđe(Đoković) and Pilić. The more tragic is the "removal" of diacritics/accents/umlauts on all names that normaly have them ONLY in this article... Once you follow the link, you get the proper names of: Nicolás Massú, Guillermo Cañas, Ana Ivanović(woah, a serbian name yet unchanged? O.o), Marko Đoković(the name of Novak's brother is properly written, yet his own - NOT), Tomáš Berdych, Björn Borg(Borg is not so well knows as Novak is, right? I mean, who would want to change a name of a totaly unknown person?), Radek Štěpánek, Jelena Janković and Nenad Zimonjić(omg, both Serbs, change their names, fast!!!). Now, on all of these persons pages the name of Novak Đoković is written properly. Yet, on this page, all of them are written in "english media" way... On the other side, on the current tournamets, on each and every page where Novak Đoković's name is written, all other names are stripped off their diacritics, and only in the case of Novak Đoković they don't reapear on the article about the player. So yes - i ask again - should there be ANY form of consistency on this encyclopedia... I don't say his name should be written properly per se(wich makes uncomparably more sense, but nevermind)... All i ask for is the consistency... Either place the diacritics on the names of all the players that have them in their native tongue(if it's written in latin script) or remove them all. Don't just laugh and mock, taunting me to "try and remove all the diacritics from all the names on wikipedia and see what will happend". There's no need for that. I know what will happend. Everyone will stand up for their own countrymen... As am i doing, but i speak on the general level - equaly for all. --PrimEviL 20:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to trouble yourself with quoting me, at least do it accurately. This is what I actually said, "As for changing the names of all English-language Wikipedia tennis articles to omit diacritics and citing this article as the reason, you're certainly welcome to try it. Let me know how it goes." And I am all in favor of liberty, fraternity, and equality for all! Tennis expert (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, answering to the least important part of what i have written. --PrimEviL 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested, there is an active discussion about the use of diacritics on Wikipedia, ongoing at Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics. All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 05:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the archived discussions. All these arguments have been raised very recently. --HJensen, talk 20:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

@HJensen - Nothing good can come from reading closed arguements. I'm not planning to leave it as it is. I just don't want to start the pointless edit-war before i prove my point. Oh, yes, a little addition - on the majority of other wikis, his name is written properly. Most of those languages don't have the letter "ć". --PrimEviL 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think one can learn tremendously from closed arguments. In particular, one can save lot of time by avoiding repeat discussions.--HJensen, talk 08:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

One might learn alot, but there is no gain in leaving the article in it's present shape... Do you care to provide me with at least 1 single reason why this article has to be so much different(check above) in writing standard to the other articles? I'm simply calling for consistency here and for common sense... --PrimEviL 10:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Novak Djokovic → Novak Đoković — In the recent arguement there were no arguements opposing the namechange — PrimEviL 17:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

When I proposed that this article be titled using Djokovic, I presented extensive evidence that this was the convention as found in the English language. This evidence was convincing and resulted in consensus in favor of Djokovic. As far as I can tell, there has been no verifiable change to the facts of English usage since then. If the proposer can demonstrate them, I invite him or her to do so. Otherwise, I will reintroduce the evidence in favor of Djokovic. Respectfully, Erudy (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

English media of record, his own official website, and tennis community sites all cite Djokovic rather than Đoković:

• Official Website of Novak D. (Serbian version uses Đ, indicating that Dj is an editorial choice rather than technical limitation)

Websites of Tennis Events

• French Open
• Australian Open
• US Open
• Wimbledon
• Davis Cup

General Media

• BBC (Serbian version uses Đ, indicating that Dj is an editorial choice rather than technical limitation)
• New York Times
• London Times
• Daily Telegraph
• International Herald Tribune
• New York Observer
• Reuters
• UPI
• MSNBC

Sports Media

• Sports Illustrated
• ESPN
• Fox Sports

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 naming conventions.

• Oppose per innumerable discussions about the naming of this very article and WP:UE. Resurrecting the debate now is disruptive and pointless. Tennis expert (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not disruptive or pointless and if you think it is, you are free not to participate. However, the discussion shouldn't occur here. WT:UE or some its split-offs would be better. — AjaxSmack 19:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the useless advice to yours truly. Tennis expert (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So, there is no reason for any further discussion because yor POV has prevailed once? Because this is nothing else but a POV. Why have you stopped only at this article? anyway, return to your revert, i give up on this article, because there is no talk with ppl that are so stuck with their narrow minds. Good bye, mr. narrowminded. --PrimEviL 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly support. As there no rules for transliterration Latin sctipt names the only accurate decision is the one with original spelling. --Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - should not be different case from other articles with title in scripts other than Western Latin. Jdjerich (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly support. Makes the article more accurate. --PrimEviL 20:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Observation There is no move request pending. The request was withdrawn; so, this survey is pointless. Tennis expert (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Observation Too bad, since we were leading 2 to 1, but you wouldn't allow the change of the name, anyway, is that right, mr. "i'm-on-the-crusade"?--PrimEviL 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose No evidence has been posted that the move would reflect English convention. This article was moved to its current location on the strength of such evidence (see previous move controversies). Unless something has radically changed (and this is demonstrated by the proposers), the article should stay as it is currently titled.Erudy (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - I think there needs to be a policy within tennis related articles that determines when diacritics can be used. I think his name with diacritics is more accurate, but I doubt that the article move will solve the larger problem because it never has before. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Đoković is just the correct spelling, I just cannot understand arguments otherwise. - MTC (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not about "correct spelling", but common English usage; see WP:UE or his own official website. Hope that helps.--HJensen, talk 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I cannot understand why some people think "common English usage" is more important than correctness. - MTC (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I know. But often on Wikipedia, one has to follow the policies, and not what you like things to be. Here, there is a policy calle WP:UE. Several times I run in to a case, where I think things are presented the wrong way; but I have to obey policies. Or then, of course, try to change policies. But this is not done on talk pages of individual articles.--HJensen, talk 10:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Common English usage is the de facto and de jure standard for article titles. The more "correct" title to Bill Clinton in William Jefferson Clinton. The "correct" title for Dog is Canis lupus familiaris. The "correct" title for Mao Zedong is 毛泽东 or at least Máo Zédōng. The "correct" title for United States is United States of America. Why does wikipedia and the wikipedia community eschew correctness in all of these high profile cases, wallowing instead of "common English usage"? Perhaps because "correctness", especially when it flies in the face of what is overwhelming convention, begins to look silly, pedantic, and confusing.Erudy (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong wrong and wrong! The personal name is something "registered" and with a document! "Djokovic" as such is nothing. Mentioning the names using non-latin scripts is meaningless because they require transliterration by default. "Bill Clinton" is the name used by himself and I guess for 99% of the world. Spelling "Djokovic" does not match to any of those criteria! Latin names of the dogs are ... hmm ?? What is the purpose of mentioning the words that is different in all language???

• Support - I was looking him up after his spectacular loss at Wimbledon, only to venture on his talk page and see this. This is my humble opinion: "Novak Djokovic" is not his official name. It never will be. His official name is the one with the diacritics. If you see Novak Djokovic on TV, does that mean anything? Keep in mind, everyone, the only reason the non-diacritic version is used is because most (if not all) keyboards don't have support for Serbian letters. Yes, this is the English-language Wikipedia, but so what? The list that User:PrimEvil provided above tells us that is not consensus, not to the slightest bit. Until consensus is changed and diacritics are absolutely banned in this Wikipedia, the article's name should officially be "Novak Đoković". Just my say - CL — 20:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not about "official name", but common English usage; see WP:UE or his own official website. --HJensen, talk 06:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(And please see the talk page archives for the extensive discussions on this; no new arguments have really been presented recently that could change the consensus reached there.)--HJensen, talk 06:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to make it the "common English usage" only if that reflected the pronunciation. Djokovic (which technically would be Joe-ko-vik I'm assuming if no one knew the Serbian pronunciation) does not reflect the diacritic at the end of his name. This reminds me a whole lot of New York City. The project-wide consensus is to include state name at the end of the city name (like Salt Lake City, Utah), but New York opted to not follow the consensus. I'd be all for the article being named Novak Djokovic when the consensus changes. But if the consensus is to include diacritics (as per all the other articles that contain them), then why stray from the consensus here? Ugh, the multitude of Wikipedia policies and "consensus" makes me confused. CL — 06:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet at the same time "New York, New York" was moved to "New York City" because the former name is rarely used. Djokovic is obviously the more common name in the English-speaking world. I see your point. There is a consensus to move the article (for now at least), and even with the consensus against the article move, guidelines in Wikipedia never are absolute. I guess you can say that in the case of New York City, "New York, New York" is no more accurate than "NYC," but I just wanted to point out that your argument can go both ways. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support If we can verify through reliable sources the subject's real given name and the proper way of spelling it, I strongly disagree with stifling such information in favour of spelling that might be used more commonly for reasons of technical limitation, editorial preference or, sometimes, plain ignorance. More common usage does not equal correct usage. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are then suggesting that WP:UE should not be followed? --HJensen, talk 22:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some exceptions that allow usage of of original spelling. Take a look!--Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

SWik78, We can readily meet your test with the name William Jefferson Blythe III (this is verifiably the correct spelling of a given name); should this be the new title Bill Clinton? Personally, I find this absurd. Much better to verify through reliable sources the name actually used to describe the person in the English language.Erudy (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Observation As I said before, there is no move request pending. The request was withdrawn; so, this survey is pointless, i.e., a waste of everyone's time. Tennis expert (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. Does anyone ever read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)?! The name of this tennis player here is Новак Ђоковић and the Serbian official Latin transliteration is Novak Đoković. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The page you are referring to is not a policy. It even says "This is not a recommendation". Did anyone read that? --HJensen, talk 08:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support I here prefer accuracy over so called established english usage. -- Bojan  14:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment We can have this discussion after there is an actual move request. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I'd like to see diacritics in the title but I won't vote that way. Diacritics in the title would go against WP:UE, a valid guideline; it doesn't matter whether I personally like it or not. And per-case debates don't make much sense.

On the other hand, I won't vote the other way. It is not just a matter of my preference: while WP:UE says what it says de iure, the de facto situation is quite different; it has been that way for a long time. This, along with the outcomes of this and other similar discussions, shows that the current WP:UE is - in respect to diacritic characters from Latin-based alphabets - effectively dead in the water. GregorB (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'll repeat my argument from the survey: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) is very clear about it. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, repeating myself: :: The page you are referring to is not a policy. It even says "This is not a recommendation". --HJensen, talk 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, HJensen has just beaten me to the punch.... Yes, it is clear, but it is a description of the current usage, not a guideline nor a recommendation. In particular, it is apparently incompatible with WP:UE - but, as I said, WP:UE is not exactly alive and kicking in this respect. GregorB (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)