Talk:Ana Ivanovic/Archive 7

Requested Move 3

 * 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus reached, see last comment jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ana Ivanovic → Ana Ivanović – per Anne M. Todd Venus and Serena Williams 2009 Page 92. (Please note that this is the only diacritic-removed biography of a living European person on en.wp and that no green card or dual nationality issues are involved) Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The reference refered to above is a Amazon.com hardback school book the citation is "Venus, on the other hand, marched through the rounds by easily defeating Sharapova in the fourth round, Svetlana Kuznetsova in the quarterfinals, and Ana Ivanović in the semifinals." In ictu oculi (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * References from the FRENCH Google are not reliable for evaluating common usage in ENGLISH. --B2C 04:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Diacritic is not used on her own official English website, or on reliable sources like the NY Times  and The Times .  --B2C 04:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - again??? This person's own personal English website is Ana Ivanovic, the governing bodies of tennis spell it Ana Ivanovic, the grand slams spell it Ana Ivanovic, the English press spells it Ana Ivanovic. She has a facebook page too and she chose Ana Ivanovic. I don't think this is the "only" English spelled biography of a living European. It's one thing to push diacritics, it's another to push diacritics on a biography whose subject spells it without diacritics in English. How many times is this same person going to put these sites up for votes? Over and over till people get sick of it and don't vote anymore? Ridiculous move request. I'm guessing that Jelena Dokic will be next to be put under the rm requests and then Novak Djokovic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per B2C and Fyunck, WP:UE -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment "Please note that this is the only diacritic-removed biography of a living European person on en.wp and that no green card or dual nationality issues are involved". What has a "green carand "dual nationality" got to do with anything (BTW green card is a specifically American centric thing immigration documents to other countries are not all called green cards)? For example what about all those Irish people such as Gerry Adams (I have no idea what he was christened, but for sure he was not christened "Gerry")? BTW Irish people have the right to abode in any part of the UK without any more documentation than a British person needs, after all part of Ireland is in the UK. Besides even if you were right and this was "only diacritic-removed biography of a living European person on en.wp" you seem to be arguing that Wikipedia should ignore usage in reliable sources and set a rule based on an internal consistency. Consistency should not trump usage in English language reliable sources. If it did then we would probably remove the diaeresis of the e on the members of the "Brontë family", because it is uncommon to use a diaeresis on an e in the spelling of English names, we do not because of usage in reliable English language sources. Iio can you justify a move on common usage in reliable English language sources, because you parenthetical justification does not meet Wikipedia article title policy or its naming conventions. -- PBS (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not going to respond to every comment here.
 * PBS - as before with lengthy discussion on Talk:Édouard Deldevez RM the difference between your interpretation of WP:RS and other en.wp editors lies is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content". Other editors do not consider sources with no É in the font set reliable for the statement of whether a name has É. Same then with ć.
 * Fyunck - I repeat that Ana Ivanović is the only diacritic-removed biography of a living European person on en.wp (examples of Serbian -dj, German -ss are not diacritic removal but consonant substitution). The third player you mention is an Australian. We give Australian names to Australians. We don't give Australian names to Serbian citizens living in Serbia. See Ivanović. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I make it a point not to "give" names to anyone. I let the sources show me the correct English spelling. And almost all her sources (and her own multiple websites) show it's Ana Ivanovic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Iio luckily there is guidance on how to asses usage in reliable sources, which does not come down to a personal point of view (because your statement "Other editors do not consider sources with no É in the font set reliable for the statement of whether a name has É. Same then with ć.", is mirrored in the view that the only reliable sources are those that stick to the 26 letters of the English alphabet (because for example it is easy to type and does not screw up characters used in the url) -- which I think is the counterpart of the personal view you are putting forward). Such statements do not allow editors acting in good faith to agree on a compromise. There is guidance on how to assess what are suitable reliable sources that can be used that does not rely on a personal prejudice. It is in the appropriate naming convention Naming conventions (use English) and it says "In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed". In this case which of the three criteria indicates support for you move? -- PBS (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support – Ana Ivanović with the acute accent is the only correct way to spell her name. Diacritics like this are only removed due to lack of knowledge of their existence, lack of knowledge of how to input them, lack of display support or misguided attempts at anglicization. None of these need apply here. MTC (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ana herself uses the non-diacritic English spelling, so this really makes no sense. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction: Ana's webmaster uses the non-diacritic spelling. Nymf  talk to me 19:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - More accurate spelling, in line with wikipedia practices. mge o  talk 18:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per MTC's rationale. Nymf  talk to me 18:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I get 629 post-2000 English-language GBook results for this name. There are 16 pages of results, so about 150 relevant hits. Out of those, I get 10 results with the diacritic. Of those 10, only the first four results look relevant. I think the "lack of knowledge" theory is refuted by the fact that she doesn't use a diacritic on her own Website. Kauffner (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Questions @MTC how do you know it is the "only correct spelling"? @ mge o how do you know it is the "More accurate spelling"? -- PBS (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Now, I would hope you already know this, as you have been involved in many of these discussions before, but for the benefit of anyone who may actually see the question with no reply and assume PBS is automatically correct without independently looking it up for themselves (I encourage you to do so rather than taking either my or PBS’s word for it). It’s very simple. The alphabet we use is the Latin alphabet. The language this name is from (Serbian) also has a Latin alphabet, meaning that every Serbian name has a specific spelling in the Latin alphabet. For this name, that spelling is “Ana Ivanović”. This information is all available on Wikipedia itself, you can easily look it up. Serbian language, Serbian Latin alphabet, Ana Ivanović’s article in the Latin alphabet on the Serbian Wikipedia. Now, having said the bit about looking it up for yourself, I shall try to avoid answering any more questions that can be definitively answered with quick searches. Find out the relevant facts for yourself, don’t take the word of anyone here. MTC (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is just word games. You're defining native language usage as "correct" and English language usage as incorrect, inverting the "use English" principle. Kauffner (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And you said "The alphabet we use is the Latin alphabet." This is not true. We sometimes use the English alphabet, sometimes use the Latin alphabet, and maybe others for all I know. But we go where the sources lead us. We don't automatically use the foreign spelling per longstanding wikipedia policy. We use sources and lean heavily towards English sources. You say on your talkpage you want to revert Novak Djokovic and China too, and abolish all common names at wikipedia. I've agreed with some of your points on wiki, but not these. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but he's flexible. Although his preferred option is to put China at 中华人民共和国, he is willing to settle for Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó. Kauffner (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there is a fairly wide consensus that a diacritic-stripped name is less accurate unless it's proven as an established English translation. The unaccented "Ana Ivanovic" might be a borderline case but seeing the interwiki links and the other Ivanović, it doesn't seem the best choice to me, especially if it's spelled this way only in sources that never use the ć. mge o  talk 22:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a Wikpidia policy that says follow usage in reliable sources, there is no consensus for basing an article title on "I don't like it" or "I prefer". So your "More accurate spelling" is really "it doesn't seem the best choice to me". If my interpretation of you statements is not correct do you have any evidence to show what the usage is in English language sources provides evidence that a particular spelling is the "More accurate spelling"? -- PBS (talk)
 * Support for the sake of encyclopaedic precision and correct pronunciation as per Beyoncé Knowles. Her name's definitely romanised as Ana Ivanović. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the evidence that you have that her name is "definitely romanised as Ana Ivanović" in most reliable English language sources? -- PBS (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposer uses a single source with a diacritic to substantiate this request. The opposers have provided dozens of examples of the common use of her surname being without the diacritic. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per MTC good rationale. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean a claim of "accuracy" over our guidelines including WP:COMMONNAME? Could you explain what part of the various MTC para's contain a "good rationale"?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Request relist - 5 support and 5 oppose (in fact 6 support including nom, and 6 oppose including PBS who has headed "comment" but opposed 4 times). As per User:Joy's RM above the unanswered issue is why this Ivanović should be different from all other en.wp Ivanovićs. While it's true that sports people don't get many mentions in high-MOS sources, but with 3 Amazon.com English books which use East Europe fonts mentioning ć this Ivanović has more high-MOS support than almost any East Europe sports BLP, and yet we're still making this BLP the exception.
 * As 53 weeks ago, a major argument for this Ivanović being the 1 notable exception on en.wp concern's Dan Holzmann 's DH Management having contracted Eton Digital of Slough to build and maintain a basic-ASCII fan website. And yet look at 3. What’s your favourite music? Ana: "I’ve been listening to a lot of Serbian music lately." (May 27th 2013 try to ignore that Eton Digital has spelled Le Quotidien as Quotodien ). At the very same time as a handful of en.wp Users are protesting that this Serbian citizen should be the only anglicized WP:BLP "get the article right" name on en.wp, the subject of the BLP herself is giving interviews to the French press saying she likes listening to "a lot of Serbian music lately" Clicking en.wp's Serbian music#Pop gives "Nataša Bekvalac, Emina Jahović, Željko Joksimović, Aleksandra Kovač, Zdravko Čolić, and others." All Serbian living people with en.wp names following en.wp's East Europe MOS guidelines and en.wp's normal practice.
 * Anyway, the point of the above is to say that there's no hurry to close this RM. This BLP remains 1 oddity (or trophy?) in en.wp's article stock of 100,000s of BLPs, and a wider and broader quorum of en.wp editors is likely to be beneficial. Particularly if there's any intention to wait 53 weeks to reopen it, as this time. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Looks like time to close as no consensus - depending on the time of year this could go back and forth with ebbs and flows for awhile. Plus the same thing happened a year ago with a month of back and forth with no consensus to move. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:MOSBIO
Unrelated issue, but we might as well do this at the same time since the clans are gathered. Manual of Style/Biographies gives under WP:OPENPARA example:

In Serbia bios (since Serbia has two scripts, Latinica used in popular newspapers, Cyrillic in serious print) this becomes

For some time this article has had a Ana Ivanovic .....Ana Ivanović... lead, uniquely among en.wp BLP leads, now would be a good time to bring it into line with WP:MOSBIO. I have done this. The lede is now inline with WP:MOSBIO example, and does not treat Ana Ivanović as having an English exonym name such as Munich or Geneva. It is also consistent with the way we do not treat English biographies:

Alternatively, if Ana Ivanović is to be the 1 exception among Serbia BLPs to WP:MOSBIO, then she should be written into WP:MOSBIO explaining why she is an exception. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, MOS is a guideline, not a policy, local exceptions are permitted, particularly if local consensus has been established. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please link to where local consensus has been established to treat Ana Ivanović differently to WP:MOSBIO? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All the community discussions above. And there's no reason that any page should follow WP:MOSBIO by default, it's just a guideline.  If you listed all exceptions to all guidelines across all of Wikipedia, you'd create a whole new encyclopedia.  Currently consensus dictates no diacritic is needed by the community here.  You know that, why you would need to ask, I know not.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Rambling Man, what community discussions above? WP:OPENPARA refers to the lead - look at the examples, Mitterand etc. The lead of this article hasn't been discussed. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well it may not have been discussed explicitly, but as I've said (and you've ignored twice) there's no reason to list "exceptions" in any part of MOS, MOS is a guideline.  Your opening post wasn't clear, it was referring mainly to MOSBIO, not OPENPARA explicitly.  Allthough your examples were referring to the opening lines, perhaps you could make it clearer next time.  In conclusion, no need to list articles in MOS which don't comply with that part of MOS.  Goodness, how many articles would we have to list at WP:ACCESS if we took your approach?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, because, as we said, there is only 1 article where Ana Ivanovic (Serbian: Ana Ivanović, Serbian Cyrillic: Ана Ивановић) format has been added. So the number is 1.
 * I'm curious, do you just support this format for this particular article, or would you like to see it expanded to other Serbian BLPs? or to foreign BLPs in general including the MOSBIO case example François Mitterrand into Francois Mitterrand (French: François Mitterrand) type edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How can you be so sure the number is 1? Not that it's important, but I'm curious how you can prove that?  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty simple, this could only happen on a tennis or ice hockey BLP, and with the 2 ice-hockey editors banned that just leaves tennis. Note how quickly the Francois Mitterand... François Mitterrand edit was caught. Secondly, as before, this is the only 1 article where a RM has deliberately anglicized the name of a non-emigrant European living person, so it's the only lead where this could occur. It's possible that there's a maltitled stub or two lurking somewhere but WP Footy editors for example habitually upgrade new maltitled BLP stubs in the process of sourcing, tagging and wikifying, no one fails to correct a title and adds a lead like this]. So this is the only 1. Does that affect your answer? In ictu oculi (talk)
 * I don't follow your logic. How can you prove this is unique across all of Wikipedia?  In any case, we don't note exceptions in MOS, it's a guideline after all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I've given the explanation - and given that this Tennis Names business has been going on since Feb 2012 there's been 15 months to find another article like this one. Anyway, this isn't a one-way discussion, I asked, do you just support this format for this particular article, or would you like to see it expanded to other Serbian BLPs? or to foreign BLPs in general including the MOSBIO case example François Mitterrand into Francois Mitterrand (French: François Mitterrand) type edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen plenty of BLPs which don't follow your preference. I don't see why one-size-fits-all should be the case.  Now then, for the fourth or fifth time of asking, we don't list exceptions to MOS in the MOS, do we?  Please confirm. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Rambling Man,
 * You say I am wrong and that you have seen plenty. Okay if there are plenty then please can you link to one, because I spend a lot of time in European bio and BLP space and don't know any. (Are you certain it wasn't someone who'd changed nationality such as Handel or Schoenberg?).
 * Actually we do list significant groups of exceptions in WP:MOSBIO. For example we list Lucy Washington as an example of a married name. Or for example we list Slim Pickens as an example of a stagename. What we don't do I agree is list 1 offs where an article has been pulled around contrary to MOSBIO, which is underlying tenor of the question here. Is this a significant example, or is it just one Serbian citizen who has been singled out, for reasons which are unclear. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did I say you were wrong? Radivoj Radić doesn't start the way you want.  Nor does Jovan Nikolic.  Nor does Slobodan Kovač.  There are hundreds of BLP articles that don't start in the same way you state above.  We certainly don't list out exceptions to MOS because there's no reason that MOS must apply and guidelines are, after all, just guidelines.  As I'm sure you know.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But Rambling Man, that's my point: all three of those start with Serbian spelling Radivoj Radić and no English spelling. What we're looking for is a non emigrant BLP which starts with an anglicisation like Ana Ivanovic (Serbian Ana Ivanović). In ictu oculi (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then that's incorrect because in English we'd expect to see these names without diacritics, per the majority of English-speaking reliable sources we use, such as the BBC, The New York Times, Reuters etc. Ultimately (and as always) you're advocating your version of "accuracy" (in the above case using a single source for the inclusion of a diacritic) versus WP:COMMONNAME which almost unilaterally does not include the diacritic. Imagine the surprise of most editors typing in a Serb name without the diacritics which most of the world would do (since (a) diacritics are rare and readers aren't aware of them through the common sources they read every day and (b) most keyboards don't easily allow them) to be constantly redirected to an article which they're no longer sure is even what they searched for initially.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Rambling Man,
 * Well, rightly or wrongly anyone using Britannia will experience the same "surprise" Britannia - Slobodan Milošević.
 * en.wp has 4,234,378 articles, of which probably 10-20% relate to Europe and Latin America. It is of course possible that they are all "incorrect," (and WP:NCP WP:AT WP:MOSPN along with them) in which case this article is also "incorrect," since it has both Ana Ivanovic and Ana Ivanović in the lead. But question is why this 1 article is 1 exception to the WP:MOSBIO Mitterand example. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point. MOSBIO is purely optional.  You're trying to make it a policy.  Please start a new discussion to make it a policy instead of beating the same dead horse.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point. MOSBIO is purely optional.  You're trying to make it a policy.  Please start a new discussion to make it a policy instead of beating the same dead horse.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Iio what does "foreign BLPs" mean? Foreign to what? For example is a New Zealand BLP foreign to you? I ask you this question because you did not answer and still have not answered the question above about Irish biographies and did they meet your definition of European. If people are to understand you you need to be much more precise about what you mean. For example if the English language usage and that in the language of the national origin is the same then there is no need to include alternatives. If they differ then it may or may not be appropriate to place the foreign spellings in the first sentence of the article. However in many cases foreign spelling are probably better done via a footnote, as the first sentence should supply more notable and comprehensible information as that is what appears in an search engine page. So for example "(Serbian Cyrillic: Ана Ивановић; [3][4] Serbian pronunciation: [âna iʋǎːnoʋitɕ] ( listen))" is IMHO better placed in a footnote. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS, sorry I'm not interested in the Gerry Adams question, please see WP:EN Tomás Ó Fiaich. If the above means you are happy with Ana Ivanović in the lead, then great. Maybe someone else will answer. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Duty to accurately spell Ana Ivanović's name per WP:BLP
I want to try a different tack, since the argumentation per Manual of Style is being stymied as it is not weighty enough reason.

Per Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living persons, we are under strictures to make their biographies adhere precisely to severe guidelines, including legal accuracy. Has Ana Ivanović changed her legal name from "Ivanović" to "Ivanovic"? Could anyone provide a source, that this has happened? Can someone quote Ana Ivanović from a reliable source on this subject? She is a resident of Switzerland now, so perhaps this occurred when filing for residency there? If not, we would seem to be breaking the strictures of WP:BLP by inventing rationale to spell her name other than her actual name.

I also remind everyone that other Serbian (former world no.1 Jelena Janković who resides in Dubai, or Ana Jovanović who resides in Munich, Germany), Czech (eg., nearly the entire content of Category:Czech female tennis players), Slovak (e.g., nearly the entire content of Category:Slovak female tennis players), Polish tennis players (including world no. 4 Agnieszka Radwańska and her Top40 sister Urszula Radwańska), or even Australian player Jarmila Gajdošová -- are consistently spelled in their BLP articles with their actual legal name spelling. At most, we provide redirects from names without diacritics to facilitate search for those who simply are unaware of these precise spellings, thanks to WTA, BBC, CNN, etcetera. Right now, as I am typing this, the 2013 Bank of the West Classic singles final is being contested by Agnieszka Radwańska and Dominika Cibulková. I am sure that hundreds of news dispatches in the English-speaking world and WTA publications online and elsewhere will omit both player's diacritics, but we are an encyclopedia, and I don't see us doing it. So why is a group of editors doing it to Ana Ivanović (redirect since 2012, spelled correctly on Commons)?

My attempts to copyedit Ivanović per this reasoning earlier today have been forcefully and repeatedly reverted by one of those editors.

Thoughts? --Mareklug talk 22:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is discussed under multiple rms, and they are above to read for your convenience. And books like Encyclopedia Britannica also use English spellings... see Nastase. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your discussions under RMs are unlawful, to put it bluntly, if they run counter WP:BLP and maintaining best possible spellings for all people whose names include diacritics, such as Ana Ivanović's. And, concerning your straw-man argument about the Romanian tennis player, his BLP biography is located on Wikipedia as Ilie Năstase and his name is spelled that way in it throughout.  --Mareklug talk 08:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Unlawful??? I've heard a lot of ridiculous stuff around here but that's a new laugher. And you are the one saying we are an encyclopedia so I simply pointed you to another. Certainly you can ignore it if you like. And we are supposed to spell the name the same as the title throughout, just like the "Romanian tennis player." Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Mareklug artile titles should reflect usage in reliable English language sources (as described in the Wikipedia policy WP:AT). Article titles do not reflect official names, unless that name meets the requirements of the Wikipedia AT policy. If your argument held water then many article titles such as Tony Benn would have to be moved (and what would one do with names such as Munich which is clearly not the official name of the city and what title would you give to the article about Elizabeth II (see here for why this is tricky)?) -- PBS (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about article titles, which may be parked under whatever, for whatever reasons, but putting people's names correctly within those articles. User:Fyunck(click) reverted my copyedits of Ivanović's last name within the article, and I did not attempt to move the article itself.  And if it were as you say, we would have to move all those tennis players I named above to non-diacritical titles and remove the diacriticals from within altogether in every instance, because no English-language sources whatsoever, including the WTA, report them with diacriticals.  What is indefensible is making silly exceptions within Wikipedia for some tennis players, as in the case of Anna Ivanović, only because she is notortious in the English-speaking world and her webmaster promotes her without the diacritical.  Why Jelena Janković and "Ana Ivanovic"?  Why countless non-tennis players such as aircraft engineer Tadeusz Chyliński?  I am sure he is never to be found in an English-language source with the "ń" intact.  You would have to stand the entire Wikipedia on its head to have it your way.  For now, you have only managed to disrupt Ivanović's BLP and perhaps a few others, and only since 2012 or so.  This will be corrected with enough complaining, I am sure, if it will takes Jimbo himself to enforce it. --Mareklug talk 11:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mareklug see this comment by Jimbo back in 2001. He may have changed his opinion since, but I suspect appealing to him about how wrong it is to use "Ivanovic" because you think there is a "correct" spelling will probably be a wast of time (and it is forum shopping). -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The name of the article is relevant see WP:MOS "Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article". Mareklug you use the term "correct". How does one determine the "correct" name other than through usage in reliable English language sources? -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How does one determine the correct name? From native language sources, obviously.  Where do you think all those diacriticals on Wikipedia came from?  English-language sources? You are persistently ignoring all those other correctly rendered names within articles (in overwhelming majority titled with diacriticals), and the issue of ad hoc rendering one or two without them.  Are you saying they should be rendered devoid of diacriticals because there are no English-language sources for such rendering? And that you haven't gotten around to it yet? --Mareklug talk 13:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No it is not obvious the "correct" name as you put it for the German city of Munich is not München although that is what native language sources use. To determine common spelling of a name in English use reliable English language sources, which is what the WP:AT policy states and so does the MOS (see WP:MOS) as does WP:BLP "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source" that for English language spelling is most likely going to be in English language sources. It seems to me that you are using a form of WP:SYN: because the subject is a native of Ruritania, the way the subject's name spelt in Ruritanian is the only correct version. Therefore it follows if usage in English reliable sources varies from Ruritanian, the English usage must be incorrect. This SYN is not supported by Wikipeida polices which forbid OR and recommend "use the source Luke" ((WP:V). -- PBS (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above post conflates exonyms with the dropping of diacritics which is like comparing apples with oranges. RMs the last few few years have mostly been in favour of using diacritics on the basis it being a technical problem not a case of an alternative name leading us to the issue of correctness in BLPs and quality sources. There are cases though where the droping of the diacritics does produce an alternative name, mostly in situations where people have naturalized in the States. I have personally known people to adopt a misspelling/pronounciation in order to fit in with their host country so no two cases are alike. Nevertheless the trend in serious English publications is to use diacritics. Tennis is a particular issue as the majority of sources will be from the tabloid press. If we follow their lead though we would end up with article titles like Bum Bum Boris Agathoclea (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You write "majority of sources will be from the tabloid press" but the tabloid press are not reliable sources, so they are automatically discounted when choosing an article title (see WP:AT), however many parts of the press are considered reliable when considering usage in English (for examples the London Times, the New York Times and the BBC). The simplicity of the method used to select an article title means that editors do not have to speculate on why or why not reliable sources choose to use or disregard diacritics all that has to be done is to survey reliable English language sources and see what is used. Please see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". just because a small number of editors who happen to think that there is no need to follow reliable English language sources, when deciding on a an article title for some European names, and express opinions in favour of names they prefer while disregarding reliable English language sources is regrettable as it runs contrary to several Wikipedia polices (WP:AT WP:V and WP[[NOR). However whenever this question is raised in a larger forum the answer is always that article titles should be selected using reliable sources see for example this ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:Article titles -- PBS (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please pay attention to the very argument you yourself just employed. You wrote here: Please see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale".   Indeed, any agreement locally by a limited group of editors, yourself included, at this one place and time, cannot override community consensus to render diacritics and Unicode-accurate names everywhere in Wikipedia.  As I said originally, please produce evidence from a reliable source, that somehow Ms. Ana Ivanović became Ana Ivanovic through her consent and action, because you are just arguing from ASCII, the ASCII used by all the reliable English-language sources and not just in her case, but in the case of her contemporary compatriot, the not any more Serbian Jelena Janković (or any less English-language source cited as "Jelena Jankovic"), or every other tennis player on ATP or WTA tour, and probably, every notable figure with diacritics in his or her name in any line of occupation.  So, once again, you are completely oblivious even to the very logic you yourself want us to employ. This line of argumentation is self-serving, disruptive, intellectually dishonest, and a grievous ad hoc exception that runs counter English Wikipedia's consensus at large on this subject of diacritics.  --Mareklug talk 02:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Mareklug Please explain how what I have written is "self-serving". Once you have done that then explain how it is "intellectually dishonest" and "disruptive". -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is self-serving of you to employ the quoted argument for your end, not noticing that it precisely undermines your end, when viewed in the larger context of all diacritics-rich articles in BLP space and names within them. It is disruptive to argue for ad hoc "Ivanovic" while remaining mum, totally mum, about why there is Jelena Janković (as well as Janković within all Wikipedia texts).  It is intellectually dishonest to ignore repeated pleas for your justifying why ad hoc exclusions should be made at all for a single Serbian BLP, while diacritics in the same character for other Serbian and diacritics for other foreign BLPs are left intact and correct. Both Janković and Ivanović are contemporary top WTA ranked players, both currently competing often in the same tournaments, both are former world no. 1 and both have about equal exposure in English-language media (exclusively without diacritics in daily news or WTA publications). Please address these clarifications one by one. --Mareklug talk 13:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if Jelena Janković is where it is because that title was slected because it follows the AT policy. If it does not then it should be moved to whatever name the AT policy and its naming conventions would suggest, which is to follow usage in reliable English language sources. Mareklug you write "foreign BLPs are left intact and correct". What does "correct" mean in this context? For example would you consider Tony Benn to be correct?  -- PBS (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to opine in the case of Tony Benn because I have no clue who that is, and after viewing the biography, I have no idea what the issues of naming are there. But I am intimately familiar with Ana Ivanović and Jelena Janković, and I assure you, in the words of excellent jazz masters Pat Metheny and Lyle Mays (blissfully, no diacritics involved in either case), As Falls Wichita, so Falls Wichita Falls in the twin case of the most excellent Serbs who play tennis. There is absolutely no justification to keep one without the diacritic while rendering the other correctly.  By "correct" I mean the actual name of the person, much as Lech Wałęsa is correctly parked and named within his biography.  Just you try stripping it to Lech Walesa. :)  Fur will fly, and it will be your fur. --Mareklug talk 08:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no fur and I would not demean another editor by suggesting that they do, so I do not see how fur could fly. If you look at the last move request for Lech Wałęsa you will see that I did express an opinion. Opinions on whether to use Lech Wałęsa or Lech Walesa was divided, but few disagreed the usage in reliable English language sources favours Lech Walesa (which means that the article ought to be at Lech Walesa if Wikipedia policies are followed). As you have not clue who Tony Benn is (although you could have read the article to give yourself a clue), let us use another article name. "Tony Blair" is a biography on a controversial British prime minister of whom most informed Europeans have heard. What does "correct" mean in this context? For example would you consider Tony Blair to be correct? -- PBS (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are incredibly stuffy when you want to be (re: fur will fly), and, again, I see no rhyme or reason in you deflecting the debate to some not germane Tony dudes, where there is not an issue of a shaved diacritic from a given and continually used name. I have no idea why you are refusing to address my salient argument which I have now restated several times, that there is only Ana Ivanović and Jelena Janković, and that the two names should be rendered identically with regard to the last character.  Why are you not addressing the merits of the matter and continuing to deflect the debate? Oh, andf you twist the Wikipedia policies to your own liking, including rewriting them yourself to your advantage.  So intellectually honest of you! --Mareklug talk 13:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the link PBS gives, regarding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, I see nothing in that discussion to support the specific context here that where mentions in basic-ASCII sources outnumber mentions of a BLP in unicode sources then the basic-ASCII name becomes the WP:COMMONNAME for the BLP. User notification will allow User:WhatamIdoing User:Dicklyon 76.65.128.222 User:Maunus User:FormerIP User:Nbound User:Blueboar User:Frungi to confirm whether or not their comments in the discussion given include that the basic-ASCII html version of an East European name is the WP:COMMONNAME for that person? Note that WP:COMMONNAME includes François Mitterrand with ç a character that is not in the basic-ASCII set of 26 letters. It seems odd then to argue that ç is admissable in a title or copy text but ć is not? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Iio no one but you is mentioning "ASCII", the point I was making is that editors agree that article titles should be based on usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In particular, I confirm that WP:DIACRITICS, which emphasizes the importance of following what the English-language sources say, is highly applicable and not that hard for any open-minded editor to understand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well User:WhatamIdoing, evidently many editors disagree with you and find that WP:DIACRITICS is (in its current editwarred state) hard to understand because, if read as you read it it contradicts every diacritic named title among en.wp's 4,000,000 articles and agrees with only 1, this 1. Alternative if read as I read it it agrees with every diacritic named title among en.wp's 4,000,000 articles and agrees with only 1, this 1.
 * Do you personally also believe that if someone is mentioned more in html than hardback books with full unicode fonts we should give them a html-style basic-ASCII name? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never had trouble getting diacritics into an HTML page, so I don't see why the medium should make any difference. I also don't believe your assertion that this is the only diacritics-free article title in the entire English Wikipedia.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is beside the point, if she is the only one. Chances are the misguided have succeeded in stripping diacritics of some other downtroden Serb or other.  The salient point is that the cases of Ana Ivanović and Jelena Janković are isomorphic, as in one-to-one and onto, if you grok linear algebra.  They are either both to have the "ć", or neither is, but not one and not the other.  There have been a lot of silly, absolutely morbidly incompetent arguments rendered for Ivanovic without the "ć", which we can roll into one reason: accepting inferior typography on the part of the cited sources as being representative of English-language sources that are reliable.  They are not, in this instance.  The entire Women's Tennis Association (WTA) is not a reliable source in this instance, as it shaves off all the diacritics of everybody to 26 English letters.  And so what?  Please re-read my initial say in this section and follow the links given there:  All those shaved WTA names are render correctly on the English Wikipedia, on the Simple English Wikipedia (chortle), and on Wikimedia Commons categories, where, if you did not know, English is the only language to be used.  I hope this reply amply answers your concerns on the merit of the argument. --Mareklug talk 09:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it’s more often a matter of technical limitations than sources believing that diacriticals are not part of the common name. But I also think these things must be judged on a case-by-case basis. —Frungi (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I respectfully insist that these things must be considered on a "Two for the Price of One" basis, as in Jelena Janković + Ana Ivanović. Please see my arguments just above and throughout this section of the talk page. --Mareklug talk`

WP:BLP does not require that we only use a person's legal name for the title of our article, Jimmy Carter is a prime example. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is not about article titles but about names contained within them. My copyedit pertained to changing the names within the article, and that was reverted, not moving the article.  For all I care, for some insane reason, Wikipedia may well move all diacritics-rich biographies to non-diacritical titles, but the content must reflect the accurate name, as it does now in nearly every instance, except a few puzzlingly selected and defended by a group of misguided editors. --Mareklug talk 21:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This? Again?!  No, article titles follow the common name paradigm, and then we're following the guidance of MOS which says to use consistent article name and name within article.  How many times?  This is English language Wikipedia by the way, where we refer to Москва as Moscow, hence our article is called Moscow.  It's accurate. Or should we have "Moscow" as the title, but Москва therein because "the content must reflect the accurate name"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please use a latin script example, as that is what we are discussing at the moment. Agathoclea (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Try not to truck out moronic, straw-man argumentation for your idiotic, ad hoc shaving of diacritics from a few tennis players but not all, and certainly not any other biographies on Wikipedia. Look up exonym.  That goes for the "Munich", "Moscow", "Warsaw", "Cologne", "Rome" and any other irrelevant, off-topic "counterexamples" that have nothing to do with rendering people's actual names. --Mareklug talk 22:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See my posting here at 15:28, 29 July 2013 which makes the same point as TRM does but with links. -- PBS (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to echo the words "straw-man argumentation" - that is exactly what it is - anyone who repeatedly cites "Munich" and "Tony Benn" rather than comparative British or American diacritics like Emeli Sandé is being disruptive. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if a survey of reliable sources in English has been done for the article title Emeli Sandé, but for the sake of this argument let us assume that it has and Emeli Sandé is the most COMMONNAME. The example you have given does not demonstrate both aspects of the issue. The use of Tony Benn makes the same point as Emeli Sandé that that the name used for an article title is not necessarily the name one would find on their birth certificate, but Munich makes the point that one can not use foreign language sources to determine the spelling of names in English. -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS, please stop it.
 * You have been asked above not to use straw man arguments and yet you immediately come back with one about a birth certificate. How is that relevant?
 * You also been asked to stop misciting WP:COMMONNAME, whether Emeli Sandé appears in basic-ASCII or unicode sources has nothing to do WP:COMMONNAME.
 * FWIW in Google Books [she appears 47x in Unicode sources, 67x in basic-ASCII sources. So why are you not at her article arguing that she appears more often in diacritic-disabled sources? Surely the fight against unicode should begin at home against British people with diacritics, not opposing a Serbian citizen having a Serbian name? 11:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you looked through those sources you have provided with those Google searches? As the WP:AT policy says "and others fail to recognize the modified letter because of optical character recognition errors" and in this case there are many of them. I have no intention of trying to work out whether or not the article Emeli Sandé should or should not be moved based on usage in reliable English language sources (my interests lie elsewhere).-- PBS (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * User talk:Mareklug, you will not get far on this Talk page. This as been a battleground for those opposed to en.wikipedia.org's consistent use of Unicode ("foreign names for foreigners") since at least as early as Talk:Ana Ivanovic/Archive 4. The speedy 4 editor RM should never have set this article at odds with the rest of the en.wp BLP corpus, but it did, and as a result it is now watchlisted and fiercely defended by several vocal advocates of basic-ASCII titles for foreigners "English names for foreigners" - of whom the most vocal and most persistent is PBS above. There is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here at odds with the rest of en.wp's 4,000,000 articles. So arguing here will acheive nothing. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Iio I think you are missing the point (and in your case it must be deliberate, but I will explain for those who do not know that) no one, but you, has mentioned Unicode, the point being made is that when deciding on an article title, Wikipedia editors using Wikipedia policies should follow the usage in reliable English language sources and not choose to follow select a title that they think is "correct". -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS, obviously I am deliberately missing your point because thousands of editors over 4,000,000 articles have firmly and repeatedly rejected your point. Not just in RMs and RfCs but daily thousands of editors over 4,000,000 articles daily reject your point that basic-ASCII sources which cannot represent anything except 26 letters are "reliable" sources for spelling of names which en.wikipedia represents in unicode. Everyone is missing your point, every editor contributing to 4,000,000 articles on en.wp is missing your point. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are putting words into my mouth. I have not made any such point "" To be clear my point is that the naming of articles should follow the WP:AT policy (and which the majority of editor suport), therefor Wikipedia article titles should follow usage in reliable English language sources. If those sources use diacritics so should Wikipedia. If they do not then Wikipedia should not. BTW I spend a lot of time looking at references that were created long before ASCII was a twinkle in the eye of the ASA, For example Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911). It uses diacritics in articles where the editorial staff considered it appropriate and so I think you ACII/Unicode is inappropriate (and confusing for those who do not understand what the terms mean). -- PBS (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS, on the contrary, you have persistently argued that basic-ASCII sources which do not represent anything except 26 letters are "reliable" sources for spelling of names which en.wikipedia represents in unicode. That is exactly what you are doing above with your 5 or 6 oppose posts to Requested move 4 (which is misnumbered as RM3). In other situations, such as Talk:Édouard Deldevez you also argued at length a variant of this, which was that sources with typographic limitations on É, which did not spell Étienne or Émile fully were "reliable sources" for the spelling of Édouard. But here we are not talking about É, we are talking about sources disabled for Slavic names being taken as "reliable sources" for the spelling of Slavic names. It is the same basic-ASCII vs unicode fallacy, because you are not following WP:Identifying Reliable Sources - "reliable for the statement being made" in your personal definition of "reliable sources".
 * As regards Britannica 1911, as far as I am aware Britannica 1911 had a limited range of French and German accents. Modern Britannica doesn't, and Serbian names like Slobodan Milošević, Slobodan Milošević, so if Britannica has a competent and consistent MOS (it may or may not) and if it had an article on Ana Ivanović, the same ć should be present as for Slobodan Milošević]], correct? So that makes comment about Britannica 1911 a red herring, doesn't it. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * User talk:Mareklug, you will not get far on this Talk page, particularly by calling people's posts "moronic" or "idiotic". Please try to refrain from being emotional, comment on the issue at hand.  Thanks!  And for what it's worth, I don't understand why you think applying your version of "correctness" to non-biography articles isn't relevant.  And why it should be constrained to Latin script.  But there you go... But please don't keep using terms like "moronic" or "idiotic", that's disruptive.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't like adjectives "moronic" or "idiotic" describing certain arguments, please don't provoke such assessments! Once again, English language contains long-standing exonyms for geographical names such as Munich, Moscow, Rome, Cologne, but as another user noted, it is apples and oranges to cite those in a discussion about rendering a name and last name of a person, who happens to have diacritics in their name.  Their name, rendered without that diacritic, renders a completely different sound.  In some cases, stripping the diacritic confuses identities of similarly named people.  Why do you not see that in Wikipedia use of diacritics is nearly universal, for when people that have diacritics in their names, with a search-facilitating set of redirects without diacritics to those articles.  Such was the situation with Ana Ivanović, before her article was moved fairly recently (but not the articles of others, such as her contemporary's, also former world no. 1 female tennis player Jelena Janković. Incidentally, one lives in Switzerland and another in United Arab Emirates). After that move, in a veritable slippery-slope argumentation, some silly policy was used to enforce stripping the diacritic "ć" from "Ivanović" within text, on account of the article title not having it.  This is ad hoc, and unsupported by the overwhelming majority of BLPs and not just BLPs where diacritics simply are.  On Commons, which employs English for categorization, her category remains Ivanović and has never moved, nor has there ever been a motion to move it. --Mareklug talk 13:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone likes your flippant use of moronic. It's quite disgusting actually.  A shame because it entirely undermines anything useful you might have said.  Happily I'll leave you to your crusade.  Good luck!  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's very telling that you ignored all the reasoned argumentation, naming it a "crusade", while feeling stung by "moronic" applied to the quality of your argument. What is disgusting is your refusal to concede when you have no logic to back up your futile reasons, after it has been shown to you that they are futile and that the actions you champion are against the larger consensus of Wikipedia, when it comes to diacritics in names.  There are tens of thousands of biographies with diacritics, but there is one Ana Ivanovic with Wikipedia-link quoting small group of editors, engaging in sophistry. --Mareklug talk 13:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Referring to people's comments as moronic and idiotic is not going to get you anywhere, ever. I thought you'd know that by now.  For someone who appears on the face of it to be reasonably articulate, I see no good reason for you to resort to that kind of language.  It just devalues anything relevant you might have said.  Anyway, "good luck with your journey", with luck we'll never cross paths again!  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll happily elide any displeasing to you assessments, adjectives, whatever, and even apologize to you profusely, and donate to a charity of your choice as mea culpa, if you only refrain from employing specious argumentation and concede that the case of Ana Ivanović is no different then tens of thousands of other persons whose biographies on the English Wikipedia contains diacritics both in the title and inside the text. --Mareklug talk 13:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mareklug I think you are making a false dichotomy. It is not a question of titling articles with or without diacritics it is a matter of titling articles by following Wikipeida policy of using reliable English language sources, to make the decision. Sometimes reliable English language sources will use diacritics sometimes they will not. Whatever reliable English language sources use so should Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS, it is you and the editors supporting "Ivanovic" without the "ć" who are making a false dichotomy: the false dichotomy between Jelena Janković and Ana Ivanović, as both are equally treated by the corpus of English sources. As you said, that you don't know why Jelena has not been diacritic-raped on English Wikipedia yet, but apparently you do why in the case of Ana, prey tell, why the false dichotomy? Both players have English-language web sites ran by English-speaking web masters and aimed at the English public that knows them from WTA spellings: http://www.jelenajankovic.net and http://www.anaivanovic.com.  The existence of the latter has been used to justify Requested Move positions/votes. If there ever has been a more specious reason to claim that this means Ana has favored being stripped of her correct spelling, but not Jelena, I don't know of one. --Mareklug talk 09:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC) P.s. Here is a competent English-language reliable source in the matter of spelling "Ana Ivanović".  Why are they?  Because they are Radio B92 from Belgrade (note my use of correct English exonym): Press: Ana Ivanović welcomed in Belgrade. --Mareklug talk 10:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not always competent though, eh?! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not stop to notice, that that search page has no diacritics at all for results from 2006 or earlier ("Jul 25, 2005 ... President of the Serbian National Council, Milan Ivanovic, said", "Apr 25, 2006 ... PRISTINA -- Kosovo Serb official Oliver Ivanovic praised Fatmir Sejdiu's", "Jun 26, 2004 ... Milan Ivanovic alleges that members of the Serb Return Coalition met", "Apr 28, 2006 ... PRISTINA -- Oliver Ivanovic met with"), but that very page has "Ivanović" in a ALL results from 2009 and 2011 for the same person ("B92 - News Jan 25, 2009 - Ivanović on "return strategy" for K. Serbs", "Oct 13, 2011 ... BELGRADE -- Ministry for Kosovo State Secretary Oliver Ivanović says").  Why are you arguing from typographical shortcomings that have been rectified by that source since? --Mareklug talk
 * Desparate!! There are plenty of post-2006 hits on that very "competent" website (perhaps you didn't notice there were additional pages in that search result [however, it's nice to see you managed to click on the link correctly this time!]. without diacritics for Ivanovic, Jankovic, Djokovic etc.  Please, try something else!! here's one from 2013, one from 2009 with many "typos", another "obvious typo" from last year... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * oi, Jankovic, where's your diacritic in this competent English-language reliable source in the matter of spelling gone? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you are holding on to an obvious typo within a web dispatch which otherwise contains these strings: "Novak Đoković", "Ana Ivanović", "Janko Tipsarević", "Mario Čilić", "Ana Ivanović on her way to victory (FoNet)", with lone "Jelena Jancovic". Elsewhere on the same page: "Valjevo-Užice", "Dragan Marković", "Tomica Milosavljević", "Vučić", "Vesna Pusić" and "MELBOURNE -- "Super Serbs" Jelena Janković and Ana Ivanović on Monday battled through baking heat at the Australian Open". Again, why are you not arguing meritoriously? --Mareklug talk 12:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, "obvious typo"? You're certain of that?  You can read the minds of those who wrote that?  And all the other reports on that very "competent" website without diacritics?  They're all typos?  Perhaps the website isn't so "competent" after all! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS,
 * Please answer these two questions:
 * 1. Do you recognise that this is the only simple-diacritic stripped BLP on en.wp. Yes/No?
 * Please do not reply about Munich, Gerry Adams, Tony Benn, Napoleon, Elisabeth II, a stagename, someone with a change of nationality, or a consonant variant.
 * 2. Have you edited any policy/guideline to reflect your personal view that if someone is mentioned in more basic-ASCII sources than unicode sources we should give them a basic-ASCII name?
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the only simple-diacritic stripped BLP on en.wp, no. At a quick glance, I've found two or three more, including a tennis player or two would you believe!  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User The Rambling man
 * Okay, 2 questions for you also:
 * 1. Can I ask what is your personal interest in having this girl's name anglicized? You've been extremely vocal, to the point of advocating editors go against MOS guidelines. So what is it about Ana Ivanović that makes her rather than Serbian politicians or soldiers candidates for a British/Australian/American name?
 * I am not sure what you mean by "British/Australian/American name" the spellings used in a Wikipedia article should reflect usage in English language sources . So the name of this woman (not girl -- was that a sexist remark or a rhetorical one? Can't Serbian women be soldiers and politician?) should follow usage in English reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course you can ask. My interest is really just an interest in respecting consensus, which the repeated RMs show, and this attempt from a different direction is proving.  It seems such a waste of effort when 99% of English-language sources (and some Slovenian sources [see above]) aren't even using diacritics, that one or two editors are determined to insist we have to redirect to get to any of these articles.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And part 2 of that question "So what is it about Ana Ivanović that makes her rather than Serbian politicians or soldiers candidates for a British/Australian/American name?" Why this girl? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2. You have found another diacritic stripped European BLP (one alive, with no citizenship, stagename or consonant-change issues), then please tell who is it?
 * Incidentally, the last time you said you'd found one you actually hadn't, you found a "Jovan Nikolic", not a BLP but an unsourced stub on a soldier who died in 1918 ( no he's not listed at the Jovan Nikolić dab, since WP Serbia editors were unable to find any proof of his existence and he was AfDed ), but all the same I have to admit that I was impressed. Can I ask if you used some special software or search tool to find [*ic -ić Serbian] to find that WWI soldier and how long it took you? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I absolutely have bet my mortgage(s) on you finding a reason why any example I could give you wouldn't meet your very specific criteria. In any case, let's try one: Misha Radovic (note: the article, nor the sources seem to match your sub-criteria for allowing it not to have a diacritic, but of course, I'm sure you'll correct me).  I have more, but let's start here so I can see the various reasons why this specific case hasn't be changed.  By the way, no, I don't use special software, I use mark I eyeball to find them.  It's not that hard.  But of course, it is hard for them to match your various sub-criteria!  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man
 * You would "bet your mortgage"? That sort of makes it sound as if you are being especially clever, predicting that finding an Australian - someone who has been in Sydney for 24 years - is not going to satisfy the requirement of not "someone with a change of nationality"
 * I am completely lost to see what your mortgage has got to do with you providing an Australian citizen as an example when the question specifically said not to.
 * Please try and understand this: This girl to whom you want to give a Australian/British/American name, uniquely on en.wp, is not an Australian, she has not emigrated to Australia, or Britain or America, she is one of Serbia's most prominent cultural and sport ambassadors. She is a Serbian. Do you understand the difference between a Serbian emigrating to Australia and starting to use a Anglicized name and Australians/British going to Serbia and anglicizing the names of Serbian citizens in Serbia?
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So, in spite of your wall of text, is Misha Radovic an example of a diacritic stripped article title or not? Please stop suggesting I "want to give a ... name" to anyone.  Re-read my first point, I'm here to help reinforce consensus.  So, back to the point, is Misha Radovic correctly titled or not?  I have a few more if this doesn't float your boat.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man
 * Float your boat? What and where is my "boat" ... no please don't expand... that makes less sense to me than you betting your mortgage on an Serbian who has been in Sydney for 24 years not being a good example of someone with no change of citizenship.
 * Please try to focus on the question you said you had an answer for:
 * You jumped up and said "It is not the only simple-diacritic stripped BLP on en.wp, no. At a quick glance, I've found two or three more, including a tennis player or two would you believe!" No one asked you to answer for PBS, you stuck your own hand up. Either you failed to read the question, or you genuinely do not understand the effect on names of a change of citizenship. If the latter then please look at Martina Navratilova before providing any more Australians. And no Misha Radovic is not an example of someone with no change of nationality, look at the article - he has been in Sydney since 1989. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So our article reliably sources that he has changed nationality? I missed that, can you please direct me to the RS in the article that shows that.  Please focus very hard indeed on my question here!  (And just because I like you, how about Mladen Ristic?  Or maybe Milan Jeremic?  I'm certain you have a reason for Dragan Ljubisavljevic meeting your sub-criteria.  And don't forget poor Zoran II...  Either way, it looks like you and Mareklug are arguing against one another since in most of these articles, the text of the article doesn't match the article title.  What's the deal?)  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if you want proof that someone has been living in Sydney since 1989 without aquiring Australian residence and then dual nationality I think that's an issue you can take up, preferably without the flouncy sarcasm, at BLP noticeboard. As far as regards the 1 sentence stubs on Serbian footballers taken from a soccer listing, well done. That is pretty impressive, are you sure you're not using some sophisticated search software to find them. Any I will improve the sources and if they prove notable put in an RM. Do you have any more? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think if you're using changing nationality as a reason to skip diacritics then you should at least ensure those articles have reliable sources stating as much. You need to do that, not me, I'm just highlighting the gross failure in your assertion.  I have plenty of others, the point is you need to stop sermonising editors by saying "this girl is one in 4,000,000 articles" (my phrasing) because it's actually completely wrong.  Once again, I'm using my eyes and brain (for a change).  It's very simple. It took no more than ten minutes to find those...  I'm surprised you posit such an erroneous tenet without having made a few fundamental (i.e. very basic and simple) checks.  But hey.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds more than a little like sour grapes on Australians: it was clearly stated in clean simple English language not "someone with a change of nationality" so you triumphantly "bet your mortgage" on providing exactly what PBS was asked not to provide, an Australian, and now you want to start an argument about redefining the issue to include exactly what we said isn't included.
 * No.
 * However I will grant that you did well to find a cluster of ASCII stub-creations, I find a few every time I look, but those article stub creations aren't malicious, they're just article creators replicating html sources, no agenda attached.
 * The context of the discussion we're having here is where a notable foreigner's name has been deliberately stripped (i.e. by RM) as uniquely in the case of Ana Ivanovic - by you for example, because you took part here, heavily, in keeping a notable Ivanović surname at a "Tennis name." What makes Miss Ivanovic "this girl is one in 4,000,000 articles" is that it was the first strike in the WP:TENNISNAMES debacle, it was legitimized by a 5 participant RM, and you, The Rambling Man, and PBS, and Fyunck are here, not at any other article, fighting to keep this 1 BLP as the only example of a notable European BLP with simple-diacritic-stripped English name. Of course there are a few stubs around, editors fix them as they find them, but this isn't a stub creation is it, this is a one of Serbia's national heros, and she's here with an "English name".
 * This is a trophy.
 * Otherwise why do you think Fyunck(click) has been round 100 articles anglicizing every mention of the lady? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise why do you think Fyunck(click) has been round 100 articles anglicizing every mention of the lady? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And another fabrication from IIO rears it's head. Goodness. You will note that for months and months editor Colonies Chris has systematically removed all traces of your so called "anglicizing" from articles. If the title uses diacritics, he has made sure the links to it are direct links as opposed to redirects. Seemed reasonable to me so I have done the same. Have you complained about him or is hypocrisy raising it's ugly head here? There is no way you avoid seeing it (as I pointed it out to you before), and it's what got my attention in the first place... not some weird trophy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fyunck(click) you have repeatedly been warned about personal attacks. I do not lie; Do not call me a liar. The edits I refer to in Fyunck(click) contribution history are marked as (-1) article title (direct link). "direct link" means removing ć for c. Likewise (-2) is 2 removals, (-3) is 3 removals. In each case one person has been targeted in articles full of Serbia, Czech, German, French and Spanish diacritics for anglicisation. The total number of articles is over 100, presumably every mention of "Ana Ivanović" is being changed to the basic-ASCII name "Ana Ivanovic" contrary to the SNOW result of the WP Tennisnames RfC. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Lovely you look at only one part of what you wrote. I'll throw you a bone and spell it out for you. The lines together: "This is a trophy. Otherwise why do you think Fyunck(click) has been round 100 articles anglicizing every mention of the lady?" That insinuates that because I look at it as a trophy I am anglicizing every mention. That is false, a fabrication or a "lie, slice it anyway you want. Especially so since I had already told you why I did it before you wrote that. You have also done these things repeatedly in the past where I have asked you to remove it and called administrators step in. When it's done over and over I don't think it's a slip of the tongue anymore. Sorry but this whoa is me attitude won't cut it anymore after you just personally attacked me as you have been warned in the past. I was letting this conversation mostly slide with no comments because we just went through these discussions in June and July...until you brought my name up with more dribble. I've put up with it for a year, I mostly held my tongue (and told others to do the same) while you used my name derogatorily in places where I wasn't even commenting. No more. You just won't let it go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fyunck(click)
 * It is is not a lie when I consider that this article is a wikt:trophy. It is my judgment based on behaviour at this article, and based on 2 years of disruption related to WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:TENNISNAMES2, both RfCs centred on the edits of 1 editor (yourself) and both with WP:SNOW closes against the edits of the editor (yourself) as the sole editor pursuing "ITF names." As regards your recent 100 edits such as removing ć in Ana Ivanović from List of UNICEF Goodwill Ambassadors I have asked the question at WikiProject Tennis whether this will need a WP:TENNISNAMES3. Will it? How many RfCs are going to be needed to stop your promotion of "ITF Names" for tennis players?
 * Out of interest, have you left Ana Ivanović's name in Serbian at any article on en.wp? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a lie when I tell you to the contrary and you continue to propagate that same thing. This based on two years of your own disruptions and attacks. As for infobox names, it was at your suggestion and tennis project tweak and agreement, that we include it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I have the focus left to keep dealing with your walls of text. Bottom line was (1) the first article I suggested you nay-said because of some speculative change of nationality which wasn't backed up with reliable sources in the article in any way. (2) the betting of the mortgage(s) [note: plural, which you seem to have not noticed, attention to detail?] was a pure piece of fun, we can still do that, right? The fact is that no matter what is presented to you, there's always another issue, criterion etc that I wasn't aware of or was purely ignorant of, which allows you to maintain the high ground. (3) I trust now that you will stop making the entirely false assertion that Ivanovic's article is the only of the four-plus million that fails your diacritic benchmark. Why you insist on making false assumptions ("sounds more than a little like sour grapes on Australians", what?!), I know not. By the way, I am The Rambling Man. Why you would refer to me, and then me in the third person is entirely beyond me, maybe you're getting confused with all this text. (4) " I will grant that you did well to find a cluster.." thanks for the patronising tone. Not necessary at all, but noted. For what it's worth, I have no interest in what Fyunck(click) has been doing, nor do I consider this article (or the near-defunct player herself) a "trophy" (as you creepily put it), I do however consider it a test case. It's very simple for me, perhaps you find it more complex than is necessary. (Oh, and your final "plea" is terribly sad, "this is a one of Serbia's national heros, and she's here with an "English name".", have you looked at the Wikipedia spelling of Novak Djokovic lately? Pot, kettle, kettle's kettle, pot's kettle.... He's the world number one tennis player – your emotional plea is noted, but why not seek the correct representation of the world's best tennis player first?   How many Serbs spell his name Novak Djokovic?) Oh, hang on, this probably invokes another "rule" of diacritic usage that I'm not aware of.... enlighten me! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man,
 * I think I worked out how you did it. Did you go to Category:Serbian footballers and then do CTRL F [ic] through 1,550 bios until you found 4 stubs where an article creator had mispelled the name? I hope so because any other method must have taken hours. Did you stop to notice the 1,546 which were titled with Serbian names?
 * No one ever denied finding a few innocent stub creations - these get fixed as they occur. But Ana Ivanovic's article remains the only simple case of a diacritic-stripped article on en.wp. If there was another case we'd be having this discussion at 3 or 4 articles wouldn't we? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They only get fixed if they are moved to a title that is supported by following the Wikipedia policy WP:AT. If they are moved to a name which is not supported by the AT policy then they are not fixed. We ought to have this discussion for every article that is not placed at an article title supported by the WP:AT and its naming conventions, but it is far too time consuming for any editor to be involved in all those move discussions, so people if they discuss them at all tend to either discuss those that arrive at WP:RM or those of pages they watch. -- PBS (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, thank you for ignoring pretty much everything I've written. And by the way, please, when representing this argument, tell the whole story, that when the Ivanovic article was created, it was sans diacritic.  It's amusing, even the source that Mareklug provided (a competent Serbian source by all accounts) spells Ivanovic (and Jankovic and Djokovic) without diacritic, and yet you're both still banging the same drum.  I'm pleased you have something to chase here, and pleased to note you're seeking to move those "innocent stubs" that I found in a few moments.  Naturally I'll let you know when I find any others so you can continue to pursue you goal of ensuring all English speakers who visit this website will have to be redirected to the right article each and every time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man
 * Please read my replies under your incompetent interpretation of your own "debunking" links to usage by Radio B92. In point of fact, they refer to:
 * --Mareklug talk 13:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please look more closely at the website, take your time, and understand that if B92's failure to use diacritics is down to typos, then it's not a competent website at all! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I'm simply part of the daily consensus of those 4,000,000 articles and the editing community to represent BLP names accurately. Your failure to produce any other example of 1 notable simple-diacritic stripped BLP on en.wp underlines the extreme and isolated nature of your view and your opposition to the consensus of the editing community. As also does your advocacy to ignore WP:MOSBIO. Your point that this was created in April 2005 as an ASCII stub and upgraded to a Unicode title 2 months later is not justification for this article being "different" - many BLPs are created as ASCII stubs and the title upgraded to Unicode. Those 4 ASCII stubs that you triumphantly found among 1550 Serbian footballers would normally have been automatically upgraded, except for you making a big issue out of it. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, nice job of ignoring most of my post. There was no triumph in finding many examples of non-diacritic'ed biographies, it was simply just a way of demonstrating that your scare claim of 1 in 4 million was somewhat misleading.  Oh, and they're not all stubs either, are they, so please stop claiming they are.  I'm also fascinated by your reference back to BLP now.  So once someone is dead it'd be okay to remove the diacritic?  And finally, why are you so content with Novak Djokovic?  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man, I specifically said that there would be some stubs that hadn't been fully titled. But what I said remains true. That of 4,000,000 articles this is the only simple-diacritic stripped BLP on en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And why not "fix" Novak Djokovic then? I don't understand. Perhaps you have double standards?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am quite content to let you continue in this vein. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well would you at least have the decency to answer the question? I'm really interested in the answer because this whole section has kicked off based on an assertion that the use of names in the article and the article title should be "correct" or "accurate" or similar.  Clearly Novak's name both in the title and the article is "incorrect" or "inaccurate" given your and Mareklug's approach.  But I don't see anyone trying to frantically move that page in a hurry.  I think an explanation would be an ideal way of demonstrating that you don't hold double standards.  Thanks!  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I don't feel that anybody other than yourself would think I did, so consequently I don't feel the need to defend against a charge only you are making. Besides which there is already plentiful mention (including on this page above) on the difference between diacritic removal and consonant substitution. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it is double standards that you and Mareklug are seeking. Thanks for the clarification.  After all, you wouldn't be determined to get Ivanovic's name correct and not get a damn about Djokovic (since there are plenty of diacritic names which substitute consonants like Predrag Đorđević).  Do you have a clear definition of exactly what you're trying to achieve, I mean one that's written down for readers/editors to see, and one backed by policy or guidelines, not just one in your head?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hang on a moment, you're the editor who has been arguing to ignore MOS:BIO, we are the ones supporting guideline here; have you forgotten this? Scroll up. Do you now accept following MOS:BIO?
 * As regards the complexities of Đ and Dj, this, like German Esszet, doesn't affect Ana Ivanović. This is the Talk page for Ana Ivanović. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hang on a moment, who said I'm ignoring MOS:BIO? What about WP:AT?  What about WP:RS?  This argument is circular.  The only thing that isn't circular is your double-standards, i.e. Ivanovic is bad but Djokovic is fine, despite there being plenty of other examples of the "consonant replacement" you mention.  And once again, you entirely ignore a direct question.  Let me repeat for so you can avoid dissembling once again.  "Do you have a clear definition of exactly what you're trying to achieve, I mean one that's written down for readers/editors to see, and one backed by policy or guidelines, not just one in your head?".  This should include references to "consonant replacement", "ASCII character sets" etc where appropriate, so we can make it very clear to those who can't deal with the walls of text created by certain editors here.  Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man, you said "Not really, MOS is a guideline, not a policy, local exceptions are permitted, particularly if local consensus has been established" etc.
 * Yes, clear definition of exactly what we're trying to achieve is per MOS:BIO as at the start of this Talk.
 * I'm off out for now. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do us all a favour and write it down explicitly in a section of its own so we don't have to wade through BIO (your link is most unhelpful) to try to determine how your "interpretation" works in this case. It would do you a favour to explicitly state what you're trying to achieve rather than just allude to it.  And explain, at the same time, why Novak Djokovic is just fine, while Ana Ivanovic is simply an outrage to you.  I'm sure you'll agree that an unambiguous statement as to your perceived policy on these things wouldn't do Wikipedia any harm.  Refusing to do so would be confusing and unhelpful in the extreme.  Referring newcomers to a bunch of discussions/guidelines/policies from which they'd need to pick and choose certain elements to meet your approach is unfair.  For a start, I'm not clear on the whole "consonant replacement" issue, so elucidating why you consider Djokovic to be fine but Ivanovic to be not fine would be a great starting point.  Looking forward to your explanation upon your return.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Iio you wrote "No. I'm simply part of the daily consensus of those 4,000,000 articles and the editing community to represent BLP names accurately" if that were true then there would not be any requests to move BLP articles.  Despite what I think are your confusing statements to the contrary the vast majority of editors who are aware of Wikipedia polices support the view that article names and content should reflect usage in reliable sources. AFAICT you only support the use in reliable English language sources if it coincides with what you think is "correct", if not you use ignore usage in reliable English language sources.
 * Iio, All your postings to the contrary, many of which I think are dissembling -- it is you who produced elaborate constructions and date mining of the guidelines to try to ignore the central tenant of the Wikipedia policies that Wikipedia titles and content should be based on reliable verifiable sources -- ought not to disguise the fact that all those who have argued contrary to your position in this thread have simply stated the position laid out in the Wikipedia polices: that Wikipedia titles and content should be based on reliable verifiable sources not editors personal POVs on what is "correct". -- PBS (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PBS,
 * Now you make a personal charge against me of wikt:dissembling "To deliberately ignore something; to pretend not to notice." Well you are wrong, I do not pretend, feign, dissemble.
 * As regards Identifying reliable sources this is self explanatory:
 * Also as above you were asked two questions:
 * 1. Do you recognise that this is the only simple-diacritic stripped BLP on en.wp. Yes/No? Please do not reply about Munich, Gerry Adams, Tony Benn, Napoleon, Elisabeth II, a stagename, someone with a change of nationality, or a consonant variant.
 * 2. Have you edited any policy/guideline to reflect your personal view that if someone is mentioned in more basic-ASCII sources than unicode sources we should give them a basic-ASCII name? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2. Have you edited any policy/guideline to reflect your personal view that if someone is mentioned in more basic-ASCII sources than unicode sources we should give them a basic-ASCII name? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Dissemble: "To deliberately ignore something". Well yes.  that's very much evident from the fact you've ignored most of the questions I've asked you, even to the point where you tell me you're content to keep doing so.  So the charge is actually factually correct.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well pile on the ad hominems if you wish. This is still the only simple-diacritic stripped BLP among 4,000,000 articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, just factually accurate statements about your reluctance to respond to direct questions in a WP:ICANTHEARYOU manner. And yes, if you continue with your scare facts, you need to clarify "it's the only BLP in a million BLPs (excluding stubs)" which meet your criteria.  Although you have no proof of your assertion at all.  It's just a nice easy club to swing at people in an attempt to gather momentum for yet another RM.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is The Rambling Man that your direct questions are the same old red herrings " Please do not reply about Munich, Gerry Adams, Tony Benn, Napoleon, Elisabeth II, a stagename, someone with a change of nationality, or a consonant variant." These have all been aired already, and do not have to be rewritten to save you using Scroll Up. In the meantime this is still the only simple-diacritic stripped BLP among 4,000,000 articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You know what, less is more sometimes. Parroting the 1 in 4 million for the 20th time is now making you look a little desperate.  I'm not placing "red herrings" out at all, no.  I'm asking for some consistency in yours' and Mareklug's approach. Or perhaps you're after different things?  Who knows.  In any case, this is a dead pony once again, as I believe you warned Mareklug from the outset.  So at least you got that right!  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of repeating that this is the 1 simple-diacritic stripped BLP among 4,000,000 articles is so that this basic anomaly doesn't get lost in the smoke. Also neither you nor PBS have acknowledged that it does in fact appear to be the only notable simple-diacritic stripped BLP. This Talk page is certainly a WP:DEADHORSE. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your purpose is to "scare" people with your scare stats. You can't even prove it.  The only thing we can agree on is that this is, once again, a dead horse, but I look forward to seeing your consistent approach and a requested move at Novak Djokovic which is clearly incorrect per both you and User:Mareklug.  No need to go into "trophies" etc, or other creepy language mind you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seen, but nothing that requires a response. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing other than you should come clean about using scary quotes which you can't substantiate, and nothing other than you hold double standards from one article to the next. And glad to see no repeat of your creepy "trophy" language.  So I guess "nothing that requires a response" is pretty consistent with your dissembling approach.  Congrats on that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Everything is factually accurate.  Tell me where the personal attack took place.  Alternatively, start answering the questions, and stop deliberately ignoring them.  Your language has been noted by more than one editor as being slightly odd, creepy even.  Why you would refer to this tennis player as a "trophy" is telling.  And, as ever, if you actually believe your NPA accusation, I'd encourage you to take it up at AN/I or with Arbcom, or you should withdraw it.  Just be courteous enough to let me know which boulevard you waltz down.  Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no "NPA accusation", just a gentle reminder: Comment on content, not on the contributor. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a gentle reminder? Either I breached NPA or I didn't.  Please either remove the comment or act on it.  I'm happy to reiterate, for the record,  you have deliberately ignored direct questions.  You have used creepy language when referring to Ivanovic as a "trophy".  These are odd behaviours for someone who is trying to gain a consensus around these parts.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification
User:In ictu oculi, please respond to the following:
 * Do us all a favour and write it down explicitly in a section of its own so we don't have to wade through BIO (your link is most unhelpful) to try to determine how your "interpretation" works in this case. It would do you a favour to explicitly state what you're trying to achieve rather than just allude to it.  And explain, at the same time, why Novak Djokovic is just fine, while Ana Ivanovic is simply an outrage to you.  I'm sure you'll agree that an unambiguous statement as to your perceived policy on these things wouldn't do Wikipedia any harm.  Refusing to do so would be confusing and unhelpful in the extreme.  Referring newcomers to a bunch of discussions/guidelines/policies from which they'd need to pick and choose certain elements to meet your approach is unfair.  For a start, I'm not clear on the whole "consonant replacement" issue, so elucidating why you consider Djokovic to be fine but Ivanovic to be not fine would be a great starting point.  Looking forward to your explanation upon your return.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Simply put (as already above) as per the MOSBIO examples the lead should read

As for other people who are not Ana Ivanović, see romanization of Serbian. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's a start. Now can you tell me precisely why Ivanovic should have the diacritic as it's clearly not obvious to all those who have opposed the move in the past, and still abundantly unclear versus our current guidelines such as WP:AT and WP:RS.  Please don't link to a generalist guideline, most unhelpful.  Also, the romanization of Serbian is an article, not a guideline or a MOS article or a policy, are we now following that throughout?  Your approach is unclear, particularly when applied across other articles such as Novak Djokovic which has no diacritics whatsoever, this, presumably, would cause User:Mareklug some grief?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Ok, that's a start" = I (The Running Man) withdraw my objection to MOSBIO guideline being followed in the lead? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Who's The Running Man? Please answer the question, stop playing the dissembling games.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That was an innocent typo. I now realise what you were on about the last time I did it. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If I may interject my observation, though I am not User:In ictu oculi: Novak Đoković absolutely should be spelled as I have spelled him here, if only so that people can grok the letters he himself uses for his name, because if they only read CNN and ATP web page, they would be shit out of luck.  It is, perhaps, admissible to spell "Dj" for "Đ" for practical reasons (typography limitations, strictly speaking, as no one really knows how to type "Đ" without major research into their computer system, and even then...). But the encyclopedic biography should reside under the proper romanization for Serbian, and this is really not any more negotiable than spelling Björk (or her patronymic, Guðmudsdóttir).  Again, all the difficult names with funny characters in them should have redirects from 26 English letters.  Why is this so difficult to accept?  Why engage in facetious, silly arguments, that so and so has a website without diacritics or that some Serbian radiostaton's (not Slovenian, dammit!) web site is crappy as typography goes and inconsistent? You should be ashamed of yourselves for reaching for such low (quality) (persuasion) fruit. --Mareklug talk 19:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you should be ashamed of trying to propose a website which is full of "typos" as a "competent" source, and which provides a clear indication that diacritics don't matter, at least not to the audience of that website. But that's a different story. Glad you've confirmed that you and User:In ictu oculi are after different things as well, that certainly helps clarify the discord in this field.  By the way, it was you who proposed a Belgrade English-language website as "competent", despite it being full of "errors", no-one else.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When they USE DIACRITICS AT ALL, they spell competently. When they produce copy WITHOUT ANY FUCKING DIACRITICS, they don't.  Why are you twisting reality into a pretzel?  Look up sophistry, because you are one lovely practitioner of it. --Mareklug talk 19:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice, but all I'm asking from you and User:In ictu oculi is a consistent argument in favour of specific diacritic inclusion. In ictu oculi seems to be happy with some articles having them, some not.  User:Mareklug, you seem to be of the opinion that diacritics should be used whenever and wherever possible, ignoring WP:AT and WP:RS.  I'm still interested why you'd suggest we use a "competent" website which is full of "errors".  Perhaps that's something to consider before using it as your test case in future? (Why the shouting?  I can hear you, unlike In ictu oculi!)  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are Wikipedia policies, whose present state is so laughably incompetent, that they permit you to argue this case using them for a prop, then by all means, they should be rewritten, for clarity, if any thing. But we know that PBS has been rewriting one of them assiduously, so we can point to a conflict of interest right there and there.  Basically, if you are going to use junk to justify your edits, your edits are junk, as well.  Go ahead, change Björk to Bjork (and then, because of policy, strip her name of the umlaut throughout the text, and on every article where she is mentioned. After all, WP:RS and WP:AT would support that, surely.  B92 is a competent source, because at least they know how to spell Serbian names, and, jesus christ on a stick, sometimes they even manage to do so.  BBC/CNN/NYTimes/WTA *by editorial policy* refuse to. But that is no reason to dumb down our encyclopedia, which is what you are doing. --Mareklug talk 19:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you wish to revisit Wikipedia policies or guidelines, then feel free to do so. This isn't the correct venue to do that.  You used "junk" in an incompetent and badly presented website to promote "competence".  That was entirely your decision.  It's backfired badly and it must sting a little, sorry for that.  And pardon me, I'm not dumbing anything down, I'm complying with the various guidelines and policies correctly.  Even then, there have been four attempts to move this page, the community disagrees.  Blame the community, fight that fight you seem to care so much about with everyone else! And try not to swear so much!  Cheers.  By the way, do you have a citation for the "editorial policy" claim you've made above, or is that just another piece of personal speculation? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)