Talk:Rista Ognjanović

Title
Firstly, the correct Serbian transliteration would be Ognjanović. Nonetheless, the reasoning for moving it from Ognjanovikj-Lonoski is not based on any policy and, thus, it should be reverted to the original title. -- Local hero talk 02:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * First, this is his name in Serbian as it was always spelled: . Second, as his name was presented in Macedonian, it does not occur anywhere and does not meet any transliteration standards: . Not to mention that while he was alive the Macedonian language was not codified. In particular, this name Lonoski is not found anywhere in a primary sources from the period when he was alive, but appears for the first time after 2000 in publications:  . Jingiby (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see Romanization of Serbian (ћ -> ć). Ристо Огњановиќ-Лоноски is the most common name for him in the sources used in this article. The transliteration of this to Latin is Risto Ognjanovikj-Lonoski. Whether Lonoski was used during his lifetime is irrelevant (Alexander the Great wasn't "the Great" until well after his death), unless you can point to which policy supports your points here. -- Local hero talk 04:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Риста Огњановић as it is written in Serbian is the most common name:, while the spelling Ристо Огненовиќ has zero hits: . Generally, we use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources and the general rule is to title the article with the name by which the person is best known. See: WP:COMMONNAME Jingiby (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The title was Огњановиќ, not Огненовиќ (Ристa Огњановиќ and Ристa Огњановиќ-Лоноски). Per the sources used on this article, the Macedonian spelling is most common. And again, if we are to use the Serbian spelling, ћ -> ć. -- Local hero talk 15:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is not such a policy on Wikipedia the title to be based on the most used at the moment sources in an article. Ристо Огненовиќ is used on the Macedonian Wikipedia, i.e. it has zero hits. In proposed by you version [here], there were 2 different ways of spelling of the name: in Latin and in Cyrillic, i.e. Risto Ognjanovikj-Lonoski and Риста Огњановиќ-Лоноски; Both ways are a total failure. Risto Ognjanovikj-Lonoski has zero hits too. The most commonly used spelling is that in Serbian, as in Cyrillic, as well as in Latin. Moreover nearly whole of his life this man identified himself as a Serb. The way of writing of the letter c, ć. č, ċ, etc. in his name is not the biggest problem. Jingiby (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What does the Macedonian Wikipedia have to do with anything? The original title of this article was "Risto Ognjanovikj-Lonoski" and I'm arguing you had no basis to move it to this title. The proper thing for you to do is to revert yourself and begin a WP:RM.
 * Please check the links I provided in my last comment again. The vast majority of the hits for Rista Ognjanović are from the period 1880-1935. The original title of this article is clearly preferred if considering only the past 50 years (and I do acknowledge the first name should be "Rista" not "Risto").
 * The subject's ethnicity is beside the point when it comes to article title. Any research about him in modern times is because of his book Galičnik and the Mijaks in which he expresses clear pro-Macedonian beliefs. -- Local hero talk 18:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * However, let's be objective. Your proposal really has fewer hits on a specialized and reliable search engine such as Google Books for example. There are only 7 hits in total. Check here. I am not talking about the Latin spelling at all, because there is nothing - zero hits. The other version of spelling in Serbian Риста Огњановић, which is currently in the article's title, in the same reliable search engine is found in more places. Only from the last 30 years, I counted to 14 and stopped. Check here. The Serbian Latin spelling Rista Ognjanović is found also in modern reliable academic sources in the same search engine: check here. Not to mention that after checking the Macedonian romanization article, I found that one of the current versions of the Romanization of the Macedonian letter Ќ is the same as Serbian, that is as in the title now - Ć. I really think I know Macedonian, but the romanization KJ at the end of the name in English is incomprehensible to me as well. I suggest that we really stop being petty and take things more objectively and calmly. Greetings. Jingiby (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Jingiby I agree with Local hero that there is no basis for the current name of the article. As Serbian is my second language, I can comfortably claim that the proper transliteration of ћ is ć, not č/ch (which is the case in Bulgarian, but not English). As this is the English Wikipedia, the name Rista Ognjanović should be used, as it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore, if you look at p.169 of the actual modern official orthography of Macedonian (here is a download link), you can see that ќ->ć transliteration is non-existent today. It is a method which was only used in Yugoslav times. So I suggest you reevaluate your position. Regards. Kluche (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I got a bit confused in this discussion. As far as I understand the last proposal is to transform the title as follows: Rista Ognjanović per WP:COMMONNAME. If so I do not object. Kluche, is that your idea? Jingiby (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is my proposal, while also adding also known as Rista Ognjanovikj-Lonoski, as this name is clearly quite present in general and in specialised literature. Kluche (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. -- Local hero talk 21:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Risto OgnjanoviĆ is the WP:COMMONNAME. I see no credible arguments presented for the move. Ranko Nikolić (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Risto or Rista? Jingiby (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)