This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis
Other : *Sign up as a member of the project. Tag more articles with our standard project template. Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament.
Rationale
This page is meant to explain and support the tennis project guideline to use the English names of players as found on the ITF website. The why and the how for it. With the best quality sources we can find. It has a shortcut WP:TENNISNAMES, which is easy to remember and can be used in discussions around this issue. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier discussion on this topic
This essay has been written based on a discussion that took place at the project Tennis. You can find it here: Player names have no diacritics
There has also been an earlier proposal to move all tennis players to their non-diacritics name, which was rejected after a long discussion: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis
Four years is a very long time on WP, so the topic can be revisited. Secondly, there are new elements that were not mentioned in that older discussion, e.g. the existence of the IPIN registration which is used by all official tennis organizations. Thirdly, this is an essay, not a reopening of that old discussion. You are welcome to read WP:ESSAYS. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eurosport is inconsistent
I have added Eurosport as example of a site who uses diacritics for some players. But they are very inconsistent with them.
E.g. [1]. We see Marin Čilić written without diacritics, while Radek Štěpánek is written as "Štepánek". But then if you click on his name you arrive here: [2], where his name is written in capitals without any diacritics (never mind that the pictures are showing J-W Tsonga). And if you click on an article in his "recent news" section it goes here: [3], where Stepanek is also written without any diacritics. We can only conclude that Eurosport is not reliable for player names. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very problematic
This:
"Nearly all the reliable English language sources we use for our tennis articles (draws and results of tournaments, articles in sports media,...) use the English spelling of the names of players, based on the International Tennis Federation(ITF) naming convention (IPIN). So this is also the name we should use in our articles, otherwise consistency becomes impossible, and verifiability becomes difficult."
is severely contorted reasoning on several levels.
Adding a diacritic does not magically make a different name, so WP:COMMONNAME does not apply (or, more accurately, it is met by either spelling as long as the other is a redirect). A minor variation in orthography does not create a "stage name", nor does the result fail to be the "most generally recognizable" name, since adding a diacritic mark does not cause people's brains to melt and fail to recognize the letter "s" or whatever. It's extremely common on Wikipedia to consistently spell properly, with diacritics, names that should have diacritics. This does not have universal support (I recall some anti-diacritics rant page that got WP:MFDed a while back), but it has enough support that trying to force no-diacritics spellings is controversial, and not just in bio articles. This is not actually a WP:NCP or even WP:AT issue at all, but a WP:MOS issue more generally, like other style matters. The article title should be the same as what is used in prose, or that actually will lead to reader confusion. To the extent that naming conventions are applicable here, they already have rules about how to disambiguate, including adding middle names or initials, and so on. Even article naming policy and sub-guidelines don't follow WP:COMMONNAME off a cliff. WP:COMMONSENSE moderates everything on Wikipedia.
My personal take on this is that trying to force incorrect/simplified spellings on tennis players (separately, as if they were their own species), based on the preferences of a professional association for its own internal purposes, is a WP:UNDUE issue, and the argument that people could ever possibly be confused that a world-class tennis player named Saša Tuksar is a different person than the world-class tennis player named Sasa Tuksar, is pure nonsense. Please demonstrate a comparable example of such confusion arising, ever, even once. Forcing no-diacritic spellings also smacks of WP:SOAPBOX, especially given that the proponent for doing so has felt compelled to write an essay about the off-wiki reasons for such orthography, as if personally a reliable source on the matter; this is not what WP essays are for. Translating one's own take on why a sport league prefers one orthographic convention, in its own publications and materials, into Wikipedia page moves and content edits is also possibly a WP:NOR problem. WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied by noting the non-diacritic spelling somewhere in the prose, probably in the lead section.
This page should be moved to userspace as a personal essay, as its level of English orthographical jingoism certainly doesn't represent the the entire WikiProject whose name has been applied to it. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 17:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Actually, an RfC is better, because this is a proposal for a naming convention/style rule, not an essay. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.18:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the page should be associated with the WikiProject (=a group of editors) is entirely up to the participants in the group, not to outsiders like you and me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This essay was written on the basis of a long discussion we had at the tennis project Talk: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Player_names_have_no_diacritics and I also mentioned that on the Talk page here. The idea behind it is to collect all the relevant material in one place, so that it is easier to refer to it. In RM and other discussion we often formulate these same arguments, and then other editors ask for more details about this IPIN or other points we bring up. To have them in one essay makes life easier for all of us. Since the essay is based not only on information that I have collected but also includes material from other editors (like the exceptions on Eurosport), I found it logical to put the essay within the tennis project space. Is there any WP policy against doing that? If not then this discussion is basically finished already. You can agree or disagree with what is in the essay, that's all.
But I have a few questions which I hope @SMcCandlish can answer:
This is not a WP:MOS issue, because MOS allows for both possibilities: it tells us what to do when an article/name is kept at native spelling, and what to do when an article/name is kept at a more common English spelling. Do you agree?
You question the use of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:STAGENAME for tennis players. If an artist or writer changes just one letter in their "real name", and uses that name for their purpose of performing or writing, then we not consider that a "stagename" because only one letter was changed and it is "opaque" to the reader? I think considerations about COMMONNAME and STAGENAME come into play as soon as there is any change to the "real name" or native spelling of the name. Do you see any reason to handle tennis players differently then we would handle writers or actors?
I see a lot of editors arguing as if "use diacritics in names" is a WP policy, but it is clearly not. Quoting from the current WP:UE policy: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g., Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence." Now let's have a good look at that. The name of Kierkegaard is cited as an example, so this confirms that this policy also applies to names of persons. It tells us that English-language usage decides on spelling and nothing else. In other words, if "Besançon" were commonly found as "Besancon" in English usage, then the article would be kept at Besancon instead, even though it is only a small difference in one diacritic. If that policy gets changed, then you are welcome to let us know, and then we will happily change or even delete this essay on the project tennis.
If it is a fact that a certain sport (in this case tennis) has its own convention to use a certain consistent spelling of names, and that spelling gets picked up by nearly all English language sources, then shouldn't WP reflect that fact in its articles on that topic? Aren't we here to "report on what we find" rather than "report on how we think it should be". If only anglicized names are used in tennis, then that's how it is. Then it are stagenames. Putting diacritics back in where none are found in the overwhelming majority of our sources, would simply show that we are biased against non-diacritics spelling of names.
Anyway, it is nice to see so much interest for this essay, just days after it is written. It shows that the diacritics issue is still very alive on WP. I understand that this essay may be seen as "very problematic" by those who want to see a consistent use of diacritics in all names. But as long as that is not written policy, you cannot blame the project tennis for going with the existing policy that requires us to go with the "English-language usage". It is very clear what the English-language usage is for tennis names, and that's what this essay is pointing out.MakeSense64 (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reading the endless move debates on Novak Djokovic in his archives, Talk:Novak_Djokovic/Archive_1, Talk:Novak_Djokovic/Archive_2, Talk:Novak_Djokovic/Archive_3. Very interesting stuff since it got a lot of editors involved. It almost seemed like exhaustion set in or they may have changed more article titles. What's also interesting is seeing links to wiki policy and guidelines that have changed through the years but with the actual wording in quotes. "Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign terms": Use anglicized spellings; native spellings are an optional alternative if they use the English alphabet [not Latin]. The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage. In particular, diacritics are optional, except where English overwhelmingly uses them. I know that's not how it's written now. Many more stylist experts and foreign editors have changed things, for better and for worse. That line means nothing now but it was interesting seeing how things were in 2008. The actual 4 debates are just as relevant today though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What amazes me is that so many editors go on citing MOS as an argument. WP:UE is a policy, as is easily seen at the top of the page, while WP:MOS is only a guideline, as can be verified on the top of that page. Aren't we supposed to consider the policies before we try to use guidelines? So WP:UE has to be our first consideration, and it clearly tells us to decide spelling of names on the basis of English-language usage. Things become problematic when guidelines are pushed ahead of policies. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is that the answer to the question posed in the title of this RfC is "no". Additionally, a great majority of participants express a preference for retaining diacritics in the title of articles, either generally or as applied to tennis players in particular. Sandstein 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This idea was proposed at WP:Requested moves/Tennis in June 2008, and rejected, that diacritics should be removed from the titles of all tennis player biography articles that had them, on the basis that at least one major tennis federation does not use the diacritics, and that they're not commonly used in the English-language press. This idea is being re-proposed at the draft WP:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names. Consensus can change, but often doesn't. The outcome of this re-discussion could have some influence on the larger perennial topic of permitting orthographic variation versus preferring typographic consistency, and the related debate about following reliable sources on what spelling is actually correct versus reliable sources on what variant is most often used in the press. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 18:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Note: This has also somewhat recently been discussed as an RfC about a proposed change to the naming conventions, at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC (very inconclusive, but leaned somewhat toward being more, not less, permissive with regard to diacritics). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.21:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased question: "Is it appropriate for a wikiproject to insist on no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English-language press?" I didn't mean to imply that wikiprojects have the authority to require anything in the strict sense, nor to imply "British" rather than "generally English-language" press. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.22:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, for reasons given in detail immediately above at #Very problematic. This re-proposal is WP:FORUMSHOPPING of something already clearly rejected by consensus. Its particulars raise WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NPOV/WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOR/WP:UNDUE, WP:AT, WP:MOS, WP:BIAS, WP:COMMONSENSE and other policy/guideline problems. Some essay points like WP:SSF also come to mind (what specialist sources, like tennis federation rosters, prefer as a stylistic matter does not trump reliably-sourced facts). I seriously doubt that years of consistent opposition to dumbing-down all names that don't use bare-English orthography has suddenly melted away. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree, S, but I think it's bad form for you to post an RFC and then immediate answer it in the negative. Wait for others to comment... Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've always done it that way. I'm not asking for comments to help me decide something, I'm asking for the community to show a consensus for or against a proposition. I'm part of that community and consensus. I'd be interested in discussing the matter in user talk if you feel I'm being wrongheaded on this. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.21:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. The whole basis of the Wikipedia is Unicode and the work of many people including myself to ensure that Unicode works for people should not be denigrated by a "Funny Letters Are Too Hard" approach to Article titling or any other aspect of the Wikipedia. Many English speakers are polyglots, and many Wikipedia editors speak mother tongues other than English even though they edit here. A person's name in the Latin alphabet should be respected in article titles on any Latin-alphabet wiki. -- Evertype·✆19:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - It's not only incorrect (and misleading) to misspell people's names, but it's also entirely unnecessary. That's what Wikipedia has redirects for. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. Wikipedia does distinguish between birth names and professional names, especially as they may be anglicized. If tennis players themselves do omit the diacritics for professional purposes, then this project may have a good argument. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does it "depend"? That would be a case-by-case situation of reliable sources showing that the person changed their name for professional purposes and publicly uses the new spelling consistently; how tennis event organaizers choose to display it in stats has no relationship to the BLP subject's actual usage and preferences. This RfC is about whether a wikiproject can make the huge novel synthesis leap that because a major sport governing body, for their own internal purposes, uses simplified orthography, that this represents professional name changes for all of their member players, and represents an international standard, rather than simple lazy accident that a lot of sportswriters run with (they base what the write on the information provided to them by event organizers, and aren't like to go on name research sprees, after all). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.22:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should give a player's name as it is commonly given in the sources, not speculate wildly concerning what his or her preference might be. Kauffner (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. A WikiProject (that's wikijargon for "a group of editors, just like anybody else, who happen to like working with each other") can't require anything. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages. Groups of editors ("WikiProjects") can encourage, advocate, and express a preference for something, but they can't require anything. Decisions about article titles are made by the actual editors at the articles in question, who need to give due consideration to the community's views on the issue, as documented in the official policy at WP:Article titles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No You have got to be kidding. This debate has been rehashed over and over for years. And just finished a couple lengthy multi-month discussions at the wiki-wide level. -DJSasso (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - ITF that dictates this non-diacritic requisite (but allows only to French and Spanish players to keep/register their names correctly) is a biased business venture interested in the matter. So expecting tennis article editors to blindly follow it instead of : representing an encyclopedic quality and focusing on backup search for third party sources that can reveal the proper spelling - is the wrong direction. Apart from the question asked, in a Wikipedia point of view diacritics are important in titles because they aren't just meaningless decorations but can make difference between two persons. E.g. Imre Peterdi is different from composer Péter Péterdi while his surname is only one accent away (it's just a representation, I'm aware that their first names already differentiate them). LajbiHolla @ me • CP19:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No This is one of the perennial Wiki questions, up there with the spelling of yoghurt and whether schools are notable. The basic premise is flawed - "Wikipedia should mis-spell names in specific circumstances". We would never suggest deliberately mis-leading readers or editors unless absolutely necessary (such as those company names with lowercase first letters in names and such). We would never suggest making certain words deliberately 'easier' unless it was to make clear a complicated point of detail in science or maths. Yes, all diacritics and accents are unusual for English speakers to type, but it would be counter to the basic principles of the project if we pandered to a particular world view just to make things less of a hassle in very specific circumstances. I have sympathy with the argument, though ultimately this has to be rejected, because being right is far more of an objective to follow than being selfish. doktorbwordsdeeds19:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - Names used by ITF/ATP are not nicknames, they aren't even translated to english, they are just players' actual names minus diacritics. I don't see any reason why WP should follow that... if some player has a verifiable name with diacritics then it is a more accurate information. And I don't think that it's a problem if WP has more (sourced!) information about tennis players than ATP/ITF websites. Niktute (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This proposal was made in bad faith and should be closed immediately. The proposer quite obviously wants it rejected. The proper standard to apply to these titles can be found at WP:DIACRITIC: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)". A title should inform the reader, tell him how a subject is referred to by the best English-language sources. It should not provide a form that has rarely or never appeared in published English, nor should editors base decisions on assumptions concerning what a subject's preference might be. It's not just the deadline-oriented media that drops diacritics. The established sports reference works, including Sports Illustrated Almanac, ESPN Sports Almanac, and Notable Sports Figures, do the same. Kauffner (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since we're talking specifically of biography article titles (ie. names of people) here, the more relevant guideline is at WP:MOSPN#Diacritics. WP:DIACRITIC is about the use of diacritics in general. According to MOSPN, "Foreign proper names written in languages which use the Latin alphabet often include characters with diacritics, ligatures and others that are not commonly used in modern English. Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them." Jafeluv (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOSPN also says, "For information on the use of proper names as article titles, see Wikipedia:Article titles." This page is policy and both guidelines are subordinate to it: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage". Kauffner (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is a major style issue and involves the core policies that define us as a project. As a general-purpose reference work, we should maintain the relevant standards of accuracy and consistency. It is true that Britannica is not consistent with diacritics when it comes to tennis (and ice hockey) players. However, the complete lack of native spellings in the mentioned articles suggests that this might not be intentional. Furthermore, authoritative style guides like AMA, APA, ASA and Chicago are very pro-diacritic and make no exceptions for sports writing. Prolog (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but No - I do appreciate that many sports articles stubs are generated from sources like ESPN, English-language sports websites and so on, which we wouldn't expect to use diacritics, but WP is in effect an international project and with BLPs (most sports stubs are BLPs) but then when French tennis players (not just businessman/brand René Lacoste) seem to be allowed the é, it becomes churlish to deny Eastern Europeans the same accent friendliness in their own BLPs. If someone has taken US citizenship then that's another issue, most haven't, they are on their national teams and often, I see, sports stubs fail to add a "WikiProject Croatia" or whatever, to the stub Talk page. Had they done so, then the outcome on that stub would be different. The one thing we must avoid is either (a) Bjorn Borg (in Swedish Björn Borg) style leads, and (b) the WP:STAGENAME argument comparing to "Sting" and "Pink" used to justify this lead edit). The ITF, or ESPN, being unable to cope with anything more complicated than é is not a good WP rationale for deleting diacritics off BLPs. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No – sources are irrelevant for style issues. Professional organisations, newspapers and others may have their own rules for whatever reasons (score board display, typesetting ease, ignorance), but Wikipedia sets its own style guidelines based on encyclopedic principles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have answered the questions in the "very problematic" section above, and raising some new questions there. The standard infobox at the top of the page makes clear that this is an essay and not a guideline or policy. @SMcCandlish formulates his concerns as if this is already being proposed as a guideline. That is clearly not the case. If project tennis feels this is ready to become guideline, then we will go through the steps needed for it. As such @SMcCandlish RfC is rather premature, but we welcome your feedback anyway. The essay is just collection of arguments we frequently bring up in RM and other discussions, so it makes sense to have it all in one place, rather than type out the same information again and again. Are there any valid objections to that? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are objections to that, essays are often treated as guidelines even if they are not. Clearly this RfC is about removing that wording from the essay so it is not premature. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have read WP:ESSAYS and I didn't see any indication that essays have to be limited to User namespace. What I read is this: "Essays may range from personal or minority views, to views that enjoy a wide consensus amongst Wikipedia editors. Essays typically contain advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Unlike policies and guidelines, usually no formal attempt to judge the community's support for the essay's content has been made.". Editors who think that WP:NOESSAY applies to this page are welcome to make their case. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let's have a look at the policies that are mentioned in the essay. WP:UE is straightforward and recommends: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage". Which policy is "overtly contradicted" (point 3 in NOESSAY), when the rest of the essay makes an attempt to look for the most common English-language usage of tennis names in our commonly used sources for tennis articles?
Then there is the relevant policy around WP:COMMONNAMES. Clearly we have several tennis players at their common name already: Steffi Graf is just one example. Which WP policy is overtly contradicted in the statement that is made there?
And then there is WP:STAGENAME, which is a guideline and I think an essay is probably allowed to argue against a guideline. But that's not the case here. The STAGENAME guideline also covers nicknames, and clearly we have tennis players whose article is under their nickname. E.g. Arantxa Sánchez Vicario, Arantxa is a nickname.
The reference to WP:MOSBIO (also a guideline) is not contested as far as I can see.
Please read WP:LAWYER. You're missing the point and trying the bury the debate under technicalities instead of using WP:COMMONSENSE with regard to what our policies and guidelines say and mean, and why. The question you've asked has actually already been answered several times in the course of this debate. Please do not engage in WP:IDHT games. Your outlandish "it's a stagename" proposition has been shot down several times already on at least three different pages. Your COMMONNAMES argument has also been deconstructed already. MOSBIO doesn't say anything relevant (it mentions nothing about spelling and diacritics). Meanwhile, WP:V (plus WP:RS), WP:NPOV and WP:NOR all require that you prove that any individual player has actually adopted the forced misspelling of their name as an actual professional name, rather than make the novel synthesis assumptions you are blatantly making. You're violating three policies at once – actually 4, counting WP:NOT#SOAPBOX – in trying to get rid of the diacritics that bother you even when we have reliable sources on what the correct spellings are. Just get over it. The entire world isn't going to stop spelling things correctly just because your brain asplode when you encounter diacritics. Deleting them is a blatant falsifiation of facts. A sports organization doing it is shamefully jingoistic and lazy, not something to be emulated!
Also, to rebut your statements that you aren't advancing this as if it were a guideline, I have to point out that you've written it in guideline-style wording, not essay wording; you wrote above "you cannot blame the project tennis for going with the existing policy that requires us to go with the 'English-language usage'", which (never mind that it misunderstands policy; I've detailed that below) is a (false) assertion that WikiProject Tennis, not you, are advancing this draft guideline proposal, mislabeled an essay, collectively; and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelinesJayJ47 added the gist of what became TENNISNAMES without discussion or justification, not even an edit summary (I've marked the wording as {{under discussion}} for now, though this discussion has clearly snowballed against your position, and it isn't the place of an project style guide to try to dictate policy matters anyway), then later you yourself added an explicit inline reference to TENNISNAMES (which I removed; guidelines do not defer to essays). Proof's in the pudding. PS: It's clear that this is just a 2- or 3-person show against diacritics. No one seems to agree with you on this, even other members of your project, like Lajbi. Per WP:CONSENSUS, a general consensus isn't invalidated by one or a handful of holdouts. "Consensus does not require unanimity." Basically, you've run with a highly personal [mis]interpretation of policy and tried to codify it for the project you spend most of your editing time in, for your own comfort, instead of trying to gain a wider consensus. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.17:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You just continue to throw policies around, but have you ever tried WP:AGF? You came here with all guns blazing, but you do not even seem to consider that this essay is written to try to improve WP coverage on tennis, which is currently a mess. Actually, it was the closing editor on the Sasa Hirszon RM who suggested to me that the project tennis can try to create a guideline and get broader community input on it. One way to do so is first write an essay and then see what is needed to improve and get it to guideline standard if possible. While your RfC here has yielded some useful feedback, the way you have been participating does not suggest that you are here to improve this essay, or solve the problems with our tennis articles.
The formulation of the question here is in itself problematic and lacks NPOV. You rephrased your question, but the section title and the invitations you have been spreading on other pages are all asking: "Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names...." That formulation automatically pushes towards "No" votes, because a wikiproject cannot "require" anything. You rephrased your question to "Is it appropriate for a wikiproject to insist...". That's not much better, because an "essay" does not insist on anything, it expresses the comments or advice of one or more editors, and it can be a minority view.
By the way, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC did not lean to any new policy, the proposal failed and the closing admin formulated this conclusion, which is definitely relevant and helpful for this essay: "There is general agreement that diacritics should be used for the name of a subject if the majority of English-language reliable sources use them, and there is agreement that if the commonly used name for the subject is an Anglicized version that everyone will recognize, it should be used. But these are items that already had consensus before the RfC started."
Let's have a look at that for our tennis names. Are the majority of English-language reliable sources using diacritics in tennis names? The clear answer is NO. If you find more English-language reliable sources using diacritics in tennis names, then you are welcome to bring them up. But currently this goes at least 95-5 to the non-diacritics names. The commonly used names for tennis players are an anglicized version that everyone will recognize. Everyone recognizes these names because it are the names that are displayed on the scoreboard, in drawsheets, in official results and so on... That's all we need to know. And that RfC reconfirms it as existing policy as of last August. As a tennis project it is not our job to against clear policy that was reconfirmed 6 months ago. Arguments like "the journalists are only repeating spelling errors" are thus nothing but "I don't like it" votes. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will post here my formal answer to the question of this RfC: "Is it appropriate for a wikiproject to insist on no-diacritics names, based on an aroganisation's rule or commonness in English-language press?"
Answer: it is not only appropriate to base spelling of names on the commonness in English-language usage, it is required by WP:UEpolicy. Most tennis players are not covered in print encyclopedias or scholarly sources, so naturally our tennis articles are referenced mainly by what is found in English-language press and on the official websites of the tennis organizations. In exploring what is the common English-language usage for tennis names this essay is thus following policy. The use of a naming convention within the organizations that rule tennis, is not irrelevant to the question. Because if the press uses the names found in "official" sources like ITF, then that becomes the common English-language usage, which is what we see in our sources. In fact, departing from the naming convention used in the sports easily leads to verifiability problems in articles like 2011 Kazan Kremlin Cup – Singles. Hundreds of such tournament articles are created every year on WP, because even ATP Challenger Tour tennis is considered notable. If some players are with "real" name while others are at their common name or anglicized name, then the spelling in these articles becomes very inconsistent. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing people always miss when arguing about this topic and claiming UE and COMMONNAME say we should follow exactly what the sources say miss this quote from commonname "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Simply stripping diacritics without properly translating the names is inaccurate and is a mistake. Thus per commonname we shouldn't be using them even if reliable sources use them more often. So insisting that no-diacritics names be used is actually not something a wikiproject should do. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In effect, that statement could then always be used to argue that a non-diacritics spelling found more commonly in English-language usage is "a mistake" that we need to correct. It makes the WP:COMMONNAME policy ambiguous. Who will determine what is a "mistake" versus "common English-language usage", and on what basis? That is not explained very well in the policy. It would explain why these diacritics discussions keep coming back. One side of the argument can say that policy requires us to use the spelling most commonly found in English-language sources, while the other side of the argument can argue that the common English-language spelling is a mistake. And both are pointing to the same policy. Funny.
My question then is: is that spelling really a mistake if we see the same spelling consistently used for so many different tennis players in our different English-language sources? How plausible is it that the same mistakes are made by different sources, for so many different names and continue doing so for years? How likely is it that whenever a woman player changes her name on her IPIN registration (for example when she gets married), then instantly all our sources about tennis start making the same mistake with her name at the same time? These names are not mistakes, but the result of a deliberate naming convention used within this sport's organization. This has nothing to do with mistakes. Basically the "No" voters in this discussion are saying : "we don't like the naming convention used by the tennis organizations". Shouldn't we wonder whether that is our judgment to make? What happened to WP:NPOV and reporting on what we find? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can say its a mistake, because proper translations of the names do exist. Simply removing diacritics is often just an archaic behaviour stemming from old printing press days where cost was considered more important than accuracy. Yes they might be a deliberate choice made by this organizations, but that doesn't stop them from being a mistake or inaccurate. If a bunch of sources started saying the sky was green on purpose through a deliberate choice, we wouldn't follow suit and say the sky is green. We would instead say that those sources aren't reliable for the colour of the sky. (And might I say welcome to the diacritics debate and why it is fought over and over and over all across the wiki. Because about half the wiki does think that it is always wrong to simply strip diacritics as opposed to translating the name properly. The most recent wiki-wide RfC on the matter ended about almost exactly a 50-50 outcome with people thinking they should always be used or never be used.) -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If proper translations of a certain tennis name exists, then why are the editors not showing us the reliable English sources where that proper translations is being used already? Secondly, we will remain with the problem that the name found on the official tennis sites (and by extension in most of our sources) is the translation that the person has chosen for himself on his/her IPIN registration. Who are we to alter the spelling they have chosen? It concerns me that WP editors are now putting themselves up to judge whether somebody's name is a "mistake" or not. If somebody changes two letters in his name and starts singing, then we would never call it a "mistake", no matter what he has done with his name. Why should WP treat tennis players differently than is done with singers or sumo wrestlers? I have not seen a convincing answer to that question. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't choose it. They were forced to alter it. It's not Novak "Djoker" Djokovic or "Fed Express". Because that's what a wrestler name look like. But Japan wrestler Rikidōzan (which is a stage name not his birth name) is spelled like this and not Rikidozan. See the difference?LajbiHolla @ me • CP16:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no difference. Many singers use a stagename that was more or less forced unto them by their producer when they first got a contract. Just like our sumo wrestlers are "given" a stagename. Does that make it any less a stagename? The Japanese wrestler's name is spelled like it is found in most of our sources, why shouldn't we do the same for tennis players? MakeSense64 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're blatantly comparing apples and oranges, twice over. You are confusing different names, such as Winona Ryder whose real name is Winona Horowitz, on the one hand with slightly variant spellings promoted by the registration system of a sport organization, on the other hand. No comparable. You're are further confusing names that people have voluntarily adopted as promotional and/or privacy-protecting monickers, like Ryder (whether they were initially suggested by agents or producers would be something that differs on a case by case basis, and not relevant; there is absolutely no question that Winona Horowitz calls herself Winona Ryder except among family and close friends), on the one hand, with a lack of spelling precision that has been advanced by one organization and repeated by sports journalists who didn't know better on the other hand. Not comparable. There is no evidence whatsoever, that tennis (or hockey, etc.) players agree with these alterations to their names, and have adopted them, and refer to themselves that way. The odds of any of that being true are actually absurdly low. Even in a possible handful of cases where it's true, it's only true for those individuals, not for all players of a sport. You are pushing an unbelievable pile of origial research (more like original blind assumption with no research at all) and a WP:SOAPBOX position, bordering on WP:BATTLEGROUND intensity, of what is simply looking like a personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT loathing of diacritics. Your peccadilloes have nothing to do with how Wikipedia is or should be written. This page of jingoistic nonsense should be WP:MFDed as divisive and inflammatory. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.05:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't forget to invite the Sumo project. Their sport also uses names that are decided within the rules of their organizations. It gives the player even less say, quoting from the Sumo article: "All sumo wrestlers take wrestling names called shikona (しこ名), which may or may not be related to their real names. Often wrestlers have little choice in their name, which is given to them by their trainer (or stablemaster), or by a supporter or family member who encouraged them into the sport. This is particularly true of foreign-born wrestlers. A wrestler may change his wrestling name several times during his sumo career."
I agree that it would be good to have a consistent naming policy for all sports, but if naming conventions in sumo are accepted and respected here on WP, then why not the naming conventions that exist in tennis or in other sports? Just like sumo wrestlers, singers and actors, tennis players are also on the stage, performing in front of a public, and doing so under a name that often differs from their "real name". I have not seen any argument why we should not consider that a STAGENAME, even if the difference with the "real name" is small. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get a stagename just by ignoring diacritics. It's still exacly the same name, just without diacritics. Tennis players do not have stage names, they compete under their real names. Niktute (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's really simple. When it isn't otherwise indicated a name in a press release is a real name. It would be very unorthodox journalism if it'd go by this:"French President Nicolas Sarkozy (real name) met Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen (real name) in Helsingør (real name) on 13th October 2010 (real date)". So all players compete under their real name unless there's an article that it's a pseudonym. It's you who have to find proof that these are stage names. It is how it works on articles on sumo wretlers you mentioned. Sticking to these examples here's one from Akebono "Adopting the shikona of Akebono, meaning "new dawn" in Japanese,[a footnote to Mina Hall's The Big Book of Sumo] he made his professional debut in March 1988". So it is the stage name that needs to be cited. IPIN doesn't tell us anything only that there's a non-diacritic name that they enforce to use, but there's nothing about that this is their stage name. For singers e.g. if they get arrested and got reported on TMZ it goes like this:"Snoop Dogg (real name Calvin Broadus) got stopped by local police on the Los Angeles freeway for alleged marihuana possession." Real name of a player/singer/competitor is the default to use like normal. I haven't seen any article in my life that says tennis players use other than their real names. Other thing is that we have proof some of them were born with diacritics in their names. It's kind of obvious. LajbiHolla @ me • CP10:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then what to say about Celine Dion ? Her article is kept at the stagename, even though it only differs in one diacritic from her "real name". And that's an article with FA status. We also have proof that she was born with a diacritic in her name, but that doesn't matter. We can also not argue that it is a "mistake" or "error". It is the commonness in English-language usage that decides. There is no reason to do it any different for tennis players. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Apples and oranges, MakeSense64. Celine Dion's own official homepage uses that spelling, making it the most reliable possible source for how she prefers her name spelling (as a public figure). Similar proof about a tennis player would be sufficient sourcing as to which spelling to use for that person (i.e., that would be proof of an actual stage name). The vagaries of a registration system do not magically manufacture "official" pseudonyms, they simply make errors. The New Mexico Motor Vehicle Department has a registration system that cannot handle two middle names (yes, even today, as if their system were designed by a high school kid in 1982). Consequently, my name is incorrect on my driver's license, which is also my official government ID (I don't know how ID works in, say, South Africa or New Zealand; here, the DL does double-duty). My name has not changed. It is not a pseudonym, a professional name, a legal name, or anything other than a stupid government database error. Please note that a government has far more authority over such things as legal designations that some sorts organization does. If my name has not changed because my government-issued ID is wrong, then a tennis player's name absolutely has not changed just because a sport governing body got it wrong for their own internal reasons. QED.
The RfC isn't about proven cases of a player having adopted a spelling as a stage name. Policy already covers that. It's about WP:TENNIS two tendentious members of WP:TENNIS pushing a poorly-thought-out naming convention masquerading as an essay that would force all tennis player articles to non-diacritics spellings with no evidence with regard to the known preferences of the article subjects. It's a massive WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV problem. A sports organization's registration system is not a reliable source on the orthography of personal names, especially when we know for a fact that it intentionally misspells them for organizational convenience! It automatically disqualifies itself as an RS, just like a book on rocket science that contains a disclaimer saying "half this book is made-up nonsense". Sports journalism blindly following the bad spelling of the org.'s registration system is likewise automatically non-reliable sourcing on name spelling, just like journalism about rockets explicitly based on the bogus rocketry book. This is just elementary logic, people. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.16:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Motor vehicle registration has nothing to do with this, that's just another red herring. This essay looks into the question what are the most commonly found names for tennis players in English-language usage. Since doing that is right in line with WP:UE the case cannot be made that this goes against policy. The essay also brings up IPIN, because if it is a demonstrable fact that the player's names at the ITF site are under the direct control of the player, then this is no different from using a certain name on their own website. The name shows the "preference of the bearer" with regards to how they want their name to be spelled when it comes to their tennis acitivities. It is a stagename because players are on the stage and performing in front of a public, that's no different from a singer or an actor. Yes, some players perform under their "real name", but that's the case with some singers and actors too. The example of Celine Dion has been brought to show that even with a difference in just one diacritic, it can be a stagename. We cannot put this away as "errors" or "mistakes", because anglicization of a name depends on the "preference of the user" , not on any rules. That's why IPIN becomes very relevant in this regard, because players can edit it just like they can edit their own website.
The assertions that sports organizations have it all wrong, and are misspelling names, and their registration system is broken, and journalist are blindly copying the errors..., all sound completely void of NPOV. It is advocacy that sports organizations (and journalist) should be using your ideas and rules for spelling names. Where is the NPOV when you are judging against what organizations or journalists are doing?
Real NPOV means we go with what we find. And this essay takes a look in what we find. If we find tennis names spelled without diacritics in 90% of sources (for whatever reasons), then that will normally be what we go with. If we find that native spelling has been adapted into English language in the majority of our reliable sources (for whatever reasons), then that will normally be what we go with. Exceptions can exist, but we should not put the exception ahead of the main rule, and that's what you are trying to do. In 100000s of sources about tennis you will find the anglicized names per players' registration at ITF. The same anglicized names used consistently over and over. The same anglicized names being visible on the scoreboard during matches (and thus not rarely seen by millions on tv), even in countries that normally use diacritics in their own language (see French Open). If there is an international tournament in Russia, the names on the scoreboard are not displayed in Cyrillic alphabet, the names you see are the anglicized names per preference of the bearer, even for the Russian players. You have the good right to think or believe that the tennis organizations are "wrong" in enforcing such a system, but that is then a personal opinion, not a neutral point of view. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, naming on Wikipedia shouldn't be determined by use in the press or any specific organisation. Representing the name with diacritics as in the original language is more accurate and more fitting for an encyclopedia. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Accurate names should be preferred. If it's been established that some sports bodies (ie. not typographical authorities) routinely strip diacritics, it's great that we have that knowledge - but we need not repeat that error. bobrayner (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But on what basis the contention is being made that these names are "not accurate"? I find it highly problematic that a group of editors tries to put away the anglicized names of tennis players (as commonly found in English-language usage) as "errors", thus trying to bypass the WP:UE policy.
Do we consider it "errors" because certain "rules" of anglicizations were not followed? I have taken a look at our article about Anglicisation (not policy or guideline, but it explains the topic quite well), and nothing in this article suggests that the anglicization of personal names is bound by any rules. In fact it literally states: "The anglicisation of a personal name now usually depends on the preferences of the bearer.". If so, then we are in no position to label any anglicized name as an "error" or "mistake" without clear evidence that it is a mistake. That's why the IPIN registration system is highly relevant in this regard, because the name on the registration show us the preferences of the bearer as far as the anglicized spelling of their name goes. We are thus in no position to go against that.
It is easily demonstrable that the ITF site is not just cutting away diacritics, because we also find Julia Goerges and Rainer Schuettler. When our English-language sources pick up the player names as found on the sites of official tennis organizations, they are going with the preferences of the bearer, as was expressed by them in their IPIN registration. That's the point this essay is trying to make. Can WP knowingly go against the bearer preferences for anglicization of their personal name, especially when it is that name that is found in nearly all our sources? That's the question it now comes down to. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, be serious. Do you really expect e.g. Croatian players to enter any of their šđčćž marks on their keyboard in that registration, while at the same time seeing that manual you previously linked (or Fyunck, I don't recall now), the one that explicitly tells them please do not enter any letters with diacritics? They're tennis players, not computer experts, they won't risk later having to enter the same when they're at some tournament in a foreign country, 10,000 km from home. Conversely, this is an encyclopedia that has already had that problem solved - by way of the vast majority of readers having modern browsers and Unicode fonts, and {{R from title without diacritics}}, and Google, and all the other goodies out there that help. Overall, this discussion is becoming increasingly circular and pointless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This simply shows you have not checked out the mentioned pages. A Croatian player may try to enter šđčćž marks in his name, but the IPIN registration will not take them. It then gives a "family name invalid" error and you cannot move on to the second page. You can try for yourself.
And you seem to think that players go around the world and then locally sign up with their name. Nope, to participate in a tournament the player has to sign up well in advance, right from the very same IPIN site. Player logs in on IPIN and signs up for a tournament, if he wants to withdraw (e.g. injured) he goes to same IPIN site. So, if e.g. our friend Sasa Tuksar is not satisfied with the spelling of his name, then he can change it to "Sasha Tuksar" and then he will start appearing in draws and on tournament scoreboards with that new name. Players use the IPIN site almost weekly, so there is no excuse for not changing the spelling of their player name if that's what they want. The spelling is restricted to English alphabet, but players agree to that (and to all other ITF rules) automatically when they sign up for playing professional tennis. That's how it is. Now, is WP reporting on what is, or on what some editors would want to be?
Unicode has nothing to do with it. If tennis players always compete under an anglicized name (for whatever reason), then our coverage about tennis should reflect that. At least if factual "accuracy" still means something in an encyclopedia. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But since these are not stage names (you have no evidence for that) then the bearer of a personal name can not be noone else but the person who is called by that name. ITF is the bearer of the names such as those of its association, its tours, its matchfact (ATP Ricoh's Matchfacts), its Rankings (ATP South African Airways) and other business related-nomenclature. These examples show that they clearly use it for commercial purposes, which can not be allowed at Wikipedia when it comes to living person's names. The preference of the bearer here refers to the player. And since you've admitted that they can not enter a diacritic form of their names into the IPIN system it doesn't mean that they prefer it that way but that they have no other choice at ITF (but they have that choice when creating their websites, signing autographs...etc). Tennis makes them notable here as the first step but the second (titling) has nothing to do with. It is their preference of name usage that decides. If they use diacritics (and most of them does) then we have to respect it and not some registering system, which is biased towards English (and French and Spanish) languages and can have errors - since its nothing more than a computer software. If we can move forward from that IPIN/Celine Dion/sumo wrestlers angle (all of which has been disproved) maybe we can step onto the constructive way of editing. LajbiHolla @ me • CP13:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spending time to move a page back and forth hijacks constructive editing. To have correct article titles is also something worth my time I'm not complaining about that. It is the ammount of debate that accompanies that pure 17 "No" votes (and all of them clearly expressed their views) that spoils the wikiprocess. LajbiHolla @ me • CP16:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page should simply be deleted at WP:MFD. It is not an essay. It's written as a guideline proposal, and has been pushed as one, in kind of "ticksy" ways, yet has clearly been rejected by consensus (directly and unanimously in this RfC, apart from its two and only two proponents, and indirectly by attempting to codify an anti-diacritics extremist position that has been already been explicitly rejected at WT:AT, WP:VPP and many other forums many times over the years). It doesn't have nearly enough history and community interest behind it to deserve a {{historical}} tag. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.05:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can rant on as much as you want. But the simple fact remains that none of the editors who vote "No" have brought up any new reliable English-language sources where the tennis names are spelled with diacritics. Where is the time that WP relied on sources in the first place? WP clearly states that essays can even represent minority positions. Ten or twenty editors who vote "I don't like" how sports organizations handle names and how journalists write them, that doesn't mean much. The question is: do we report on what we find, or do we insist on changing what we find? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then one or two editors who are against diacritics mean even less...the simple fact is that those numeruous editors voting no don't need to bring up Enlgish sources because the question was despite "the commonness in English press" and they still voted no. LajbiHolla @ me • CP19:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No dropping diacritics is not the same as having an English Version of the name. Anglisising names has gone out of fashion with the first World War anyway. Agathoclea (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No: I have come across a lot of these while stub-sorting (eg Roberto Maytin) and been surprised to see articles at diacritics-free titles with the Spanish or whatever form of name given as an alternative in the lead. Perhaps I should have been WP:BOLD and moved the articles to their correct spelling. Just because the computer systems of a sport have been created in a way which can't handle correct spellings and mangles all names into a flat diacritics-free version for ease of handling by anglophones, there's no reason for WikiPedia to follow suit and use ignorant-looking article titles. Of course there must be redirects from all variations of names, and DEFAULTSORT added so that they all file right. PamD08:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can a wikiproject base its naming on 99% of English sources, with all major affiliated organizations agreeing?
Remember this article is an essay... not a guideline. Tennis project consensus has always been to use English sources, use what the ITF and ATP/WTA use as the professional name. As was similarly decided at Hockey Marek Zidlicky. This follows wiki policy and guidelines. If a player is notable for tennis, and in all English tennis related topics their name is spelled without diacritics, then that's we we use. If the name gets spelled with diacritics in those overwhelming sources, then that's what we should use. I don't believe in ruling anything out because at wikipedia we follow the sources. Demanding diacritics is equally wrong, and against policy, if the sources point to something else. Remember these players choose their professional English alphabet name, including the world's number one player Novak Djokovic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bogus question: You have no evidence of your 99% claim, you simply assert it every time the discussion comes up, yet at previous versions of this debate (including material a few topics above on this very page) others have provided examples using diacritics. This is not really an essay at all, and you know it. You yourself have cited it as if it were a guideline in move discussions, and it is written like a guideline despite its {{essay}} tag. It is obviously a draft wikiproject style guideline, and has been integrated into an existing one by means of reference, when in July of last year, without discussion, you personally added the short-form version of it (and later a link to it) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines, as if it weren't controversial, when in fact the previous RfC was still ongoing, and that RfC did not end in favor of your position. Using diacritics is not "equally wrong" (a phrase that doesn't make much sense). It's simply correct, when we have reliable sources for the real orthography. Reliable sources for what orthography is preferred by many tennis organizations and tennis publications in their in-house styles are of no value here, because Wikipedia does not do what other random publishers do stylistically just because they do it. You are sorely confusing two completely different kinds of reliable sourcing. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.22:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bogus answer - I have listed many English sources in almost every discussion. The usual number of opposite English sources is 1 or NONE. Maybe you are a tennis expert but I haven't seen you posting in tennis articles where we would love to have more editors. You just jump in now because you're biased in one direction. To be honest I would have liked Makesense to put this "essay" on his personal page like others do. And then to make sure (as I told him) that everyone that reads the page understands it's a personal essay. Have I cited this page at all in move discussions? And if I have, have I cited it as a guideline? You seem certain so I'll take your word for the moment, but I shall also look for this. If I can't find all these links of mine to "tennis names" then you are a liar. Tennis guidelines have ended in my favor. I wasn't privy to outside guidelines. "Diacritics are simply correct" is as bogus as your other statements. We have overwhelming English sources that show you to be wrong. Those Tennis sources are of immense value here... just not to you. I have no problem at all if this essay went away as what we had before was perfectly fine and within wiki policy whether you like it or not. There is reasonable discussion and there is this "fire and brimstone" type diatribe you seem to be throwing at things. Maybe some find that effective. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My detailed response to MakeSense64, below, covers most of this. You are falling into an obvious specialist style fallacy trap. It's completely illogical to assume that one should be "a tennis expert" in order to know how to properly name a biography article just because tennis is somehow involved. IT's like assuming that you have to have a degree in physics in order to know how to properly punctuate English-language sentences in a physics article. I repeat that you are badly misunderstanding the nature and concept of reliable sourcing. Sports organization registration systems are surely reliable sources for who is and is not a registered player with that organization. Sports journalism articles are usually reliable sources on who won a game or tournament, and what the highlights of the matches were. Neither are not reliable sources on proper name orthography. I have no objection at all to MakeSense64 or whoever userspacing this thing, now that an RfC shows that there's overwhelming opposition to it as a guideline. I already showed you where the overall tennis guideline is citing this page as a subguideline. That will have to change of course, because consensus above clearly rejects this anglocentric nonsense. "Tennis guidelines have ended in my favor." doesn't make sense in English, so I don't know how to respond to that. As for you citing this in move discussions, sorry I had you confused with MakeSense64. It's grossly incivil to label other editors with terms like "liar" when a simple error is a likely explanation. As of this writing, anyone who cites Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines on the the issue is also citing this essay as if it were a guideline, since the former defers to the latter. Not for long. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.16:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That WP:SSF is also just an essay and it doesn't seem to know we have a WP:NAMINGCRITERIA policy. The "Recognizability" criterium specifically states that "Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic.". So being an expert (or at least familiar with) is not at all irrelevant in deciding the best title of articles (including BLPs). That's also the basis for the WP:UE policy, where we will often opt for the anglicized version of a name if that is the spelling of the name found most commonly in reliable English-language sources. That name is then more recognizable for an English-language reader who is familiar with the topic. So, familiar with physics in the case of a physics article, and in this case familiar with tennis or with the player in question. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When removing the lines in the guideline when referring to this essay discussion you can't just leave some lines. What you left is specific to this essay, not to anything else. Thank you for your apology. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are always referring to "tennis WP naming consensus" but never showed it. This is my last try and like to ask you again to link it here so we can have a closer look on what you call a consensus. If it's this then it's not a consensus but a debate with as many pros as contras told in it. Anything else I've missed? LajbiHolla @ me • CP23:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The players, including possible Britons and Americans such as Brontës, Raúls and Dvořáks, are forced to accept a diacriticless spelling by a registration system. That doesn't turn the spelling into a "professional name". As noted in The Elements of Typographic Style, some sources are simply "unwilling to spell correctly" if it requires the use of diacritics. These sources might be reliable for many claims, but their house styles render them useless for spelling foreign names. Prolog (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Full unicode has been implemented for over six years now! I say it's high time for the ITF to put away the clay tablet and the reed stylus. And it's not just diacritics either. Why can't Serb players register their names in Cyrillic? If the man isn't sticking it to one nationality, he's sticking it to another. Kauffner (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kauffner, you're 99% of the time right about renames, and I always listen to and respect your views, reasons. You may well be correct about the titling of the article (Bjorn Borg without umlaut) and first line in lede/lead with umlaut. But Prolog's comment above about what the ITF and ESPN would do to Emily Brontë makes any value of ITF/ESPN's restrictions pretty much irrelevant. As to Serbian - that's the one example that isn't a good example, because Serbia is the one major Cyrillic-script language that does concurrently have an official Latin script alternative which is used in some cases in Serbia. The only item in the Serbian-Latin alphabet which was debatable was the Đ (though no problem here) which used to be Dj in the old Yugoslavia - now WikiPedia:Alphabets (I can't find exact link) has guidelines to use the Đ not Dj. This is very much an exception - otherwise in a BLP the only option is to delete the diacritic, so Czesław Miłosz (correct "Cheswaf Miwosh") would become "Chesllaf Millosh." These are pronunciation aids, or they wouldn't be there in the first place. Okay there are a few languages where redundant diacritics survive where the pronunciation difference is no longer needed, but the vast majority of diacritics are there for a reason - even with an Eastern European keyboard they are still extra hassle for Croats and Czechs to add, just as they are hassle for ESPN writers, but it is part of the pronunciation. The only acheivement of deleting them from the lead (which I know you don't support) is to force readers who want to know the correct spelling to click the cs.WP or whatever interwiki in the right hand bar. If there is one, which for sports stubs there may not be. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Blade, I think you'll find that Belarusian only has a Latin transcription for certain purposes, wheras Serbian (like Mongolian - which can be written in Tibetan or Cyrillic script) has two scripts. See Robert J. Donia Sarajevo: a biography Page xxi 2006 "Serbian is most frequently rendered in the Cyrillic alphabet (although use of the Latin alphabet is becoming more common), whereas Bosnian and Croatian are written exclusively in the Latin alphabet." In ictu oculi (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that some editors are constantly trying to put this away as a style (MOS) issue. They seem to forget that policies trump guidelines. We have to consider WP:UE (a policy) before we consider WP:MOS (which is only a guideline). WP:UE is unambiguous about it: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage"
The essay is simply exploring what that means for tennis names, by showing that English-language usage is overwhelmingly in favor of non-diacritics spelling. If some editors want to change WP policies, then they can do so through the proper channels. But here we are only trying apply policy. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is simply a discussion on this particular essay, not a referendum on tennis names for all wiki. If that were the fact, where someone like Novak Djokovic could be overturned, we would need to notify all the previous editors of those 4 debates that put it at it's current position. The debate here is whether we can say to always keep the tennis names diacritic free or always follow the ITF rather than following the full chain of tennis and English sources. It may be best to simply go with all the English sources at our disposal to reach a conclusion, as we always do at wikipedia, and just continue to take each article one at a time to see where those sources lead us. Just wondering MakeSense, could this essay be moved to a branch on your own personal page like editor Prolog did with his own personal essay on diacritics? There it would look like more of a personal essay as long as when you are helping someone you always link to the top of the page. Everyone at wiki can still edit it and leave comments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the editor who started this RfC has rather quickly deleted his request to move it to userspace. There must be some good reason for that. And if moving it is not going to make any difference, and if there are no policies against keeping an essay in the tennis project space, then there is no reason to move it.
No matter how we look at it, the rationale behind this essay: collecting the bulk of English-language usage for tennis names in reliable English language sources, and see what that means in the light of our existing policies, is a perfectly legitimate use for essays afaik. Correct me if I am wrong.
The questioner's formulation, quoting: "The outcome of this re-discussion could have some influence on the larger perennial topic of permitting orthographic variation versus preferring typographic consistency, and the related debate about following reliable sources on what spelling is actually correct versus reliable sources on what variant is most often used in the press." sounds like he is worried about the "influence" this essay and the discussion around it could have. That's interesting. Is it written too well? An essay is not OK if it may have a certain "influence"?
The overwhelming response is that virtually everyone who cared to comment does see merit in the question I raised, and they pointedly disagrees with you. You are sorely misinterpreting policy, and blatantly misquoting it. Here's what WP:UE really says: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g., Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence." The three examples without diacritics are given without diacritics because the vast majority of English speakers are familiar with them and specifically familiar with them without diacritics. The vast majority of English speakers are not familiar with the names of any tennis players that are properly spelled with diacritics, so the issue does not arise at all with regard to tennis player names. (An argument could be made that Bjorn Borg is an exception, but probably only for people in their 40s and older; is Borg better known that Kierkegaard? Surely not.). No, this draft guideline proposal isn't "written too well", it's been advanced as a wikiproject style guideline under a false {{essay}} label, so RfCing it was most appropriate. The RfC has WP:SNOWBALLed against it, so after this, it should be WP:MFDed or userspaced, or rewritten as an actual essay on why policy should change to support nothing but diacritics-free names, instead of masquerading as a naming convention and style guideline.
Shall we continue? WP:UE further says: "If there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on)" I.e., use the diacritics. A tennis league's broken registration system and some journalists following it because they don't know better (they just use the names the organization gives them; they don't do multi-language name research) doesn't "constitute an established usage"; it's just anglo-centric laziness and ignorance, respectively. Thus WP:UE's later instruction, "[i]f there is no established English-language treatment for a name," which is true here, "translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader", clearly means use the diacritics, because dropping them is a "loss of accuracy" and does not provide "greater understanding"; it actually provides less, because any well-read English speaker actually knows how to pronounce things like ū, š, ñ, and ç; even where they don't, they can still read "Bjørn" just as easily as "Bjorn". Dropping diacritics is an across-the-board net loss in clarity and factual accuracy, for zero gain of any kind.
For an example of how shockingly unreliable international sports leagues and sports journalism can be as name sources, here's a great example I just screen-capped last night in the process of looking for something else: http://www.well.com/~mech/WP/WPA_cannot_spell.png. note how the World Pool-Billiard Association spells Dennis Orcollo's name correctly in one place but gives it as "Orcullo" in another, gives Fu Che Wei's name two different ways, as "Fu Che Wei" and "Che Wei Fu", and does even worse with Chang Jun Lin, giving that spelling and order, then misspelling it as "Jung [sic] Lin Chang" – all on the organization's homepage at the same time. The idea that an organization that exists for sanctioning sports events, and registering players/teams and keeping track of scores and stats, is an authority on the correct spelling of personal names is utterly farcical. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.16:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's nice to see that you would write "Bjorn" as "Bjørn", because our friend Bjorn Borg is actually written Björn Borg, and this shows exactly why tennis needs a consistent naming policy as pointed out in this essay. The real problem for most of our tennis articles is not in dropping the diacritics, but in the adding them back in. Because we are all the time working with sources that have no diacritics at all in the names, like this one [4]. I still haven't seen an answer to the question how you would make the draw article for the French Open based on that source (and we don't have sources that give the draw with diacritics in all the names that have them). Would you use the source as it is, and write all players names without diacritics? Or would you try to add the diacritics in, which means figuring out for each of the 128 names in the draw whether they are written with diacritics or not. That's going to be a lot of extra work, and you risk writing "Bjørn" where it should be "Björn". How would you make that draw article? I guess you agree we should try to be consistent in our articles. -- MakeSense64 (talk·contribs), 08:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's called a "typographical error". Trying to use my crappy memory and typing as a "smoking gun" in favor of your argument is very close to the highest pinnacle of nonsense ever. I've answered your draw question below; I ignored it before because the answer is obvious: Do what the rest of Wikipedia does. Why you imagine tennis to be magically special and different is quite a mystery. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.23:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem with most of editors who come along to vote, they have probably never touched a tennis article. They talk about WP:COMMONSENSE, but how do you know what makes sense for tennis articles if you haven't worked on them? Editors seem to think that using the "real name" for the player article is simply a matter of putting a redirect at the anglicized name. But the player articles are actually the smaller portion of tennis articles. The bulk of tennis articles we have are articles like this 2012 Australian Open and 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles, which as you can see are full of player names. Lots of tennis player names come together in these articles, and without a consistent spelling policy it becomes of mixture of spellings, very messy. That's the problem this essay tries to address. If you insist on having the diacritics in the names, then it means we have to add them in, because our sources for these articles don't have diacritics. Adding the diacritics means lot of errors are introduced like "Bjørn" where it should be "Björn". -- MakeSense64 (talk·contribs), 08:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are free, and the mess is illusory. If it weren't illusory, this issue would be a constant source of conssterational and bickering at every single topic on which there is any notable biographical article-writing activity, not just tennis. But there's not. Which means it's just yhou and one other tendentious editors making a mountain out of a molehill and pushing your tooth-gnashy anti-diacritics gospel. It's elementary logic that what works for human names generally on Wikipedia works for tennis player names, since tennis players are not different from anyone else other than they happen to play tennis. PS: This is the second time you've made a snide implication that no one but you and your best wikifriends are qualified to edit tennis articles. Please tell us the ISBN numbers of the all books you have written about tennis, inform us of the long tenure of your membership on the board of directors of a national-level tennis governing body, and show us your ranking as top tennis pro. Otherwise please see WP:OWN and stop implying that you're some super-genius tennis expert and everyone else is an ignorant moron unable to properly edit "your" articles. It's getting very tedious. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.23:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editors come in to vote, but they don't propose any practical solution for this problem. Can SMcCandlish tell us what he would do if he would create a tournament or draw article (and several of these articles are to be made every week, often with names nobody has ever heard about). -- MakeSense64 (talk·contribs), 08:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing I'd do at any of the snooker or pool tournament articles I regularly edit: Use in the chart the player names as they appear at the players' own articles, since whether or not diacritics are used are a per-article consensus issue, based on reliable sources about that particular individual. This is blindingly obvious. If someone born with diacritics in their name does not regularly use them in daily public life, and we have proof of that, then the article shouldn't "force" diacritics on them. If we have RS that the subject does in fact prefer the diacritics, then forcing their deletion just because a tennis organization does so is a massive POV-pushing and original research problem. One size fits all does not work here. That's what you are failing to grasp. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.23:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can throw in as many shortcuts to WP polices and guidelines as you want, are we supposed to be impressed? You can talk about snowballing, but WP is not a voting contest. As one editor pointed out, recent project-wide discussions have resulted in a 50-50 split on the diacritics vs. non-diacritics issue. Recent RM discussions for tennis players like Sasa Hirszon and Denes Lukacs have typically resulted in no-concensus -> no move. This mean there is no clear-cut case that this essay is "overtly contradicting" policy. -- MakeSense64 (talk·contribs), 08:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, our concern should be how to improve WP. The essay was written with that aim in mind, because tennis coverage on WP is currently a mess as far as player names go. Let the snow come, every editors who criticizes something in this essay helps me to improve it. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you implement those ideas that were addressed to you and then it will become better. And if that "aim" is changed to keep diacritics I will definitely support it. LajbiHolla @ me • CP16:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no concensus to keep diacritics. What to do? Just have a look at this RM closure yesterday Talk:Nico_Hülkenberg#Requested_move. Based on prevalence in English-language usage, an admin closes it as move to non-diacritics, after consulting with other admins here: Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#A_problematic_close_pending. But another admin who didn't like that close has already moved the article back to diacritics title. So there you have even admins disagreeing on this. That means there is no concensus whatsoever either way on this issue. That also means that essays on that topic are not out of place at all. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the questions:
The question that was actually asked: "Can a wikiproject base its naming on..." A WikiProject may base its own name on anything it likes, including the phase of the moon and its interpretation of chicken entrails. The name of the WikiProject itself is the only name that the WikiProject controls.
The question that was intended: "Can a wikiproject base its naming advice on..." A WikiProject may base its naming advice on anything it likes. If it chooses to give advice that lines up with what the broader community supports, then it's even likely that the community will follow its (strictly optional) recommendation.
The question that should have been intended: "Should the editors at each individual articles consider the practices of the 99% of English sources when choosing a name for the article?" Yes, but it's not the sole consideration. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC is badly phrased
The question "Is it appropriate for a wikiproject to insist on no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English-language press?" is badly phrased. It reminds me of the old "Do you still beat your wife"
No Wikipedia should not base an article name on the another organisations rules.
Yes Wikipedia does base it article titles on the commonness in English-language reliable sources and some newspapers are considered to be reliable. Sometimes this will mean that a name is spelt with diacritics and sometimes without. Indeed over time a name may move from one form to another and then back again. Wikiepdia is not paper based so we can always hold a new WP:RM and alter an article title if the evidence is available that there has been a name change. For example there is an artist known as Prince_ who for a time used a squiggle for a name, but he became commonly known as "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince" and that is probably the article title that the article about him would have been titled. However he later changed his name back to Prince, so once reliable third party sources started to reuse his old name to describe him the Wikipedia article would have moved back to the old name and that is where it is today. There is no reason why the title of articles about tennis players can not be renamed in a similar way if the player's name is reported in reliable sources in different ways during the player's life. This is exactly the same as with a name change through marriage or whatever. Wikipedia article titles should track what is commonly used in reliable English language sources so that the article is easy to find for people who are familiar with the subject but not expert on it.
No Wkipedia should not name articles on the personal preferences of what looks right to individual editors, as that is subjective and a matter of opinion not fact, because in English there is no equivalent of the Académie française to dictate what is correct. Instead English reference works such as the Oxford English Dictionary relies on usage and so should Wikipedia.
There have not been new comments for quite a while, and now that the proposed deletion of the shortcut to this essay has failed Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_22#Wikipedia:TENNISNAMES, there is no reason to keep this RfC open.
That there is quite a bit of opposition to this essay is clear, but let's not forget that one of the purposes of essays is to generate discussion about wp.
As for the question that was asked in this RfC: "Is it appropriate for a wikiproject to insist on no-diacritics names, based on...".
People may want to read WP:Advice pages, in which it is made very clear that wikiprojects can collect their "advice" and "recommendations" in essays. It can be written by a group of editors or by one editor. But the essay is not binding in any way, unless it is put through the WP:PROPOSAL process. This page has been clearly tagged as an essay from the very beginning.
If the people who voted No on the RfC question here, really think that wikiprojects should not be allowed to write essays like this one, then they should discuss that on a higher up page, for example on the Talk of WP:Advice pages. I hope the admin who closes this RfC takes this into account. Because stopping the wikiproject Tennis from trying to write its own advice pages would set a bad precedent for all the other wikiprojects who also have guidance essays. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing you are missing is that for it to be labelled as an essay of a wikiprojects recommendations or advice it has to have that wikiprojects support. Clearly from the discussion above it doesn't have the support of everyone here at the project. So it isn't the projects advice or recommendations. It is your advice and recommendations. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it was the consensus of the wikiproject don't you think that maybe some people would have said they agreed with you above that it was the consensus of the wikiproject. As far as I see there was a single person agreeing with you. That tells me it wasn't the consensus of the project but it is what you think the consensus is. ie your own opinion. Heck even what you link to has someone objecting to it and no one agreeing. -DJSasso (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that it was already written in the project's article guidelines well before the essay was started (actually well before I even joined the Tennis project), e.g. see October 2011: [5], quoting from "player articles": "Use common English spelling as found on ATP and WTA websites. Otherwise use press releases, grand slam websites, other tournament sites, books, etc..."
If it was (and still is) written in the project's guidelines, then how did/does it not have concensus in the project?
After the mentioned discussion on the project Talk (in which only one editor expressed disagreement with the use of English spelling), I took the initiative to summarize it in an essay within the project and invited the other members to contribute (which some have done), as you can see in the first sections of the Talk page here. All very easily verified by the given links. Cheers. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It says spelling, says nothing about diacritics. The two are very different things. And clearly based on the discussion above it appears consensus of the project has changed even if it was that. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FYI: An admin has just closed Saša Tuksar, returning the BLP to Jevansen's page-creation with diacritics, and in doing so cited this RfC. If I may I might wish to add a couple of egregrious cases where there is a good case for a RM:
BLPs like Saša Tuksar where removal of a consonantal accent (a hacek in this case) radically changes the pronunciation or meaning of the word - changing Croatian for "Alexander" to Croatian for "anenome".
BLPs where two different diacritics have been equalised - Antonio Sančić where 'č' and 'ć' are not the same letter.
BLPs where the player's primary international notability is as part of a national (or Panamerican) team and the other team members' BLPs have diacritics. - eg Juan-Sebastián Vivanco
Nationalities where all bios/BLPs habitually have diacritics. - Sophie Lefèvre being possibly the only French BLP on the whole of WP with French accents removed?
BLPs where a "no consensus" has arrived at the wrong result from an attempt to restore an undiscussed move - An example being French Sophie Lefèvre.
BLPs where the relevant projects (e.g. WP:Croatia) on Talk weren't notified of an RM that ended with no consensus.
...But
BLPs for Serbians to be left out of discussion since (a) cyrillic is normal, (b) there are two competing romanizations.
...Also
Any BLP Talk which has raised WP:STAGENAME "Cary Grant" "Pink" "Sting" etc. rather than WP:OPENPARA (which gives the examples of François Mitterrand). Any mention of this should result in repeated and enthusiastic WP:TROUT and immediate closure of an RM in favour of WP's diacritic friendly BLP norms.
Disagree: I disagree firmly with the example and the put back with the accented version. I think we need to follow the english languag alphabet, which would firmly prohibit any titles with š in it because it is not a letter in the 26 ones we have in the alphabet. I would be in favor of using that as a sub/secondary name on the english wikipeda and replacing it with the non-diacritical one (ex. Novak Djokovic).HotHat (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's also what was decided at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC. But @IIO proposal show us very clearly where these pro-diacritics votes are coming from. Nation based projects who think we should notify them before we touch one of "their" articles. Huh?? People who think that English readers should learn to read.
Everything can be found on WP, except consistency. For example there is Nguyễn Văn Thiệu and Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir. One of them redirects to English spelling, the other doesn't. Consistently inconsistent. Maybe we should wait for more Vietnamese tennis players and Vietnamese editors. If we continue like this we will soon be editing on Wĩkipæðiā.
Well, at least it shows that projects related to a certain sport can work on an own naming convention and get it to guideline status. And it was kept in a deletion discussion in late 2009. Different sports have different culture and tradition, which may also reflect in the names they use. Sumo uses Japanese names, and we do not question it. So baseball got a concensus on this: "The title of an article for a baseball player should reflect the name they most commonly went by during their career. Informally, the name that appeared on a player's baseball cards should serve as the article's title."
Translating that to tennis we would get: "The title of an article for a tennis player should reflect the name they most commonly went by during their career. Informally, the name that appears on their ITF tennis player profile should serve as the article's title."
That happens to be what this essay is saying. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since this could affect them, maybe next time we let the baseball and hockey projects know that their own guidelines could be in jeopardy because of some of the warped decisions made around here lately. They may wish to comment to protect their own guidelines from being trashed. You'd have to word it neutrally to be fair, but we'd let them know they're next on the chopping block if guidelines are attacked separately as opposed to having a united front. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. It means that Oleksandr Dolgopolov Jr. will be better known as Alexandr Dolgopolov when he'll retire. While both names can be found in English language sources it is clear that the latter IS a name change and HE made it because there is source for that. Those simple diacritics-stripping conversions you are pushing and referring to as "player names" are blatant ill-minded exploitation of that simple sentence (you did the same thing with WP:STAGENAME). If you can find sources for each and every name change like the one I linked then we can agree on changing biography article titles. LajbiHolla @ me • CP18:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good idea
It's not a good idea to pov-push on a policy page when you're already getting overwhelming opposition on an RfC on the talkpage. Please also understand the difference between describing previous editing (ie. the person editing the policy page tends to do X) and the need for policy pages to describe what kind of editing we should have. Tweaking a policy so it describes how you prefer to edit, in order to use it as a cudgel against the majority who disagree with your preference, is a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I use the word "policy" not because this page is officially policy - this essay has absolutely no chance of becoming a policy in its current state - but because the mere existence of the page in project-space, along with a handy redirect, ensures that somebody who agrees with the point it's pushing will sooner or later start citing it elsewhere, especially in disputes, as though it were policy. bobrayner (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean I should stop improving the essay just because somebody has put a RfC on it? An essay can describe a minority opinion, it can even be the opinion of one editor. So what does this have to do with "policy" pages? And what policy is being tweaked? Nobody can deny that looking what is found most commonly in English language sources is a major part in the policy around article titles. You can like it or not. That's all. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a large number of people above who disagree. If you want to put the essay in your userspace and prefix it with a disclaimer of "I just made this up myself" (without the TENNISNAMES redirect) then feel free to do so; but if you're putting it in project-space there are slightly higher expectations - and if an RfC doesn't go your way, the correct response is to respect the consensus. bobrayner (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it appears to me you misunderstand what essays are. Read WP:VALUE and WP:RES, and then you will understand it is perfectly normal to create a shortcut for an essay.Putting it in project space is also normal, unless the author wants nobody else to edit it. Also, people citing it by using the shortcut is normal, but that doesn't mean it replaces policy. If somebody uses it in a discussion, then anybody else can say "it is just an essay". It is not a problem. By definition an essay is the POV of one or more editors and it can be about certain aspects of certain policies or guidelines, or on how to implement them. It can be serious or funny. Your comments about pov-pushing are irrelevant, because an essay is expected to be the pov of the author(s) who wrote it. An essay is not supposed to reflect concensus, otherwise it would be guideline or policy already. OK? MakeSense64 (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)However, wikipedia space essays are not supposed to undermine actual policies, which this one did. If you want to write such an essay you are more than allowed to in your user space to make it clear that it is your opinion and only your opinion. But ones that push a POV that undermine existing policies are not supposed to be in wikipedia space. -DJSasso (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Policies are undermined, the wording tells people they have to use the non-diacritic version when policy makes it very clear that there are cases when it should be. I would also note that while essays don't need to reflect consensus. They do need to have consensus to exist. Or else they wouldn't be able to be deleted at mfd etc. The consensus here is about its existence (ie to not have it here in wikipedia space), not its content. Two different things. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one isn't at MfD, so that's a moot point for now. If it goes to MfD we will see. And if essays are not required to reflect concensus, can indeed reflect a minority opinion about certain policies, then how can editors push in concensus on the basis of a RfC (which was on a poorly worded question)? That becomes self-contradictory. Now you are threatening me with a block if I revert back to the contents on an essay about a minority view that I have written. That completely defeats the purpose of essays. Where do you suggest me to go if I disagree with these agressive changes on the essay?
If you want to write rules on how to spell names, without the irksome need for accuracy or for agreement with the rest of the community, userspace is probably a better place to go.
If you want to write rules on how to spell names, in a way that influences how other people edit, then changing text to reflect the overwhelming consensus in the RfC is probably the best direction to go in.
(ec)I am not threatening you as I am involved and wouldn't be the one doing any sort of blocking. My comment was based on you edit warring to your preferred view when an RfC here clearly came to the conclusion that that essay should not exist in this location. This isn't an MfD you are right, but that wasn't my point. My point was that all articles/essays/policies all owe their existence to the communities consensus that they be allowed to exist. Quite clearly the community in the above RfC did not agree that that essay should exist at this location. You have repeatedly been told that you could create the sort of essay you desire in your user space as others such as Prolog have done in the past. You insist that your essay is only an essay, if that is the case why such a hesitance to place it in your user space when the community seems to be very clear that it doesn't want it in WikiProject space? -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't see any RfC question: "Should this essay exist in wikiproject space?". The initial question was: "Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press?", then changed to "Can a wikiproject insist on..?", and the person who originated the RfC has striked out his own earlier comment : "This page should be moved to userspace as a personal essay".
So, why is this now being interpreted as if it has been a question on the existence of this essay? Moreover, one editor has striked out his "No" vote, and changed it into a "it depends". So that's at least one other editor who sees potential merit in using the 'player names' if it is indeed true that they can chose and change their player name. If one editor who voted No has started seeing "may have a good argument", then policy cannot have been violated all that overtly in this essay. Another asked for it to be closed immediately because made in bad faith and poorly worded. It is quite clear that this essay also has some support. That makes the case for a MfD quite weak already.
Anyway, I would rather see the original wording back in, and if somebody puts the essay into MfD, then we will see. If essays can express a minority opinion, then it doesn't appear logical to me to allow a "majority" to push in their ideas on the basis of a RfC. So, I ask you to revert it. Clearly the sentence that is now in place: "Projects should not mandate the use of names without diacritics." is out of place in this essay. I can also replace it with the wording used in the baseball naming guideline if that's more acceptable. :::::::::::I am also wondering. Isn't this RfC supposed to be closed at some point by somebody who was uninvolved?MakeSense64 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it out of place? That's what lots of people agreed to on the talkpage. Removing a factual, consensus-backed statement and replacing it with more pov-pushing is exactly the kind of thing we should avoid in wikipedia-space. Let's not fall for some silly false dichotomy between MfD versus keeping text which has met overwhelming opposition. We can just fix the text. I tried doing just that, but you reverted. bobrayner (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is out of place because this essay is about tennis names, not about what Projects can do or not. Just because some people came here to vote on a poorly worded RfC does not mean it is prose that needs to be added in this essay. You can always write an essay about "should projects be allowed to.." if you want.
I have read more about essays on WP, and here is what I learned. If somebody asks: "Can wikiprojects require/insist..." then the obvious answer is No because projects cannot require anything. But if somebody asks "Can one or more editors in a wikiproject write an essay about their viewpoint about certain guidance or aspect of policy that applies to their project?" Then the answer is : yes they can. That's what essays are for. Essays do not need concensus and they also do not need NPOV. Essays can express and explore a minority point of view. And there is no requirement that such essays should be kept in User space. If you completely disagree with what is written in a certain essay, then the normal way is not to remove and replace the contents with your pov on the basis of concensus. Because while essays are also not "owned", they can be kept to the pov they have chosen to cover. What you can do in such cases is write another essay discussing or exploring the opposing pov. And then both essays can link to each other. So, to edit war in essays makes very little sense, essays are a rather different world. The argument that an essay should be changed because it "undermines" policy is also not so easy to make. For example somebody could argue that Wikipedia:Do not rely on consensus is undermining our policy about concensus. But there is a big difference between "questioning" policy or the application of it, and "undermining" it. Questioning policy can actually strengthen it, or get it improved based on discussion generated by a certain essay. Do you agree? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources should come from english language sources according to UE policy! Djsasso needs to revert the edit made that made in incongruent with the policy! For most tennis players, they would have english-language references to go off of for their names.HotHat (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually your edit that made it not match with policy. Policy specifically allows for using non-English sources when English sources are not good enough. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem, English language sources (newspapers) are not that reliable when it comes to spelling properly sports players as opposed to French presidents. But even so, the ITF index cards come way off the bottom of WP:RS where BLP names are concerned:
Name :SANCIC, Antonio Age:23 (23 Nov 1988) Birth place:Brezice, Slovenia Nationality:Croatia Plays:Right Handed (Double Handed Backhand).
The principle of citing reliable sources for the spelling of names in an encyclopedia needs to be investigated. Several sources (tennis related or not, e.g. The Australian), while otherwise reliable, have an explicit policy not to use any diacritics. By citing these, Wikipedia would implicitly adopt the same. Only sources which themselves follow Wikipedia policy, which at least allows diacritics, should be consulted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
on 20 May 2008 when Redux (talk·contribs) moved Ilie Năstase to Ilie Nastase over redirect saying: Moving article to spelling used in English-speaking world,as verified on the ATP/WTA official website, per Naming Convention and [[Wikipedia talk:Wik
I'm not sure what your point is but I note a couple things. It was also moved 28 June 2005 by Bogdangiusca from Ilie Nastase to Ilie Năstase (with no reason given as to why). This time a "move request" was made. It was not moved like the others as was implied by Joy's post and it had been moved the other way also which was left out. Very nice cherry picking by an administrator no less. *more sighing*. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you had paid any actual attention to what people have been telling you in these endless diacritics debates, you would have known why I omitted that move - the article, when created by the same user Bogdangiusca in 2003, couldn't be at the said name because the software didn't support diacritics at the time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three edits to Tennis names section
added to WP:UE though note that WP:UE includes examples of names used with diacritics. as WP:UE is evidently not being read carefully by some and this needs noting.
added though his original name is in cyrillic. to the example of Novak Djokovic, since the distinction in WP:UE between Latin and cyrillic alphabets is evidently not being recognised.
Changed Examples to Sources as this is the area causing problems. Then added the text Per WP:RS and WP:PSTS, note that some encyclopaedic sources such as Max Robertson, The Encyclopedia of Tennis, New York, The Viking Press, ISBN 670-29408-X, p.17; use diacritics for Latin-alphabet player names in entry headings.
These are are links to major WP guidelines and should be allowed to stand in the article, of course the choice to ignore them remains. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And is the "nutshell" true?
This page in a nutshell: Articles about tennis players should use their name spelled in English language alphabet, as found on the ITF website. The sport of tennis has long used its own naming convention that works with anglicized names only. As a result the player's names are typically spelled like that in most reliable English language sources.
Is it true that "The sport of tennis has long used its own naming convention that works with anglicized names only" that tennis is an island that is different from any other sport? Similar player index cards websites exist for football yet Pelé would never be written "Pele" in an encyclopaedia, any more than a reliable WP:PSTS encyclopaedic source would head a biographical entry on René Lacoste as "Rene." - is this nutshell giving incorrect information to WP editors? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally IPIN registration I propose changing a name of their choice (bold) to:
Since 2004, the ITF uses an online registration system called IPIN. Players register themselves under a name without diacritics:
Please do not input å â ñ é ö or any other letter which is not part of the English alphabet
This may seem invasive, but Wikipedia is a level playing field and one cannot really have enter a name of their choice in bold when no such "choice" exists. Given that on three different de-diacritic RM discussions (or moves without prior discussion) the argument of player "choice" has been raised presenting this accurately is reasonable. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would actually be more accurate to use: "Players register themselves under an anglicized name of their choice."
Paying attention to sources is admirable; but each article tends to have different sources. If/when somebody tries to apply this essay to an article on some other tennis player, they should bear in mind what that player's sources say, rather than sticking to the spelling in a page about Radek Štěpánek.
The list of links also gave the impression of being carefully framed to support a line of argument which flies in the face of existing consensus. I think that's unhelpful.
If a carefully-framed list of cherrypicked sources for other articles is truly the "meat" of this essay, I would urge you to reconsider your position. bobrayner (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are not cherry picked, this are the sources we use most frequently for tennis. If you know about other reliable English-language sources we use frequently for tennis articles, then you are welcome to suggest them. Somebody pointed out the exceptions on Eurosport in a discussion on Wikiproject Tennis and I have added it. Somebody else pointed out that an old encyclopedia of tennis from 1974 uses diacritics on some names, and I have added it (even though it is an obscure source we rarely if ever use for our articles). If you know other reliable English-language sources for tennis then bring them on. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
