Talk:Nikola Žigić

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

The result of the proposal was move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nikola Zigic → Nikola Žigić — To stop a move war. I think the name should be decided by the advice in WP:UE, others think it should be done by a local consensus. —Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose move to Nikola Žigić I entered the WP:RM to stop a move war. I am opposed to moving the page to Nikola Žigić because most of the the references in the article used and the majority of reliable English language sources use Nikola Zigic. In such a case WP:UE is clear "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support – the man's name is Nikola Žigić, there are no two ways about it. When WP:UE says "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources", I believe it applies more to people like Mao Zedong, whose name can be spelled "Mao Tse-Tung" depending on which Chinese transliteration method you use. In Žigić's case, however, there is only one way to transliterate his name from Serbian Cyrillic. The only difference between the correct name and the name that User:Philip Baird Shearer is suggesting is the diacritics, and we can redirect from the title without diacritics, so there really is no issue here. Add the appropriate diacritics to the title, and let's be done with it. – PeeJay 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If most reliable English language sources do not use accent marks (diacritics) why is it appropriate to add them to Wikipedia when Wikipedia is meant to rely on reliable sources and common usage? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, the most correct way to transliterate Mao Zedong's name is Máo Zédōng. Without the diacritic marks, the pronunciation and literal meaning of the name can fluctuate enormously. The diacritics are much more important in Mao's case than in Žigić's case, because they convey more information. Yet, our article is titled Mao Zedong. This is because it is the overwhelming convention for English usage. Putting the diacritics on the Mao article looks pedantic and misrepresents English usage. If there is strong evidence in favor of "Zigic" being English convention, then that's what we should title the article.Erudy (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - as per User:PeeJay2K3 and numerous editors on Football Project. The subject's real name uses the diacritics, enough of the sources and references do so as well, so common sense indicates we do as well. - fchd (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per the above, his real name is Žigić. "Use common names" and "use English names" are far, far overrated when compared to "use correct names", anyway. —Nightstallion 19:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support This really wasn't necessary given the unanimous rejection of the non-diatrics version by 10+ editors in a discussion that just happened to take place away from this talk page. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose This is the sort of pretentious use of foreign languages which has been mocked since Fowler and Twain; if English does not call him this, so be it. Readers should be able to find names in our Wikipedia by looking for the spelling they are accustomed to. This way lies as an article on Beograd, and on Stanisław Ulam, which would be contrary to his autobiography. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Erm, that argument makes no sense. Beograd is typically known to the majority of English speakers as Belgrade, so there's no comparison there, while Ulam has obviously indicated the spelling of his name that he prefers through his autobiography. The other thing about Ulam is that he lived and worked in a country where the predominant language was – you guessed it – English. Žigić, however, has never worked in a country where English is the language spoken by the majority of people, having spent his entire football career in either Serbia (and Montenegro) and Spain. It is therefore unsurprising that little English language literature has been published about Žigić from the sources closest to him. Because of this, I believe that the best course of action is to simply transliterate his name from the Serbian Cyrillic original as accurately as possible, diacritics and all. – PeeJay 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And evidence has been presented that Zigic "is typically known to the majority of English speakers as" Zigic. Do you have countervailing evidence? If so, present it; you will convince me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, UEFA seem pretty content with using the correct diacritics for every player, and Žigić is no exception, as you can see here. Other English language websites I have found that use "Žigić" include FootballDatabase.com, FootballMercato.com (a site that links to transfer news stories in various languages, including English). OK, so very few sites use the diacritics, but I severely doubt that any Wikipedians would be confused by the appearance of a couple of lines above the letters of Žigić's name after searching for "Nikola Zigic". – PeeJay 23:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
        • With the exception of www.uefa.com what make the other sites reliable sources. Who publishes the information, what makes them anything other than blog sites? The majority of none web based media which might be considered reliable sources for what in the UK is called football are "mainstream newspapers" and they use Zigic not Žigić. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - yet another ex-Yugoslavia diacritics battle (maybe a special policy is needed). His name, as spelt in the modified Latin alphabet used to transliterate Serbian, is Žigić. That is correct, it is readable for English speakers, and the proper redirects are provided. Biruitorul (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Nikola Žigić is clearly the correct spelling of his name in the (extended) Latin alphabet. - MTC (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support his correct last name is Žigić, not Zigic. --Angelo (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Correct name is Žigić, which is understandable to an English-reader. Dancarney (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Correct name is Žigić. We should not be as lazy as some journalists who don't write diacritics and therefore pronounce names incorrectly.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • His name is "Никола Жигић" who says that "Žigić" is his correct name in English? Do you have a reliable source that says that most of the journalists in the British media are lazy. It may be a style guide issue for example The Economist news magazine style guide states ""Put the accents and cedillas on French names and words, umlauts on German ones, accents and tildes on Spanish ones, and accents, cedillas and tildes on Portuguese ones ... Leave the accents off other foreign names."[2]. As the WP:PROVEIT policy and the guidelines WP:MOS, WP:NC and WP:UE all state that reliable sources should be used, to determine the name why do you want to use a spelling of a name that goes against both guidelines and policy? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that most of the British media ignore diacritics completely. Claude Makélélé is mostly written as "Claude Makelele", and that's even on sites such as FIFA.com, Sky Sports, the Telegraph, the Guardian and even Chelsea F.C.'s own website. As for how we know that "Žigić" is the correct transliteration of "Жигић", I've never seen the name written with any other diacritics, so there's obviously something to it. You would have to ask an expert in the field of Serbian Cyrillic transliteration. – PeeJay 11:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose! If most reliable English language sources spell the man's name "Claude Makelele" then that is the name the article should use. Just because that article is not under the name that the Wikipedia polices and guidelines dictate is not reason why this article should be moved to a name that is contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
        • If that's what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines say, then, considering the overwhelming support for this move, there's obviously something wrong with the policies and guidelines. – PeeJay 11:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I agree with PeeJay, there must be something wrong. However, en.wikipedia would have to move almost every foreign names (People, places etc...) as English is a language that doesn't use any diacritics. And Nikola Žigić (which give something like Jigitch when correctly pronounced) is the correct name in the extended latin alphabet. If there are diacritics, It's because his name has a special pronounciation, and we should respect it. Zigic is not pronounced Jigitch without these necessary diacritics.Moreover, the official Serbian federation site uses Nikola Žigić see here--Latouffedisco (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
            • The English language does use accent marks (diacritics) on some words -- often borrowed from foreign languages. The way to judge usage is from reliable sources. Therefore accent marks would not automatically be stripped from all article names (as you suggest), it depends on whether the references use them. As to usage, very very few English people understand how to pronounce a word via the accent mark indicators (other than perhaps a set relating to French, Spanish or German depending on which one they learnt at school). Besides this is a non issue, how many English speaking people know how to pronounce Southwark, Warwick and Dionne Warwick? I find it strange that people who presumably would agree to including facts in an article from English language sources, will not accept that the same reliable sources are able to judge better than they can on what is the "correct" spelling of a name in English. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Well, WP uses references from several languages, and the Serbian FA website is precious for ex-Yugoslavia players. I agree, very few people know how to pronounce some names correctly, but if an encyclopedia (this is what WP try to be) doesn't learn people how to pronounce foreign (or English) names correctly, It would be shame don't you think?--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
                • If one wishes to include information on how to pronounce a name it is better to use the International Phonetic Alphabet as is used for (Southwark and Warwick) than accent marks (diacritics) which most English readers will not know. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support move to Žigić, I think the main problem with the case against, is that it seems to rely on the assumption that the English press made an informed judgement call to not include the diacritics, rather than not including them simply because they couldn't find the Ž key on their keyboard, and couldn't be arsed with the extra work involved in writing it properly. EP 18:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If Wikipedia reliable sources are discarded, how do you know what is proper? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per common sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per WP:UE. WP:UE says "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." The best reference work I can think of from which to reliably verify information on a European footballer is the site of UEFA, the governing body of European football. It uses the version with diacritics. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note it says "for example", the Wikipedia policy WP:SOURCES states that "mainstream newspapers" are reliable sources and for a subject like this are more likely to be used as references than for academic subjects that appear in peer reviewed articles. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." (WP:RS, its italics) In context of news about a footballer, I would expect the (top end of the) mainstream written press to be generally reliable. However, in context of spelling his name, I'd expect UEFA to be more reliable than even the top end of the written press. Struway2 (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would you expect an international organisation based in Switzerland, to be more reliable than the English language press when it comes to the spelling of a person's name in English? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you really think the country in which they have their offices affects the spelling of their English-speaking employees who write the English-language section of their website. In this context, I'd expect them to be more reliable because, as European football is their specialist subject, they have a greater interest in getting it right than do the English written press. While accepting entirely that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all, I've recently corresponded with The Daily Telegraph concerning the spelling of Palicios and Duggary, and I suspect that restrictions of house style re diacritic usage had rather less influence in those cases than did a casual attitude towards accuracy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it does; it makes it likely that their translator is a Swiss, without a native speaker's Sprachegefühl - or has been constrained by an unfortunate editorial policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Feel for the language" works in English; uefa.com's editor-in-chief is David Farrelly, an Irish ex-Financial Times journalist appointed in 2001; and their chief writer is called Mark Chaplin. But this is getting nowhere; if whoever closes this discussion thinks my reasoning is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, they are welcome to disregard it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Struway2. As UEFA controls European football, and use diacritics, we should follow UEFA, which is a reliable source. Serbian FA also use diacritics. So, there are two main official references that use diacritics. WP should follow them.--Latouffedisco (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • UEFA is only one reliable source when there are many more reliable sources that do not use accent marks. The Serbian FA is not a reliable source for English usage. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe only one reliable source for you: but maybe UEFA knows football better than mainstream newspapers, no?--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed, as I've said already, I'd place more faith in a source compiled by experts in the field, rather than one composed by general journalists, who are probably subject to an in-house style bible anwyay. - fchd (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
        • What makes you think that there is not an inhouse style for the UEFA web site? What both of you seem to be missing is that the Wikipedia naming convention state that "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." This favours using "mainstream newspapers" for guidance over the spelling of footballers names. Now if the spelling of the name was in the balance then an argument about weighting in favour of UEFA might carry some weigh, but to date with the exception of the UEFA web site no editor has come up with some other reliable English language publication that might support using accent marks. I searched on the UK because it is the largest English speaking soccer country, but a search on [Nikola Žigić site:au] in English, returns only 32 pages of which just 2 are with accent marks one of which is in Serbian (don't know why that came up) and the other is an internet forum (SFCU). This article in The Australian, this one in The Sydney Morning Herald and this one on Fox News's Australian website is indicative that Ausi as well as Poms spell the name without accent marks in reliable "mainstream newspapers". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
          • And what you seem to be missing is the other advice provided at WP:NC, namely "These are conventions, not rules carved in stone." and "A redirect should be created for articles that may reasonably be found under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names)." All the editors above seem to agree that Žigić (amongst the hundreds of other articles with diacritics in the title) is something that "may reasonably be found under two or more names". Hence the "lazy" redirect which covers all problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
            • AFAICT no one is suggesting that redirects should not be used which ever name is chosen. But what you assert is that there is a correct spelling and a lazy spelling, yet you have not come up with a source that backs up you analysis. But even if you did, you do not seem to be arguing that the majority of reliable sources do not use accent marks for this man's name and your only justification for placing the article under a spelling of the name with accent marks is to suggest that we ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would remind you that WP:CON states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
              • But presumably you're not suggesting that the strong consensus here to move the page to the diacritic'ed title should be ignored are you? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Yes it is only a local consensus, the general consensus is that article content should rely on verifiable reliable sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It's the person's name. We have massive precedent for using the proper forms of names (Godel, Richard Hönigswald, etc) rather than using our keyboard layout as the basis for everything. "Nikola Zigic" should redirect to the proper form, not the proper form redirect to an improper one. The article should be located where it is most logical, and the most logicial is the proper form of the name. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The massive precedent is to use the English language (as it is verifiably found) as the basis for everything. It is, after all, the English wikipedia. This includes proper names. See every Arabic, Chinese, and Russian name, plus a number of Latin alphabet names that come from languages with idiosycratic letters (Franz Josef Strauss, Novak Djokovic, etc etc.)Erudy (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Judging from the evidence marshalled by both sides so far, I'm leaning towards oppose. Even supporters have granted that the non-diacritic form is more widespread. There is some backing for the diacritic version, in the form of the UEFA website. However, I think the general convention is to go without diacritics.Erudy (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That conflict about diacritics makes me think about a same case in the French language: Académie Française denounce the non-use of accents on capitals in French in order to reduce fees see here, in French, sorry . I think we can draw a paralel with most diacritics.--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support A romanization. Matthew_hk tc 19:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Diacritics in article titles

Taken from section above called #Move to Nikola Zigic

A Google search [on 13 April 2008] returns:

• 651 of about 20,000 English pages for "Nikola Zigic" -"Nikola Žigić" -wikipedia. (see page 66 of the pages returned)
• 174 of 174 English pages for -"Nikola Zigic" "Nikola Žigić" -wikipedia. (see page 18 of the pages returned)

The Google search returns false numbers it is necessary to go to the last page returned by each search to see the true numbers. A search using site:uk

• 158 English pages for "Nikola Zigic" -"Nikola Žigić" site:uk. (page 16)
• 13 English pages for -"Nikola Zigic" "Nikola Žigić" site:uk. (page 2)

The UK search for "Nikola Zigic" returns sites that include

• http://football.guardian.co.uk (national newspaper)
• http://www.independent.co.uk (national newspaper)
• http:today.reuters.co.uk/ Reuters news agency.
• http://news.bbc.co.uk BBC
• http://www.sundaysun.co.uk http://www.thesun.co.uk (national newspaper)
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk (national newspaper)
• http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/ (national newspaper)
• http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk (national newspaper)
• http://express.bitesizefootball.co.uk (national newspaper)
• http://williamhillpitchsidelive.co.uk (national bookmakers)
• and several local papers including the LondonEvening Standard

Non of the fourteen pages returned by -"Nikola Zigic" "Nikola Žigić" site:uk are for a newspaper, TV station etc.

In English there is no correct way to spell a word there is only usage. The Wikipedia:naming convention reflect this. The naming convention and its subsidiary pages are clear. The name should reside on the page that verifiable reliable sources use. Further it is no use arguing that a local consensus exists. Because as WP:consensus states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted". WP:UE: "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources ..." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 18:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

PeeJay you wrote above "the man's name is Nikola Žigić, there are no two ways about it. When WP:UE says "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources", I believe it applies more to people like Mao Zedong, whose name can be spelled "Mao Tse-Tung" depending on which Chinese transliteration method you use." Why do you think that using reliable sources only applies to people like Mao Zedong? Please read the very long conversations in the talk page archives of WP:UE and find the place where it was agreed that Wikipedians should decide what a man's name is without reference to reliable sources? The point about the Wikipedia WP:UE guideline is that verifiable reliable sources should be used in line with Wikipedia policy to decide the issue not what editors "think" is the correct name. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Mao Zedong vs. Mao Tse-Tung issue is completely different from the Nikola Zigic vs. Nikola Žigić debate. In Chairman Mao's case, there were two (perhaps more) commonly-used, yet radically different variations of his name. In this case, WP:UE would have applied, as people would have had to use reliable third party sources to determine which was the more common spelling. In this case, I support the use of WP:UE. However, in Žigić's case, there is only one commonly used spelling of his name, and the issue is whether or not to use diacritics. In this case, I do not believe WP:UE applies.

Quoting directly from WP:UE, "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Do not use a systematically transliterated name if there is a common English form of the name; thus, use Tchaikovsky or Chiang Kai-shek even though those are unsystematic." "Жигић" transliterates into the Latin alphabet as Žigić. Obviously, the characters used in that name are intelligible to English speakers, even if the pronunciation isn't, which would indicate to me that "Nikola Žigić" would be the appropriate title for the article. – PeeJay 19:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Having written those words, I would like to know how it can be made clearer that they mean exactly the opposite: the systematic transliteration of Жигић would be Žigić (at least in the system used for Serbian; Russian Cyrillic would transliterate it otherwise); but "there is a common English form of the name", and we should use it instead. (Btw, it is not true that Žigić is intelligible to most English speakers; this is one reason English sources do not use it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So we should move Claude Makélélé to Claude Makelele and Lothar Matthäus to Lothar Matthaeus? That's ludicrous. Totally ludicrous. – PeeJay 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a question of fact, to be determined by English usage in each case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

fchd you wrote "The subject's real name uses the diacritics, enough of the sources and references do so as well, so common sense indicates we do as well." As he is a Serb his real name is "Никола Жигић". Higher up this section I have listed almost all the UK national newspapers and the BBC all using "Nikola Zigic" so that is what his "real name" is as far as naming an English Wikipedia article is concerned. What are the verifiable reliable sources that use Nikola Žigić which you allude? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My first ports of call for football article verification etc. are football websites - so the likes of UEFA.com, rsssf.com and footballdatabase.com - fchd (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes rsssf.com and rsssf.com reliable sources? Why do you think that any of these sites are more qualified to be a reliable source for football over "mainstream newspapers" as specifically mentioned as reliable sources by the Wikipeida Verifiability policy? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

They are far, far more reliable. They are compiled by experts in the field. I have infinitely more trust in those sites getting things right than I would a national newspaper, especially a tabloid one. Also, if there are errors in the likes of rsssf, you can submit the mistakes, they will be checked and if necessary changed - something you won't be able to do with the likes of the Mirror or the Express sites. Truth and accuracy are even more important in my eyes than the name of the publisher or the format used. - fchd (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Who publishes them? Is there an editorial board? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A question for those who wish to ignore the Wikipedia policies and guidelines: Under what name should the Battle of Dien Bien Phu reside? Should the English version be under the French Diên Biên Phu or the Vietnamese Điện Biên Phủ and if the English should be under the Vietnamese should not the French Wikipedia also use Điện Biên Phủ? Is it not better to name the battle after the common English name, as used in reliable English language sources? If this is true for the battle, why should not the same rules apply to the name of this article?

The policies and guidelines you continue to point to are under discussion and, as such, aren't actually policies. Secondly, the Battle of Dien Bien Phu should redirect to the Vietnamese "Điện Biên Phủ" obviously. That's an easy question. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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