Talk:House of Karađorđević

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

House of Karadjordjević → House of Karađorđević … Rationale: The current title is unacceptable. It should be either spelled correctly, with full set of diacritics, or transliterated into diacritic-free version. All the Serbia-related articles follow the first practice, and there's no established "diacritic-free" transliteration. Please share your opinion at Talk:House of Karadjordjević. Duja 11:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nominator. Duja 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Karađorđević is better.--estavisti 11:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Dijxtra 12:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per my comments above. Haukur 12:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• While not specifically supporting the current name (which has one diacritic), I oppose "Karađorđević" which is not the most common nor the best variant for English use. According to statistics above, the proposed version is not very common in English use. There are much more common one(s), which should be preferred. I understand that this again is one of those namings where nationalist feelings try to overcome English language, but nationalists simply should get over their POV desires. Henq 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you'll have to prove the existence the "much more common one(s)". Besides, among two nationalists above are one Croat and one Icelander. Duja 10:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read comments ABOVE, the Serbian variant got only some dozens of hits in books, whereas both Karadjordjevic and Karageorgevic are more common compared to it, having received some hundreds of hits. Besides, when reading those pages where the Serbian variant is, much of them are Serbo-Croat pages, and in English pages, that variant typically is mentioned as further information where it is, the main appellation being either Karadjordjevic or Karageorgevic. This whole survey is skewed from start, when those two were NOT offered as alternatives - this is now survey only between Karadjordjević (funnily, one diacritical but not all) ad the Serb variant. Henq 11:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The survey wasn' meant to be skewed. Maybe I should have reformat the survey better to explicitly include two alternatives (I felt that mentioning them in proposal was enough), but you're certainly welcome to offer another alternative. Besides, all the articles in the Category:House of Karađorđević category already have "Karađorđević", so renaming it to something else would imply that we should rename them all, then go to House of Nemanjić and House of Obrenović and repeat the process. I did't want it to be yet another pro-versus-against diacritics dispute, but IMO diacritics have already won, at least this battle. Duja 11:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. This being the English-language Wikipedia, titles are supposed to be presented in a way that helps the English reader be able to (a) find the article, and (b) understand it. Diacritics should be used if they aid in pronunciation or in distinguishing the topic from another one with similar transliterated spelling. The articles on Tokyo and Kyoto are located at Tokyo and Kyoto and not at 東京 and 京都 because it makes them more recognizable and comprehensible to English readers. As someone who has studied Spanish, Hebrew, and Japanese, and who knows the very basics of a few more languages, I can firmly say that I have no idea what đ is supposed to represent. Even if, as you say, "dj" is not an adequate substitute in order to render proper pronunciation, at least it gives me a hint and doesn't simply leave me out to dry confused and lost. So, again, if the inclusion of the diacritics is meant to render it into English transliteration, then do it, but if it is the actual Serbian spelling, then one should leave it out. Serbian-language article titles have as much place in the English Wikipedia as article titles like 侍, 東京, and 北京. You probably can't read those, and I can't read Karađorđević. (Particularly, as I've just noticed, you put an accent mark on the 'c'. Romance languages only ever put accents on vowels. I have no idea what to do with that.) LordAmeth 12:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a Wikipedia policy on diacritics. Do we have one? Because, if you remove diacritics from title of this page just because people like you don't know what diacritics are (correct me if I missunredstood your statement), then we should remove those from these also: Nicolae Ceauşescu, Lech Wałęsa, Tomáš Masaryk, Slobodan Milošević, Franjo Tuđman and Trần Đức Lương. So, your arguement that "Diacritics should be used if they aid in pronunciation or in distinguishing the topic from another one with similar transliterated spelling." is simply not met in 95% of cases (my estimation for which I'm quite confident is not farfeched). --Dijxtra 12:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There needs to be a Wikipedia-wide policy on diacritics; and in point of fact, whatever the consensus ends up being, I'd be happy to go along with it. But there does need to be a consensus across those working on all cultures. The Japan Wikiproject recently reached a consensus on our own use of macrons (the little lines over a 'u' or 'o', representing the long vowel sounds 'oo', 'ou' or 'uu'). Perhaps a discussion needs to be begun over at WP:MOS or somewhere else major and central. LordAmeth 14:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There were several attempts to establish them, but consensus was never reached, the polls always ending up around 50/50 split. And the discussions were pretty heated, also. I wouldn't repeat the arguments here, but it seems that pro-diacritics (especially due to influence of non-native speakers) have effectively "won" behing the curtains, as a majority of articles about non-English topics has them (as far as I can tell). Duja 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Move to House of Karageorgevich or House of Karageorgevitch, which ever is more prevalent. We don't have titles for other articles on royal houses at names like Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha or Bayern. Charles 15:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Avala 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support on grounds of consistency: odd to have Black George in one version and the dynasty in another. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Comment I feel a move to House of Karageorgevich is more appropriate. Charles

15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What nationalism? There's simply correct, incorrect, and Anglicised. Currently the title is incorrect. We can list the Anglicised version in the article, but there's no reason for it to be the title.--estavisti 10:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is some nationalism present if one claims that the Serbian variant is correct in English use. Above we see that voters for Serbian variant are Serbo-Croat ones and one additional voter whose own language seems to be such that their nationalists are pushing diacritical variants. There is certain nationalism present in an editor if does not see that Anglicized version could be the title. Henq 11:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't attack everyone who disagrees with you as a "nationalist". It won't advance your position in any way, it'll just serve to make people annoyed at you and make them not want to listen to what material arguments you have. Haukur 11:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please tell us, Haukur, have you elsewhere moved articles from English varianrs to diacritic-including native variants? Henq 11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, Henq, do not make personal attacks. Comment on the content, not on the author. As for "serbian" variant, you do not seem to understand that House of Karađorđević is a serbian house, and therefore, promoting the serbian variant is not nationalism but sticking to the name under which the house refered to itself. See Düsseldorf. "ü" is not English. But it's in the title. See? --Dijxtra 11:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an English form though, and that is the one that ought to be used. Charles 15:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You point out Düsseldorf as an example. But I counter with the city listed as Munich, not as München. Where there is a more recognizable, more easily understood English version, even when it is simply the native spelling but without diacritics, perhaps that it what should be used. LordAmeth 16:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You rightfully point Munich; we don't have Beograd either, but Belgrade. The list of names with established English transliteration is relatively short though. In many many cases, the "transliteration" comes down to "drop the Funny Foreign Squiggles". And if it does come down to that, my feeling is that we ought to do better than that. Duja 17:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. I would hate to be seen as one who thinks that diacritics are simply "funny foreign squiggles" as you say. I'm not really sure what I think should be done about this; I am just used to languages that are not written in Latin/English letters, and which therefore use diacritics to help aid pronunciation. LordAmeth 18:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is the variant Karageorgevich which is NOT "simply diacritics dropped" and it is much more common in real english works of reference than the now proposed Serbian variant. Therefore this move shuld not be accepted. Henq 10:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.