::::::PBS, on the contrary, you have persistently argued that basic-ASCII sources which do not represent anything except 26 letters are "reliable" sources for spelling of names which en.wikipedia represents in unicode. That is exactly what you are doing above with your 5 or 6 oppose posts to Requested move 4 (which is misnumbered as RM3). In other situations, such as Talk:Édouard Deldevez you also argued at length a variant of this, which was that sources with typographic limitations on É, which did not spell Étienne or Émile fully were "reliable sources" for the spelling of Édouard. But here we are not talking about É, we are talking about sources disabled for Slavic names being taken as "reliable sources" for the spelling of Slavic names. It is the same basic-ASCII vs unicode fallacy, because you are not following WP:Identifying Reliable Sources - "reliable for the statement being made" in your personal definition of "reliable sources". 
 ::::::As regards Britannica 1911, as far as I am aware Britannica 1911 had a limited range of French and German accents. Modern Britannica doesn't, and Serbian names like Slobodan Milošević, Slobodan Milošević, so if Britannica has a competent and consistent MOS (it may or may not) and if it had an article on Ana Ivanović, the same ć should be present as for Slobodan Milošević]], correct? So that makes comment about Britannica 1911 a red herring, doesn't it.