Talk:Serena Williams/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Serena Williams. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Reference in Gold Digger?

Is the line "she gotta have an ass like Serena" in Kanye West's Gold Digger definitely referring to her? And if so, is there a place to put it in (perhaps trivia or something)?

Its also worth pointing out she is by far the hotter of the two Williams sisters and has fantastic thighs! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.11.52 (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness?

Is she really one of Jehovah's Witnesses? If not, it is not right to put the article in the category Jehovah's Witnesses people. Summer Song 21:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

From my reading both her, her sister, her mother (but _not_ her father) are Witnesses. http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/williamsdivorce.htm <-2000. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/80777/1318124/post.ashx#1318124 <-2006 they still seem to be attending 220.253.86.204 08:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (MSN jpshift@hotmail.com)

Serena life

She may be and she may not be. But that's her life and we should leave it alone.

Gay Icon?

She can't be both Gay and a Jehovah's Witness as the JW faith is opposed to homosexuality. So if she is indeed a gay icon then this is indeed ironic and this irony is worthy of being mentioned in the article - if someone is willing to work it in somehow. I doubt people who see her as a gay icon are aware of her anti-gay predudice. 220.253.86.204 08:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(1) Being a "gay icon" does not mean you're gay. (2) She's never made a homophobic statement in her public. Please don't attribute a way of thought to her with no basis for doing so. (3) I think in reading gay publications, and references I've seen to her would qualify her as a gay icon. I don't necessarily care if it's on her page or not. I can't tell you the number of Serena drag queens I've seen on Halloween in San Francisco over the years...it would blow your mind! Agrippina Minor

Gau?

In the Fashion section is this sentence: "Again at gau had a special line at Puma and has a current one at Nike." I cannot figure out what is meant by "gau". This needs to be edited if others cannot understand this.

Uh, what?

Why does it say 'titty!' at the end of the Entertainment section? at the end of Fashion it says that she has nice thighs and ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.151 (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"she has nice thighs and ass" - I hear that.

1998

This section does not make sense: "1998 was the first year that Williams finished in the WTA top 20. She began the season in Sydney as a qualifier, ranked no. 96, and beat world no. 3 Lindsay Davenport in a quarterfinal. With her top 20 ranking, Williams was then expected to do well in her first Grand Slam tournament."

If she was ranked 96 at the beginning of the year and 20 at the end, then we cannot say "with her top 20 ranking, Williams was expected to do well in her first Grand Slam tournament." If the preceeding sentence is correct, she did not have a top 20 ranking yet. She had a 96 ranking. 72.85.189.224 04:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe after reaching the semis or further in Sydney, she improved to a top-20 ranking? If that is the case, some clarity is needed. If not, fact-checking.

71.112.87.13 03:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Since nothing came of this and it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated allegation shouldn't it be removed?

--Posting the stuff about the Sharapova overhead that hit Serena is definitely going too far. That happens all the time in tennis. If we referenced everytime that happened on every tennis player's page it would fill them up. Agrippina Minor

Quite right, but was it necessary to remove the entire 'Controversy' section? It was completely unbiased in writing, I just don't see why it was removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redlands597198 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

The claim was never substantiated. I think it's sensationalist gossip thought up by Channel 7 (which has less than perfect journalistic integrity). Nothing ever came of it and her opponent denied that it happened. What is the "controversy?" Agrippina Minor

The "controversy" is that allegations were made. Surely the fact that both players were questioned on the matter and it was briefly investigated by tennis officials has something to do with it - the fact that both players denied the claims and that tennis officials did not investigate any further does not make it uncontroversial.

The dictionary definition of "controversy" is: a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention. This incident was a public dispute, it was a debate, it was a contention. I don't see why it is uncontroversial just because nothing ever came of it. Redlands597198 23:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What part of "prolonged" do you not understand. This was one lousy allegation that died in a day. Not a controversy. Agrippina Minor

I understand "prolonged". Prolonged, according to the dictionary: 1. To prolong: to lengthen in extent. 2. Prolonged: an extended discussion. This "allegation" or "controversy" fits both of these criteria. The initial allegations made on the Channel Seven commentary were "lengthened in extent" and the "discussion was extended" when tennis officials decided to investigate the matter further. In this context, "prolonged" is not referring to the actual amount of time spent on the matter; it is referring plainly to whether or not the allegations were taken to another step, hence the discussion being extended. Therefore controversial. Redlands597198 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It was reported by ONE media outlet. Both players denied it. There was no investigation by tennis officials, that reported information was later refuted by the tour and the tournament. Therefore it was not prolonged. These turned out to be unfounded allegations, and the story lasted no longer than a day. Drop it. Agrippina Minor

There was an investigation by the Tennis Australia officials. And the fact that both players denied it really has nothing to do with it - Williams: If she was aware of what the member of her entourage was doing, and it was intentional, then why would she admit to it? Vaidisova: She wouldn't have even noticed it. As was reported on a number of TV networks, the chances of actually getting the light to hit her eyes were incredibly slim.

The controversy of it all is that the allegations were made. Not to say I believe this, but even if they were false allegations, it was still controversial. I really don't understand what's uncontroversial about the whole incident. Could you please explain to me, in a very straight-forward manner, why this was not a controversy. Redlands597198 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're new to tennis or something, but if every time something like this happened it made it onto the "controversy" section of a tennis player's wiki page, it would fill up the entire page. My suspicions are that you must be new to tennis since you wanted to post Maria hitting Serena with an overhead as a "controversy." Likewise, when players curse it is not a "controversy" as you tried to post that as well. This was an extremely minor event. If you want to include controversy here, why not edit in when Serena was called a "n*gger" by fans at Indian Wells the last time she played there, when they almost booed her off the court. Or how about the time Serena was serving in the semifinals of Roland Garros and her opponent put her hand up mid serve and Serena wasn't given a second serve and went on to lose the match before a very angry Paris crowd. Those were "controversies" that were widely reported and discussed for months (years) afterwards. The incident you refer to as a "controversy" were unsubstantiated allegations and nothing more. Since they were unsubstatiated, they should REMAIN unsubstantiated...and not be recorded here. Agrippina Minor

Speaking of which, I think it's good you brought up the controversy on the Indian Wells and French Open incident. Those would be good things to add. Even the line call incident at the 2004 US Open when she played Jennifer Capriati can be put into a "Controversy" section. What do you think? Ô 00:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs more citations

This really needs more citations. I'm tempted to go through it all and add fact tags, I really think someone should look through this and add them where needed. Statements like where I already added one would be a good place to start. Thanks. Disinclination 20:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Added the template to address your concerns, which is far better than putting ^{[citation needed]} at the end of every sentence. Tennis expert 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is the term "Serena Slam" notable?

I do not understand the notability of Serena Williams calling her non-calendar year win of four consecutive Grand Slam singles titles a "Serena Slam." Other players have accomplished the same thing without assigning a pet name to it. I believe the term should be deleted from this article as non-notable. Tennis expert 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the way it's mentioned is NPOV. The article factually states that Serena elevates her accomplishment above identical feats. It doesn't agree with her or adopt the phrase "Serena Slam" outside of quotation. The way the information is presented, one could infer that Serena Williams is an accomplished tennis player, or that she is at the summit of athletic hubris, which is my conclusion. It reflects very poorly on her if you ask me, but I'm sure others feel differently. The article leaves judgment to the reader, for the most part; it might, however, be fair to state that Serena Williams was not the first person to win four consecutive Grand Slams on separate calendar years. Yano 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

-- wow.. are you really a tennis expert?? ive seen your credentials and a person with that much in his profile shouldnt be stating these statements about the SERENA SLAM.. oh my.. im really laughing at your post here.. and i know im not the only one.. <unsigned comment>

Was she born a man?

I saw this news article http://dlisted.com/?p=7054 and then I came here. Serena may be transgender or have taken steroids. SakotGrimshine 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

you actually believe in this crap? and no, my edit wasnt vandelism Ô 13:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If she is female as you suspect, likely she takes steroids. Do you dissagree? The article, of course, says nothing to affirm or deny this. SakotGrimshine 15:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't waste our time. Even if she was taking steroids, she would not be playing tennis, just like Sesil Karatantcheva. These players get tested all the time. I'm sure they would have caught her by now if she was taking steroids, but obviously she's not since it's all natural. And also, this is all vandelism since you're bringing in false information. Please don't bring this up again... Ô 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked on the reference desk and someone said, "It's extremely unlikey she was a he; they would have had to alter records all the way back to her birth. As for steroids, tennis actually seems to have a good testing procedure; Sesil Karatantcheva and Karol Beck have been caught and banned in recent years, and a top level player like Serena would be tested often. Clarityfiend 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)"

I think the constant testing solves the question. I think this should be mentioned in the article that she gets tested for steroids a lot and so she is not using them. SakotGrimshine 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is agreeable. Serena says this in an interview:

<<Serena was also asked how many times she had been drug tested in the last 12 months?

"I get tested every week for some reason. I wouldn't do any type of performance- enhancing drugs. I get tested all the time and they even come to my house. I guess it's good to have them because it brings a lot of integrity to tennis.">>

Here is your source [1] if you feel it is important to add in the article. But please don't add any speculation that she is a man, because she's not. Ô 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, what a ridiculous subject of talk that is more appropriate for the tabloids than Wikipedia. - rock8591

Official website

I just tried the external link to Serena's official website, and it doesn't work. I searched Google, and couldn't find anything. Does anyone know anything about this? Is there a new site which I'm just not finding? Tented 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I just tried it, it worked fine for me using Opera ...--Billymac00 17:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Parity with Justine Henin's Wikipedia Page?

It seems a little odd to me that Serena's page has references to the controversies between them, yet the contrary is not permitted on Justine's page, despite references to video of the incidents and her coach's own comments. If we're going to permit this kind of POV, there should be parity on both pages. I suggest (1) not putting "controversy" as a section or (2) allowing "controversy" on both pages. Agrippina Minor 20:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

According to her website, she isn't playing in Moscow...

Her website says she is playing Stuttgart and Zurich. So I'm editing that - Sakya23 01:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in the results table

According to the table of results, Serena won the French open 2003. This was not the case. She lost to Jutine Henin in the semi finals, this was the controversial hand event. However I cannot work out how to change it

Sakya23 14:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your source? -- Donald Albury 03:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

SI template opinion

Should the following templates be on this page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. They would be a distraction. Her modeling for Sports Illustrated is already covered in the article with the appropriate emphasis. Tennis expert (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

sisters

has serena got more than 1 sister —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.204.160 (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits to 2006-08

I believe that my edits (Which Tennis expert reverted without reason) much improve the article. I believe the previous versions were very poor. They were sorely lacking in sources; they had an incredible amount of non-notable information (for instance, her entire run at Wimbledon 2008 was detailed); and they had much information which was simply inaccurate: "She admitted that her six-month break from competitive tennis was as much for a "mental break" as for urgent rehabilitation for her knee injury." + "It has been reported that Williams was suffering a toothache during the Jankovic match, which adversely affected her performance" - I dont recall either being reported; "Williams collapsed in agony from an acute muscle spasm while down 4–2 in the second set." - it was actually 5-5. Most importantly, the lengths of these sections are completely inconsistent with the lengths of the others, making the article look horribly scrappy.

I welcome anyone who believes the current lengths of these sections are inappropriate, but please note that, if there have been no sufficient responses within 24 hours, I inted to re-implement my edits. Thanks. Musiclover565 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not "revert without reason." And I didn't revert your edits. I invite you to use the comparison feature in the history section for this article. As my edit summaries specifically said, I copyedited the sections and restored the material you deleted, which many editors have believed should be in the article. I oppose your deletions of relevant information. You do not have consensus to make them (yet). Tennis expert (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at Wikiproject tennis

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Indian Wells 2001 controversy is becoming notable

I put the following on Talk:Venus Williams, but its equally relevent here:

Since 2001 when the crowd booed Serena Williams all the way through the final of the 2001 Indian Wells, and Venus & Richard Williams were jeered and racially abused as they took their seats, the Williams sisters have boycotted the tournament, despite it being designated a "compulsory" tournament in the rankings. The new WTA 2009 Roadmap has come out. Here's a typical story about it. Important quotes from it:

Venus and Serena Williams will face WTA Tour suspensions for their continued boycott of the Indian Wells tournament where they were booed in 2001 under new 2009 WTA rules announced Wednesday. They have told WTA chief executive Larry Scott that they will continue to skip the event anyway
WTA plans for more prize money and a longer off-season for top players in the 2009 season include changes that cut minimum non-Grand Slam appearances from 13 to 10 but make Indian Wells, Miami, Beijing and Madrid mandatory. The new WTA rule does have an escape clause. Players can appear in the event marketing the week of the tournament or at one of three dates later in the year to promote the following year's edition
"They will be subject to the rules of the WTA," Scott said. "To avoid suspension, they will have to be available to do in-market promotional activities. I respect their decision on what happened and they understand the need to apply rules equally. They will have to take part in these activities to avoid suspension."
Should the Williams sisters skip the event and refuse to appear, they would be suspended in 2010 for two premier events on the calendar following Indian Wells. That would drop them from Miami and Madrid events in 2010

Clearly this rule is going to impact significantly on Venus and Serena Williams in 2010, if she can't play in the Miami and Madrid events - and also on the Miama and Madrid events themselves! IMO something about this should be included in our pages; a small paragraph at the bottom of each of the two pages giving

The events of 2001 [2] [3]
The comments Venus and Serena have said over the years about how they'll never return, eg.
“Some things you have to stand up for,” Serena said. “There’s been a lot of people in the past that are my race that have stood up for a lot more than not playing Indian Wells. That’s the least I can do.”[4]
The rule changes being brought in for 2009

Well, that's what I think. What about everyone else? almost-instinct 12:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Another link: [5] which makes this point: "Under the current schedule it would mean the Williams sisters, who are hugely popular in Miami, could be banned from competing in what they consider their home tournament." almost-instinct 12:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If properly sourced, I would support adding information about this controversy to the article. Tennis expert (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

2003 and the Grand slam

I would suggest calling the 2003 section "2003 and the grand slam". I think it's important enough to mention on the title. Would you agree? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

agreed! 130.113.38.58 (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed as suggested. Open for remarks. Kvsh5 (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. It helps to give an overall 'arc' to the piece (which is very long anyways, and in that sense needs all the help it can get!) My one caveat would be that, as non-awkwardly as possible, we make sure that it's clearly stated that this Grand Slam was non-calendar year. Alonsornunez (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

career prize money

the career prize money table at the bottom is incorrect! she has made over 20 million in prize money, please change it thanks 130.113.38.58 (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Length of article

Is it really necessary to have EVERY single event Serena withdraws or plays in? This article is about 85 kb long and needs to be shortened. We have her WTT schedule which isn't exactly that important in her 2008 year. I wish we focused on Grand Slams, Olympics, and her 3 tournament winning streak. Berlin-Rome- Stanford pieces don't contribute much for a casual tennis fan. Sakya23 (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In complete agreement. These articles are meant to be completely accessible to the general public, and the layman doesn't care about a run to the semifinals in Stanford. Musiclover565 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? What is your evidence for that? Tennis expert (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If there are length issues then surely spinning the information off to subsidiary articles would be preferable to just deleting it? almost-instinct 15:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How would you suggest we do that? Her article isn't meant to include every single match she plays in, wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should only track her important events. This isn't a place for her fans to come and document every single thing. Sakya23 (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion, assuming your question wasn't rhetorical, would be to read WP:SS and follow the advice given there. The introduction to this guideline contains the following: "The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long articles would cause problems. So we must move information out of articles periodically. In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information" (my emphasis) almost-instinct 22:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with a lot of tennis articles is that a lot of contributers (mostly IP addresses) don't really seem to understand the concept of an encyclopedia, and treat it more as a news site, updating indiscriminantly. See the bottom of the 2008 section here. What commonly happens is that information just accumulates,and then instead of being trimmed, is just cleaned-up.

What about emphasis on the latter half that sentence: "that would defeat the purpose of the contributions." On the other hand, everyone would acknowledge that deleterious edits can be made simply by adding more information (a de facto policy), and if the purpose is to make the article better, but they don't i.e. by making it inaccessable, then what do you do? Too many particular opinions in policy, I prefer to see this case dealt with without it, as it requires a pragmatic approach. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with some of the edits that have attempted to shorten this article is that the edits delete her less successful efforts and make the article unbalanced and read like a fan webpage. This is an encyclopedia; therefore, articles should objectively reflect her year, including both the good and the bad. And, yes, her withdrawals from events due to injury are very relevant as they reflect her struggles as an athlete and could possibly explain why her results in the tournaments she did play were not what she would have wanted. Tennis expert (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of objectivity; it's a question of notability. Of course winning a tournament is more notable than a quarter-final exit at a tournament that is not particularly highly-regarded. In any case, with mention of Williams's third-round exit at the French Open in the preferred version, it still gives a balanced summary of her year. Musiclover565 (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So should we go to graf, hingis, and any other tennis player and list every single event they played in and how far they made it. Of course not, a player's article only needs to include the most important things. In 10 years, no one will care about her SF to stanford. Since the article is 90kb long, wikipedia recommends we split it. So what would be the best way to do that? It would look a bit tacky if we have articles for each year of serena's long career. that's why i recommend we remove non slams and non vital pieces. Her 3R in Roland Garros wasn't very successful, but its included because of its grand slam importance. Sakya23 (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have reminded you (Musiclover565) several times already, not everything in an article must meet the notability criteria. That criteria applies only to whether the article itself is notable. See WP:NOTABLE. Tennis expert (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor quality of many articles

See here for discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclover565 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

split article

Since the article is too long, I would suggest making a separate tournament result page.--Levineps (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

possible record?

I don't know if this has been discussed on the internet or wikipedia, couldn't find anything - but is Serena Williams the only (female or both?) player, in at least a while if not longer, to have a career Grand Slam in both singles and doubles? ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

well, to my knowledge, only male is Emerson and for Open era, only other females Court, Navratilova, and Billie Jean King.--Billymac00 (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Residence

In a recent (february 2009) interview for the GDF open in Paris Serena talked with the interviewer about how she now lives in Paris. Should her residence be changed to Paris? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.191.68 (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Serena Slam

Serena Williams won the Australian Open in 2003 to complete the most recent non-calendar Grand Slam. It has become popularly known as the "Serena Slam" and was named after Tiger Woods' similar accomplishment the "Tiger Slam". I believe that this rather interesting and uncontroversial bit of info should be on her page. Please help to build a new consensus for this. Thanks. Alonsornunez (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Winning four consecutive Grand Slam singles titles (but not in a single calendar year) is not "popularly known" as a "Serena Slam". It's just the name that Serena Williams playfully assigned to the accomplishment at a press conference. The term is unencyclopedic and ridiculous, as is the article on the subject, Serena Slam. Tennis expert (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See, I disagree here. The term "Serena Slam" specifically refers to her non-calendar Grand Slam, and is notable, the way that a nickname, popular title ("Whistler's Mother") or shorthand for something notable or famous is. I am not syaing it needs its own Wiki entry, just that this piece of info is as notable as any small tournament result listed on this page.

I look forward to reviewing consensus for this. Alonsornunez (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See Non-Calendar Year Grand Slam. Tennis expert (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You're intentionally mistating what I wrote. I stated that Serena referred to her non-calendar Slam as a Serena Slam, and that is in fact how her feat is known, "popularly". Feh. Alonsornunez (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And your evidence for the popularity of this silly term is what? Tennis expert (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Man, you're awesome! There's some great little articles on teh Interweb, written in Australia, the USA, England, yadda yadda, some from 2003, some from yesterweek, and some from the five years inbetween. I should probably send out an IM and tell them, these silly 'journalists' and 'experts' that that term has no evidence of being popular and they should stop using it. FehAlonsornunez (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL. Tennis expert (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So sorry! I apologize for any offense I caused. Why call it a 'silly term'? I'm not offended, but please review the link you gave me anyways please. Thanks! Serena Slam: It's in popular use. I think it should stay in. Alonsornunez (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it is silly and unencyclopedic and wrongly implies that Serena Williams was the first and still the only person to have won four consecutive Grand Slam tournaments. Maybe we should call a "Career Grand Slam" an "Evert Slam" or a "Fry Slam" instead. Far better to use the generic and more descriptive term instead of trying to honor a player by using something like "Serena Slam". That doesn't even use her last name, for goodness sake.... Tennis expert (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're the only one who is implying that this term is somehow meant to supplant another term. There is a general consensus among the population that this feat (wherein Serena won four consecutive Grand Slams) was and is known as the "Serena Slam", specifically and only for Serena's, just as Tiger Wood's "Tiger Slam" refers only to his remarkable and astounding feat. That the thing though, about your snarky "Evert Slam": you're implying an arbitrariness where none occurs. This term has existed for Serena's feat for six years now, and is clearly not silly. You're funny though. Alonsornunez (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would now ask, after deleting it again, that you try to reach a compromise with me on this issue. On what terms are you willing to allow a reference to the "Serena Slam" to stay in this article? Alonsornunez (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I suggest that you read WP:BRD. There's already an unencyclopedic article about the Serena Slam, and that article already is cross-referenced in the Serena Williams article. Therefore, further references to the silliness is unnecessary. And you still have not provided even one source for the alleged popularity of "Serena Slam". Saying it's popular over-and-over does not make it so. Finally, trying to honor a person for a "remarkable" or "outstanding" feat is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a fan blog. Tennis expert (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Read it thanks. Trying to find a compromise. So, why does it seem like it's not a popular phrase if its referenced in articles in Australia, Ireland and every other country, in years from 2003 to today. I've added multiple articles already. LOL. Please read 'em 'fore you delete 'em. And please, don't assume I'm adding as a fan (I like Venus more); it stood out at me because A) the term is widely known, and was absent; B) the event itself was historic (first since Graf in '94); and C)every article since then, and most experts, have referred to the event by this name. Please help me to reach a compromise. Alonsornunez (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

3PO There's no harm in saying something like "Serena referred to her achievement as the Serena Slam, a phrase which became popular in the press." It is factual, easily sourcable, and doesn't impose itself on the rest of the article as the only other place I saw it in the article was in the See also section. If it were in the lead I would say it may be too much. NJGW (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely response. I'm glad for the constructive input. I look forward to seeing this integrated into the article. Alonsornunez (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Two people does not a consensus make. There is no deadline for comments here. What's your rush? Tennis expert (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you closing the gap with your edit, but I have reverted to the original due to a slight lack of NPOV. The spirit of the 3PO and of the original change reads that Serena came up with the name and it was carried by the press. Your edit, by elimination of 'the press' insinuates that Serena is solely responsible. Either way, small enough to just leave alone I think, though I would love to hear any further suggestions. Alonsornunez (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you read WP:BRD and stop trying to undermine the courteous, deliberate process here. Thanks! Alonsornunez (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tennis Expert, I ask that you please help to reach a compromise on this issue of the Serena Slam. I have provided reference for the Slam, and explanations for my point of view. I would ask that you please do the same. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edit history proves that you are not interested in honoring WP:Consensus or WP:BRD. Edit warring appears to be your modus operandi. I find that strange for a self-professed new editor. Tennis expert (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tennis Expert, again I ask that you please help to reach a compromise on this issue of the Serena Slam. I have provided reference for the Slam, and explanations for my point of view regarding why I think that the reference to the media should be included. In the spirit of cooperation please respond. I would also ask that you refrain from any personal insinuations in the future. Thanks! Alonsornunez (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is how I understand where we stand now, and please let me know if you feel otherwise. I saw what I believed to be an oversight. I added the 'Serena Slam' reference, which was reverted. I, undeniably shaky in execution, tried to implement BRD. This was unsucessful and reached out for a third viewpoint. This opinion was stated, arguably bridging our POVs; I then implemented these changes almost exactly as stated by the third editor, as they seemed very NPOV. You then edited what I had written, but did not revert/delete it. To me this accomplishes two things: A) you have accepted the inclusion of the 'Serena Slam' (thanks for the compromise) and B) by responding to my edit, which was new information, were accepting that this was the new 'starting point' in a discussion or consensus. Does this not mean that BRD rests with you? Thanks! Alonsornunez (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please respond to this point when you are able. In a sign of good faith I will refrain from undoing your change until then. Thanks! Alonsornunez (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that ou are the only one who is disagreement over this issue. Please let me know if I am not understanding this correctly. Alonsornunez (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Length of article

Would it be a good idea to try to trim down this article? I'm new at Wikipedia, but as a casual reader Serena's bio seems a bit unwieldy. Any objections up front? Perhaps grouping by a few years (2002-2003 for example) that have a discernible 'arc' or story (dominance and number one in the world, in this case)? Alonsornunez (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a good idea. I object. This already has been discussed and rejected. Tennis expert (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, glad to hear your opinion. Why do you think it should stay this long? My opinion is that the length is a bit unwieldy, and that the results for nearly every tournament bogs down the flow and style of the piece. Alonsornunez (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Expert, please explain why the tables and lists I removed should stay in? They seem to clearly be a violation of WP:NOT Thoughts? Any suggestions on improving the length, and thereby the article? Alonsornunez (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please just call me by my registered name. OK? The article is not excessively long. Tables are not counted when determining the length of an article per Wikipedia policy. As for your deletion of material, you need to get consensus for the deletion whenever an editor objects. But I suspect you already knew that given our previous interactions; yet, you seem to ignore the principle in favor of edit warring. Why is that? Tennis expert (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to make this article better. It is clearly too long and it violates Wikipedia:Notability, which is worth a re-read. It seems that this page very clearly is indiscriminate in the info it lists. Everything is here! That's no way to write a good encyclopedia entry. I've tried to trim the years down in a constructive way and you have blind reverted them. Please explain why. Alonsornunez (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-read or read WP:Consensus and WP:BRD. And you misunderstand WP:Notable. See WP:N#NCONTENT. Tennis expert (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am attempting 'D' at this point. Please discuss why you think all this info needs to be here? Also, see [WP:NOT] and check out New Source. This page clearly does not reach what those guidelines are reaching for. Alonsornunez (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the evidence proves that you are attempting to impose your edits via edit warring while trying to obscure the issues with specious arguments. That's what the disruptive Musiclover565 typically did, who, as shown above, also had an intense interest in shortening this article. Mere coincidence, huh? Tennis expert (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to impose my edits. Discussing them now. And again, please stop with your accusations. Just trying to help make some great tennis articles.Alonsornunez (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I completely agree that this article appears too large. While much of the information does indeed seem broadly encyclopedic, I'd strongly suggest that a split of this article could be beneficial: I actually browsed across this article on my very slow computer at work, and had real difficulty scrolling the page due to the size and complexity of the tables. Once all transclusions are taken into account, the page is actually 363kb of HTML, which is very, very large for a Wikipedia article. At the very least, I'd suggest splitting some or all of the tables and some of the annual summaries into a Serena Williams' tennis record article (that name's just the first thing I thought of, don't consider it any kind of real suggestion). Reducing the size of this article doesn't necessarily need to mean removal of content, I simply think from a readability and browsability point of view a split would be the most user-friendly option. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Mazca, what do you think of the Williams Sisters rivalry page? This allows the head-to-head info to move somewhere else without be deleted while at the same time de-cluttering their own player pages. Alonsornunez (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with splitting the article, as per WP:SIZE. For example, most of the career section could be moved to Career of Serena Williams, and the career record tables at the bottom of the page could be split to Career record of Sareena Williams. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

2006

I have edited this section in an attempt to trim the size of the article down. There is stuff that is unnecesary (Serena rarely plays an Aussie warm-up) and stuff that is barely notable-to-trivial (Serena drops out of the top 100, which is big; we need to mention she dropped out of the top 50 a month before, as well?) Please let me know what you think. Alonsornunez (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please observe the etiquette and spirit of Wikipedia and do not bind delete, particularly when discussion was previous opened here. Alonsornunez (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A typical argument of Musiclover565 and associated sockpuppets. Just coincidence, huh? The fact of the matter is that your edit was reverted. See WP:BRD. Tennis expert (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No one wins if an article is left unwieldy and undisciplined. Please help to trim it down. Also, in the spirit of good faith please refrain from any personal accusations or assumptions of motive or identity please. Thanks!Alonsornunez (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is neither "unwieldy" nor "undisciplined". Tennis expert (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is much too much info. Seriously, at this length this entry will never reach even GA status, and that is clearly a guide for what is unwieldy. Look at the unrevised 2008 alone! Seriously, that thing's a monster. And it's only one year of a thirteen year career. Alonsornunez (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can get a consensus on this discussion page for cutting down 2008, go for it. But you cannot unilaterally cut the information without first getting that consensus. Tennis expert (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please review the 'B' in WP:BRD. This is how it works, right? Try something new, discuss it if it doesn't. I mean, do you really believe that the length stands up to GA criteria? And if not, how do you recommend we go about it?Alonsornunez (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You can be bold only once. Once you have been reverted, you must discuss your edits before trying to make them again. Otherwise, you are simply being disruptive. See WP:Consensus. Tennis expert (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would ask then that you please help to trim the size of the article. The length seems to be uncontestably long, and editing and maybe even splitting should be done to try to do this Alonsornunez (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

2005-2009: Revised

My revision of Serena's years 2005-2009 can be found at [6]. Please look at it, let me know what you think. I don't think it's perfect (still getting this Wiki thing down) but it's a start I think. It seems that most people agree that the article is too long. Please let me know if this seems like a way to go. Alonsornunez (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your revision is a wholly unconstructive deletion of relevant information. The article is not too long because only the prose of an article (not its tables) is considered. See this. Tennis expert (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Williams Sisters Rivalry/ Redundancy

The Williams Sisters rivalry page has been cleared from deletion and is staying. Now that that's clear I'm removing the redundant information on both Williams sister's individual pages. Let me know if anyone has any objections. Alonsornunez (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I object. The article was retained. But as the closing administrator said, retaining the article did not decide where the information in it should reside. Tennis expert (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No to the Merger

It's clear that this article has enough sources and references to stand on its own. Also, the Boycott is one that involves Venus and Serena, but also the WTA Tour (their reaction, the 'roadmap', etc.) and thus should be its own thing. Thanks for the move though. I was trying to think of something better. AlonsornunezComments 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

So, we also should have an article entitled "WTA Reaction to the Boycott of BNP Paribas Open by Venus and Serena Williams"? The question is not whether there are enough sources for a stand-alone article. Rather, the question is whether it makes sense to have a stand alone article for an issue that more appropriately and logically belongs in the player biographies themselves. Just because you can create an article doesn't mean you should. Having a separate article concerning the boycott is absurd. Tennis expert (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fansite tag

Please read the information in the tag and at WP:SUMMARY before simply removing information from this article. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that "every match, every score, every tiebreak" she ever played is listed in this article? I believe that exaggerated edit summaries should be avoided because they are unconstructive and don't help anyone to improve articles. Tennis expert (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have actually been saying this myself, and I also believe that length is an issue. TenEx, looking over the thread, you are the only one who does not believe that the articles should be trimmed. Why do you believe this, and why do believe everyone else thinks that they do? This is not rhetorical, I am trying to come to an understanding on this issue. AlonsornunezComments 12:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The factual basis for your post is incorrect. Tennis expert (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I seriously believe that any article I have tagged with {{fansite}} needs a lot of work. I think you're making rather a mountain out of a molehill regarding the edit summaries, people seeking to help improve the articles are much more likely to look at the article itself rather than the edit summary history. I'm not even sure "unconstructive" is a real word. The real issue is that these articles are way off the standard required to make either good or featured article and that should be the aim for every article here, as I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's focus on the actual content of the articles, not edit summaries. Alos TenEx please explain "The factual basis for your post is incorrect" as it seems an obtuse answer, though that might just be me. AlonsornunezComments 16:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As a note of clarification TenEx has been the sole editor on this page who thinks that the articles are not too long. Six editors agree about the length and deletion/editing, one editor thinks that the info shoul be moved to another page. AlonsornunezComments 17:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for changing your edit summaries to be more constructive. For your edification, you can find "unconstructive" in this online dictionary. Thanks also for again assuming my bad faith. When will you stop doing that? And what Wikipedia policy requires every article to achieve good or featured status? Tennis expert (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness for American spelling! Nothing suggests articles are required to achieve GA or FA status, but you must agree that we're here to make an excellent encyclopedia and it's generally agreed that both good and featured articles are something we should strive for, not deliberately avoid. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've put back in an edit of Serena's Career section (specifically 2005-2008) to try to work more towards a summary-style article. 'Career' section now trimmed from 38k to 31k. Still too long! AlonsornunezComments 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And I'm reverting it. There has never been consensus for you to do this, as you well know. Tennis expert (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is too long, the Career section alone is 38k. Trimming down the article to fit both standards for length and for summary style guidelines means that the intricate and expert level amount of detail needs to go. AlonsornunezComments 04:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Aside from your personal opinion, on what basis do you allege that this article is "too long"? As for deleting stuff without forking it, see WP:PRESERVE. Tennis expert (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion on the matter, just the facts as presented by the page. Taking out the tables, info boxes, et al. the article still shows up as well over a readable length.Alonsornunez Comments 06:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Aside from your personal opinion, what is your source for determining "readable length"? Tennis expert (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you really being this obtuse about the length, which every editor who has voiced an opinion has agreed is too long? I thought I was the new editor here! (Or is that sockpuppet? I forget...) I agree with the majority of users here. I have asked multiple times, and I would ask again. In all seriousness, why do you think everyone else except for you thinks that article is too long?AlonsornunezComments 06:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

They probably do not understand that tables are not counted when determining article length. Without the tables, this article is a very readable 50kb long. That is no where close to offending Wikipedia standards. And stop being incivil, OK? (Are you really a sockpuppet? Which one?) Tennis expert (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The article in current form contains some 48kB of prose. The WP:SIZE says "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB" . This suggests that this article is within acceptable limits strictly in terms of size. The article is well divided into sections, so that readers can skip sections in which they are not interested: they don't need to risk "tiring" (shrugs). In brief, I don't think that the article needs to be shorter, and is likely to be made worse by an editor whose goal is simply to reduce the byte count. Having said that, there appear to be sentences and phrases that reflect subjective opinion or require references, and a clean-up of those might incidentally reduce the length.

Bear in mind that the subject is the most highly paid female tennis player, and one of the most successful sportswomen, in history: it seems obvious that the article will be more detailed than average. Ordinary Person (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The objective was never to make it shorter for the sake of making it shorter. The tag suggests it is full of intricate detail and excessive trivia. Which, regardless of her stature in the game, needs remedy. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it does appear that The Rambling Man and Alonsornunez have differing specific objections. Above, he says that the article is "well above a readable length", and with that particular comment, I don't agree.

If I was going to take a red pencil to this article, I would excise anything unreferenced in the "Playing style" section, which is about 99% of that section.

It does seem to me that some of the information in the "Career" section is available in the tables: annual prizemoney, year-end rank. It is noteworthy when she first gains the number 1 spot, or when she drops out of the top 100, but perhaps not sufficiently noteworthy that it rose to 108 after Cincinnati in 2006, for instance.

Trying not to sound like a den-mother, but this discussion has descended into personalities somewhat. We're individuals collaborating on the building of an encyclopedia. No-one is going to die just because an article remains tagged or isn't tidied up immediately. It's not always easy to distinguish someone with whom one has a good-faith difference of opinion and someone whose idea of a good time is disrupting Wikipedia or trying to get a stranger angry, but from the looks of things everyone involved here is someone who wants to make WP better. We might have to take a very detailed look at the article to effect a compromise: may seem like overkill for a single article but it might be a way forward for the Tennis articles more generally.

Would anyone support the creation of a separate article (or perhaps articles) for more detailed coverage of her career, with a compressed version remaining in the Serena Williams main article?Ordinary Person (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For GA/FA

While this article is way, way away from being in a position to be nominated for WP:GAN, it's one of those Wikiproject Tennis articles which really should be positioned as an example of something we strive for. Right now, as far as my experience in FA, FL and GA nominations go, we have some serious issues before we can nominate the article for GA. For me, the most important issue is the lack of decent prose, for instance 89 sentences start with "Williams...". Is anyone interested in improving the prose, the many hundreds of miniature paragraphs and generating an article of interest to the general public? Or should this particularly important bio be allowed to languish in the world of the (discouraged) intricate detail? I'd love to help out but my expertise is limited in this area and I am reticent to edit in a disruptive, unconstructive fashion unless approved by the tennis consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As you have done many times before (see item C), your strategy is to inappropriately shame editors who have worked hard on this article into complying with your view about how the article should read. You also are again trying to impose your unilateral and biased conception of "intricate detail" and what is "of interest to the general public" without any actual evidence of their interests. Of course, "disruptive, unconstructive" edits would per se not be welcome here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the usual link. Perhaps we can focus on the matter in hand. We need to work on improving the prose here so we can move on and nominate for GA. Of course, Tennis expert, we are all now well aware of your thoughts on this matter. I would like to hear from other contributors, thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I will continue to offer my opinions wherever they are needed. As for the "usual link", perhaps you are aware of the expression, "You made your bed, now lie in it" except you have the opportunity to unmake that bed but have so far declined. If the link is relevant to your ongoing behavior, I might (or might not) cite it. Tennis expert (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cite it until the cows come home. There are plenty of examples in your citation which are of great interest to others I'm sure. I'm happy for you to continue ramming your point home at every possible opportunity. Meanwhile, I will continue to attempt to improve Wikipedia and the serious lack of GAs and FAs in the Tennis Wikiproject. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's really good of you not to object when I link back to the ever-growing list of your disruptive and unconstructive activities, which the arbitration committee will be looking at shortly. Tennis expert (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you've got me shaking in my boots. Really, you have. I feel intimidated now. At least you haven't brought up my age yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, as another editor has pointed out at "Tennis expert, can you please leave your personal issues with the other editors at the door? You're going to see no end to editing disputes if you can't work with other editors who have different viewpoints than your own. The more you point at other editors' supposed faults, the more you draw attention to your own. " I also note your request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests included some pitiable age discrimination. Discrimination of this kind is unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Try taking real responsibility for your misbehavior. Don't blame others for reacting to it, especially when it's continuing. Tennis expert (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So you accept that your age discrimination was intended? I can see no link between my misbehaviour and your overt and unacceptable discrimination against another editor. I'm sure you agree that discrimination against others is disruptive and unconstructive. As you were advised when seeking Editor assistance, "Tennis expert, can you please leave your personal issues with the other editors at the door? You're going to see no end to editing disputes if you can't work with other editors who have different viewpoints than your own. The more you point at other editors' supposed faults, the more you draw attention to your own. " The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And as for "your strategy is to inappropriately shame editors who have worked hard on this article" - where are these editors? I can't see anyone complaining about the comments I've made. Except you, obviously. No-one owns the article and improvements can and should be made to bring this article up to GA or FA quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And no one owns this article to force it to go through the GA or FA process. It's all about consensus. Tennis expert (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. So I suppose you would remove a GAN or FAC notice as BRD! I hadn't thought about that. Brilliant. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Rambling Man it is clear that TenEx is being disruptive, and I think it a waste of time to indulge him. We should move on to the article, work to improve it, and if necessary take further actioion. I reinstated the POV tag as it seems rather obvious that it belongs (nevermind being fanish as well). AlonsornunezComments 10:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The tag is being taken off because it does not apply. Tennis expert (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Rambling Man and Alonsornumez: I really admire your efforts. I have myself more or less given up here, as long as one editor consistently throw the "against established consensus"/"disruptive"/"incivil" cards so as to veto any change (said editor has even restored "consensus" in some cases—relinking dates—where he actually did not disagree with the B part in BRD!). Against such a conservative approach (where excessive rule abiding hampers the sense for improvements), it is an up-hill battle that I simply cannot spend much time on. If I am again subsequently accused of misrepresenting said editor's intentions, then think about this: When all but you misinterpret your actions and intentions, then think for a moment that it could be the case that you are a bad communicator, and that all others are not deliberately out to get you! Good luck with improving the articles in spite of the obstacle.--HJensen, talk 11:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I've been perfectly clear. But certain men like you just refuse to listen because the truth of my opinions isn't as sexy as the lies they've been telling or as emotionally fulfilling as the man-bonding they've been experiencing. Tennis expert (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you completely lost it? What on earth are you talking about? You make no sense whatsoever. What is "man-bonding", and when did I allegedly experience that? Please expand, as I cannot tell whether you are being disruptive and/or incivil :-) (And your phrase "truth of my opinions" is probably the funniest I have seen yet; I really hope you are being impersonated by a sockpuppet.)--HJensen, talk 16:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

More sarcasm? To be expected I suppose. It is interesting however that just about every editor confronted by you forms a bond with every other editor confronted by you. I can't imagine why that would be the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, HJensen; he lost it. “The Klingons killed my brother Piotr, Keptin!!” ;-) Greg L (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Methinks that Tennis Ex would rather keep tennis-related articles right out of FA/GA, because to go anywhere near those professional processes would mean loosening his iron grip over this little empire. Some sacrifice ... Tony (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"the truth of my opinions isn't as sexy as the lies they've been telling or as emotionally fulfilling as the man-bonding" Yes, just like "War is peace; Love is hate", these words will surely be immortalised - on his epitaph maybe. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

POV sect

The record against other players is most certainly intricate detail and trivial. However, more importantly, per the description, it contains only someone's idea of who should be included, per "record against certain players". Who decides which "certain" players are included here? And note, the tag says it must stay in place until this issue resolved. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor consensus decides, just like editor consensus decides everything in the article. The tag can be deleted like everything else. Tennis expert (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So, once again we meet the D part of the BRD essay. So Tennis expert, please explain what criteria have been used to decide which "certain" players are included in this list? That way we can start to form a way forward. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert. To fulfill your part of the BRD bargain, you must discuss the edits now. You can't just BRBR because that's edit warring. Please respond in this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlike you, I don't profess to read the minds of all the people who comprise the consensus for keeping this section in the article. The criteron probably is former or current top 10 players, because that's what the intro says. Tennis expert (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And therein lies the first problem with this so-called consensus. It is entirely unaccountable. And by the way, the intro actually says "against certain players " who were or are top 10 players. Which "certain" players? Are all former and current top 10 players included? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

An effort was made to include all former and current top 10 players that she played at least once, and that effort probably succeeded. I've looked at the list many times and know of no omissions. Tennis expert (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

-sigh- Mr. Expert, stop with your disruptive editing. Respect that your fellow editors have put up a tag because of a particular concern, and work to fix the problem. As you have been asked by editors for the last week, leave personal concerns out of this. The personal attacks are childish and can lead to editors not taking you seriously. AlonsornunezComments 13:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, TRM did not take Wikipedia policy seriously when he did the things that the arbitration committee is now considering for punishment. But that's completely his fault. And it's not childish to point out that TRM is continuing the disruptive behavior on an unrelenting basis. We deserve much better conduct from our administrators and bueaucrats. They should be setting good examples. Plus, editors who are just now interacting with TRM for the first time and are beginning to feel the effects of his behavior have every right to know the history. And if you think I care whether editors "take me seriously", you are wrong. Tennis expert (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"And if you think I care whether editors "take me seriously"...". This is where I think you make a misjudgment. Wikipedia is a community, and the best way (arguably the ONLY way) things get done is through cooperation and respect (i.e. "taking each other seriously").

And I'm sorry if it sounds rude but unless your personal concerns relate specfically to the questions at hand I will simply be ignoring them. Too much drama. AlonsornunezComments 13:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Punishment"? Arbcom aren't here to "punish" us Tennis expert, you misunderstand. They're here to arbitrate in disputes. I'm sure Arbcom will make the right decisions but per the date linking fiasco, don't hold your breath. The thousands of diffs you've provided them will keep them busy for weeks. While you actively discriminate against other editors as a result of their age, all I want to do is get a tennis article to either GA or FA. You have made it clear that this is not one of your objectives here. Oh and finally, for BRD to apply, the original edit has to be bold, hence the B. Removing excessive trivia is not bold in the slightest. Reverting an edit that is not bold is edit warring. I would love to spend hundreds of hours collecting diffs where you have cited BRD whilst reverting far-from-bold edits and even then not engaging constructively in discussion, but I'd rather improve the Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I think the NPOV tag is not really necessary, it seems to me that the dispute can be ended by establishing simple and reasonable criteria for inclusion in this category, and then ensuring that the list is exclusive and exhaustive. I don't consider this category to be trivial or excessive detail. Ordinary Person (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, establish a simple and reasonable set of criteria. As I have asked for right from the start. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The criteria were set forth in the article "right from the start". Yet, you decided to play this game. Nice waste of everyone's time, ThRaMa. Tennis expert (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What "game"? Again I fail to undertand a post of yours. But I sense some sarcasm there. Isn't that what you usually call disruptive and waste ArbCom time on?--HJensen, talk 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Disregarding the ongoing, unrelated dispute here, here's what I see:

Edit warring over the placement of article maintenance tags is highly disruptive; BRD is never a valid reason for violating 3RR. Their placement is intended to signify to readers and editors that another editor believes there are issues with the article or section(s) to which said tags are applied, and to encourage passers-by to go to this talk page and participate in improving the article. Removing them when a dispute is ongoing may have the effect of shutting out other valid viewpoints. Admittedly, defining when the dispute is resolved can be a contentious point, but I would argue that removing such tags within hours of their placement (or within 3 minutes), without changing the article in any significant way, and without any substantial discussion on the tag's placement, does not speak of good faith.
As stated above, the purpose of maintenance tags is to facilitate discussion of potential problems. They are not part of the article content, and removing them claiming no consensus to add them screams of wikilawyering. And, in any case, I ask you, what harm is there in leaving a maintenance tag in place until discussion has concluded? Wikipedia is a work in progress. It is entirely valid to question article content, even of featured articles, and expect a reasonable discussion.
As to the content being disputed, this reminds me of the recent dispute at Andy Murray... which to be honest does not seem to have been resolved. I would think, though, that in the case of such a popularized tennis player as Williams, it would be quite appropriate to create a fork of this information into and reduce this article's section to summary style, as was suggested in the Murray dispute.

I strongly urge all involved to drop their outside disputes and collaborate towards improving this and related articles. Taking an assumption of good faith on the part of other editors means presuming that said other editors' interests here are first to improve Wikipedia- disputes over clearly unrelated issues can wait until later. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestions in general. I have suggested the same "forking" for the John McEnroe article, and note that it is already done for the Billie Jean King article that has a Billie Jean King career statistics "sub article". (Just like many musicians and band bios has independent discography articles.) Yes, collaboration should indeed be what to strive for. It is just often hard and discouraging that some (=one) always throw(s) the "against consensus" card in order to veto against changes that others like.--HJensen, talk 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

cleanup of 20 April

I have made a number of cleanup changes to the article using some 20 separate edits to ensure maximum transparency of the changes. The modifications include consolidations of sentences and paragraphs, removal of redundant words, phrases, and not very biographically significant details or quotations etc. I also removed some quite substantial overlinking to all and sundry terms which do not warrant linking or repeated linking. I believe that these changes all improve the article's focus by sharpening the prose. I hope that these changes will not be reverted in one fell swoop, but treated with good faith, although I believe on reading the history here that they could well be undone with a single cavalier mouse-click with the edit summary "no consensus" although I may not be the first or only person to propose similar changes. I come in peace and rest in hope, fingers crossed. Kindly discuss first before reverting, in whole or in part. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This would be ideal as an FA candidate

Dear fellow editors: I wonder whether we can attract more people to work on this very important article. There is not yet a single tennis-related article. This is bad for the project. Do we not all want to see that bronze star on at least a few tennis-related articles? What about a vague timeline: end of May for nomination? Tony (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't completely agree on this being an ideal candidate. See an earlier post on this. --HJensen, talk 15:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, there may be 'better candidates' as there is a potential stability issue with new material. For me, it makes a good candidate because it is a high-profile page which attracts 2.5k page views daily, and ought to be good enough to be a WP showpiece. The state of flux should not stop us from improving the core sections of the biography, although it would be a challenge to update it on a regular basis. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, HJ, you were soooo unkind to mark your edit summary like you did! I'm deeply hurt be the accusation of vandalism, boo hoo! Ohconfucius (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You should be happy! I refrained, after fighting the urge, from reporting you fór incivility, disruption, edit warring, delinking, grammar improvements and other bookable offenses! ;-)--HJensen, talk 18:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

:-0 Ohconfucius (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I this article should first go through the GA process. Since this is the major tennis player article going through these improvements, we need to use this as a model. It must be as good as possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, if others agree. Does that mean just one or two outsiders assess it?

The year sections vary significantly in length and level of detail. Is that natural, or is there information lacking from eight or nine years ago? If 2000, 01 and 02 are to remain as stubby, would it be OK to conflate them into "2000–02"? Tony (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe one should drop the slavishly year by year idea. She is an athlete covering lots of years, so perhaps a fewer sections built around central parts of her career would be better. Somethnig similar is done in the Andre Agassi article.--HJensen, talk 13:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless someone has another idea I was thinking 1995-1998 (early career), 1999-2001 (first success), 2002-2003 (Serena Slam years), 2004-2006 (struggles, or something along those lines), and 2007-2009 (A return to form). Are there any conventions or norms in section titles that should be followed? AlonsornunezComments 13:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, or use just the years without embellishment. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Did it without years, just titles. (One of the best sports FAs IMO is Michael Jordan, and I think the titles/no years looks more encyclopedic). These sections are huge now, and I'm going to start trimming them down. AlonsornunezComments 14:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree entirely with the new structure and titling. Thanks. Tony (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The change conveniently allows proper linking instead of piped links to [[2002 Australian Open|Australian Open]] etc. I have done a few, but there are more. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

sources

I think we all realise the article is under-referenced. Who has a grip on the sources? This is where I really fall down. The article would benefit from a greater diversity of sources, too. Is there a literature on tennis technique? Is there more than one biography of Williams? Tony (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit of Google Books hunting reveals several titles. A number of these are children's books (possibly the same source material adapted for different age groups) and are thus unsuitable. Having discounted those there is partial text available for the following:

General

Jaqueline Edmondson, Venus and Serena Williams: a Biography (2005) ([7])
Paul Fein, Tennis Confidential: Today's Greatest Players, Matches, and Controversies (2003) Has a chapter entitled "Serena Williams: Not Just Venus's Little Sister" ([8])

Sociological commentary

O'Reilly, Cahn, Women and sports in the United States: a documentary reader (2007) ([9])‎
Barry Smart, The sport star: modern sport and the cultural economy of sporting celebrity (2005) ([10])

Doubles technique

Stan Smith, Stan Smith's winning doubles (2002) ([11])

In dead tree format there's a joint (ghosted) autobiography, Venus & Serena: Serving from the Hip and a book by a former coach, Dave Rineberg, Venus and Serena: My Seven Years as Hitting Coach for the Williams Sisters. Neither of these are in the libraries in my area though. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw the message on the FAC talk page and was prepared to come here with a bunch of great sources from Google News, but the number of match recaps overwhelmed whatever bios there are. Right now, I wish all my old issues of Tennis magazine weren't in boxes that I can't access. :-) If you want good background and playing style information, a library search of this and other tennis publications would be a good option, as they frequently publish player profiles. Articles found through such a search may also help to focus the article on the important events of her career, of which there have been many. If someone does this, also check to see if there's anything on Serena's relationship with her sister Venus. There's virtually nothing in the article on that topic, which is of great interest to us tennis fans. I really want to see this featured eventually, since it would be instructive for a future article building effort from me (not a tennis player, but a female athlete in an individual sport). Best of luck, and I'll be watching. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a growing suspicion of DTF sources. If it's true, why isn't it on the Internet? ;-) Ordinary Person (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge

While we're revising the article in line for either GA or FA, we need to address the merge tag for inclusion, or otherwise, of Boycott of BNP Paribas Open by Venus and Serena Williams. Thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge: it's a big enough topic to have its own article, in my opinion.Ordinary Person (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge: Same thoughts as Ordinary Person. Last thing we need is something merging here, but it is a secondary point as the length and notability of the article seem solid enough. AlonsornunezComments 07:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge here I reckon it should be merged to Indian Wells Masters. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am in doubt. It is a thing that should at least be mentioned in the Serena article. I guess one argument for having the separate article is that one avoids duplicate info in the Serena and Venus articles. But is that a valid argument?--HJensen, talk 13:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned in the Serena article, but I would think that only a one- or two-sentence summary at the head of a section would be necessary, following by a link to a more detailed separate article. POV fork#Article spinouts - .22Summary style.22 articles Ordinary Person (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I endorse that too. It was unacceptably piped to [[Boycott of BNP Paribas Open by Venus and Serena Williams|controversy]] until just yesterday. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I created the article and I'm uncertain about it. My thinking was a) (as HJensen mentioned) avoiding duplicate info in Venus and Serena's articles, b)the article seemed relevant due to the fact that it is metioned year after year, and it allowed for a removal or "Again Venus (or Serena) didn't play at Indian Wells in (fill in the year)", and c) it involved Venus and Serena, as well as the WTA Tour and the Indian Wells tournament. I can see leaving it as is or merging it into the Indian Wells tournament itself. AlonsornunezComments 15:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So Far, So Good

It seems like this article is coming along really well, and a lot of people have been helping out. I've got just a couple questions if someone wouldn't mind helping me out: A) Should we be linking once per section, or only once per article?, B) should piping be avoided when possible, or does it matter?, and C) how the heck are you guys doing that 'cite web' thing? I'm confused... AlonsornunezComments 20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A) Once per artice, unless some section has a significant chance of being jumped to by readers (e.g. if some other article links directy to it), in which case you'd better repeat the link in that section. Repeating a link which has appeared so far away that the reader could have forgotten seeing the first link meanwhile doesn't hurt, either, unless that would result in having umpteen links in the same paragraph. B) Imagine a reader having to guess which article a link takes to, before hovering on it. Would the guess be correct? If not, see Principle of least astonishment and WP:EGG and consider making the link text more explicit. C) {{cite web/doc}}? --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 20:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Dabomb87 noticed that I had moved certain instances of 'New York Times' (for example) from '|work =' to '|publisher =' within the template, saying it caused a breach of WP:ITALICS. While NYT is a publisher and not work (to me anyway), and, from reading the template documentation such usage is not what 'work' is supposedly for, so I am at a bit of a loss. Would this suggest an error in the template? of have I been using the template incorrectly? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Acutally, according to our own article on the New York Times, the publisher is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. thus the correct usage of the cite web template for this publication is to use "work=New York Times" and "publisher=Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr." As most, if not all FAs use the cite web template, I would be surprised if it breaches the WP:MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

- Thanks for the clarification. I'm glad that it's only misunderstanding about the terminology, and something more serious. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

- Always a pleasure. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Titles, Head to Head?

So who was the bright spark that deleted the titles and head to head off of Serena Williams's page. I along with others put alot of time into that. I put down the head to heads for most of the womens players and its ridiclous when someone deletes it because their jealeous that there fav player isnt as good.

Can wiki managment please put it back on and lock it so it doesnt get deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lachyrulez (talk • contribs) 11:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. If you refer to the career statistics and results against other players, they are in an independent article now. I would say that only the very best has sufficient results warranting an independent article. So no jealousy is involved.--HJensen, talk 11:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing the playing activity in a given year

The sources are obviously WTA of ITF, but the problem is that I cannot make a direct link to, say, Serena's 2006 singles results. One has to make a choice at the WTA web site, and then get to it, but then the URL as such does not change. And adding that URL as a source, gives a slightly confusing impression (as of know for some of the years an explanation is added in the title, but it is slightly clumsy imo. Anybody know how to link directly to results from, what I guess is basically a query?--HJensen, talk 15:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Serena Slam section

Hello. In the past few hours, this section has been subject to significant edit warring and blind reverting. In general terms, User:Tennis expert prefers the version he calls "Clearly the better written version." per his edit summary here. This version has been reverted back by User:Alonsornunez and User:HJensen. Per the essay WP:BRD, I feel it instructive to initiate a discussion here as to the relative merits of each version. Please be succinct in your opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the shorter version. It is more to the point, and I don't see anything important missing. It developed through the collaborative and productive efforts that begun on this article around April 18, and ended around April 26. It is a bit amazing for me: Every time I am beginning to feel that there is some merit to the whole project again, I am reminded of all the useless hassles involved. Sorry for not being succint, I am just depressed about this.--HJensen, talk 18:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In particular statements like You guys tried and failed to get consensus to drastically shorten this article. So, stop tag team edit warring and making blind reverts about it.. For how long can a single editor keep on being the only one who knows consensus? Consensus has actually changed. It changed on April 21, 2009 in favor on a shorter version. So, please respect this, and stop making incivil accusations towards a cooperative effort. Thanks. --HJensen, talk 18:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly where can that "make the article shorter!" consensus be found? How long was the issue discussed? Who participated? Did you consider my long expressed views on this subject or those of Ordinary Person? And don't cite any alleged agreement about making the article a good or featured article because there is no shortness criterion for either. Too bad that some of you in the mad rush to delete reliable information from the article that is of great value to our readers are willing to ignore WP:PRESERVE. Tennis expert (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You cannot find it anywhere. Just as you have never been able to document where your idea of consensus come from, was formed, and (God Forbid) could change. But April 21, 2009 is my very best estimate. You can look at the editing history, and see the many productive editors who worked on the article. There were many more than you. And all tried to improve, and we were successful in my opinion until today where you ruined it. So you are the one who is disrupting the productive process here. When did you gain consensus for that? --HJensen, talk 22:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No mad rush, just a desire to remove excessive intricate detail in preparation for WP:FAC. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

When are you going to stop using as a weapon the GA or FA process to further your personal editing objectives? It was improper in the date delinking context, and it is improper here. Tennis expert (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's incorrect and bypasses the essential point, i.e. the removal of excessive intricate detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who again misses the essential point. Advocating the deletion of certain material is one thing. But coupling that advocacy with the disingenous argument involving the GA or FA process is quite another. You do the latter all the time, as I've documented and will continue to document. Tennis expert (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In order for an article to pass at WP:FAC it should not have maintenance tags within. A fancruft tag indicating excessive intricate detail would prevent it from reaching featured status. A simple relationship. And a problem which a number of editors have tried to fix. And a problem which other editors seem keen to perpetuate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Tags are merely indicative of underlying problems in an article, and the absence of tags does not necessarily mean there are no problems. Getting the article ready for FAC means rectifying the inherent problems, because this is the standard to which all our articles are held. No, FAC's not a weapon to be used against Tennis expert, but are relatively objective standards for the 'worth' of an article in terms of its writing, so it would be great if there were no chip on shoulders. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer the shorter, more summarised version. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I thirdly prefer the shorter, more easily accessible version. AlonsornunezComments 19:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How is your version more "easily accessible"? What objective criteria are you using? Tennis expert (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This current version is more accessible because the summary style that this article is sticking to allows for a non-expert to follow the narrative of the article without getting lost in third and fourth tier (in terms of importance) results and minutiae. How is this decided on? That's what sources and my fellow, cooperative editors are for. AlonsornunezComments 19:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal and trivial details: may I put in a plea that their inclusion be weighed in each case against the possible loss of overall authority in the article? Where there is the opportunity to add an external link to some of these trivia, it may be a better solution. Sure, we need some micro-information about her, but all with dignity and flow and authority. Anything that even remotely smells of the gossip press should be carefully scrutinised. WP is not a vehicle for journalistic "reptiles" or papparazzi. Tony (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)