Jump to content

Talk:Johanna Konta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nationality

[edit]

Her nationality is atill given as Australian on the Wiki panel, despite the fact that she got British nationality last year and has since played for the British Federation Cup team. Can this be corrected please? David Kemp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.10.202 (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look. It is (was) still correct. Jared Preston (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Australian-born" in opening sentence?

[edit]

The IP 77.100.4.92 thinks Konta should be defined as "Australian-born British" in the opening sentence, but in my opinion a birthplace qualifier like this isn't necessary per the Wikipedia manual of style WP:OPENPARA, section 3, part 2 (my bolding):

3. Context (location or nationality);
1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
2. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

Konta is WP:NOTABLE for her tennis, first for Australia and since 2012 for Britain—not because of where she was born. That she was born in Australia, grew up there until the age of 14 and represented Australia until 2012 is definitely noteworthy and for that reason we mention it prominently in the lead of the article and in the infobox. However I see no reason to put the vague form "Australian-born British" in the opening sentence. This could mean anything from Konta being born in Australia but growing up in Britain from the age of 1, to the actual situation which is that Konta became notable as a tennis player for Australia and then switched allegiance to Britain. I think the existing opening sentence "Johanna Konta is a British tennis player who represented Australia until 2012" summarises the situation well and according to the MOS. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is 'Australian-born' vague? It is crystal clear.83.217.166.101 (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's vague because nationality/citizenship at birth is not necessarily decided by where the child is born (indeed nowadays it usually isn't, except in countries that use jus soli like the US and Canada), but the wording "Syldavian-born" implies strongly that it is. It also treats any number of situations surrounding a change of nationality, multiple nationalities etc exactly the same and thus is potentially misleading. See my original post above for examples. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the form given is a balanced description of the situation and seems in line with protocols. I don't see the need to change it to further emphasise, or downplay, her Australian birth (or Hungarian heritge for that matter). Janik17B (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - leave as current "...is a British tennis player who represented Australia until 2012" is as good a summary as it gets. Leave the detail till later paragraphs. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just describe her as in the opening sentence '...is a professional tennis player.' without the need for any referenece to nationality or birth place? Afterall, she is notable as a tennis player as pointed out rather than being Australian/British or Hungarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.166.101 (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't just represent herself when she is playing, she also represents a country, as is common with sportspeople. Including a subject's nationality in the opening sentence is absolutely standard across wikipedia, this article would be anomalous if it omitted such. Worth noting that the second half of the lead, which gave a little more detail to explain the unusual circumstances, has been deleted in the last 24 hours. I would suggest reverting that edit, and will do so unless anyone objects.Janik17B (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not define her as British-Australian tennis player who holds dual Australian and British citizenship. See Lennox Lewis and Greg Rusedski for example: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Greg_Rusedski

Konta holds tri-Australian, British and Hungarian citizenship, as per an interview from the player herself within the last week (see http://uk.reuters.com/article/tennis-open-konta-britain-idUKL3N15B408). British-Australian-Hungarian Tennis player is just too cumbersome. And she is only representing one of these countries at the moment. So describing her as a British Tennis player, with the Australian and Hungarian elements also recognised elsehwere in the lead makes the most sense, if it can be done elegantly.Janik17B (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little consistency would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.166.101 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a "gave a little more detail" as to the detail to which you refer. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk)
Kevinalewis, of course. It was a second paragraph in the lead that read "Born in Sydney, Australia, to Hungarians parents, Konta moved to the UK in 2005 aged 14. She is based in Eastbourne, East Sussex, but moved her training base to Gijón in northern Spain at the end of 2014. Konta switched her sporting allegiance from Australia to Great Britain after she became a British citizen in May 2012." This was removed in an edit at 05:14 28 January. I would propose putting most of it back. Maybe not the bit about Eastbourne or Gijon as that is covered elsewhere in the article, but her background is controversial and as such the explanation seems useful (which was already there when I first editted this article last September, i.e. I've no personal stake in it's restoration).Janik17B (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The edit wars about her nationality are yawn inducing, aren't they?Janik17B (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - yes I agreee put that back - but beware of completely duplicate information in the later paragraphs. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True. We need to seperate basic biographical information, which should go in the lead, from more detailed background stuff that ought to appear in Early and personal life. The later segment has been expanded substaintially recently, and will need a bit of tweaking.Janik17B (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No objections in over 24 hours, so I will proceed with the undo, and necessary rejigs.Janik17B (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already written this point here but it has strangely disappeared!

Saying that 'Australian-born' is vague is complete nonsense and you have answered a completely different question about nationality/citizenship. How can stating where one is born is 'vague'?- it cannot be vague in this day and age. Either she is Australian born or she is not- certainly does not come within my definition of vague. So I have to ask- what is the problem?

Oh and it is 'pertinent' to her notability- have you not read the media coverage over the past week? How can it not be pertinent?

83.217.166.101 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you accidentally deleted your own post. Sorry about that. The problem is that per WP:OPENPARA, as quoted above, "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". Where Konta was born is not directly relevant to why she is WP:NOTABLE and has an article at all; that she represented Australia until 2012 is. Hence we start the article "Johanna Konta is a British tennis player who represented Australia until 2012", and say where she was born, what her family background is etc further down the lead. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prize money verification

[edit]

Prize money verification and inclusion in main article please. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added link to her WTA profile, which has a field for her career earnings. Does it need mentioning in the main article? It is going to increase with every tournament she plays. Isn't the info box detail enough? Janik17B (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the general principle of infoboxes is that they "summarise" the article information. So yes it would need to be in the article itself. Think of the infobox as "extra" to the article which should contain the information and suitable verfication references. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The info box follows the standard template for those in Tennis articles. Prize money is not the only continually evolving number covered, there are also win-loss records and current rankings in there, for singles and doubles. Listing all these in the main text every time they change would make for a stilted article. And providing references for some of this information would be next to impossible, seeing as the WTA maintain records of ranking histories (in a not exactly user-friendly manner) but do not track not how win-loss or prize money has developed.
So a suggestion - how about we treat prize money like rankings (of which only new career highs and end of season positions are highlighted) and mention it in the article body if a major milestone has been passed? I'll try and do an edit along those lines to see if that satisfies...Janik17B (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Johanna Konta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Career statistics

[edit]

This section is getting a little long with the addition of Premier event timelines. Time to move them to a separate article? Is there a standard for when to split them off into their own page, or is it an ad hoc decision for editors to make? Janik17B (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You raised the question some time ago, with no answer, so I have created the page Johanna Konta career statistics. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Results

[edit]

The results key is a template

Key
W  F  SF QF #R RR Q# P# DNQ A Z# PO G S B NMS NTI P NH
(W) winner; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; (RR) round-robin stage; (Q#) qualification round; (P#) preliminary round; (DNQ) did not qualify; (A) absent; (Z#) Davis/Fed Cup Zonal Group (with number indication) or (PO) play-off; (G) gold, (S) silver or (B) bronze Olympic/Paralympic medal; (NMS) not a Masters tournament; (NTI) not a Tier I tournament; (P) postponed; (NH) not held; (SR) strike rate (events won / competed); (W–L) win–loss record.
To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated at the conclusion of a tournament or when the player's participation has ended.

and so I presume it to be the way these things should be presented.

It clearly says "R#" not "#R". I have reverted the results back to R#. I do not want to start an edit war. If for some reason #R is correct could the person changing it change the TEMPLATE first. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using #R is the correct format per Tennis Project Guidelines. All articles are done this way. But your point is taken and I have changed the template to match the guideline. If someone complains about the template being changed without going through a full vetting then I'll open an RfC on the subject. I don't think there'll be any problems though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Johanna Konta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Johanna Konta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Johanna Konta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 season

[edit]

I've tidied up the section for the current season, it was messily presented and had scores printed in the text, however it still needs a little bit of TLC.

 

Personal life

[edit]

Personal life / marriage / relationship / children / etc.

Does she have a personal life? It's this am encyclopaedic article, or just another publicity / CV article?

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johanna_Konta&oldid=1208022285"