Talk:Serena Williams/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

... and also the section on First Grand Slam singles title

User:Tennis expert also managed to expand, without an edit summary, the section on the First Grand Slam singles title . I reverted it here, but I honestly give up for now. All this work and time blindly destroyed by a single editor..... --HJensen, talk 18:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

... and here as well:

More expansion by Tennis Expert. Soon he will have the article back to its status before the improvements were made. Then his own consensus is restored. Sigh. And now I DO give up for now.... :-) --HJensen, talk 18:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• What's up? Just when I thought it was all going swimmingly with so many hands are pulling it in the same direction - everybody mucking in to clean up, refocus and streamline. I felt it was on track to become a FA by May until a whole bunch of rather obsessive detail was reinserted yesterday, with the comment "Clearly the better written version". I fail to see how this action by several editors is against consensus when there's only one opposed to the changes. as. Probably not worth putting in much effort to improve the article lest they be summarily reverted. Ho hum... Ohconfucius (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So, I just reinstated the consensus versions. There might have been some edits made in the meanwhile that got overriden. Apologies in advance. :-/ AlonsornunezComments 04:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I was wondering why there were such glaring faults there just now. I should have checked back to previous versions before starting my work. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sorry about that. I initially pulled the two versions up side by side to see if the changes could be done in pieces, but it proved really unwieldy. That nonsense set us back a little bit, but not too much. AlonsornunezComments 04:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

copy-edit queries

At some point Richard Williams stopped sending his daughters to national junior tennis tournaments, partly because he wanted them to focus on school work and partly to protect them from racism.[8] Instead, Serena and Venus attended Greneleaf Resort and Conference Center, a tennis school run by Rick Macci in Haines City, Florida.[citation needed] Macci had already helped the careers of Jennifer Capriati and Mary Pierce, among other prominent players.[citation needed] During that time, Serena sometimes trained with Andy Roddick.[9] On behalf of his daughters, the father later struck a deal with a major clothing company to sponsor the move of the rest of the Williams family to West Palm Beach to be near Serena and Venus.[citation needed]

"At some point" is a MoS breach, luckily. It comes under "Precise language". Can't we find out when? Citations: perhaps we can source all of these claims from one authority to avoid the high density of citation reference numbers suggested by the tags. Tony (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"At some point"—my mistake. I was removing the year that was listed, but nowhere to be found in the citation. Good call, bad language. As I mentioned in the edit summary, the source does not seem that authoritative (at best it is secondary), the underlying Newsweek interview should be. I don't know if I can get hands on it. But it must contain most of the info to be used in the section you quote.--HJensen, talk 14:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Newsweek says 1992: http://www.newsweek.com/id/122703/page/2 Giants2008 (17-14) 02:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the find! This is it. I'll read it and see how much of the tags can be "covered" by the interview. Cheers.--HJensen, talk 13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

On childhood tournament stats

I could not find any source for these tagged sentences:

Williams won her first tournament at the age of four and had played in 49 tournaments by the age of 10, of which she had won 46. At one point, she replaced her sister Venus as the most highly ranked tennis player aged 12 or under in California.

I took them out, and placed them here instead. We should probably be careful letting too much unsourced material stay for too long, as the text pops up all over the web in "bios", which are just lifted off Wikipedia. In a sort of vicious circle one can then end up sourcing a Wikipedia sentence by even a book (I have encountered that in another instance), which has used Wikipedia as source (or even just copied the text). So let us find some reliable source for this. HJensen, talk 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: first part of sentence is now reinserted and sourced.--HJensen, talk 22:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Weight?

She is listed as 10 pounds lighter than her sister. There is no way that she is 150 pounds! That's not within at least 40 pounds.

She can't possibly weigh 135lbs but the 6000lbs entry is so not funny! Please change.

I know Serena's had some weight/fitness issues over the past couple of years, so what is her weight exactly? Some wikipedians insist that its 165 lb, while the WTA tour website claims 135 lb...so until someone can verify her weight, I'm changing it to the verifiable weight (135).

RE: Weight, She cannot possibly weigh 135 lb or 165 lb for that matter. WTA has been quite off about the weight of the players in the past for some reason. I think we should put a ? or N/A to encourage more people to find out exactly how much she weighs.

When I Click on Serena's profile in the US Open website, it says that she is 143 lbs. (65 kilos). I think that we should use this info as it is the most recent. Ô 01:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are right, we have what we have. We can not eye ball her and come up with a weight we think is right, no matter how much we think she weighs around 200 lb.

Good grief, if Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, don't try to tell me that Serena weighs 135 lbs. She hasn't weighed 135 pounds since she was 11. Is this site fact or fiction? Julia Roberts is the same height, 5'9", and admits to 135 pounds. A woman of that height who weighs 135 is slender. Look at Julia, then look at Serena. Get serious.

To the person who keeps changing the weight, lol , please discuss with us as to where you're getting this information. Let's be mature here...The most recent information about her weight says that she is 143 lbs. Let's leave it at that until we get a newer update, thanks. Ô 00:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, 143 lbs. Right. Have you actually seen this woman? Her own website says 130. Do you believe that too? I guess that makes it official. If she claimed to be Albino, would that be on Wikipedia as well? Tell ya what. Find a lady in your office, or your family who will admit to 135, or 143 pounds. Look her over. And then look at Serena. My gosh, Serena weighs 135...from the waist down. Better yet, do a Google search, and read what various sportswriters have observed about Serena's weight...which they jokingly refer to as "listed at 135 pounds....but obviously much heavier." This is almost as good as Whoopi Goldberg claiming to be born in 1956, when various people have produced records and evidence indicating she's off by 7 years. But apparently if a famous person wants to lie, some Wikipedians buy it, hook line and sinker.

Look IP address, this is an encyclopedia based upon actual sources, not just random assumptions. So, if you care so much that the WTA and Serena Williams are lying about their weight--go complain to them, and stop adding questionable information to Wikipedia. So, no source, no change--the heaviest she weighs has been indicated by one source to be 143 lbs., and that's what is going to be used! ---Flute138 16:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

143 pounds, of course. Her weight will always change. However I bet you didn't know that this recent information came from the WTA which is a Womens Tennis Association and organizes all the players profile, which includes the most recent weight height, prize money, etc. So in response to your question, yes she is 143 pounds, and no, it's not false info. Ô 20:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since when the WTA weight info became a reliable source and to whom? Do you believe your own eyes? WTA lowers the weight data for all female athletes because the weight data is not important in tennis. Nobody would do this in boxing where weight must be official. You can either make a reasonable estimate (which is btw possible to do with high precision based on her height and build) or leave the field unknown in case there’s no reliable source of this info. But WTA is not a reliable source of weight data!--Egorpan 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To the person who is changing the weight, your reference leads to an article made in 2000 ^ http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0016,john,14209,3.html so that is obviously not recent and your second refernce "^ Ibid" doesn't link to anything so how are we suppose to know that you're giving correct information. Whereas the information from the WTA is more recent http://www.usopen.org/en_US/bios/profile/ws/wtaw234.html This info was from the 2006 US Open and states the most recent info on her weight, height, etc. So inother words, if you're going to change the weight, height, give valid and recent proof Ô 20:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll settle on 143 until I find a reliable source that actually has her correct weight. Stanley011 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. So you're reliably saying she has LOST 22 pounds since 2000. Gee, I wonder why all the sportswriters who SEE her every week say otherwise?

I'm not saying she reliably weighs 143. I'm saying that's what the most reliable, up to date source, the us open 2006 site, has her as weighing. I personally believe that she weighs more than this but until I can find an up to date source that shows this, wikipedia policy prohibits adding it to the article. Stanley011 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Moreover, Wikipedia mandates verifiability, not the truth. See WP:V ... SkerHawx 23:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got to hand it to Laila Ali, daughter of Muhammad, and a boxer in her own right. She is the same height as Serena, and admits to 170 pounds....and yet she is thinner and less muscular than the "143 lbs." Serena. It's refreshing to know that some female athletes are honest about their weight.

In the new People magazine, Tyra Banks, who is also the same height as Serena, says her weight is 161 pounds. Look at Tyra. Then look at Serena. See if you think Tyra weighs 18 pounds MORE than Serena. Thanks for being honest, Tyra.

That's nice... Why are you guys making this such a big deal? If you strongly believe that Serena is NOT 143lbs, than go on the internet, and find a recent and reliable source. That's all you got to do. Ô 23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Webpage http://www.usopen.org/en_US/bios/profile/ws/wtaw234.html does not seem to be available. Anyway, using outdated information regarding her weight because noone can find any current information is not the way to go. If a piece of information is not known, it should be left blank. Q43 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's be realistic on the weight issue. Comparing Serena with Tyra Banks and Julia Roberts is not going to cut it. Most people are making assumptions on Serena's weight based on photos and television. Track and field athlete Marion Jones (5'11"; 155) is around the same size as Serena for instance but just a tad taller. The key thing to remember here is perspective. When you place Serena next to most other female tennis players, the difference is staggering, but when placed next to a male or say even a female track athlete, it strikes a balance. Remember weight is based on muscle, fat, and height; but more importantly the distribution of it.

Sorry to bump the old topic, but does anyone have a reliable source for her real weight? The only ones I could find were taken from Wikipedia. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

According to her player profile at the 2007 Wimbledon website, it says that she is 143 lbs...http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/bios/profile/ws/wtaw234.html. So just leave it @ 143 lbs unless you find a more recent, reliable source. Ô 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I don't really care which weight it listed myself, but I also saw 135 lbs listed and thought "Huh? There is no way." My daughter is 5'10", 145 lbs and she is pretty darn thin. Considerably thinner than Serena (at least judging by TV), and not nearly as muscular. I'd be really surprised if Serena weighs less than 165 lbs, but thats not a bad thing, she has an amazing build. - JSDA

The reason why people are making a big deal about this is that she is NOWHERE near 135 lbs. Judging by her pictures on ESPN, TV, Google, etc - I would say that it's fairly clear that she's closer to 235 than 135. Just because a person can type the three numbers "1" "3" and "5" does not render Serena to be 135 lbs, just as me going to Michael Jordan's talk page and saying that he is an ethnically South Korean albino with pink eyes and green hair doesn't necessarily make it freakin so! :) - rock8591

Serena is sometimes listed at 165 lbs ( and 5'9 1/4") http://www.celebrityshack.com/mediacategory/celebrities/sports-female —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.104.126 (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To open this debate back up again, the current reference listing her weight (at 68kg) is currently broken. I'm quite a skinny 170cm male at 68kg, and I seriously doubt Serena, at 178cm, is the same weight as me. The average female has around 20% more body fat, and I reckon Serena probably has 20% more muscle as well! Somebody has offered a reference listing her at 74kg (165lbs), which sounds much more accurate. As the current link is broken, I shall change it to this one.--Tomsega (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed that link. Since WTA is more likely to be accurate than some celebrity site, I changed the weight back to what it says. CIGraphix (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WTA (or ATP, for that matter) does not weigh anyone or measure their height, either. This data is provided by the players themselves, which is why it is suspect. In this case, a celebrity site is probably more accurate, but still short of the mark! Eegorr (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

On Rick Macci and more

Again, these tagged sentences I could not source:

Instead, Serena and Venus attended Greneleaf Resort and Conference Center, a tennis school run by Rick Macci in Haines City, Florida. Macci had already helped the careers of Jennifer Capriati and Mary Pierce, among those of other prominent players. During that time, Serena sometimes trained with Andy Roddick.

And honestly, while the Roddick story is cute, I think it is tangential to the early life of Serena. HJensen, talk 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the Roddick story. Though it's a great anecdote, I don't think that it necessarily belongs here. AlonsornunezComments 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it can go. I thought the same when I cleaned up that paragraph. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

FA criteria check-list

This may be a good time for us to determine what remains to be done before nomination.

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

1. It is—
   • (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
   • (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
   • (c) well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
   • (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
   • (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
   • (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
   • (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
   • (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
3. Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Tony (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Areas that we need to concentrate on (please add more)

• 1c, Playing style: It would be a considerable advance for tennis articles if we could find refs for the "Playing style" section. Tennis expert has advised that most of these sections in tennis articles are inserted by IP accounts, and that they tend to contain a large element of fancruft. He says that online sources might not provide what we need, but that newspapers and sports magazines are more likely targets. The Sharapova "Playing style" section may be the best one around. Anyone got ideas on the sources there? Tony (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a list of newpaper articles here, and this quote: "a player of extraordinary ability and dynamism". Here is another quote: "Even with groundstrokes so ferocious that Williams's second-round opponent, Alexa Glatch, said of one return of serve, "she hit it so hard I don't even think I saw it," Williams has been known to lose her focus for long stretches of individual matches -- or entire seasons. After leaping to a 5-0 start against Zheng in the first set Monday, Williams sprayed a host of unforced errors as Zheng got precise fast." And here is another quote that seems more apposite: "She primarily is a baseline player, but she has a very aggressive style which focuses on taking control of rallies, making her a fearsome opponent. Her strokes, whether serves, groundstrokes or returns have a lot of power behind them. She is one of the most powerful servers ever to play the game, with serves often reaching 120 mph (and in Charleston in 2008, she hit record breaking 127 and 129 mph serves). Her return serves are no less impressive - opponents are sometimes simply overpowered by her phenomenal skills, which include the ability to hit flat serves and topspin serves at either corner of the service box." I am unsure whether any of this is usable. Tony (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think some are usable but with the caveat that we don't state "Williams is a baseline player", rather "Williams is considered a baseline player" (plus appropriate citations)... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Found a useful-looking article here. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• 2b: The stubby little Serena_williams#Rivalry_with_Venus_Williams. Can it be relocated somewhere else, even at the end of the lead? Tony (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Done Tony (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• 1b: Nothing on the relationship between Serena and Venus. As I stated earlier, I'm disappointed by this omission. Williams Sisters rivalry has some good nuggets and plenty of possible references, but even this is lacking. The best example I can think of is that earlier in their careers, many in the media thought Serena and Venus were uncomfortable playing against each other, because they were so close to each other. Adding more on this would elevate the article as a whole, and beef up the section Tony is concerned about. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• 1c: Very lightly cited in general. For example, the entire second paragraph of Entertainment has one source: rapdirt.com. Not only does it not sound reliable, but I doubt that covers the Swimsuit Issue or her TV appearances. This is something to check for throughout the article. Of course, the section that needs cites the most is Playing style. I agree with Tennis expert that newspapers and magazine profiles are the best bet for providing useful information on her strengths and weaknesses. References 6–8 are shaky in terms of reliability, and none of the awards are cited. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• 2a: Lead is short. For the length of the body, I would expect a longer lead with a little more on her career. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

When you are discussing the Williams sisters rivalries it is confusing to refer to either of them as "Williams" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.209.70 (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

mixed doubles

serena williams never won the mixed doubles at australian open or frenc open according to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_Mixed_Doubles_champions and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Australian_Open_Mixed_Doubles_champions and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/French_Open_champions_(Mixed_Doubles) it was her sister who did. See also http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis) it states she yet has to win those two. Don't know how to fix the box where it states that she has won them. [[User:Pasiwik|Pasiwik] —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

On the line

Is it worthy to include her autobiography "On the Line"in the article? Ô (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

MAN, You can not BE SERIOUS. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

3.6.1 2009 US Open semi-final controversy

In this youtube[1] video, the CBS commentators state that the foot fault shouldn't have been called. At :42 into the video the commentator says "I don't see it at all" in regard to the foot fault. at about :53 the commentator says "you can't call that there". These comments were by John McEnroe, whose on-air track record shows a strong bias in favor of American players, and therefore lacks any and all objectivity in this case.

There is also the issue of what was said. In this Australian TV telecast,The line judge tells the officials that Serena said "I will kill you" (1:43). Sarena refutes this here (1:48). This video which also contains the foot fault. Sarena's words and actions ultimately lead up to her loosing the match; however, there is also the possibility that this line judge really didn't like Sarena giving her the rare "foot fault" call. Dreammaker182 02:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the commentators think. Meanwhile, holding the ball in your hand and saying your going to shove it down someone's throat, if taken literally, is a threat to kill. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The summary doesn't say what Williams actually said; it just uses the phrase "abusive language". It seems to me that it would be better to just quote what she said.74.219.149.67 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Such calls are uncommon" seems to violate the NPOV and it seems like an original research to me. I don't see how [78] changes that. Can the author please explain?

Split

Go to WP:Tennis because their is where the ongoing discussion is taking palace about the horid article lenghts69.137.120.81 (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The split has already been made, this is the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Careers and article lengths (issues) Polargeo (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Records and achievements

I'm unsure about the entry for "Most years in between US Open titles." I would assume this is in reference to her doubles titles, as she won the US Open singles in 2002. If so, that should be noted. Although, after a cursory look at the US Open Women's Singles Champions list, it looks like the 6 year span between her 02 and 08 wins would also be the longest time between US Open titles (in the Open Era). The only longer gap would appear to be Hazel Hotchkiss Wightman in 1911 and 1919.
I'll leave it for an editor to clarify and decide which of those should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLecru (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Prize money

Career prize money US$ 32,773,004
(1st all-time among women athletes and 4th all-time among tennis athletes)
Does that really mean all women athletes, not just tennis women? 85.217.35.155 (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Weight/Height/etc.

Her official weight is now 155 lbs. Previously, she was 150 lbs.

Also her height on her WTA profile is 5'9 (175m)

http://www.wtatennis.com/player/serena-williams_2257889_9044

78.121.76.192 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Williams the best

I have seen the comment by Mac moved out of the lead. And into nowhere land. Yet it is common in many other players wiki pages to cite they are considered "the best", I believe Serena has on numerous occasions been called "game changer" and other such accolades. And think it is fitting the lede reflect this as it has done for many Graft, Martina, Borg, Federer (of course), even Nadal. For me it is important because people that dont know tennis need to know who is who. They need to know why is Serena notable beyond the obvious wins and her legacy to tennis. --Inayity (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that sports journalists, who are mostly the sources for this kind of statements, tend to overdo, to simplify, to aggrandize certain people, and to play up to what they think their audience wants to hear. Sports writing is often useless as a source for anything other then isolated fact bits.195.67.149.165 (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Serena Williams and Grigor Dimitrov

http://bossip.com/536562/new-couple-is-serena-swirling-it-up-with-this-bulgarian-tennis30346/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwaron (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think gossip sites count as a reliable source. --WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Cite_quick can avoid size/speed problems

The article "Serena Williams" is one of several which are reaching the template include-size error, plus some exceeding the 60-second timeout to cause "wp:Wikimedia Foundation error" because {cite_news} or {cite_web} is too slow/large to be used over 350-400 times per page. Another over-size article is "Arab Spring" or "2011–2012 Egyptian revolution". Currently, new Template:Cite_quick can be used to reduce the size/speed problem, coded as {{cite quick |news|...}}. Now, other editors have come to support progress, and we can again begin to streamline those huge articles. Next year, when the Lua script cites are installed, then the {cite quick|news} usage can be edited to remove "quick|" and use the new, faster Lua-based {cite_news} which seems to run about as fast and small as {cite_quick}.

If there are no other concerns, then later tonight I can change the citations in the article to use {cite_quick} and reduce the edit-preview, or reformat, time of the entire page to within 8 seconds. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

One could only wish that was the only article problem. It's 134,959k in size... way over the 60k recommendation. I have to fix that later this week. The scoring in prose has to go since it's against all our guidelines. There is so much trivial writing that it's almost shocking, and that with the fact she has yearly articles for the more minute details. Additionally there is a 10 photo limit and I see she has 13. Lots to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Halved edit-preview time as 10 seconds: Okay, I have inserted the 113 {cite_quick} and linked the bottom 11 navboxes as a table of "Achievements" with 11 navpages. That fixed the template include-size error, so all other navboxes will display, and cut the edit-preview from 21 seconds to less than 10. So, editing the article will be twice as fast, now, when trimming or removing other text. The extra photos barely affect the speed, and 25 images could be reformatted, with a different default image-size (standard 220px), within 1 second. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool. The extra photos may not affect the load time but they start to overpower the article and most are poor quality. We use 10 as a limit for those rare instances when 4–6 simply don't cover a very large article or in special circumstances. Federer had 6 and Navratilova has 4, and they work about right, while leaving elbow room. 13 is way too many regardless of load time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not cool, I disagree with what was done to the navboxes, they are intended to be navboxes for a reason not a list of links like they were hideously and erroneously made into! Even taken into consideration the page size, this is not an excuse for what was done in that respect or load times. Find some other way to work around it without hampering the functionality of the navboxes. Work on creating sub articles for the years of her seasons ever since 1999, which was done for Federer since 2003. Furthermore, I think all the awards needs have a page entitled List of Serean Williams awards and achievements like Tiger Woods. I think her other interest(s) needs to be put on a separate page like creating a page called Serena Williams other endeavors like Fashion and Sports Ownership.HotHat (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I will rework the navboxes within three days even if the other problem still occurs.HotHat (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, I fulfilled my promise to revert to the correct way navboxes are suppose to be!HotHat (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Rivalry with Jennifer Capriati

Only three of Serena Williams rivalries have an article on their own (Venus William, Henin and Hingis) but I think it's a great absence the fact that the rivalry between S. Williams and Jennifer Capriati doesn't have an article.

The Williams-Capriati rivalry has been one of the most epic rivalries of the recent WTA history, 17 matches (Williams leads 10-7) with 12 of these matches ending in three sets. Unfortunately they never met in a Slam final, but I still remember how much epic the matches between S. Williams and Capriati were. I think this rivalry, that sometimes arouse controversies (just remember US Open '04), must have an article on his own. Capriati has been one of the few tennis player able to really compete with Serena, and to creat her troubles almost everytime, even when Serena was in her best shape. So, why don't have an article for that rivalry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.187.18.179 (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Dencord

The essence of Wikipedia is to create high quality pages. Deleting information and making up rules is not helpful especially quotes which are important. The first quote of 06 makes sense. It does not make sense on the 2006 page which you wrote. It came at a time when she was depressed a dropped out of the season. The second is important in demonstrating the pressure she was under. The third and deleted fourth ones demonstrate how thankful Williams is to be playing. Why should this be deleted when most of the page bites are taken up by tables. Delete the rest of the prose not the quotes as it downgrades the article.Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Specific facts may be taken from primary sources WP:WPNOTRS this is not contentious stuff It can be included. Theworm777 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

How can putting a bunch of stuff help in making this page brief, it is not about what i want but what was presented as a tennis players guideline, that this page should only have important results that is why separate tennis season were made for very notable tennis players. It is not an issue about primary sources or the source itself it is about where to contents should be. The player she beat is far more important that your trivias, and yet can you cannot see everyone she beat in the 2012 summary no, because it is just a brief summary of what her season is like. This is how a summary should be written, and mind you i did not write it.

In 2012, Williams started the year by playing her debut at Brisbane International, However, during her match against Bojana Jovanovski, she injured her left ankle when serving for the match late in the second set. As a result, Williams was forced to withdraw from the tournament.[80] Next she participated at the Australian Open where she was upset by Ekaterina Makarova in the fourth round. Williams returned to competition in Miami losing in the quarterfinals to Caroline Wozniacki. Williams would go on to lose only twice more during the season. Williams won titles in Charleston and Madrid but withdrew from the tournament in Rome citing a lower back injury. Williams suffered her first loss in the first round of a Grand Slam tornament at the French Open against Razzano. Williams notched up a 33–1 record for the second half of the season winning five titles in the process.[81] Williams won her fifth Wimbledon singles title, her fourteenth Grand Slam title;[82][83] setting a Wimbledon record of 24 aces in a match during her semifinal.[84] Williams returned to America to successfully defend her title in Stanford.[85] Serena then returned to Wimbledon to represent her country at the Olympic Games where she became the second female player to win a career Golden Grand Slam after winning the gold medal and the first player in history, male or female, to win the career Golden Grand Slam in both singles and doubles.[86] Williams won her fourth US Open singles title for her 15th career Grand Slam title and won her seventh and final title of 2012 when she went undefeated at the WTA Championships for her third title at the event.[87][81] Williams' only loss during this period came in Cincinnati where she lost to Kerber. Serena Williams was voted WTA Player of the Year for 2012, the fourth time she has won this award.[88] Based on her brilliant show in 2012, Serena was named as International Tennis Federation world champion.[89] Williams also returned to doubles competitions with Venus; in the pair's first tournament since 2010 Wimbledon, they claimed their fifth Wimbledon doubles title and the 13th grand slam doubles title.[90] The pair successfully defended their Olympic doubles title which meant that they became the only tennis players to win four gold medals.[8]

And can you not ignore this,

This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and/or condensing it.

adding your trivias doesn't help in condensing it and not only that you are placing too many of them. I'm all for quotes TBH, i find them refreshing and makes the page readable, but the Nike thing and the little girl is just too much. Why don't we put when signed with Puma or when she signed with the pillow company Dencod16 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

it's not trivia to say her sponsors wanted to drop her and neither is the little girl thing which got her playing or the fact that she was depressed and guess who wrote the 2012 section. Oh yeah Socialhistorian. Stop embarrassing yourself. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

First off all i never wrote this

Serena's next scheduled tournaments are the Mutua Madrilena Madrid Open (where she is the Defending Champion) Internazionali BNL d'Italia in Rome followed by the French Open and the Aegon International in Eastbourne

I never edit as an IP user. If you edit the 2012 season then good job, how can you go so brief, to unnecessary details that doesn't give any real relevance to her results. I am basing the summary of each year to 2012. So, we should write when she broke off with Common and how that affected her life, or when her parents had a divorce, no because this page is only for important results, the girl and the Nike deal are not important details, it is far too detailed. And you are actually the one who is a bully, as you have no intention of compromising, it's your way or no way. The only thing I am doing is fulfilling the tennis project to make separate sections to make this page as brief as possible. Dencod16 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Go and learn some history. Serena signed a major $40 odd million deal. Nike wanted to drop her, how is that unimportant. If anything that needs to stay. Secondly how is a conversation which makes Serena sign up and believe again unimportant. Again that needs to stay. Finally I'm not having you call me a bully, I have every intention but you've manipulated the rules to try and delete things and other users are getting pretty fed up with you, your attitude and your ownership of this page, and trust me you are not fulfilling the projects wants with separate bloated articles which give nothing about the details of her depression or AO triumph. Oh and your examples have no effect on her tennis whatsoever, whereas the two I gave do. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to say when someone keeps deleting your additions so wholesale it will always cause a problem. Try and build up a relationship and use the talk PAGE. The red ink editor requested such on several occasions. (i am glancing things- so apologies).And it looks very "ownership" from my glances. compromise a little. --Inayity (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Prize Money

Why is the link for "Women" in the heading under prize money not a link to another wikipedia page, but an advertisement for a diet? I do not expect to be advertised to on a website which claims to be an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.54.23 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet another Ad "Powered by text enhance" on this page. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.54.23 (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Its Not a wikipedia ad its add-on that is on your computer. Theworm777 (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"1st all-time among women athletes and 4th all-time among tennis athletes" I'm afraid this statement doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.246.190 (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC) 4th all time among all tennis athletes, male or female — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.195.218 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Added the Forbes article to support the 1st and 4th statements. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Drugs Allegations

Wikipedia should mention the drugs allegations. News articles have reported how Serena refuses to be drug tested and how she hides in her bathroom when drug testers come to her house. Look what they did to Lance Armstrong - why the double standard here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.234.66 (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Got a reliable source for that? Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Many suspicions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/serena-williams-flees-to-panic-room_n_1073005.html http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/serena-williams-locks-herself-in-panic-room-in-drug-test-mix-up-110211 71.99.234.66 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it's a case of mistaken identity. Ok rather funny but it's trivial to mention as one has to assume at once the mix up was cleared up Williams took the test, even if MSN want to leave a bit of a sinister point on it by saying it's not known whether she submitted. But then that's sensationalism for you. No need to put it in the article and apparently athletes missing tests is rather common and are not reported in the media so I don't see any need to add this. 92.18.29.99 (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If Serena had submitted to the drug test they would certainly have made that known to clear the incriminating story. Serena should be stripped of all her titles and sued, just like what they did to Lance Armstrong. It is not fair to the other girls to play against someone who is on steroids and can hit the ball like a man. No double standards, strip her of all her titles. 71.99.234.66 (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol, she fleed because the drug testers entered her home without any saying, she thought they were burglars... Dencod16 (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

She should be stripped of her titles for refusing a drug tester. There are no excuses for avoiding a surprise drug test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.92.225.57 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A bit absurd to name one incident as "many suspicions" or even as just a suspicion. Even the incident itself wasn't an allegation. It has been just a juicy story for the tabloid journalists. C0re1980 (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

crip walk at 2012 olympics

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Crip_Walk

Serena Williams caused a minor stir at the 2012 Summer Olympic tennis tournament when she did a Crip Walk immediately after defeating Maria Sharapova in the gold-medal match at Centre Court, Wimbledon.[3]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185066/Serena-Williams-SLAMMED-glamourising-gang-culture-Crip-Walk-dance-Olympic-win.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.155.107 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

This news could spark vandalism. Can you guys watch this closely in the next few days? Is semi-protection needed? Bearian (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Williams and Paisner books 2009

Can someone check the differences between On The Line and My LIfe: Queen of the Court? They were both released in 2009 as her autobiography but under different publishers? I'm assuming On The Line is the final version she had published. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Derogatory edit

It appears [2] has only been partially cleaned up in various edits since then. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the language ones. Someone needs to add back the Career Golden Slam parts where relevant. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I added the career golden slam info back into the "records" section, someone keeps removing it but they ARE noteworthy records, especially seeing as she's the only woman in HISTORY to have completed a career golden slam in both singles and doubles! Also the fact that she shares a record with her sister as having won four olympic gold medals is also noteworthy, and should be kept on the page. -Thetradge (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2013

Semi-Protected

I believe it should be semi-protected as IP users keep making it as detailed as possible, whereas the summary should only brief and the detailed one should be placed at each season. Dencod16 (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Stfg (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking French

The brief section Language fluency said, in full,

Williams is fluent in French and at the French Open, does the post match speech in both French and English.

That's an exaggeration. From the source (USA Today):

The world No. 1 has been talking the native tongue during her on-court interviews after her five French Open wins. Though she says she’s nervous, Serena has been receiving high marks from the notoriously-fickle fans at the Grand Slam event. The crowd has applauded the effort with each of the top seed’s successive wins. ... She’s been speaking French for years but said she lacked the confidence to speak it at the tournament. ... While answering softball questions after early-round wins is impressive, it’s not the goal. Serena wants to speak French at her trophy presentation ceremony.

In the video clip, the crowd applauds enthusiastically after she answers a question in pretty good (though not perfect) French.

I've changed the text appropriately and added another source (New York Times). --Thnidu (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

equipment section in serious need of improvement

Firstly, it's not appropriately located in the article. It's under Off-Court Activities or something like that even though a player uses their racquet on the tennis court the vast majority of the time. Secondly, it only has one racquet model listed even though Williams has used a variety of racquets over the years. This reflects poorly on Wikipedia in terms of its encyclopedic depth. A world number 1 and someone with her accomplishments should have, at minimum, a list of the racquets she used to win major titles. The same goes for other great players like Navratilova, Evert, Djokovic, etc. At the very least, the biographical article about a tennis player should include the racquet models they used while they were ranked #1 in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.93.239 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Trivial and not really needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Tell that to the millions of tennis players who cares a lot about equipment, the millions spent on ads about tennis equipment and sponsorships, all the articles written about equipment in magazines like Tennis, and so on. If you think tennis equipment is trivial I'd like to see you play a tournament with a wood racquet from 1889 strung with metal string. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.93.239 (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Go read Tennis Magazine if you want to nerd out on which racquet Serena used for each of her major wins and which she used during each stint at #1. Wikipedia is for a general audience. (Though I do agree "Off-Court Activities" is an odd place to give a basic overview of what gear she uses. Might fit better under "Playing Style"?) 2602:306:B8B7:64D0:148D:F803:B83:AB04 (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

U.S. Open 2009 controversy

I deleted this from the article: "Audio later confirmed she hadn't said (she would kill the lineswoman) even though the lineswoman tried to convince the umpire she had".

According to the cited source following this line in the article, Serena told the lineswoman: 'I swear to God I'm [expletive] going to take this [expletive] ball and shove it down your [expletive] throat, you hear that? I swear to God.'

Is that equal to saying she would kill the lineswoman? I think so. What would your odds of survival be if Serena Williams shoved a tennis ball down your throat?

But ignoring that, the line in the article makes it sound as though the lineswoman's claim was a fabrication and moreover that she attempted to lie to the umpire, which is utter nonsense unsupported by any accounts of the incident, cited or not. Serena didn't literally say the words "I will kill you" but clearly threatened an act of extreme and probably fatal violence.

Yes, she was just ranting over a call that was controversial in and of itself and was not actually going to kill anybody, but that's beside the point--which is that whomever wrote that line is trying to whitewash a display of very poor sportsmanship by Serena Williams. Like anyone else with functioning eyeballs, I respect Serena's tennis abilities tremendously. But the line I deleted is far from objective and doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

Jh122 (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think your analysis here is heavily biased. You state that the audio confirmation is an attempt to "trying to whitewash a display of very poor sportsmanship by Serena Williams". This is an opinion where as an audio recording is not. Thad caldwell (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, feel free to ignore/reject my opinion about the motivation of whomever wrote the untrue line I deleted. It's separate from the fact of the matter, which is that the audio recording (as well as every other objective account of the incident) does not back up the claims that: 1. Serena's denial of issuing a death threat to the lineswoman was undoubtedly true and 2. The lineswoman attempted to "convince" (i.e. deceive) the chair umpire Serena had threatened her life.

If you can produce a credible source that nothing a reasonable person could see as a death threat to the lineswoman left Serena's mouth, and that the lineswoman definitely tried to deceive the umpire into believing she had received such a threat, go ahead and restore the line. Jh122 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Win-Loss totals on Majors

Isn't this somewhat silly over featuring? There is always one loss for each major attended but not won. There are always seven wins for an event won. The entry in the chart shows the exit round for each event not won and which were not attended and thus the number of wins. The totals row conveys precious little information.Jszigeti (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I find it helpful. I like to see the relative performance of great players at each Slam and I suck at math so I don't want to add their win-loss up in each instance. Perhaps more importantly, every Wikipedia page for top professional tennis players has this same information in the same format, so if it were deleted here then in theory it would need to be deleted on a lot of other pages. Jh122 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It is usually used on most of these charts, and in fact are correct per our guidelines. A couple things though. In the past, the number of rounds was not always seven, especially in doubles and mixed doubles. And there are also plenty of times that a player wins an event but does not have seven victories. That's because "walkovers" do not count as wins or losses. For me the silly column is "SR." It is not readily apparent what it stands for and is easily counted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Promotion to "Good Article"

Hi there. I've been doing some research/reading to see what can be done to make this article better and eventually see it promoted to a good article by Wiki. There are only a few tennis player articles that are considered good by Wiki so far: Roger Federer, Juan Martin del Potro , Svetlana Kuznetsova, Leander Paes, Laura Robson, and Andy Murray. I'd like to use Roger Federer's as a template as he has a comparable resume. With your help, I'd like us to start by looking at the overall contents. Here are the contents from Federer's page. Personal Life (Childhood and early life/Family/Philanthropy and outreach)// Tennis Career// Rivalries// Legacy // Playing style// Equipment and apparel// Endorsements// Career Stats. And then, we can go from there with checking references, tone, style, etc. Thoughts?TJC-tennis-geek 21:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a place for her religion?

Is there an info box that would have a religion entry? Being a Jehovah's witness seems to drive a lot of her life. --Bertrc (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bertrc, maybe you can add it to the "Early Life" section for now? This page is a work in progress and should have a Personal Life section soon. TJC-tennis-geek 22:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"Comeback Queen"

Why is someone deleting this section, what is wrong with it?Please comment here before deleting it. Thad caldwell (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't deleted it, but perhaps the title should be less promotional even if it is a quote of someone else's words. I do agree Serena's mental toughness evidenced in her many comebacks in important matches is a worthwhile thing to note about her. Maybe the section you've written could be condensed somewhat and placed under "playing style"?

This also underscores for me that the entire "On-Court Activities" section is a very awkward umbrella for information that should probably be dispersed elsewhere in the article. Jh122 (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey there, I agree with both of you.The "On-Court Activities" section is odd overall and when compared with featured articles, seems to not fit. Please give me some time to work on the Comeback section between today and tomorrow. I will try to condense it and move it to the "Playing Style" section. Thank you for the advice.Thad caldwell (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

We also have to remember that this is a encyclopedia, not a fan blog. If you don't think Encyclopedia Britannica would want to include it, then think twice about it here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware that this isn't a fan blog nor am I trying to overhype anything; just still getting my bearings. It seems that someone has already shortened this section. Should it still be moved or is it now fine as is?97.82.223.215 (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

After the section was deleted, I moved some of the quotes and stats to the "Playing Style" section as discussed. Is that ok?TJC-tennis-geek 21:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs)

Hello, does anyone have an issue with this quote regarding Williams' ability to rely on her serve to get out of trouble being in the Playing Style section?

In regards to her serve, two-time Grand Slam Champion, Svetlana Kuznetsova recalled "I played her, and I had match point, and she aced me on that match point, and I barely saw the ball. ... She is one of the biggest servers, but it's not about serving well -- it's all about serving well on the key points, and you cannot compare that. That's her biggest advantage." TJC-tennis-geek 23:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs)

I think I will go with a shorter quote. This is one from an interview with Maria Sharapova. "Her biggest strength is her serve. Maybe it's something that has saved her in many matches, situations where you cannot get the racket on the ball."TJC-tennis-geek 03:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs)

Rivalries

I would like to start adding a list of rivalries to the page to make it more complete. She has had several but I of course don't want to add them all. Her rivalry with Venus is already noted, which others are noteworthy? I think Henin, Capriati, Clijsters, Sharapova, and Azarenka would all be good additions? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

TO quote the BBC coms from Wimby when these two played. Serena and Sharapova is and IS NOT a rivalry. Is because Sharapova has been a long time contemporary and they have clashed several times. IS NOT due to the fact that it's one sided. Think carefully. 88.105.164.165 (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the response! I certainly see your point when it comes to the head-to-head and I'm inclined to agree. My only hold up would be the opposition they provide for each other in the sport. Sharapova, while she hasn't won in years, still presents a mental challenge to Serena, whose game seems elevates win she plays her. Serena has a similar record against Azarenka but she's also considered a rival by some. What are your thoughts about listing her?--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's the write up for her rivalry with Hingis, please let me know your thoughts. If acceptable, I'd like to follow a similar format with her rivalries with Clijsters, Capriati, and Henin. The jury is still out on whether Sharapova and Azarenka should be included, please let me know what you think.

Williams vs. Hingis

Williams leads series 7-6. (1) One of William’s first rivalries was with Martina Hingis, who turned pro less than one year before her (Hingis in October 1994, Williams in 1995) They first played each other at the 1998 Miami Open where Hingis won in three sets {6-3, 1-6, 7-6(4)}. All but one of their matches was played on a hard court with the exception being a contest on clay in Rome 1999, which Hingis won in straight sets. Their last match took place at the 2002 Miami Open with Williams winning (6-4, 6-0). (2) Hingis was forced to briefly leave the sport citing ankle injuries. (3)

1. http://www.wtatennis.com/head2head/player1/3491/player2/9044 2. http://www.wtatennis.com/players/player/3491/title/martina-hingis 3. http://www.biography.com/people/martina-hingis-9339702 --TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Williams vs. Capriati

Williams leads series 10-7. (1) Once considered one of the best rivalries in women’s tennis (2), the competition between Williams and Capriati was stiff with 12 out of their 17 meetings going to three sets. The rivalry, starting in 1999, started off one sided with Capriati winning four of their first five matches. Serena would then go on to win the next eight. (1) Williams and Capriati played with similar styles, both known for using their power and athleticism to gain quick advantages in points. (3)

1. http://www.wtatennis.com/head2head/player1/1325/player2/9044 2. http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/jen-serena-hot-stuff-respect-power-match-article-1.554433 3. http://tennis-buzz.com/jennifer-capriati-too-little-too-late/ 4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14758-2004Jun29.html --TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Bias

Of late, there has been recognition that criticisms surrounding Serena Williams has been biased and unfair.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/andy-roddick-serena-williams_55e74095e4b0c818f61a3bbf http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-meaning-of-serena-williams.html?_r=0 http://observer.com/2015/09/exclusive-andy-roddick-talks-serena-williams-and-his-upcoming-baby-news/

Other tennis players in similar situations are not noted for being controversial, their behavior is reported without characterizations of "controversy" or "drama." However, there is a section titled "Controversies" in Ms. William's wiki page. The section header "Controversies" should be deleted and the sub-headings under the section "Controversies" listed under "On-Court activities." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.148.204 (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe the controversy section is there because so much controversy has followed her from day one. It has always been a huge part of her persona. It has mellowed in the later years since she has matured. But if you mean to say that Evert, Graf, Seles, Hingis, Davenport, Henin, Clijsters, etc.. are on the same par in controversies as Serena, then I would say that's ridiculous. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with the initial commentor here. Serena's on court drama pales in comparison to John McEnroe's but there's no "controversies" section on his article. Others such as Safin, Roddick, and even Agassi all had notable meltdowns but none of them are noted on their respective pages. David Nalbandian even hurt a line judge during one such meltdown but it also goes unmentioned. --TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph

I believe that it should be noted that Serena Williams has be hailed by several news outlets, current and former athletes, and sports writers as the greatest athlete of this era. I have tried to add it to her page, however, someone keeps removing it despite the fact that I noted several sources. Thad caldwell (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

oppose. you tried to validate blogposts by mixing them in with the opinions of some tennis legends and reputable sport writers (none of which said serena is the GREATEST ATHLETE of all time), which would given their hype(that's the only way i can describe it) undue weight. also, this could've been resolved on the talk page a lot sooner, instead both of us got flagged for edit warring. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

and that would be misleading. i looked into the sources, none of the former athletes/sports writers, McEnroe, Agassi, etc, said she is the greatest athlete of all time, they said she is or probably is the greatest female tennis player. other sources, like matt schievezan's(who isn't even a sports writer) opinions shouldn't be held to the same standards to those of the ATGs. in this case, matt isn't even a reliable source SyriaWarLato (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Plus this happens every 10 years. Suzanne Lenglen is the greatest of all time, Helen Wills is the greatest of all time, Maureen Conolly is the greatest of all time, Margaret Court is the greatest of all time, Chris Evert is the greatest of all time, Martina Navratilova is the greatest of all time, Steffi Graf is the greatest of all time, Serena Williams is the greatest of all time... it will go on and on forever. Every one of them has coaches and press and books stating as such... none are right and none are wrong because of the subjective nature of the beast. All these articles should simply say a more generic (no matter the sources)... they are among the all-time greats. There are just too many parameters to really say more. Serena has had to take longer to get her titles (like Jimmy Connors) and Henin and Clijsters retired early, making it easier for her. Wills went 6 years without losing a set and skipped the Australian and other majors on a regular basis, but her competition came from a much smaller pool than Serena's. Evert and Navratilova were contemporaries who won 18 Majors a piece, who if they didn't have each other, one of them might have won 30 Majors. If Lenglen knew the importance majors would play in today's world, and if there was air-travel, she might have won the Grand Slam 8 straight years. She was that good. The point being these ladies are the greatest of the great as far as tennis history goes and I'm pretty darned glad I've been able to watch them play for 45 years. For the record, if you want to talk overall greatness as far as ability in singles, doubles, mixed doubles, and total influence on building the actual game of tennis as we know it today.... Billy Jean King. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thad caldwell asked me for some help on my user page, so I'm going to go ahead and try to help out here. It looks to me like Thad wants the article to note that some writers have described Williams as "the greatest athlete" of all time, while the current page only notes that some commentators have called her "the greatest female tennis player of all time." From Thad's edit 671321866, the sources cited don't look like unreputable blog posts. They're reputable news outlets. However, only this one directly supports the sentence Thad would like to add, and, especially given the comments above, I don't know that the opinion of a single sports writer is enough to make the point. Is there a way that we can rewrite the last sentence in the first paragraph of the lede to include the understanding that Williams's status seems to go beyond tennis, while stopping short of "greatest athlete of all time"? Or do we think that's still going too far? Agtx (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

we don't have to change anything her greatness is acknowledged. also, having status outside tennis has nothing to do with being the greatest athlete. sharapova has status outside tennis, maybe even larger than serena, but we don't judge her athletic career based on it. SyriaWarLato (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

IMHO it's good as it is. As for reputable source, i take McEnroe's or Agassi's word over Chris Stiggal's any day. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how many times McEnroe or Agassi played Steffi, Serena, Martina and Chrissy to make their determination? Or do they simply use their eyes like the rest of us? Fyunck(click) (talk) 6:20 pm, Today (UTC−7)

What I'm trying to note is the status of praise given to her by her contemporaries, sports legends, and sports writers. I never tried to imply that she is the greatest athlete as a fact, I was just trying to convey that that is indeed the opinion of noteworthy individuals in the sports world. As to Agtx's point, I can find other sources that directly state the opinion that Serena Williams is the greatest athlete of this era. Again, I understand that you two feel that is an opinion but if the opinion is coming from reputable sources I believe it should be noted as to give a complete picture of Serena's influence on athletics as a whole as opposed to just tennis. As to SyriaWarLato's point, the opinions and comments made in the referenced sources are based on her athletic career. Here are some other sources: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/07/the-astonishing-greatness-of-serena-williams/398339/http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2499138-is-serena-williams-the-most-dominant-american-athlete-todayhttp://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/13239462/with-drake-help-john-mcenroe-joins-chorus-praise-serena-williams (John McEnroe's quote) I'm not sure if a video of ESPN commentators having the discussion can be cited but just in case.Thad caldwell (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJqDYGafg5M

I already pointed out matt schievezan isn't a sports writer. i can't take these sources seriously. very click bait and tabloyish. i prefer the professional opinions of writers involved with the sport. SyriaWarLato (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, as to Fyunck's point. If other athletes have been noted as the greatest of all time or in their era, then perhaps their pages can reflect that. After all, if each of these athletes have performed in such a way as to deserve such praise then it should be placed on their page and the sources cited. The GOAT conversation is just that, a conversation.Thad caldwell (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

They do all say that. I run into articles every day with it. And if this were a blog, that would be great. But it's an encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

exactly. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And, as an encyclopedia, it is okay to address certain attitudes and common thoughts about a subject. I wonder if either of you have read Steffi Graf's (is regarded by many to be the greatest female tennis player of all time. Navratilova included Graf on her list of great players.) or Michael Jordan's page (was considered instrumental in popularizing the NBA around the world in the 1980s and 1990s.[4]) which both contain similar material. What would be the harm of noting the opinions of reputable sources? I'm sorry, but it seems to me that your personal bias is playing a role here. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Here are other athletes with similar accolades Wayne Gretzky("The Great One", he has been called "the greatest hockey player ever"[1] by many sportswriters, players, and the NHL itself.) Babe Ruth (Ruth is regarded as one of the greatest sports heroes in American culture and is considered by many to be the greatest baseball player of all time.) Bo Jackson (He was named the greatest athlete of all time by ESPN.[2])Thad caldwell (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

you're wrong and you're coming of as too fanboyish. serena's greatness is mentioned in a similar manner as steffi graff's and no one denies the greatness of any of those players you mentioned, but none of them are given the moniker greatest athlete. + the Bo jackson one is a vote, which also need to be highlighted on the page(so thanks for pointing it out). Ameteurdemographer (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You may think that I'm coming "off as too fanboyish" but I simply shared the comments and opinion of other experts. Here again is a list of notable sports writers and reporters that share the same opinion: John McEnroe (Former professional tennis player, current commentator), Chris Evert (Former professional tennis player, current commentator) Pam Shriver (Former professional tennis player, current commentator) Michael Smith (ESPN), Jemele Hill (ESPN), Freddie Coleman (ESPN), Will Cain (The Blaze), Darren Cahill (Former professional coach and tennis player), Kate Fagan (ESPN), Jane McManus (ESPN). {References can be provided for each} Now, isn't it noteworthy that such prominent figures each have the same opinion of Williams? Let's work together here. Thad caldwell (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And their views are highlighted in the lede. note that not many if any have a problem with Williams is regarded by some commentators, sports writers and former players as the greatest female tennis player of all time. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, the sources I cited (both in the article and above) refer to her being the greatest athlete of her era or generation. You've yet to discuss your reason as to why noting the opinions of these prominent sports professionals is incongruent with the practices of Wikipedia. Again, no one is stating that Serena is indeed the greatest of all time but instead just the fact that at least a dozen reputable individuals and sources hold this as their opinion. That seems to be noteworthy.Thad caldwell (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

sorry but that's just incorrect. also, just saw a clip with jamele speaking on serena in it and she flip flops all the time. and pretty much every other source you've given read her as greatest female/tennis player, not greatest athlete. and mixing is some radio hosts and political commentators hyperbole with these sources won't make it any more valid. sorry but you wont get anywhere forcing your views like this. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you clearly haven't read any of the articles I've referenced as they each specifically state "greatest athlete" or state a popular notion that she is thought of as such. Here's a quote from John McEnroe (which can be found in an article I've cited):"Three years ago, I thought she was the best to ever play, but it sort of cements it in historical terms," McEnroe said. "... To me, she could arguably be the greatest athlete of the last 100 years." You're suggesting that I'm "forcing views" but, unlike your opinions, I have references and sources. And as for your comment about Jemele, she does not flip flop; she stated that some place her firmly in the conversation for "the most dominant athlete of the last 20 years". I referenced her as she noted a popular notion amongst sports enthusiasts. You have still failed to put forth a valid point as to why this information should be omitted. Each source I've referenced is reputable and knowledgable. So, I'll ask again, why should their thoughts on this topic be omitted? Why is okay to use similar sources to say "Williams is regarded by some commentators, sports writers and former players as the greatest female tennis player of all time. Or for that matter, to suggest any of the accolades I listed above? And lastly, please stop with the personal accusations. I have an opinion on this matter, as you do, and my standing by it does not connote that I'm forcing my views. A lesser person would accuse you of the same. So please, let's keep this conversation on an educational level and try to reach a consensus of some sort. Thad caldwell (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we can just put in John McEnroe's quote in a similar fashion to that of other pages for sports figures. The pages of Steffi Graf, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Martina Navratilova (to name just a few) each have direct quotes which states that person's views on their greatness. I believe that would be a fair and completely within the spirit of Wikipedia.Thad caldwell (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

no it wouldn't. also, arguably the greatest in the last 100 years =/= greatest athlete. same with most dominating =/= greatest. this source (or you) don't seem to know the definition of the words they're using. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I would tend to keep all this stuff out of the leads. They could have a section much lower down that talks about their place in history. That goes for all of them. But that's my opinion. As for greatest athlete, for me that means you do several athletic things well. That is usually reserved for Olympic decathlons or duel sport players like Bo Jackson. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I believe Ameteurdemographer and I have reached an impasse. Your immaturity and unwillingness to compromise are blatant and uncalled for. You've yet to address very clear points. For instance, why would it be inappropriate to simply quote John McEnroe? You say that arguably the greatest isn't the same as "the greatest", so fine. "It's still a quote conveying a reputable expert's opinion on the subject matter, why not use it just to convey McEnroe's thoughts? I provided video of Freddie Coleman, Will Cain, and Kate Fanahan (each sports authorities) clearly stating that Williams is the most dominant athlete of this era. I have articles quoting the other figures listed above. My question in regards to how to other articles which use similar references has also gone unanswered. Therefore, I will continue this conversation with other users and/or reach out to an administrator to see how to proceed if necessary. But I no longer consider Ameteurdemographer a viable part of what should be a conversation and discourse leading to a compromise, due to his/her belittling.Thad caldwell (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

watch your language. insulting other editors can get you blocked and it won't make your point of view any more valid. SyriaWarLato (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding all of us to remain civil. It was needed.97.82.223.215 (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Fyunk for that suggestion. I think that is a great idea! If it's done the way you suggest it will allow readers to take it for what it is, and that's the suggested impact she's had on the world around her. You brought up Billie Jean King earlier and her page has a "Tributes from other players" section. I think something like that would work perfectly here. I understand your point about "greatest athlete" and I'm actually inclined to agree with you as it's a title usually reserved for decathlon athletes. My only hesitation is, as I've stated, it is the term used in several of the articles and in the quotes. But again, if it's in a "Legacy" section the reader can simply agree or disagree as it won't be reported as fact but simply a popular notion. This is a great compromise, thank you.Thad caldwell (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

One of the reasons I mention it is because of the Rod Laver article. We could easily find quote after quote of how great he was as a player and that he IS the greatest tennis player in history. No problem at all. Instead in the lead we simply have "tennis player widely regarded as one of the greatest in tennis history." Note it says one of the greatest, not the greatest. Williams, Graf, Wills, Lenglen, Tilden, etc... should probably all have that line and nothing more in the lead sections. But Laver also has a section called "Place among the all-time great tennis players" where more detailed info can be given (both good and bad). If the same was done to Serena Williams, both the good points and bad would be entered (if sourced). You'd have those quotes you want, but there would also be quotes about the exceedingly weak competition, and the fact that her best rivals retired early to allow her to win as many Majors as she has. Just pointing out that when a section is created it opens the door for multiple points of view. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a simple section titled "Recognition", as you find on Navratilova's page, would suffice. I will try to start with sources that already take a balanced/and fair view on her legacy. Thanks for working with me on this, Fyunck. I hope to have something put together by the end of the week and I hope you will check it and give me your thoughts/advice.97.82.223.215 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm new here, but Steffi Graf has an entire paragraph in her introductory section noting accolades to her greatness, including quotes from other players. Why can't Serena have the same?--TrueToCamp73 (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Grand Slam singles

In the box on the right, Tour Finals and Olympics shouldn't be included in the Grand Slam singles section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.197.35 (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit request - add sources for Vinci upset

There are many, many reliable sources alluding to the Vinci upset being on the biggest tennis upset ever so I found 10 from major mainstream sources. I completed all the citiations, so can someone just copy and paste this text into the article where it belongs:
Numerous major media outlets reported about Vinci's win over Williams being one of the biggest upsets in tennis history.
Czoal (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Done Done, but with NYT, LAT, and BBC only to avoid overcite. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I see you added some of the sources here. However, I really think many more cites should be used because of the magnitude of the claim. I've read many sports bios over the years on Wikipedia, and any time there's been a claim that the athlete did something that's the best or greatest "in history" or "of all-time" it eventually attracted a lot of passionate objections about the claim when there were only a few sources. That's why I think saying that Vinci's win over Williams was one of the biggest upsets in tennis history requires a lot more sources, so it will prevent any contentious debates. If you look at the leads of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, you'll some huge claims about their all-time greatness; they all have many cites to verify the claims. But as you'll see, in those instances they use a Notes sections and combine the numerous sources into one reference for each claim in the paragraph ([a], [b], [c]) so there won't be a long string of cites attached to a particular claim. Maybe a Note could be used in this instance for Vinci? In any case, I just think at least several more sources should be used for this huge claim about Vinci's upset. Czoal (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It's usually not needed. I agree that claims of the "the greatest" or "all-time" require many citations. But "one of the greatest", or "some say the greatest" tend to need much less. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. but I really feel that a few more sources will only help, not hurt. I've already heard debates from small but vocal minorities on sports shows and some sports blogs about how Vinci's win was not one of the biggest tennis upsets ever. So what would you think of adding just two or three more of the sources I provided above? I just don't want someone coming along in a week, a month, or a year from now to delete the entire claim and starting a huge debate over it. Czoal (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Czoal: I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that will happen. Try and read WP:OVERCITE; while there is no fixed number, I believe that with NYT, LAT and BBC we have three very good sources, and that we don't need more. But other's mileage may vary. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply)

@Sam Sailor: I read the essay about overciting and I obviously agree that most content on Wikipedia only needs a few good sources at most. But that essay also includes WP:Citemerge, which is exactly what I recommended above to eliminate the clutter in this situation. I think this info about the upset is one of those rare exceptions to overciting. I just strongly believe that one of the most significant claims any bio can make is that someone accomplished one of the biggest or best things of all time. It's a huge statement and therefore warrants more sources than normal. So can you guys agree to add just two more sources to settle this? I would appreciate it. (By the way I don't need to be pinged, whatever that is. I'm keeping an eye on this discussion. Thanks.) Czoal (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Per WP:OVERCITE and WP:ABDF. Czoal, have a little faith in both of us who have responded: the risk that any sane editor would question and remove this statement backed up of three of the best English language sources, The New York Times, LA Times, and BBC is infinitesimal. :) Best, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)