Talk:Serena Williams/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

100.37.200.95 (talk)

I want to add that she was the first women to become apart of the Women's Tennis Association

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Loss of form

Why is mention of loss of form and injury in the lead? Again, comparing to Graff's, there's no mention of her 1991-1993 loss of form and injury/rubella in the lead? Either mention loss of form for both Williams and Graff in their leads, or don't but for BOTH. ROC7 (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2022

The WTA ranking of Serena Williams is 1204 for doubles, not singles. The ranking for singles is 411. GalarianBlade (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

it is switched up, doubles is 411 and singles is 1204 GalarianBlade (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Yup, they were indeed swithced. Thanks! Fbifriday (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

GOAT

Looking at Graf's lead, included are quotes (Billie Jean King) and polls naming her the greatest of all time. Perhaps similar can be included in Serena's lead? Also, looking at Graf's talk page, there's resistance to include anything negative in Graf's legacy section, such as the doubts on her legacy raised by Seles' stabbing. Therefore, I suggest we remove the negative mentions regarding doubts about being a role model from Serena's legacy section.ROC7 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Steffi and Serena, are (IMO) at the top of the list, but Billie is the GOAT! - FlightTime (open channel) 18:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

Please add to Early Life section: "At age 6, Serena Williams met Billie Jean King at a tennis clinic in Long Beach, California and King later stated Serena's 'serve is by far the most beautiful serve ever in the history of our sport.'

Lacigol (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Lacigol (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. sportskeeda is not a reliable source, also there would need to be significant coverage to show that this is WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

New York Times good enough?

Photo from back then good enough? Lacigol (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish are the NYT and old photo good enough references? ans=no Lacigol (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to implement an edit request that was objected to, as this one was below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm not going to object to it. I guess meeting BJK at a clinic when you're six could be an inspiration. I would change the 6 to six. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

References

The photo has no date so that is useless. The NYTimes is an opinion piece that is blocked for me. The Sportkeeda piece should be good enough to say they met when Serena was six but I'm not sure it's too trivial. These tennis clinics have many old stars meeting raising stars. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Should Williams be noted as retired?

I'm not sure what the official process for retirement is in tennis, but has Williams officially retired yet? Or at least as Wikipedia respects it? Esolo5002 (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Boy that's a tough one. Her words were more to the effect of evolving beyond tennis. It's hard to see her playing more singles this year but I could really see her playing occasional doubles with Venus (or perhaps others), and perhaps some mixed doubles with Federer. I'm not sure I would mark her down as fully retired from tennis yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree that it's a tough one. The "evolve" thing is merely phraseology. Serena has said she doesn't like the term "retirement" or "retire" (considers it a negative term that suggests ending rather than beginning. "Evolve" is merely her replacement term and by that she means retirement from pro tennis but with emphasis on what she wants to do after. In other words this is all semantics. She truly is retiring. This can be taken as a definitive fact with no ambiguity. In fact it would be inaccurate to introduce any ambiguity. If she returns to pro tennis (even doubles) it will be a coming back from retirement. —Loginnigol 16:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it might be worth reverting. She has made no official declaration of her retirement, and I think her words read more as if she's going into a semi-retirement period as some athletes tend to where they may become more of a part-time player or play mostly in events like Fyunck suggests in regards to her perhaps playing matches against Federer. I guess technically then it's hard to determine when any athlete is retired save if they had said so or have signed their retirement papers (which I don't believe apply in tennis, but I could be wrong). I would probably revert but I know that would start an edit war and I think it would be worth discussing. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

How about "former professional..." - that leaves it open that she's still playing tennis, but not in the same capacity as before? Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

But we don't really know then. If she plays some doubles that would still be professional. Or if she plays Hopman Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

she is retired Gabica (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a little vague. That term has not been used. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not vague. Vague is what the likes of Jelena Jankovic did (effectively retiring but never notifying anybody of that, and simply not showing up to play anywhere). —Loginnigol 17:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a bit vague. Even the sources are vague on it. Has she asked to have all her ranking points removed? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

In Williams' farewell message to Roger Federer, she wrote "welcome to the retirement club". Not much, but something.LH7605 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It is something, just as a day or two before Chris Evert noted that Serena's own words said she could do a Tom Brady and start playing again. Her using "evolving" makes this murky. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Serena be listed as inactive player despite US Open was her final professional tournament three weeks ago. ApprenticeWiki ^work 01:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Inactive might be a good alternative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

And Williams recently said "she is not retired" and will likely play again. So "inactive" is looking correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct "himself" for "herself"

This sentence needs to be corrected: She makes a cameo appearance as himself in the 2022 Netflix film Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery. 107.77.237.209 (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2023

{{subst:trim|1=

}to update her awards} Devinv2 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2023

Why is the language "considered" been used to describe Serena Williams's greatness and achievement in tennis, while in fact she is factually "Widely" regarded as one of the greatest tennis players of all time.

The language should be "Widely regarded as one of the greatest tennis players of all time". This is the same language used for Steffi Graf afterall. Using "considered" for Serena is degorate, as if her achievements are just an after thought.

Change "Considered among the greatest tennis players of all time to "Widely regarded as one of the greatest tennis players of all time". 86.31.47.50 (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Remember to assume good faith. I very much doubt that this wording was introduced to the article to diminish her achievements. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Legacy (remove sentence).

In Legacy section a sentence should be removed (“However, some writers and tennis fans have questioned whether Williams should be considered a role model.”) I personally think it is a no brainer but someone kept reverting to including in talk. a) it is already discussed extensively under Match Controversies” and so is redundant to mention yet again. b) concern(s) have been voiced by commentators and other tennis stars that reactions to the incident are holding Serena to an unequal standard when compared to male and other female players. c) a single incident doesn’t define the legacy and the sources linked (which aren’t always the most reliable) largely discuss the incident itself and not a broader impact on her legacy. d) there are many more examples/sources that illustrate the tennis word consensus on her being a role model. Max3218 (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Whether she is a role model has not been discussed extensively in other sections. Plus this is a new section talking about her legacy in the sport where she has admirers and detractors. This is longstanding and seems like a no-brainer to me to keep it intact for balance. We could simply get rid of her being a role model and the balancing statement. And what are you talking about with a single incident? Her time on court has had many incidents that have added tarnish to a stellar career. Her tennis prowess has been amazing but so was Ty Cobb's baseball prowess. We have to be careful and not sound like a travel brochure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Keeping fairness in how Legacy sections are covered is important. If that sentence, which the level of truthfulness is questionable, is to be kept then the Legacy sections of other great tennis players should be updated to include controversies as well. Other talk pages, including Graf, Evert, etc., there is resistance to including anything negative. Additionally, male tennis players Legacy sections like John McEnroe don’t include negatives (Jonny Mc being know as very combative etc on court). Holding Serena’s Legacy page to a different standard is wrong and fixing it should be a no brainer. Max3218 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a big difference as to being great and being a role model. All it says is "some writers and tennis fans have questioned whether Williams should be considered a role model." Nothing more but it gives links. We could certainly get rid of "Her numerous victories on court have largely been a positive influence on young girls and boys who see Williams as a role model and an ambassador of tennis." There are many many tennis fans who do not agree with that statement so it is really not true unless we give the balancing statement. And giving balance is not something that is singular to Serena Williams legacy. Pancho Gonzales legacy is full of counter punching, as is Bill Tilden. By us simply saying "some writers and tennis fans have questioned whether Williams should be considered a role model" we are being positively tame. Mac being combative and Serena not being a role model by some is pretty on par in the legacy section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

" We could certainly get rid of "Her numerous victories on court have largely been a positive influence on young girls and boys who see Williams as a role model and an ambassador of tennis"

I think we should remove it and replace it with something that highlights how part of her legacy has been to inspire players of colour. For instance Osaka, Sloan Stephens, Gauff etc have all said they wouldn't be in tennis without Serena e.g.

Saying Goodbye to Serena: Reflecting on Williams’ Legacy – The Oberlin Review

Serena Williams May Be Retiring, But Her Legacy And GOAT Status Will Live On Forever (forbes.com)

Another aspect of her legacy is bringing power and athleticism to the women's game. Although this is briefly touched upon in the lede, mention of it in her legacy section would be quite apt. Koppite1 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but it's a bit vague. Anyone who didn't think Graf and Navratilova didn't have power and athleticism is crazy. It was more that Serena was the first of a generation brought up as a kid using the newer style oversized power equipment. Even though it was available, it took a generation to really put it to full use and eliminate the net game. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Then her influence on players of colour should definitely be part of the legacy section. I agree with your initial suggestion of removing the original role model sentences. Koppite1 (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

And I agree with you. There should be no end of sources talking about her influence on players of color. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Just wondering why there are no controversy sections on the general pages of most of the other "modern day" top players/ GOAT contenders, while great focus and attention had been made of Williams's controversies? For instance, Djokovic perhaps has been involved in more controversies than most, yet there is no section specifically dedicated his controversies? Just a quick glance over his page, and even big controversies such as his Tokyo Olympics is not even mentioned on his page. A quick glance at Steffi Graf's page, there's no mention of the illegal coaching controversies, quick glance at Navratilova, no mention of her racket smashing/temper losing 1994 French open. For the sake of balance and fairness, shouldn't equal focus be put on their controversies too? Maybe they too should have a controversy section on their main pages? Koppite1 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Djokovic's controversies are just more scattered, but other players also have controversies. Margaret Court, Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, John McEnroe. In the modern media era, probably Djokovics meltdowns come closest to Williams. He should have a section. Grafs and Navratilova are more like tiny pimples compared to Williams. Sourcing plays a large part of every article and Serena's issues have become part of her persona. Osaka has had her issues too, but it is not under the same microscope as Serena's. There is also article weight to deal with. Graf and Navratilova have tiny articles compared to Serena Williams. As you expand all the tennis items the controversy sections gets expanded as well. Things that are a sentence in most articles become a paragraph with Williams. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Re Martina Nav, there are more than strong enough examples and strong sources to have a match controversy section. Just a very quick search brings up:

1)1994 French open (racket smashing/losing temper)

Tennis: Navratilova makes quite a racket on her way out: Former champion shows flash of temper after first opening-round loss in Grand Slam event | The Independent | The Independent

2)Wimbledon 1992 (was often referred to as grunt-gate--complained about Seles grunting, but didn't start complaining until she was losing and then got all defensive about accusations that she only started complaining when she was losing)

WIMBLEDON : Seles Quiets Navratilova : Women: Complaints about her grunting don't stop her from reaching final against Graf, who easily beats Sabatini. - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Tennis: Wimbledon '92 / Grunt and Graf in way of Seles dream: The determination of Monica Seles came over loud and clear as she beat Martina Navratilova yesterday | The Independent | The Independent

3)Minor tennis tournament 1993 (if India Wells is included for Williams, then same should apply re minor tournaments for Martina---loudly scolding/shouting/arguing with the umpire and then refusing to shake his hand)

Tennis: Navratilova is beaten by qualifier: Former Wimbledon champion berates umpire at DFS Classic before losing in three sets to Australian ranked No 179 in the world | The Independent | The Independent

4)US Open 1976 v Janet Newbury- (complete meltdown after losing, had to be helped off the court-and then was so upset had to duck the press conference-Newbury, who had to help Nav off the court said “I hope I never see anyone in that condition again,”. Even Nav said " wasn't nice, the way I acted. I just didn't have any control over myself at the time.. I still consider that loss the worst of my career, at least in the way I responded to it on and off the court.")

Shape Your Self (archive.org)

‘Never See Anyone in That Condition..’ - When a Distraught 19-Year-Old Martina Navratilova Had to Be Escorted off the Court by Her American Opponent - EssentiallySports

5)Another minor tournament 1994 Virginia Simms--(lost to Maleeva, was so upset left the court without attending the farewell ceremony held by the tournament in her honour)

The day Martina Navratilova played in Chicago for the last time (tennismajors.com)

etc etc etc etc etc etc

Re Graff, i agree no separate section re controversy is warranted. However, brief mention of the allegations of illegal coaching should be there.

Agree with you that a separate section re controversy is needed for Djockovic.

I'm quite willing to try and get the ball rolling on some of these Koppite1 (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see those Navratilova situations as the same. Obviously you do. Some get included because the others were so bad. The Navratilova ones could simply be included with the match itself. And as I said, when your article is 5x bigger than everyone elses, match controversies are also 5x bigger. Otherwise you get undue weight, Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Apart from the last example 1994 Virginia S, i feel the rest are weighty enough to compile a controversy section for Martina Nav. I'm quite willing to start the ball rolling (unless there are overwhelming objections). Will also put in a brief paragraph re Graf's illegal coaching Koppite1 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The thing is Everyone complained about Seles grunting. Papers talked about it all the time. And if you include breaking her racket, there are probably a lot more for Serena that were not included. Do as you will but don't use the reason that because Serena is controversial and has a section, that others must have one too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems there is a deliberate attempt here to keep a lot of negative things in Serena Williams page, even if it makes no sense. If some writers or fans' negative opinions of Serena's legacy is included, then it should be included for every other tennis player or athletes as that basis applies to everyone. Nobody is a perfect role model and opinions of writers who don't like Serena should not be included as fact. I can quote some articles that don't consider Federer a role model. He's certainly not a role model for black athletes and has also behaved badly on court many times (same with 1000s of other athletes). So why is that not included in Federer's legacy??

There's also a section that says Serena is "considered" as one of the greatest tennis players. Considered - seriously? What an insulting language to her achievements. It's as if her achievements are an after thought, like only one person in the world thinks she's great. Yet Steffi Graf is written as "Widely regarded". Ethan009 (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Wikipedia does not exist to glorify the achievements of sportspeople. Let the readers make their assessment themselves.Tvx1 15:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023

In May 2023, she revealed that she is pregnant with her second child in an announcement before the Met Gala, where she was seen visibly pregnant. On July 31 2023 it was revealed they were having another girl. 2601:19B:B00:F5F0:B0A1:94A1:532E:D6CD (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Xan747 (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Legacy change

Change “French Open finalist Coco Gauff” to “US Open champion Coco Gauff.” Self explanatory ClamChowder1234 (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Template stating article too long

Need to shrink the article. Some suggestions:

1)Vastly condense the match controversies section. It's too long, too detailed. Even players like Djokovic who has arguably more controversies than any other modern day player, doesn't have the same level of detail in his article. Condense it down to a paragraph, 2 at most.

2)Completely remove the transition away from tennis section. IMO, It feels unnecessary.

Input, various suggestions/alternative solutions all welcome.

Thanks Koppite1 (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting... I would have said that Serena has more controversies than any modern player. But a lot of it is article length and balance. If all of her prose is cut in half then her controversy section would also be cut in half. Djokovic has also got a tag for super length. Things that have happened over the last decade of Wikipedia editing are: The professional sections of the best players have gone from one section, to a jr and early years and later years section, and now to yearly sections. And each year has bloated. This with the fact that most years also have their own article. From every tournament win, to every tournament, to every match. Every detail goes in because we can now find every detail. Look at careers of Chris Evert or Martina Navratilova and Rod Laver for examples of how compact things can be. Could those old article be expanded some.... sure... but not like we see today. There should be some middle ground between trivially large and not enough info for an encyclopedia. A few tennis players have more prose than any other bio on wikipedia. Far more than US Presidents or Albert Einstein. Serena has 112k of prose in 19k words. If you cut 30% from every paragraph it would still be at 79k (which is larger than Barak Obama), but much more readable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Fyunck(click) is right. The main issue is that the yearly sections are bloated (too long and too detailed), which is odd since most years have their own article. So, rather than targeting the controversies section and "the transition away from tennis" section, which do not even have their own article; we should instead be aiming to trim the yearly sections. And doing this will be okay because all of the more trivial information and minor details will still be in that season's article, which means that we are not going to lose nothing.

So yeah, my idea is rather simple. It basically comes down to just two steps: Transferring and Trimming.

First we transfer the careers of these four players (Serena and Big Three) into their respective sub-articles (junior and the seasons) and then we trim those yearly sections into a two or three paragraph summary of the season (similar to Pete Sampras for example).

I personally will seize hold of the transferring phase of the Big Three in 16-17 December. And Koppite1 could do the same with Serena. When this first step is complete we can begin with the trimming phase.

This approach will be far more effective in bringing down those Ks of prose and Ks of words, and it will preserve the sections that do not have their own article (controversies and ETC).

What do you guys think? Barr Theo (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Remember that not all yearly sections of these players are allowed a separate article. Only those that meet Tennis Project guidelines. And almost all the info is already in the yearly articles. We also have overkill in some articles. Look at Serena's coaching section. It's one sentence. Could it be a small paragraph.... sure it could. But look at Novak Djokovic's coaching section. It's crazy huge!!!! This could be shortened to one or two paragraphs. Wikipedia is not a novel. So while years could be trimmed to events won for many players, sections like coaching should be tiny. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If you are confident that almost all the info is already in the yearly articles, then begin the trimming. But be sure! I don't want to lose a thing.

.

By the way, I have just created Novak Djokovic junior years, and as you can see, I stretched the hell out of it (22k bytes). Impressed? Well... You should know by now that I'm a specialist at expanding and stretching subjects down to every notable detail. I can't believe I am now trimming stuff. It is counterintuitive. But it is necessary. And everything we trim will be on sub-articles, so...

.

I will be waiting for your thoughts about my amazing work (Novak Djokovic junior years). Barr Theo (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll have to look later, but I am a minimalist. The smallest footprint to get the point across and then move on. Encyclopedias are highlights only, not books or magazines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I would definitely work on Federer and Williams first, since they are retired and won't be adding anything new. Then make sure Nadal and Djokovic conform accordingly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

All right then. I spent the last few hours working on Federer (I do not have the knowledge to work on Williams). But I must warn you that my goal is not 75k prose. SIZERULE refers to readable prose size, and by that metric if a page is under 15k words/100k prose, then it's acceptable. That will be my goal for the Big Three.

I know that you love Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall, and that they are only 5k words, but you can't equalize this because they lived in a pre-wiki world. Times have changed!! Wiki pages are getting bigger and bigger. I mean, look at 2023 Israel–Hamas war with 453k bytes, while World War II, which was much more significant, larger, and of historical importance, is only 252k bytes. Do you want to equalize that too?? Even if you wanted to, it is impossible. To even the field between pre-wiki articles and pro-wiki articles is simply not possible for a number of logistic reasons and beyond. I hope you understand. Barr Theo (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedia-wise they are equals. Wiki pages do not need to be getting bigger and bigger... in fact it's bad! And no, I think WW2 should be 20x bigger. And I will then warn you that I will be working to get them smaller than 100k or prose. However, right this second it looks like Federer is at 83k prose. Not too bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not know Federer's proze. I guided myself by the rule of Under 15k words. If that is 83K prose, so be it.

By the way, I did you add the "no splits" parameter? Barr Theo (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Most of what needs trimming belongs nowhere else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

2021 French Open run not discussed

Serena Williams got to the 4th round of the 2021 French Open, defeating Camila-Begu, Bouzkova and Collins before losing to Rybakina. This is not mentioned in the article and should be included. Rishia513 (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone want to follow up on this? 2601:98A:4100:6C31:D0C8:66C9:6252:2F48 (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

No since the entire article is way too long. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)