Jump to content

Talk:Serena Williams

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 12:42, 10 March 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 8 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: living.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

}}

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)[reply]

Does anyone want to follow up on this? 2601:98A:4100:6C31:D0C8:66C9:6252:2F48 (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No since the entire article is way too long. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Legacy change

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

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

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)[reply]

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

All time Record claim for winning slam titles without losing a set

Winning three different slams without losing a set is not a record. Note the wiki entry for Maureen Connelly which states “Also the only player in history to win a title without losing a set at all four major championships”. For the record they were WM, US and AU in 53 and FR in 54. If this is to be retained it should be recorded as an achievement and, if so, added to the list: Billie Jean King (US 71,72; WM 67; FR 72) and Margaret Court (US 69 [maybe 65 also]; AU 61-63, 66, 70, 73; WM 65). Antipodenz (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Good catch. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serena's Venture

Apart from her notable accomplishments in tennis, Serena has extended her influence into the business realm through "Serena Ventures." This endeavor highlights her dedication to endorsing and investing in a variety of entrepreneurs. Serena's sharp business insight and her aspiration to uplift others underscore her leadership approach, which prioritizes collaboration, empowerment, and forward-looking perspectives.[1] Zeinab Alamgard (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serena_Williams&oldid=1212972190"