Talk:Ana Ivanovic/Archive 4

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The name of this article should be changed to "Ana Ivanovic" because that is the name used on the English-language websites of the official governing bodies of tennis, which are the Women's Tennis Association and the International Tennis Federation. That also is the name used on the English-language websites of Fed Cup, the US Open, Wimbledon, the French Open (Roland Garros), and the Australian Open. Tennis expert (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Comment by User:Yano: Currently, this article diverges from all reliable sources. The body of evidence suggests that the preferred rendering of this name is "Ana Ivanovic." That evidence is provided below, including the subject's official website, official tennis organizations, major sports media, and a small selection of general media, as the average query yields hundreds of agreeable results. Unless an equal amount of evidence is turned up to prefer the current spelling, this article should exist at "Ana Ivanovic." --Yano (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum from User:Yano: The evidence below was gathered with WP:UE and Wikipedia:NCCN#Use common names of persons and things in mind.

Official Site and Organizations

Official Events

Sports Media

General Media

Comment by User:Admiral Norton: The proposed move would introduce diverging from all editing patterns on Wikipedia and diverging from common sense. Is it incorrect to use a person's real name? How can {{foreignchar}} be inadequate in this place? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Support - English language rendering of her name, so WP:UE 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - general practice is to include diacritcs in the name where they exist, and to have a non-diacritic-including re-direct. Other recent discussions about tennis players have supported this view. - fchd (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Support - Recent tennis discussions, such as Marko Djokovic and Novak Djokovic, have actually been in favor of common usage. There is consensus on Wikipedia to use the prefered rendering of a name, which in this case is Ivanovic. --Yano (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose. This is neither English, nor correct, just a media-supported distortion of her real name, leading to incorrect pronunciation. Also, except for the Đoković brothers, there are no cases of this "rule" of Yano's being used whatsoever in articles about Serbian people. The so-called "preferred rendering" is nothing more than the laziness of journalists and typists that entered popular culture. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Her real name is Ivanovic, per the sources. Unless you can provide as much evidence to the contrary, we have to go with the facts and with common usage. When this matter has been discussed in the past, the Wikipedia community has consistently favored the word of reliable sources. --Yano (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You're seriously asking me to pull out her birth certificate? Also, could you explain why do the links sr:Ана Ивановић/sr:Ana Ivanović work and sr:Ана Ивановиц/sr:Ana Ivanovic don't? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm asking you to support your assertions with evidence, per WP:V, as I have done. --Yano (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We both know there is no way for me to gain access to her legal documents, but I find the abundance of Ivanović and lack of Ivanovic in Serbian-language sources more than satisfactory here. Also, you have not answered my other question. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Her birth certificate is fairly immaterial in the face of demonstrated English usage. Just the like the birth certificates of William Blythe, Anthony Blair, Cherilyn Sarkisian, George Ruth Jr. have not resulted in Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Cher, and Babe Ruth being retitled to their "correct" names. As for Serbian language usage, nothing in this debate stops the Serbian language wikipedia from using Ivanović or anything else. This however, is English wikipedia, and the evidence you suggest should come from English usage.Erudy (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I just love how English turns into a "regulated language" or recovers its unregulated character depending on the POV it serves. As for the examples you cite, they all address other issues: colloquial hypochoristics and common pseudonyms, not the fact that the casual discarding of all diacritics at once in some English sources cannot be used as proof of Anglicization for any individual name. Dahn (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - What is this? Are we going to round up articles with ćčšđž, and on by one changed them, with the same arguments? First Djokovic, now Ivanovic... whats next? Jankovic, Ljubicic, Karlovic, Ancic, Ivanisevic? I strongly oppose this practice. OK, you say it is not English letters, then take up higher initiative to changed all čćšđž articles on Wikipedia, or all tennis articles, because you use the same arguments on all, and not just one you prefer. --Göran S (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Support Demonstrated English language rendering of name. I ask that opposing voices present evidence that her name is rendered Ivanović in English. It is not wikipedia's duty to judge the moral validity or invalidity of spelling changes, but merely to record them. English spelling has undergone huge changes and will continue to do so, many times because of "laziness", changes of technology, and so forth. As is its right, the English speaking community regularly "domesticates" names both foreign and English, and we should follow the verifiable facts of English language, rather than correct them.Erudy (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reasons as all the similar requests that seem to be trickling through WP:RM at a rate of one or two per week. — AjaxSmack 17:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per above, and admonish proposer against these requests that are a waste of time for everybody who has to repeat ad nauseam the purpose of diacritics on Wikipedia. Hús ö nd 00:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - general practice here is to use local diacritics in the interests of accuracy, regardless of the distortions committed by the press in a diacritics-averse language. There's no reason to deviate from that principle, and really, let's give this game a rest for a while. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - English sources in general casually omit diacritics everywhere, making no special exception for one name or another, so they establish virtually nothing. On wikipedia, where we have redirects and special tools to add, read and comprehend all diacritics, dropping for the sake of dropping them makes no sense. Furthermore, "ć" and "c" are different sounds in Serbo-Croatian et al., which carries the risk of (occasionally hilarious) misreadings. All other cases where this nonsense trend took over are regrettable and should be reconsidered, not taken as examples. Dahn (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This kind of votestacking is frowned upon and should not influence the closing admin's decision for consensus. --Yano (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Biruitorul knows that I have taken part in all such "let's drop the diacritics" debates in the past, and I have made my opinions clear for each and all to read. I find it disruptive and I believe it is very much frowned upon that the debate (which several editors above, much like me, indicate was repeated ad nauseam) is never centralized, that moves made quietly and against consensus are taken as precedents, and that arguments made against one instance are persistently ignored. Also, since this is a non-binding poll, and since number of votes doesn't matter over solid argumentation, there really is no harm done. Besides, I would have reached this page on my own sooner or later, because I quite often "stalk" Biruitorul, and he is well-aware of that. As for the argumentation: calling attention to deceptive marginalia instead of addressing the point indicates to me that the point was solid. Dahn (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice detective work there, Yano, but of course, Dahn has already confirmed there was nothing untoward in my message. Now, if you have a substantive rebuttal, I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No evidence, guidelines, or policies were cited. Unless you offer something to that effect, there is nothing for anyone to rebut. I understand you dislike the removal of diacritics, but your dislikes are not arguable points. --Yano (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to my argument? If you are: WP:DEMOCRACY for the nature and use of polls. Since we have had so many variations of this poll by now, since it should be used with caution, and since it is neither binding nor a substitute for discussion, I hope you'll see why I think this relaunch is point-splitting, exhausting, predictable overkill. Dahn (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This page will be moved on the strength of evidence, not because of a poll. There is also consensus on Wikipedia to use the most common name for article titles (in this case, Ivanovic), and if you find undermining that convention on a case-by-case basis exhausting, then you can always choose to not take part in these matters. --Yano (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's not clear: I contest the flawed and misleading interpretation of that supposed evidence; this type of argument was made in the other polls I was referring to, and in all of them was pointed out by many, of whom I was one. I'm sure I speak for all those who made it evident at the time, and ever since, when I say this "case-by-case" is exhausting and tricky. But I have made several other points, no matter how many times you chose to ignore them, and you've been re-posting variations of the same questionable assertion. So it's quite clear that, as far as our exchange goes, we're stuck. While others have their say and consider both our positions, and if nothing genuinely new comes up, I shan't be using any more space just to humor your notion of "case-by-case". Regards, Dahn (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To User:Digwuren: Why are you modifying other people's comments? --Yano (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe he made it quite clear in his edit summary and I also believe you should take notice of it. Votestacking and canvassing overall are indeed quite serious allegations. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - If the non-diacritic-ized name redirects here, I really don't understand why the hell English speakers shouldn't actually read in the title of this page how they should have typed the letter, unlike their lazy compatriot journalists. This is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia cannot misspell (which leads to mispronouncing of) names on the grounds of laziness. This is not a word that was absorbed in the English vocabulary, it's the name of that (really attractive) lady for chrissake! (By the same logic, should we call her "Anna" too?) Niko Silver 19:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Support - per Erudy. We follow English usage, not attempt to correct it. Whether the use of "Ivanovic" is the result of laziness or technical limitations is completely irrelevant; we don't get to evaluate why English usage does certain things, and then disregard it when we disagree with it. Parsecboy (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Point one about the humorous part of my comment taken. Now tell us about the serious stuff: Like that this is a name and not a word which has made its way in to the English vocabulary, and like that it's misspelled and more importantly mispronounced from how she self-identifies. NikoSilver 10:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  - That's totally irrelevant; here's a very well known of a well known individual with an Anglicized name: "Joseph Stalin", not "Iosif Stalin". English usage is English usage, and that is what we follow. Parsecboy (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  - She identifies as "Ivanovic," per her official website: [1]. And this article should follow the same guidelines as Vienna, Novak Djokovic, Monica Seles, [[ all names. --Yano (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    - "Joseph Stalin" (like the futile examples of Babe Ruth etc cited above) is not a transliteration, it's a moniker - as you yourself may see from the way you formulate it, it doesn't reflect the sounds of Russian, nor attempt to, but simply turns his first name into a common English variant. "Barbara Jelavich" and "Stevan K. Pawlovich" are [in part] Anglicizations, and that Anglicization would rely on the ch. As for her website: it, like many other sites, doesn't use diacritics at all (the ć in "Janković" is also discarded here); I can point to a lot of other official sites which do the same for owners whose names have diacritics - it is not "self-identification", it is casualness that we simply have no need to apply here. Find me her non-diacritic name among diacriticized names and you'll mayvbe be on to something about self-identification. Dahn (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      - You are making a distinction that the guidelines do not recognize. They tell us to use the spelling most familiar to and used by English-speaking readers, whether it is a legal name or not, regardless of how it resulted. If the most common name were "Anna Smith," then we would title this article accordingly. Whether the name is a scientific transliteration, a pseudonym, or anything beyond the most common does not matter. --Yano (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
        Actually, I've addressed that point. Even in WP:UE, you'll find that diacritics are to be used in Gaelic names as a rule once the Gaelic name is adopted as the standard; the Anglicization refers to the names being locally modified into an English form ,as they are in Northern Ireland. And I for one refuse to accept the notion that "Djokovic" and "Seles" stand as precedents, let along "guidelines", since "failure-oblivious" moves such as the one attempted here don't validate anything anywhere. Dahn (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Parsecboy, I believe it looks bad for you to be both closing requested page moves involving diacritics and posting your opinions about whether a particular article name should include diacritics. And I'd be interested in how you would justify your closing of the Goran Ivanisevic request with your opinion here. Tennis expert (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  - Are you saying I cannot objectively evaluate a discussion where I have a specific view? For the record, I have not closed any move in which I have participated; that one of the moves I have closed involve diacritics isn't relevant (especially since I closed the Ivanisevic request in opposition to my personal opinion. If I was overruling consensus to enforce my personal opinion, then we'd have a problem). The Ivanisevic closure is completely legitimate; 9 opposes and 5 supports; clearly 64% opposed to the move should not result in a move close. Parsecboy (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    - I'm saying that to avoid the appearance of a conflict, you should have refrained from doing one or the other. Also, I didn't know until now that move requests were evaluated based purely on voting percentages. Tennis expert (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      - I would have to be closing moves in favor of my viewpoint for there to be an appearance of a conflict of interest. Move requests are not a vote, the surveys just generally indicate consensus; 5 out of 14 clearly not a consensus to move, hence the closure as no-consensus. Overriding the views of a group of editors requires a strong policy-based reason. Parsecboy (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
        Move requests should be evaluated based completely on the evidence, not the number of voters. If one survey participant provides a ton of evidence in favor of a move per WP:UE and the opponents of the move provide no evidence, then the move should be made. I believe you are incorrectly applying Wikipedia policy (completely apart from the questionable idea of participating in move discussions while simultaneously closing others). Tennis expert (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
        This is not the right place to be having this discussion; if you want to continue it, I suggest we move to one of our talk pages. Parsecboy (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. The idea that WP:UE mandates the usage of diacriticless, inaccurate and unencyclopedic names is nothing but the opinion of a minority of editors, some of whom apparently seem to not understand that continuously beating a dead horse is wasting other contributors' time. Verifiability is not an issue. Prolog (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- WP:UE doesn't mandate one way or the other; what it does state is that we follow demonstrated English usage. The numerous sources provided above, across a wide spectrum of media, clearly demonstrate preference to not use diacritics in this case. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UE, which is very often misread and misinterpreted, makes an explicit case for using diacritics over common English rendition in at least one instance: Gaelic names. So much for that. Dahn (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a Gaelic article and therefore falls under the WP:UE guideline. If you wish Serbian articles to have a similar exemption as Gaelic articles, then take it up at the appropriate venue. --Yano (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're being absurd, Yano. Dahn (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We certainly do not "follow demonstrated English usage" if the most common spelling in English sources is simply the person's name with diacritics omitted. Nearly all biographies that could have these kind of diacritics in the title do have them. It's not a conspiracy. It's routine, natural and general practice. The community simply favors correct names. We use external sources if and only if it suits our encyclopedic purposes. However, I do now see that WP:UE has been aggressively edited by a few users. Before this and this, for example, the guideline was more reflective of community consensus and less of a platform for pushing a minority view. Prolog (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say "biographies that could have these kind of diacritics in the title do have them" in light of the presented evidence. I have provided the most official, reliable, and verifiable sources above, which are all able to write this person's name with diacritics and choose not to. That includes Ana Ivanovic's official website, her profile at official tennis governing bodies, and international tennis organizations. --Yano (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear enough: Nearly all [of our] biographies... Prolog (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You still aren't: All [ex-Yugoslav] biographies except Đoković brothers... Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. We've been through this about nine million times; there's no reason to dumb down the correct name by omitting diacritics. —Nightstallion 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Skipping diacritics in English text is not a tradition of the English language -- it's an unfortunate consequence of a long history of arrogance of English-speaking newspaper editors coupled with a long history of text transmission machinery incapable of going outside the 26-letter Late Latin alphabet that is used for English. We don't have the misfortune of having to read Wikipedia over Baudot' telegraphs, so we shouldn't restrict its titles to the restrictions of that, period. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I think it is an important task for each country project to formulate a guideline over transcribing names related to their country. It appears that members of Serbia project choose to use diacritics in Serbian name. It was their choice. Members of project Russia have different rules, members of project Estonia use another rules, project China uses another rules, etc. If somebody thinks that members of a project adopted wrong sets of rules then it is their task to persuade the project to change the rules rather than change a few random names by stealth. Ana_Ivanović belongs to Serbia project and the title of her article should be formed by the rules adopted by this project that is to use diacritics. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, of course. Her name is Ivanović. Švitrigaila (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Canvassing here. --Yano (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Informing other interested users in a neutral fashion of an ongoing debate is quite acceptable. After all, we can't all be expected to know what's happening on all Wikipedia pages at any given moment, can we? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think message is quite neutral. I just told Wiki project participants to tell their views, if they're interested; nothing more, nothing less. It's better to gather as much people as we can in this survey. --Göran S (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're contacting a biased group of people, and you were already warned about this during the Djokovic debate. Inappropriate canvassing does nothing to improve the discussion. --Yano (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That message is a long, long way from canvassing, let alone inappropriate canvassing. Moves like this are often flagged up to WikiProjects, and often in a much more biased way than the message from User:Goran.S2. - fchd (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are we going through this again when a previous attempt failed miserably? Tennis expert (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I am just closing a request for this move at WP:Requested moves. There is clearly not support for it here. Martin^msgj 16:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

grand slam winners (wta) related to Yugoslavia

quote: "In 2008, she became the first Serbian and third woman related to Yugoslavia ever to win a Grand Slam singles title (the others being Mima Jaušovec and Mónika Szeles) when she won the French Open, defeating Dinara Safina in the final."

actually, she is the fourth: mima jaušovec (maribor, slovenia, yugoslavia, 1GS), monika seleš (novi sad, serbia, yugoslavia, 8GS under the flag of YU and 1GS for USA), iva majoli (split, croatia, yugoslavia, 1GS) and ana ivanović (belgrade, serbia, yugoslavia, 1GS).

ana is second wta tour player born in serbia with GS title (serbia existed in that time too, as a constituent state of yugoslav federation, see SR Srbija and Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia). statistically, it is fair to state that ana is the second serbian-born GS-winner, put aside seles won vast majority of her grand slams (8 out of 9) under the flag of yugoslavia.

no doubts in seles hungarian ethnic backround, but her citizenship at a time was serbian/yugoslav, later american and now it seems hungarian. beeing a federation, yugoslavia had intern system of citizenships - being bosnian, croatian, macedonian, montenegrin, slovenian or serbian citizen, yugoslav citizenship was automaticly granted but there was a difference (not like in unitarian states). so, seles held serbian/yugoslav, majoli croatian/yugoslav, jausovec slovenian/yugoslav, ivanovic - serbian/yugoslav citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.201.67 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah there are plenty of people in the Vojvodina area who are Serbian but of Hungarian ethnicity. Many of those people would not have any historical roots within the land area of modern Hungary, even if they can speak Hungarian and have maintained their cultural links over hundreds of years. Same situation exists in western Romania, and one could argue in Switzerland (as well as in newer countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada where most sports achievers are from somewhere else either culturally or physically). Orderinchaos 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cameltoe picture

I don't think you could find a worse picture for this site. Her labia is apparent through her skirt. It almost makes me wonder if this was done intentionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Number1schumacherfan (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the level of impropriety of the picture (I think it's fine, personally), Wikipedia is not censored, so not even Wikipedia policy would support the changing of the pic. Obviously, if a more up to date pic were to appear, that would probably replace the current one. – Pee Jay 00:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Fansite tag

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

Do you seriously believe that "every match, every score, every tiebreak" she ever played is listed in this article? I believe that exaggerated edit summaries should be avoided because they are unconstructive and don't help anyone to improve articles. Tennis expert (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I seriously believe that any article I have tagged with {{fansite}} needs a lot of work. I think you're making rather a mountain out of a molehill regarding the edit summaries, people seeking to help improve the articles are much more likely to look at the article itself rather than the edit summary history. I'm not even sure "unconstructive" is a real word. The real issue is that these articles are way off the standard required to make either good or featured article and that should be the aim for every article here, as I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for changing your edit summaries to be more constructive. For your edification, you can find "unconstructive" in this online dictionary. Thanks also for again assuming my bad faith. When will you stop doing that? And what Wikipedia policy requires every article to achieve good or featured status? Tennis expert (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness for American spelling! Nothing suggests articles are required to achieve GA or FA status, but you must agree that we're here to make an excellent encyclopedia and it's generally agreed that both good and featured articles are something we should strive for, not deliberately avoid. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of date tag

The WTA Tour career earnings section is correct as of January this year, making it three months out of date. Also, an asterisk is used as some kind of key but I can't see it in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the info is all up-to-date, but just that "as of.." note is wrong. Seem best to just take out the note. (Taking out tag too) AlonsornunezComments 19:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Wasn't exactly sure what the asterisk related to and didn't want to make an unconstructive edit. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

2008

I've trimmed 2008 and would appreciate constructive feedback. I took out a lot of early round minutiae and a lot of NPOV language. There's still a ton of stuff there though, and more trimming is needed. AlonsornunezComments 20:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Start the stopwatch. Wait for BRD to be called out. Go to jail, directly to jail, do not pass go. Good luck. I'm out of here for a few days, I'm sure by the time I return every positive contribution will have been reverted under the essay called BRD. Don't give up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We discuss this before the bold and revert. Three editors now in agreement that this article has an extortionate amount of unnecessary detail (though not as bad as other tennis articles!). We're going to be bold, and do something about it. And if it is reverted, then it is completely out of line with the essay, because the bold, and the discuss, are already taken care of. Those who may disagree with the changes can come here and say so, and continue the discussion. Maedin\^talk 06:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For your information, WP:BRD is sequential. There is a bold edit, which is then reverted, which is then discussed. You don't go from step one to step three and then to step two (or whatever). Tennis expert (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another creation of an unconstructive editing atmosphere by ThRaMa.... See WP:AGF. Tennis expert (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh? What User:The Rambling Man has proposed seems perfectly reasonable to me. This article is, to be frank, incredibly difficult to read with all the unnecessary detail, so some trimiming is, in my eyes, an excellent idea. - fchd (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert was referring to the assumption that WP:BRD would be implemented here, not the suggestion that the article needs to be cut down. Maedin\^talk 11:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)