Talk:Casey Dellacqua

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

Date-Linking[edit]

It seems we have a lot of reverting going on due to little consensus on whether 'Date's' should be hyper-linked or not. Let's see if we can get a majority on this page to reduce to the amount of reverts. My vote is:

No Link - per WP:mosnum and WP:Overlink Lympathy 11:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Gay/lesbian[edit]

Good solution, to remove it entirely. The name of her partner says enough, for those who are interested. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, and I don't know their situation, but if they are married it should say spouse not partner. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if they're married, but it's a fact that she is a lesbian, and if you look at the categories, they have said so for a while. So I don't know why people would be against it. You want the article to talk about her female partner but not her sexuality? This is not done at Wikipedia. Look at the pages of other gay athletes. Enigmamsg 21:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's not done? It's tennis. We talk quickly about the fact they are married, or have kids, or are dating someone, and then go back to tennis related stuff. We don't always put homosexual in the article just like we don't put heterosexual. We often say "She is married to John Doe since 1987 and has kids, Billy and Sally." Here the same thing except we use partner since we don't know if they're married. No big deal. If she becomes a major activist and that becomes part of her persona, that would be a different story. But otherwise I think it's covered enough here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the other gay tennis players. It gets mentioned in the articles. Mauresmo, Lisa Raymond, etc. It's not newsworthy to say someone is heterosexual. It is when they're homosexual. Every article about a BLP that I've seen, it mentions it when there are reliable sources. Enigmamsg 04:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is being homosexual newsworthy? 2-3% of the population are homosexuals. Big deal. And it's not a question of newsworthiness here anyways... it's a question of encyclopedia worthiness. Maybe those other articles should rethink why the heck they need to emphasis it. And not every article dwells on it... see Gigi Fernández or Ilana Kloss where they get it right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why it's newsworthy, but it is. Why else are there categories for it? I don't see any categories for heterosexual sportspeople. If you'd like to remove all the categories and remove the article from the LGBT Wikiproject, then be my guest. Enigmamsg 05:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I wanted to do those things. It just doesn't need further explaining in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You said you don't think it should be newsworthy, which would mean there shouldn't be categories and wikiprojects dedicated to it. Once it's getting categorized as such, it deserves a mention in the article, as well as a reference. It wouldn't do to categorize and not reference. Enigmamsg 07:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Boy are you twisting the situation to your own needs here. Lets try another tact. "the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." Nothing there about newsworthy. And the fact she is a lesbian is NOT a defining characteristic of her being notable as a tennis player. We are also not a news service but an Encyclopedia summarizing key points of her biography. Sometimes people are outspoken advocates like Billy Jean King or Martina Navratilova. Sometimes ones faith makes one an advocate in the opposite direction like Margaret Court. Perfectly fine there. But to make sure we label every single homosexual is ridiculous and trivial. There's a category because Gay/Lesbian issues on wikipedia are very important and topics about it need to be linked to a category and a project so readers can find those topics. She could be a lesbian, dog loving, cat hating, part-time waitress, who sings in a small garage band and loves to bowl. Here we say she's a professional tennis player whose partner, Amanda, gave birth to their first child. It's all that's really needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not twisting anything. What I get from this is that you have no problem labeling people and categorizing them but you do not want it referenced. Someone should not be put in LGBT category or Wikiproject without it being referenced. If you insist on it being omitted from the article, it doesn't get referenced. You are twisting my words because I didn't say she was notable for being a lesbian. I don't create articles on people for being lesbians. She's notable for being a tennis player, and since she has an article, her being a lesbian becomes noteworthy. The same for dozens of other people on Wikipedia who aren't notable because they're gay. They're notable for other reasons, and their being gay gets mentioned in the course of the article. Enigmamsg 15:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well then we simply disagree. We can label/categorize them or not, I don't care. But for content I don't feel it's proper to say who's a homosexual and who's not just because we can. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Labeling and categorizing them is already saying it. What I want to do is reference it. The edit warring IP/new user's rationale was "we don't know if she's lesbian, maybe she's bisexual". She was put in the category "Lesbian sportswomen" and as it stands now, there's no source for it in the article. Enigmamsg 21:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Dellacqua is noteworthy because she's a tennisplayer, not because she's gay. It'irrelevant. So far, we've got a concencus on that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --AmritasyaPutraT 08:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? No one said being gay made her noteworthy. It's standard in Wikipedia articles to mention it in the article if the person is gay. Enigmamsg 16:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Casey Dellacqua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Court[edit]

Should the article mention her comments about Margaret Court & Court's comments about Dellacqua? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Casey_Dellacqua&oldid=1207093682"