Talk:Williams sisters rivalry

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

I've started a page for the Williams Sisters rivalry, and I'm thinking we should move some tables and lists pertaining specifically to these two players to this page. Alonsornunez (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page will help to de-clutter Venus And Serena's own pages, and will help to spotlight this unique and historic rivalry, in a way similarly accomplished by the Federer-Nadal rivalry page. Alonsornunez (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blind reversions[edit]

Though the D in BRD is being ignored I'll start myself. The reversions were made because of the fact that, despite the user believing that the changes 'cleaned up' the article it seems that they instead aesthetically hinder the article (see WP:GA) and interrupt the structure and flow of the article, especially through repetition of words and sentence structure. Alonsornunez (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not yet been nominated for GA or any other level. Therefore, it is premature for you to be concerned about that. Also, your excuses for your blind, wholesale reversions are conclusory and unsupported and conflict with your own edit summaries. Instead of being disruptive, try cooperating for a change. Tennis expert (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who nominated this article for deletion is welcomed to the Talk page for discussion. Please discuss edits as per WP:BRD. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the user's posting of his revision of the page, and look forward to constructive discussions about what should go in and what should not. Alonsornunez (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your reversions were blind, as you reverted every one of my edits. And now you want to engage in a constructive discussion.... Given your behavior here and elsewhere, pardon me if I'm highly skeptical. Tennis expert (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given this user's consistent presence on Wiki, I would assume that he is familiar with WP:BRD, and that after revisions, discussions should have been started here, courteously. Skepticism is reserved for those engaged in an edit war on a page that just a week ago they lobbied blindly to delete. Alonsornunez (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's count how many reversions of my edits you made: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8). Tennis expert (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's penchance for linking notwithstanding it is nearly amusing that WP:BRD is being ignored and that then editing of blind reverts before addressing the points on Talk is occuring. Despite the numerous personal accusations, a (to my mind) wholly malicious sockpuppet investigation and two attempted-and-failed deletions of uncontroversial tennis articles (wouldn't this user wish to see the body of knowledge expanded?) I still cling to WP:Good Faith and assume that initial edits, however misguided, are done without malicious content or subterfuge. I continue to hope the same holds true in return. Alonsornunez (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because you brought it up, my checkuser request concerning your sockpuppetry has been endorsed by a checkuser clerk and is in the queue to be run. Tennis expert (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendations concerning major sections of this article[edit]

Because of Alonsornunez's edit warring, disruptive tactics, and unconstructive behavior typical of editors like Musiclover565 and his associated sockpuppets, there is no point in trying to improve this article any further. Should any other editor be interested in improving the article, here is my recommendation concerning many of the article's major sections. Tennis expert (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this article is 'a fansite' or 'possibly in need of being completely rewritten'. Anyone else want to chime in? Alonsornunez (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I do like some of the changes, but I believe that, like the Federer-Nadal rivalry page, the Wiliams Sisters rivalry page should have a Legacy section, as well as a section analyzing (based, of course, on verifiable sources) their competitive relationship and dynamic. Taking those out makes the article as dry, uninteresting and overly "fact list-y" as many of the tennis pages currently are. Alonsornunez (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You like the changes but because you didn't write them, you reverted them at least 8 times. Nice ownership tactics! Tennis expert (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An End[edit]

Look, the constant 'debate' between you two (Alonsornunez Tennis expert) is killing me! Lets face it, Tennis expert is right when he says other people should be allowed to edit. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it will not benefit Wikipedia. And Tennis expert should not be accusing Alonsornunez of having sockpuppets until you have proof. There. I said it. Move on. If you have any other problems, just talk to me on my page where, as it's on Wikipedia, I pretty much have to answer, unlike in real life where I would just ignore you. Just don't argue. Please! DeMoN2009 21:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree, and I apologize to all the editors out there for taking up so much space with this static. Thanks to everyone that's helped to get this article off the ground as well. On that note, does anyone have any thoughts on the inclusion of doubles results for the sisters? I lean towards not including them, as they don't directly relate to the sisters' rivalry (and the results can of course be found on their own pages). However, the Williams sisters have had an impact on the game and maybe the doubles results are part of that? Thoughts? Alonsornunez (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tags[edit]

I'm removing the tags, as I feel like changes have been made and facts added and corrected which no longer warrant the tags. The article is far from perfect though, and can use some work. Alonsornunez (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tags were and still are well deserved. I've readded them. Tennis expert (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind specifiying the problems, so that they can be fixed or changed? Thanks Alonsornunez (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can start by looking at the version I produced (linked in an earlier post here) that you edit warred into oblivion. Let me know if you have any questions. Tennis expert (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll take a look. Alonsornunez (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African American[edit]

why is this important in the opening sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.178.199 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For *this* page, it isn't. Their race heritage has been cited as being important for the world of tennis, especially in their work with inner-city tennis programs, and about them individually, but it is not important regarding the rivalry. SpikeJones (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually African American is thier heritage, not thier race. Thier race would be Black. Its common to have the heritage of people on wiki, or example Roger Federer here [1]. I think that being sisters of the same lineage. Thier heritage is MORE important than ususal on THIS page. Why would they receieve different treatment than any other Tennis players on wiki?68.55.205.186 (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, above, per your comment. The reasoning is the same. For the *rivalry*, of which this page pertains to - their heritage makes no difference. For their individual biographical pages, which are similar to your Roger Federer example, it does and should apply. Nobody is questioning that usage. SpikeJones (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

I believe this should be merged with Williams sisters. Enigmamsg 16:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it should be. The rivalry and professional intersection of their lives is in effect a separate entity than either of them singularly. There's a lot of reference to the this rivalry in various media, and I think it stands that this article is notable enough to 'hold its own'. Alonsornunez

More statistics[edit]

I suggest a further breakdown of statistics: total sets won, total games won, total points won by each player. 14.2.20.153 (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Williams sisters rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Williams sisters rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Move[edit]

I propose we move it to "Williams sisters as individual" or "Williams sisters as opponent". I don't think "rivalry" could correctly describe their relationship. KyleRGiggs (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veganism in one or both?[edit]

I think that we ought to list the differences AND the similarities?

  • Obviously, they were reared in the same family and social backgrounds (and religion?).
  • How about the shift to a vegetarian then to a vegan diet? Does that apply to both or only to one (and why or why not?)

Maybe a little reasoning - and some documentation - on non-tennis individuality would be appreciated. MaynardClark (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Williams_sisters_rivalry&oldid=1204201934"