Jump to content

Talk:Li Na

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Li Na (tennis))

Untitled

[edit]

Discussion page for Li Na article: please suggest additions and amendments here!

This is a very heavily POV article. It needs some fairly thorough cleaning up. We are just supposed to provide the facts, not produce an original narrative advocating her greatness. Metamagician3000 00:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Metamagician. I agree with most of your cuts and edits so far, and that there are some other areas where 'point of view' comes across more than fact still to be dealt with. But there are a couple of small things you have removed which I feel detract unnecessarily from the article as it stood:

1) 'Li Na whitewashed the American in the second-set tie-break' - This is a fact: Li won the second set tie-break by seven points to love. No point of view in this part of the sentence you deleted. 'Whitewashed' is a common sports journalism term describing a win for the loss of no points or games (depending on the context). The purpose of the overall sentence was to demonstrate the changes of fortune within the match. At the end of the second set, everything was going Li's way; it is clear from the final set scoreline that fortunes then reversed. If 'suffered a collapse of form' is too much 'POV', then perhaps there might be some other way of expressing the same observations.

2) 'to avenge her recent defeat by the Czech player' - 'avenge' is also a standard sports journalist's term to describe the fact of a team or player having lost the previous bout with another team / player having then reversed this outcome in the next contest. This is precisely what Li had achieved at this point against Hantuchova. Again I feel there is no point of view in this. It is simply relating what she had just achieved to the reverse situation in her previous match against Hantuchova. Taking out this clause detracts from the flow of the article as a survey of her progress or lack thereof in my opinion.

Would request your permission, as an administrator, to restore these two particular deletions while respecting all the others you have made so far.

Philip Graves

I'm not making changes as an administrator - just as a user with a reasonable understanding of NPOV. Be bold about reverting them if you disagree with (some of) them. Just keep in mind that we try to avoid expressing our own point of view either explicitly or in the language we choose. I've been looking at a lot of the tennis articles in the wake of Wimbledon and find that people need to be reminded of this. Metamagician3000 01:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There. I did it.

[edit]

I hope the edits are fine. I just revamped her page. InoescoIsaRhino

You've cut out the POV expressions, but you've also sheared away a whole lot of the factual detail from the earlier article. Was this really necessary? Comparing the end of your run of edits with the last version before you began seems to suggest you've cut the article in half roughly speaking.

(Over a year later...) I've now restored the deleted factual content with a careful eye for editing out the POV expressions - Philip Graves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.136.201 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes

[edit]

Are her jokes in post-match interviews common? If so, are they a characteristic of her as a player? Has there been a citeable commentary on them?--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to mention the same thing. Her post-match interview was hilarious! Commentators remarked "what a character she is, eh?". Perhaps worth noting in the article if there are sources to this, which I'm sure there are. I'm just lazy. But for any eager beavers in the house, go right ahead. We thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.108.183 (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't need to be mentioned funny yes needed no. You don't see on Clijsters pager her embarrasement of Mark Woodforde KnowIG (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Li Na and Na Li

[edit]
  1. These two forms of the name are both used in the text, may cause some confusions. --阿pp (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Chinese name; the family name is Li. This is not a chinese or asian wikipedia. So it should be Na Li. 85.217.51.162 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP,
As you stated correctly, it is a chinese name. So the family name comes first!
Our names are written correctly (family name last) in the chinese wiki too. If our form is accepted there, why shouldn't we accept their form here? Get my point? Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IP probably heard Ming Yao instead of Yao Ming. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are the Hungarian names in western name order, though they also themselves write the surname first? Never understood why it is applied to the asian names like Japanese and Chinese, but not Hungarian. 85.217.51.162 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our names are written correctly (family name last) in the chinese wiki too. Wow, didn't know that, I thought it is chinese way for all names. 85.217.51.162 (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese names when Anglicized have their surnames written first. Dunno about Hungarians when Anglicized. Apparently in Chinese they follow how surnames are written from the original languages - so should the English Wikipedia. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 22:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the point is: Hungarian language doesn't need to be transliterated like cyrillic and chinese have to, because Hungarians use extended latin alphabet. Though I don't know about that 'Anglicization' you are talking about. 85.217.51.162 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this is the talk page for the article of Li Na, right? So the writing form of hungarian or shall I write Magyar doesn't really matter. That's for the talk page of another article called Hungarian language. You may ask again there. Joerg, the Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about that. But I am after consistency on these. If Chinese custom is used, shouldn't then the Hungarian also be used. Or other way, if Hungarian articles don't use their own custom, why should Chinese? Example: tennis player Melinda Czink: The native form of this personal name is Czink Melinda. This article uses the Western name order. Doesn't make sense. 85.217.51.162 (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is consistent. Perhaps - I'm guessing - Hungarian names when Anglicized have their surnames last. In English, Chinese names (at least those born in Asia) have their surnames first. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 23:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not consistent. I just checked it, the same argument goes to the Hungarian names. Their own names are 'Surname Forename', but western names are 'Forename Surname' at Hungarian language wikipedia. My choice would be to put it The native form of this name is Li Na. This article uses the western name order. But apparently it is out of my reach, and I won't be killing myself or you for that. 82.141.119.79 (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey IP, don't despair! If you want consistency, you should take a look at the russian version. They also write last name first. Usually last name, then "," and then first name like for Diana Rigg better known as Emma Peel of The Avengers. You gonna like it. By the way, would a redirect page be satisfactory to you? Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How are Hungarian names in English ordered? It may be different from how Hungarian names are ordered in Hungarian. Apparently for Chinese names in Chinese, English (and Russian) the surname is first.
And why are we arguing about Hungarian names in a Chinese tennis' (sorry can't resist. See discussion below.) talk page? We use how Chinese people are named in English, which is surname first. I fail to see how the order of a Hungarian name in English affects how a Chinese name is ordered in English. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because, it is the same! Both Hungarian AND Chinese wikis are that way. Their own names surname first and foreign names forename first, as I actually stated in my previous comment. Tennis player Melinda Czink (Hungary) has on her page: The native form of this personal name is Czink Melinda. This article uses the Western name order.
For consistency it should be: The native form of this personal name is Li Na. This article uses the Western name order. (my preference). The other way is to have the Hungarian names as chinese names, but I'm not writing on any Hungarian person's page to change that to non-western order, because I support western name order.
We use how Chinese people are named in English. Where has this come from? Is this a wikipedia rule, or actually an English language rule? And I would still say this as We use how Chinese people are named in Chinese. Maybe that's just me. 82.141.119.79 (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Order of names. Examples such as Mao Zedong, (current Chinese leader) Hu Jintao and basketball player Yao Ming. Mao, Hu, Yao are their surnames. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, the Australian Open TV feed lists her name as "LI Na" (as compared to "Kim CLIJSTERS") and probably practically all sources covering the Australian Open. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On her WTA profile page it was "Li Na", now it's "Na Li". I believe that's a reliable source. --Mario Žamić (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not a good source. She's only called Na Li at parts where it's technically not possible to call her Li Na (such as the ranking tables which show given name first, then surname), in all other articles about her on that site she's called Li Na, for example this one: http://www.wtatennis.com/gallery/20120925/gallery-li-nas-book-tour-in-china_2256674_2929064. Moreover, a WTA representative said something about this matter once.. don't remember her exact words but it came down to them wanting to use Li Na, Peng Shuai, Zheng Jie, etc because they considered that to be correct. I'll post the link if I can find it. Btw, I also think the "note 1" in the opening paragraph should be editted. --Plunged (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

who is next

[edit]

After Li Na get Runner Up award of Australia Open, we wander which chinese tennis player will be the next one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.52.145.202 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 January 2011‎ (UTC) [reply]

Requested move #1

[edit]
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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Li Na (tennis) → Li Na (tennis player) — Self-explanatory: she is a "tennis player". 86.183.171.169 (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure she is not tennis? 85.217.51.162 (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We tend to prefer concise disambiguators, so "athlete" is better than "athletics", but for most sports (those for which there is not a single word to describe its participants), we prefer just the sport name. Powers T 13:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you cannot argue that something is "correct" simply on the basis that there are other articles like it. 86.183.170.249 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
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.

Ranking

[edit]

Li is variously described in the infobox and lead as having both a highest ranking and current ranking ranking (as of 31 January 2011) of #5, #7, and #9, all unsourced. Which is it, and can we get a reliable source, so that we can clean up these inconsistencies?

The lead needs some work for better flow, as well. —sroc (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asia's first Grand Slam singles champion

[edit]

Needs the addition of the word female for clarity as Yevgeny Kafelnikov is from Sochi - a city regarded in some sources as in Europe and in others as in Asia.2.216.140.105 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the word Some here, on the Sochi page it states it is in Europe. Good twins (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Sochi page actually says both. If Sochi is regarded as being in Asia by some sources (including the Sochi page), which it is, it is incorrect to describe Li Na as Asia's first Grand Slam singles champion as someone from an Asian city had already done it.2.216.140.105 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree. This is about the state. If this is about the location of the hometown, Sharapova from Nyagan, Russia could be an Asia's female no.1 and Grand Slam singles champion before Li, then Li is nothing.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tomchen1989. Li would be "East Asia's first Grand Slam champion" (I don't think the female qualifier is needed here but I could be wrong). –CWenger (^ • @) 17:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a decent solution. Parents are ethnic Belarusian, so she is more likely to be regarded as European so I don't think she greatly affects things2.216.140.105 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter what you think we need sources and all of them say first Asian. Not woman or east or west. Good twins (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me they mostly say first Chinese singles [1] [2] [3]. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of reliable sources say first Asian. See Google News search. For sports and many other purposes, Russian is considered European regardless of individual geography. Russian Tennis Federation is also in Tennis Europe and not Asian Tennis Federation. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that "google news search" goes to a whole second page of links, including blogs. Like I said, it seems to me that sources mostly say first Chinese singles, based on my survey of little-known, minor news outlets like ESPN ("first Chinese player, man or woman, to win a Grand Slam singles title"); SI ("first player from China"); Fox ("China's long wait for a Grand Slam champion"); and MSNBC and Yahoo repeat the same AP story as ESPN. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's the first Asian country-born GS singles finalist and champion. Note that:

  • She's not the first Asian-born (female) GS champion because of Maria Sharapova from Nyagan, Russia (and maybe more).
  • She's not the first GS champion of Asian descent because of Michael Chang. It is also hard to say that She's the first female GS champion of Asian descent, because maybe there are some female champions of Asian descent before her, we can't trace all their family trees.
  • We can say that she's the first Asian player to win a GS singles title, only if the "Asian" means "born in an Asian country" or "who has an Asian country's nationality". So it is better to define more precisely. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is an European country, geologically it covers two continents, but it is not an Asian country, it never was. The same thing can be said to America, Hawaii is considered Polynesian islands, but no one will confuse USA as a Polynesian nation. And countries like Fiji and Samoa are still trying to become the first to win an Olympic medal among Polynesian nations, if according to some arguments here, I'd say they should give up that hope because there are plenty of Hawaii-born American already won Olympic medals in the past.A.M.L athony (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article too long

[edit]

Do we really need a detailed account of every match in every year? This data can be tabulated and the narrative can stick to significant moments in her career.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know enough about the subject to confidently determine what is significant and what is not, so it would be a good idea if someone else could do some major pruning. Note that we do have Li Na career statistics which does (or should) contain in numerical form many of the match results that are described in text here. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the other problem is that there are not supposed to be any scores in prose per wiki/tennis project guidelines. Only if the match is historic and even then never with the tiebreak score. It'll help when those are removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comment (disagree) What!? Remove what? I don't like what you imply was suggested to be changed. There are thousands (well, hundreds for sure) of tennis articles, removing all the scores from all of them is pointless (and outright not clever) and major man/hours would be needed, with dubious results. If someone does not like the scores being included, please do NOT read that part of the articles, thank you. You can just read the other sections. Was someone thinking with their b*h*nds when they suggested that? Naki (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or are you maybe referring to the tie-break scores only? If it is that, I am fine with removing that. But not otherwise.Naki (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a suggestion... it is our rule and has been for a long time. Look at Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic... scores are absent in prose. Never tibreaks and only rarely scores in prose. The scores are relegated to charts and lists. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean someone should edit ALL tennis articles to remove ALL scores?? Not all tennis players have a special "Career matches list", no?? Naki (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone? No, not one person. It takes the time of all tennis project volunteers to do it... and it's a slow process. Like flag icon removal for countries, incorrectly formatted charts, scores in prose, articles exceeding maximum length, etc... It's a never ending process and we do the best we can in fixing them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Contention

[edit]

"Li won the 2011 French Open singles title, becoming the first Asian player to win a Grand Slam singles title."

Michael Chang is Asian-American. I would argue that he is the first Asian player to win a Grand Slam singles title (French Open 1999). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.130.30 (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"Li became the first Asian player to reach a major championship final"

Even putting aside Michael Chang and focusing only on Female players with East Asian nationalities, this is still not true. Ai Sugiyama has reached the finals of (and won) Wimbledon as well as the US and French Opens, all well before January 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-kun (talk • contribs) 01:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ai Sugiyama never won a singles championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601andrew (talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the phrase in question doesn't denote any distinction between singles or otherwise. It implies she was the first Asian, male or female, to reach any major championship final (single or otherwise), which is untrue, especially when other Asians have not only reached the finals, but won Grand Slam titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-kun (talk • contribs) 02:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sharapova is the first Asian player to win a major singles title, because she is from Nyagan, which is East of the Urals and so in Asia. Mbc3001 (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences about her taxes in "Personal life" section

[edit]

Does anybody else find this:

As a member of the team, she had to pay 65 percent of her prize money to the government. She now pays 8 to 12 percent.

completely non-notable and irrelevant to her personal life and likely the article in general? It is more a statement about the Chinese government than her isn't it? I think it should be removed. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't even remotely see the problem with the relevance of this. It comes in a section which mentions problems in her relationship with the national team, and her leaving, joining and leaving again. The tax situation seems highly relevant to me. 86.160.218.142 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Along with other problems, it is suggesting that she left the team for more money. Not appropriate for a BLP. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry extreamly notable to the Li Na story. She is seen as a rebel and is not allowed to turn professional under the Chinese. She left and turned pro. Good twins (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps part of the problem is the section title, "Personal life", which I must admit I wasn't paying a great deal of attention to. Some of the information in this section (such as her relationship with the national team) seems more about her career. Perhaps the section titled could be changed -- but I'm not sure what to... 81.159.104.136 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at reorganizing it. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing the section title to "Off the court" while CWenger's reorganizing it... However I agree with 81.159.104.136, the problem is the section title, change it and all things'd be ok. It seems...very weird after CWenger's edit. For example Jiang Shan married her before he became her personal coach, not "Li married her personal coach, Jiang Shan"; The section "Career" has a subsection named "Early training and career", which is also "career"; and why not put things in "National team" into the section named by year? yeah, because they are "off the court" and all the blahblah below there are on the court. So I revert to the previous version, and simply rename the section title to "off the court". --Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was pretty much done with re-organizing it actually. Admittedly it wasn't perfect but I thought it was an improvement. Discussion of her membership on the national team isn't exactly "off the court" either... –CWenger (^ • @) 14:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the membership on the national team can be thought "off the court", more precisely, I mean off the court of the game, the ITF events and the WTA tour. Things discussing the national team, is about the training, the management, the program, the benefit, the conflict, or even the politics, something complicated. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think the money story is unfavorable toward Li at all. It is more unfavorable toward the sport system of the govt. Players deserves the money, all players outside China get the money, why she could not get it, a personal coach and other things a normal player could get? Earning money is a right, not a shame, it is oversensitive to worry about it. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not concerned about it being unfavorable to Li. I just found it irrelevant to her personally and/or not notable, much like somebody who moves to an area with lower taxes, but people seem to think it is a big deal, so I'm fine with keeping it. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a big fan of "Off the court", I'm afraid. I think the stuff about her relationship with the national team, her decision to "go it alone", etc., are really events in her professional career and should be listed together with other career milestones and achievements. The problem at the moment (per comments earlier on this page) is that the "Career" section is so vastly bloated with match-by-match detail that any higher-level information is swamped. Perhaps in an ideal world we would have some combination of "Personal life" / "Early life" sections and a much revamped and trimmed "Career" section. 86.179.114.69 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinyin and correct pronunciation

[edit]

Can anyone tell me why 李娜 is pronounced Li Na and not Li Nuó? The pinyin for 娜 is nuó. (There is a similar word in chinese 那 pronounced na. 那 means "there" and 娜 means "elegant".) Jfmcel (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

because Li Nuó is not a name and Li Nà is. Nuó is more like an adjective, while Nà can only be a surname. Plunged (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes Chinese Celebrity list

[edit]

Every year Forbes publishes a list of the top 100 celebrity. For 2012, Li Na ranks #5, but the list I could find is given in Chinese, thus I don't see anywhere to integrate into the main article. But it should be included here for the record. If anyone can find the English equivalent, please integrate into the main article. I just want to give the ref. here: 2012 Forbes China Celebrity. --Daikang59 (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Daikang59[reply]

Fly Alone

[edit]

Is the Fly Alone concept the same as free agent in other sports? Admittedly in the US free agents have always been in professional sports, but what she is doing seems to be the same concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.93.202 (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD Removal of Serbian letter

[edit]

I won't bother to expend too much time here. But if this article can have Chinese characters in it, it can also have Serbian ones. Removal from just one Serbian is counter WP:TENNISNAMES rfc. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But not counter to tennis project consensus, nor to making sure we have direct links to our articles. I notice you only complain about a direct link when it's against your own beliefs, because when others do it by the countless thousands nary a peep is said by you. It's been explained to you many many times so it can't be a simple mistake. A huge contradiction on your part. You were told at article talk pages "We should list it here the way we have it in our article on her" and "Shame on you, User:In ictu oculi. You know very well that this question has been bandied about on Talk:Ana Ivanovic and the current consensus is not to use the accent. Blame Ana for not using the accent that NC Serbian names says she should." We have editors making sure names link to their proper page all the time but seemingly not this one for you. Are you going to revert all those other thousands also? Or do they get a pass because the end result is something you like? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, complaining abut it since the community has had 2 RfCs on this subject WP:TENNISNAMES WP:TENNISNAMES2 where special "tennis names" were overwhelmingly rejected, including by tennis editors; as also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive810#Fyunck_vs._diacritics. Also the general principle of WP:BRD. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However in this I recognise that User Wolbo is supporting your edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move #2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: do not move. There is a clear consensus to keep the current title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Li Na (tennis) → Li Na (tennis player) – The reasons for moving this seem as obvious now as they were three years ago when the last proposal was not carried. I figure that three years is long enough for a second try to be permissible. 86.151.118.223 (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand the necessity of doing this, anyway, I propose Li Na (tennis) being simply renamed Li Na. None of the other Li Na's is nearly as prominent. Timmyshin (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I just did a scan of major players in grand slams and it seems that the consensus/convention is to use (tennis) rather than (tennis player) if the article needs disambiguating. I see no reason to change this particular player to (tennis player). As for moving it simply to Li Na, as was said before, the Tang general is quite prominent and hasn't become less so in three years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I don't actually agree with it (since she isn't a tennis), this is the convention for sportspeople in sports that don't have a one-word name for their players (yes, there are exceptions that have crept in, but overwhelmingly we don't add "player"). We shouldn't make an exception for one person. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't broken. You may have a preference, and that's fine, but wiki naming conventions say both styles are equally good. Guidelines on the subject are also specific that "The style used should be consistent within each sport." We have had a convention of style for all these players and there really isn't a need for change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I entirely agree they should all be fixed, as it goes against the normal naming conventions that the disambiguator should describe what they are (which is not a tennis, a football, a rugby or anything else similar, but a tennis player etc), but changing them piecemeal when there are so many to be fixed isn't the way to go about it. It needs a full discussion. Sadly, I suspect that the sports project people will rally round and defeat the proposal, even though it goes against every other form of biographical disambiguation on Wikipedia, so probably no point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. She is not a tennis. Red Slash 04:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Current title is not natural. She is not a tennis. Nobody, even when speaking (oddly) with parenthetical terms, would say this. Proposed title is much more natural, as far as parenthetical is natural. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article is moved, it will be going against Wikipedia Naming Convention Guidelines. Per the guidelines, both ways are considered correct, but "The style used should be consistent within each sport." Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Name is specifically in line with the guidelines for naming sportspeople (WP:NCSP) and is also consistent with all other tennis bios. From that point of view there is simply no need for renaming the article. If it is argued that 'player' should be added to sportspeople articles because it is more natural and/or better describes what they are, I can see some merit in that, then this is not the place to have that discussion. --Wolbo (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As others mention, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Disambiguation says "The style used should be consistent within each sport." Succinct disambiguators are good and there are lots of "(tennis)" articles, 100+ in Category:American male tennis players alone. Valerie Scott (tennis player), created three weeks ago, is currently the only "(tennis player)". Li Na is perhaps a little special because some people who don't follow tennis or know Chinese may not recognize "Li Na" is a person, but that isn't an issue for 99% of the disambiguated tennis articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per WP:CRITERIA, specifically conciseness and consistency. Yes, occupation is a usual disambiguator for people, but using a place or other topic that the person is associated with is not incorrect. The one-word rule of thumb used for athletes is wise, IMO, and this move could possibly move to even less concise disambiguators, such as (American football player) and (Canadian football player). Definitely a solution in search of a problem. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move #3

[edit]
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 moved. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Compare [4] with [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The tennis player had 64 times more traffic than all the other 5 Li Na's combined — even if stats were skewed last month due to her AO win, I don't think it's farfetched to declare she IS the primary topic. (One is free to check stats for other months.) Timmyshin (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would tend to support this, but then I'm a big tennis fan so I hear about her all the time. What would help more would be to ask those other disciplines with "Li Na's" what they think too. That would be project China for Li Na (general) of Tang Dynasty; project fencing for Li Na (fencer); project cycling for Li Na (cyclist); and project olympics/diving for Li Na (diver). This affects them also and I'm sure they are unaware. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I understand your concern, I'm not sure what this approach will accomplish. I think that tennis is worldwide a much more popular sport than fencing, cycling and diving —whether deservedly so or not— and this resulted in this tennis player being much better known than the other 3 athletes (all world champions in their sports), which I think should be the only fact considered. The same logic applies to the Tang general (I'm a little into Chinese history and my opinion is he's not very notable) and Mao's daughter (while somewhat notable, I don't find her nearly as famous in either China or elsewhere). Timmyshin (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tennis may have more appeal, but it's surely not a slam dunk. I hazard to guess that if I asked random people at a shopping mall, most won't know who any of the Li Na's are. She is not Martina Navratilova or Andre Agassi in the English speaking world. I just thought that some in those groups might bring something else to the table as far as insight into this discussion. I think she is the most popular of all the Li Na's, but enough to link directly? maybe so... maybe not. Cycling and Diving have some mighty big names throughout history and we don't want to fall into recentism. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think your argument is relevant; it's not Li Na (tennis) vs. Navratilova/Agassi; it's about Li Na (tennis) vs. the other Li Na's. I'm not aware of any rule that states wikipedia primary topics have to be household names in the English speaking world. Timmyshin (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it can matter. If we invent some fictional place called Blargg, and there are 10 cities named Blarg. We look up the page views and in a month the hits are: 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,100. None of those pages are a primary topic... they all stink in viewing even though one got 5x as many hits as any of the others. My only concern was whether Li Na is popular enough to warrant a primary topic, notwithstanding her Aussia Open win. Obviously she got a rise because of winning but if the daughter of Mao Zedong were to get in a horrible car accident or be kidnapped, then her numbers would skyrocket too. I have said I think she warrants a primary topic based on 20,000 plus hits a month and about 90% of all Li Na views here on wikipedia. But on the flipside, Orange (fruit) got 90,000 hits the last 30 days and consistently out-views Orange (color) 25,000 hits...by a 75%-25% margin month in and month out. Yet it is NOT the primary topic. So wikipedia can be fickle about these things and it's why I asked for more outside opinions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Like many, I also am not a tennis fan and this is the first that I have heard of her. Disambig page Li Na lists 4 sportspeople and 2 other people. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just wondering what the number of listings at the disambiguation page has to do with anything? A page like Nova (disambiguation) has heaps of pretty famous listings, yet the exploding star gets the nod for the direct link. So numbers mean nothing if one definition is clearly more renowned than the others. I do think the tennis player is the most well known of this grouping, and will be 10 years from now. The question I think is... is she really well known enough to warrant the move. I would say weakly yes, but I know I'm biased as far as tennis knowledge and it's why I asked several projects outside of tennis to help us out here. I didn't want to move her and find out later we've entered a move war with the cycling or diving projects. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You must have heard of all primary topics on wikipedia. Timmyshin (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article traffic well before the Australian Open makes it clear that she was already the primary topic by some distance. (all the other Li Na's had their meagre page views tripled on the day she won the AO) Mao's daughter and the Tang general get limited coverage, and the other sportswomen are not at this level. Kanguole 14:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the tennis player seems to be the most likely target given page view hits, by an order of magnitude. Makes sense to give 90% of our readers what they're looking for first time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week support. With respect to the Tang general and Mao's daughter, the tennis player is a clear primary topic. I actually think that Mao's daughter doesn't pass WP:N as she is only notable through connection to her father and not in her own right. As for the sports, the tennis is the more popular of the sports and so attracts the most page views. By achievement, the diver and cyclist seem to have just as prestigious, albeit no longer active, carriers. There is nothing to say that the tennis player won't fade just the same. Thus I think there may be some recentism going on. However, I see no sign of her tennis carrier ending any time soon and so it is likely that she will become a clear primary topic in the near future. However, wikipedia is not a crystal ball and so I will say that I support the move if there is another Grand Slam win or other good result but until then lets hold off.
    • The diver and cyclist are not nearly as prestigious. In their sports, perhaps, but not nearly so in terms of social impact. The tennis player has become an iconic figure in China and has played a major role in boosting the sport in Asia. This is not something that will fade after she retires. It's not every day where you see an athlete (or a Chinese person) on the cover of Time. Timmyshin (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - while I'm normally wary of proposals based on WP:RECENTISM, in this case I believe the move is justified, as Li Na the tennis player has gained an international fame unmatched by other Li Na's combined. -Zanhe (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - seems to comfortably meet the requirements of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Wolbo (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as primary topic. Tennis article has about 900 incoming links (the others seem to have a handful each), in addition to the difference in traffic (although 30 day stats are skewed by one day with >100k views). benmoore 19:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because pageviews are totes one of the two main criteria we use for determining primary topic. Red Slash 04:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

other comments

[edit]

Page views - Just grabbing any 30 day period from last year the margins are pretty much Diver, Fencer, Cyclist 100 views; TangDynasty 200 views; Daughter 2000-3000 views; Tennis 20,000-30,000 views. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

World No. 2 ranking

[edit]

I see this is the second time it's mentioned Li first reached the world no. 2 ranking by virtue of the withdrawal of Victoria Azarenka (Vika) at Qatar Open. This is incorrect. Here is the ranking points breakdown of two players in the week of Feb 10~Feb 17, 2014 during Qatar Open. Vika 6581 points, points to defend: 900;Li 6570 points, points to defend: 0 (she didn't play the year before due to the ankle injury). The difference is only 11 points. The point distribution for Premiere 5 event, first round 1 point, second round 60 points, 3rd round 105 points. Li received the first round bye and she reached the third round. After playing in the second round, Li already accumulated enough points to overtake Vika by at least 49 points (the maximum points Vika could have after Qatar Open would still be 6581 points, she had no points to gain even if she had defended her title). Li reached the 3rd round, and that gave her a even bigger advantage. A.M.L athony (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit [10] replaced a true statement by a misleading statement. Before it said: "By virtue of the withdrawal of Victoria Azarenka, Li was assured of rising to a new career-high singles ranking of world No. 2 following the Qatar Total Open." That is correct. "was assured" refers to the time of Azarenka's witdrawal before the tournament. That was the time the No. 2 rank became inevitable. Your edit says: "With the win, Li reached a new career-high singles ranking of world No. 2." It was already known before the match that she would become no. 2 no matter what. Your edit sounds like she might not have become No. 2 with a loss. By the way, the ranking rules say: "If a player or team receives one (1) or more consecutive byes and loses her/their 1st match played, 1st round losers’ points will be awarded". So if Azarenka had played and won the tournament then Li would have needed the round 2 win to become No. 2, but that's irrelevant since Azarenka had already witdrawn. If there is disagreement about how to formulate it then why not simply say she became world no. 2 after the tournament without going into more detail? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the original text may be technically correct, but it gave a "false" impression Li rose to the world no. 2 because Vika cannot defend her 900 points and Li thus benefited from that, which is not correct. Like I already explained, after received the 1st round bye, Li was guaranteed to receive 60 points for automatically advancing to the 2nd round, she will overtake Vika no matter what. Regardless of Vika's involvement in Qatar Open (withdrawal or not), once Li agreed to participate in that tournament, she would become no. 2 in the week after with at least 49 points advantage over Vika. Li actually won the 2nd round match, for which she received even more at 105 points for advancing to the 3rd round. The reason I said "with the win", because the no. 2 ranking is 100% up to Li and it's in her control, she had a bye, it would be more "confusing" if I said she reached the new height before her tournament ever started, that would sound more like she benefited from Vika's withdrawal. But you are right, it was re-edited with a simpler description that she rose to no.2 the week after. A.M.L athony (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ranking rule I quoted (directly from page 229 of the 2014 WTA official rulebook [11]) means that Li would only have gotten 1 point if she lost in round 2 after getting a bye in round 1. That happened to Wozniacki in the same tournament and her WTA profile [12] confirms she only got 1 point. But it's not relevant now and I support the new formulation in [13]. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool when wikipedia works like it's supposed to. Compromise wording that does well in informing all of our readers. Interesting stuff though on those ranking points. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

retirement

[edit]

The Chinese media has reported that IMG will announce Li Na will retire on 19 September,and the China open will be the last tournament she'll play.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second child

[edit]

https://twitter.com/ChinaOpen/status/812324825335287812 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.81.233 (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Li Na. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Li Na. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Li_Na&oldid=1257447683"