Talk:Dianne Evers

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

Page move[edit]

My Partner Dianne Evers has her name in the wikipedia page incorrectly spelt. It is missing an "n" in Dianne, can this be changed please or how can I do this myself?Alfromgib (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Alan Fortunato[reply]

@Alfromgib: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. The title of a page is changed by 'moving' it to a new location. This is to preserve the edit history and attribution. It is done via the 'more' tab at the top of a page. However, this facility will not be available to you until your account is at least four days old and you have made 10 or more valid edits. At Evers' page, although the title has one 'N' the content seems to use two. Wiki relies heavily on what the sources or references say and the one reference is a dead link as is one of the 'External links'; the other EL shows her name as one 'N'. Can you provide an independent source for the correct spelling?
I'm afraid I've had to remove your addition of title wins as the section is for 'Grand Slam' titles only. Also, as you have a connection to the subject you probably should not be editing the page yourself. Please see WP:COI for more information. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Before we move the article to Dianne Evers, we need some references to confirm the spelling. Currently, the only working reference has the spelling "Diane". Could you find some more independent articles for us to use as references? Dbfirs 15:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):The article, Diane Evers, would need to be moved in order to change the title. You can't do this because your account is too new. The article isn't well sourced, but both working links do land on pages with the 'Diane' spelling. Googling finds lots of pages, some with one spelling and some with the other. What would help at this point are multiple impeccably reliable sources, preferably at least one of them a web page of a major, internationally-recognized tennis organization providing official statistics. Daily newspapers (generally not tabloids) are other good sources. Could you provide such links? The other option would be file a request with WP:OTRS, but that really shouldn't be necessary. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alfromgib, Rivertorch it is a *mess* out in potential references. For example, the page for the Canadian Broadcasting company which would certainly ordinarily taken as a strong reference shows two 'n's (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/tennis/australian-open-champions-in-open-era-1.976180) but the actual page for the Australian Open about her (https://2017.ausopen.com/en_AU/event_guide/history/players/7620.html) has it with one n. Any chance of getting the Australian Open to change their page? (And given this, sadly enough, WP:OTRS is looking better. :( )Naraht (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems unnecessarily complicated - It is agreed that some sources list her with 1 "n" and some with 2. the three sources on the page all return (for me anyway) either no search results, or a 404. And yet we also have a person - who brought it to our attention - stating that he knows the person in question and there should be two "n"s in her name.
Whilst I know that COI, primary source and OR count for much, surely, given the lack of preference - or evidence - either way it would make sense to move the article to Dianne Evers over where it currently sits? Otherwise it seems almost deliberately bureaucratic to keep it where it is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied this discussion over to the Dianne Evers talk page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is not the kind of thing where we can blindly AGF and make such a change; on a BLP, we should make every reasonable effort to be sure. Given the conflicting evidence, I'd say the default would be to give the benefit of the doubt to the editor who created the article. (That was User:Ghaly. Ping!) They did include a reference in the very first version of the article, and it was a generally reliable one. (I saw no point in putting a Wayback link in until this is resolved, but here's the archived page.) We have no way of assessing the veracity of claims that the spelling is incorrect, so if the OP is unable or willing to provide adequate sourcing, it's really above our pay grade and up to OTRS. RivertorchFIREWATER 19:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your decision, but agree with your reasoning. I propose that in a case such as this the default would be to give the benefit of the doubt to the person who claims to actually know the person in question, not who created the article. This is not some blatant attempt to vilify the subject of the article, but a genuine request made through the proper channels. There is absolutely no reason to assume anythign other than good faith on the part of the proposer.
As you can see, I've dug up some sources to confirm her name as being "Dianne" Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page move #2[edit]

Given a lack of sources to confirm either "Diane" or "Dianne" - but a self-admitted COI claim that it is "Dianne" I propose a non-controversial move to "Dianne Evers". Given the lack of preference or evidence either way, this seems a simple enough choice. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom, and with the provided sources that support the name "Dianne":
  • Dianne's own website:[1]
  • Multiple examples of scans of examples of Dianne with two "n"s:
  • scan of atpca badge[2]
  • Newspaper clipping stating "Dianne seeded no1"[3]
  • And many many more. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, one might also consider: The Sydney Morning Herald, Wimbledon, International Tennis Federation, Women’s Tennis Association, and CBC Sports. All of the preceding have one 'n'. Are we sure that modernrock.com.au is her "own website" and not just a fan site about her? It's not registered to her, and it contains at least one scan of an ID card that reads "Diana"—with an 'a'. (I can't link to it because the images are all Javascript.) RivertorchFIREWATER 21:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So it comes back to the same argument - that there are sources supporting both "Diane" and "Dianne" - why are you so opposed to going with "Dianne" when we have what is an impasse with regard to sources yet as a tiebreak somebody who claims to know her? COI is a grand thing, but common sense is also a pretty good yardstick.
Where is the actual BLP issue with making a reasonable assumption of good faith on the part of the Help desk contributor and changing "Diane" to "Dianne"? Yes, there are sources to show that her name is "Diane" - but there are also sources to back up the OP's claim that it is in fact "Dianne". I repeat myself - please clarify what exact BLP issue there is here?
Let's also note that since January 2017[4] the article itself has used the spelling "Dianne" with no objections. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to go into this too deeply per WP:BEANS, but I think it's not a great idea to change the spelling of a BLP article subject's name based on an anonymous request at any venue unless there is compelling evidence in favor of it. In this case, the evidence is conflicting, not compelling. The same applies to other basic biographical information, such as date of birth and so on. Somehow, over the years, confusion has arisen over the spelling of Ms. Evers's first name, and the Internet contains a morass of contradictory spellings. Wikipedia shouldn't add to the confusion; it should get it right, not probably but certainly. And at this point, I think an OTRS ticket is probably the only way we'll achieve that. RivertorchFIREWATER 22:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how BEANS applies here, there doesn't seem to be a relevance. I'm afraid you've lost me there. Yes, the evidence is conflicting, but is also in favour of "Dianne". Once again I ask you to clarify - why do you not want to change the article? Why do you think it crosses the BLP line? What is your reasoning to assume that the claim of "Dianne" is false and has been made in bad faith? Yes, yes, I know all about unsourced claims, and the need to protect BLP - but again I repeat that this is not a controversial change, it is not a change that will denigrate the article subject. Again I repeat that the evidence is in favour of "Dianne", not "Diane" - at the same time accepting that there is evidence to show both with a bias to "Dianne". Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously not going to explain exactly what I meant by BEANS. As for BLP, it doesn't cross a particularly bright line, but we should take extra care with BLPs, and names are important. To fix this, the OP has only to use OTRS. Then it will be fixed, and we can all have a good level of confidence that it's fixed right. In the meantime, the only harm we're doing by failing to act is delaying the fix. If we act on their request despite clearly conflicting evidence, we can never be sure whether it's fixed or not, and we run the risk of creating a problem where none existed. And that's about all I have to say. RivertorchFIREWATER 07:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it another way - if you were arguing for the usage of "Dianne" and I was promoting "Diane" - would you be using the exact same argument as you are using now?
And why are you not going to explain what you mean by using the WP:BEANS argument? I genuinely don't understand the reference. WP:BEANS is, as per the nutshell; "If you tell people not to do something, your advice may backfire and instead tempt them to do it." Neither of us are in any danger of doing that - unless you worry that your explanations be in some way inadequate and will prompt others to go against them? If that's your concern then surely it shows that your argument is inherently weak? Or was it some kind of veiled insult? I'm puzzling over that more than the Diane/Dianne thing now, in case I've missed some vital thrust of your argument. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diane Evers. 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: 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) 04:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 April 2021[edit]

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vaticidalprophet 08:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Diane Evers → Dianne Evers – I see that two other move conversations went nowhere but I do think we have grounds to override tennis authorities as to the spelling of her first name. It is spelled Diane in most American newspaper clippings, a few Australian clippings, the WTA, the ITF... heck she's Australian and even the Australian Open history spells it Diane. However Dianne is a more unusual spelling and errors happen. Most contemporary Australian press clippings spelled her name Dianne (or simply Di). In 1979 she won the womens doubles event at the Australian Open but no trophy was given. That was rectified in 2016 where the engraved trophy is spelled Dianne. There is a coaching article mentioning the belated trophy where it is spelled Dianne. When she was a tennis coach in 2015 her ID card reads as Dianne Evers. We can't use it as a source but her life-partner has posted here saying she spells it Dianne and has uploaded images and created a webpage for Dianne that indicates this is true... at least in this day and age. The Womens Tennis Foundation (formerly Fed Cup foundation) spells it Dianne. So does the International Tennis Club of Australia.

Maybe she went by Diane in her playing days and maybe not, but it does appear that today she spells it Dianne and that the press and WTA simply spelled it wrong. If we go simply by number of sources it should stay at Diane, but I think the WTA and many press articles simply made an error that got compounded and that Dianne Evers is the proper location for this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just move it. It's not controversial if we have the very recent trophy spelling. The ITF and WTA are not accurate for older players pre-2000. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last page move request was "after" the trophy presentation, and it failed. I think this should remain here for a week to see if others agree with you. We're in no hurry to get it right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Sportsfan77777. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as well, and would say I agree with the note that she perhaps went by 'Diane' during her playing career but now as "Dianne" is the most likely case. I would however recommend a layout modification to remove those top few images on the page so the tennis player template formats to the top snd looks clean and organized. .mcburk (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dianne_Evers&oldid=1207156833"