User talk:HJensen/Archives/2009/June
 | This page 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. |
Serena Williams
I believe that it was fine to have an edit indicating who Williams next opponent was, and that she had won their prior meeting when Williams withdrew. Your deletion seemed innapropriate IMHO.--Ethelh (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. It is way to detailed for an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a news agency, so doing real-time updates on ongoing tournaments is a very bad idea. It will be reverted in any case and rewritten heavily after the tournament, so there is no need to include such information.
- Yes, we disagree. It is notable. It is sourced. There is reason to believe that someone looking at her bio that day (and there were 1,600 page views) would find it of interest who her upcoming opponent was, and that she was one of the few with a winning record (albeit due to injury) against Serena. I really don't see much room for disagreement ... it was much more notable at the time than much of the material in her bio.--Ethelh (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- People do not come here to look for the news - WP is not a news site. WP is a secondary source, thus the many people who you state may come here looking for the results of the last match or the opponent of the next round, are actually in the wrong place. There are many other sources infinitely more up to date and whose job it is to supply that information in a timely and reliable manner. Actually, I believe that the 1,200 people who come here are morre likely to have read the result and want to learn more about the player and her background. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, while not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, and the breaking news here was not emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information in the article.--Ethelh (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, news coverage can be useful sources. But writing an ecyclopedic article as a news outlet is just not the way Wikipedia works. It is introducing material that is destined to be changed a day after. There is no need to introduce such instability to an article. Use editing efforts to improve the description of verifiable facts instead. (And the Wozmiak material was treated diffently; none of the head-to-head results against opponents at Roland Garros 2009 were mentioned). People wanting info about today's match will go to the WTA or RG site. --HJensen, talk 18:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, while not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, and the breaking news here was not emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information in the article.--Ethelh (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- People do not come here to look for the news - WP is not a news site. WP is a secondary source, thus the many people who you state may come here looking for the results of the last match or the opponent of the next round, are actually in the wrong place. There are many other sources infinitely more up to date and whose job it is to supply that information in a timely and reliable manner. Actually, I believe that the 1,200 people who come here are morre likely to have read the result and want to learn more about the player and her background. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we disagree. It is notable. It is sourced. There is reason to believe that someone looking at her bio that day (and there were 1,600 page views) would find it of interest who her upcoming opponent was, and that she was one of the few with a winning record (albeit due to injury) against Serena. I really don't see much room for disagreement ... it was much more notable at the time than much of the material in her bio.--Ethelh (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)