Talk:Iga Świątek

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

Infobox photo, 2023[edit]

  • Original photo, 2019
    Original photo, 2019
  • Option, 2023
    Option, 2023
  • Another option, 2023
    Another option, 2023

Instead of reverting back, @Fyunck(click), I'm writing here hoping to get input from other editors on what photo to use in the infobox. Obviously I know my photos aren't as crisp as si.robi's and have more shadow than I'd like, but I think they're usable. Świątek's age is a real factor for me: she is and looks 17 in the original photo. Too bad there aren't (yet) more recent freely licensed photos of higher quality than I'm able to take. Pinging @JamesAndersoon for his thoughts. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of sharpness. The shadows are a killer for me. She looks about the same age actually. What we'd rather have is a photo from the belly-button up looking towards the viewer's left. The pic we have is great except looking towards the right. Age is not a reason to switch. We would usually want a pic of a player in their prime not a pic at age 92. Like Serena Williams has a sensational prime pic. Obviously Swiatek's prime is unknown but I wouldn't switch the original unless we find a different sensational photo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points, though I wouldn't peg the shadow as quite as destructive as that. Wish I could've captured something unambiguously better—sun overhead at the hour of her practice. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sure wish I could go see her play live and take pics! Being of Polish and some Ukrainian decent myself, she's my goto girl to root for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hameltion: Honestly, I like all three versions. The version from 2019 is really good for me, but as time pass by, I think it's better to make some refresh of the page. I have no problem with her 2023's pictures - actually I like them. p.s. My pick is first option of 2023. JamesAndersoon (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But as we are discussing it we shouldn't add a new pic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's where I'm at. It occurs to me to put it this way: "prime" is less relevant a factor for active players, where I think readers would be better served by more up-to-date photos. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All things being equal, I agree. But equal doesn't include a downgraded photo. It's not bad but clearly not as good as the current pic...one where she looks about the same age. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple consecutive Year-end No. 1 achievement[edit]

I added consecutive year-end No. 1 to the 2023 header. I was reversed by contributor @4TheWynne that it was not a big enough achievement. Instead of reverting the change I would like to know considering consecutive year-end world No. 1 are very rare, we can count the tennis players that have achieved that on our fingers, why is it an issue to have it in the header? Since it is a short header currently with only two items, why can’t we have three or more? Are there guidelines somewhere for what to put in the header, how long should it be, and how many and what items (personal achievements , all time records etc..) to include? Sashona (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it couldn't be there, but it's certainly not rare. It looks like 20+ different players have done it, and some more than two times in a row. I would even say that it's more normal to win it at least twice in a row than it is to win it only once in a row. But for a sub-header you only want the two or three absolute biggest accomplishments for the year. Otherwise the table of contents can get too wide. I would probably write "2023: French Open and WTA finals champion, Year-end No. 1". That's all we really need. If readers want more they can read the section. Also we don't even know yet if we have a single tennis champion for the year since the ITF hasn't named their champion yet. Sometimes it's split. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's for the reasons you've mentioned, Fyunck(click), plus that it isn't included in the 2022 header when she first achieved the year-end No. 1 ranking and that she has been no. 1 for all but eight weeks since April last year, that I don't think it's really needed at all. I don't see the point in including an achievement some years and not all – perhaps it's just two achievements in this header, rather than three every year. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@4TheWynne:It sort of is included in the previous year with "Rise to world No. 1" However you are correct in that it seems weird to add year-end No. 1 in 2023 when she already did it in 2022 with no precise wording. I would suggest for 2022 and 2023: "2022: Two major titles, 37-match win streak, year-end No. 1", and "2023: French Open and WTA Finals champion, year-end No. 1". Those are the biggest accomplishments for those years yet it doesn't bloat the headings too much. Year-end No. 1 is a pretty big deal, but the fact that it's consecutive not so much. I guess we could simply say "world No. 1" for both headers instead of "year-end No. 1", but I think year-end is clearer. Any thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click) I agree with you to include year-end No. 1 in both 2022 and 2023 headers, but we should also add consecutive year-end No. 1 in 2023. You know it is very difficult to achieve Top 10, let alone world No. 1 in tennis and to be consecutive is a major achievement, considering also Iga was number 1 for most of the year. Sashona (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need that. Just like each year a player wins Wimbledon we certainly don't need to say it's their third Wimbledon title or their fourth Wimbledon title. Simply Wimbledon title is sufficient. As is year-end No. 1. It's not just a question of difficulty, it's the least amount of characters to get the point across. And the top two or three items of the season. It looks like most players that get to number one also do it consecutively... plus doing it consecutively or twice in a career isn't much different over the course of history. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most players do not get consecutive, look at the men's players too. It is very hard to be No. 1 , let alone consecutive No. 1. I added Year-End No. 1 so we can close this discussion. Sashona (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number of titles[edit]

According to her WTA page, she has won 18 titles, not 17 (as shown in the infobox). I guess United Cup 2024 as a title for her, thanks to she won 55 matches despite of the fact Germany is the actual winners? Unnamelessness (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct. There has been an error from the WTA. All players who played the United Cup was given a title. 2402:1980:8252:E8CD:71DA:BBCC:EBCF:6332 (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RS plz? Noticed. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't even be counted as a tournament. It should be like Fed Cup as it is an international team competition rather than a singles tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that players are allowed to earn points, which contribute to their Race to YEC points. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18 match winning streak ended[edit]

In the third round of Australian Open, She was upset by Linda Nosková in three sets and as a result of this loss her 18 match winning came to an end which started in September last year.[1]https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/68040197 Priyavrat Chaudhary (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using extended timeline in this article[edit]

Iga Świątek is a GA article, so accessibility is a key criteria to assess. The extended timeline is challenged by MOS:COLHEAD, which needs to be addressed. That means, the timeline would have to either use the simpliest one or seperate as mutiple tables. Given there is subpage to cover the full timeline, the Grand Slam tournament only timeline is the only solution. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally like the smaller table, there is no issue at all with the extended timeline. It does not conflict with COLHEAD as it does not use !. It has been vetted by screen readers and Tennis Project for over a decade and is a guideline certified chart. The Grand Slam tournament only timeline might be best since she has a great full career statistic timeline on the subpage, but it is not the only timeline allowed. It passed GA with no issue with the timeline. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. MOS:COLHEAD has nothing to do with the column header !. It is the confusion with the headers that makes the issue. See the explaination

For example, a screen reader reading the cell "Stuttgart, Germany" might associate the cell with the following headers: "Venue, Representing Soviet Union, Representing Belarus". Three headers are read aloud. The first and the third are correct and expected. But "Representing Soviet Union" does not apply to the lower half of the table, and a machine does not understand that. Thus, a machine will not be able to associate header and cells correctly, and will provide misleading information about the table structure to the user.

Unnamelessness (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that it has been explained to Tennis Project differently and that editors with modern screen readers have no issues at all. The table has been vetted and passed multiple times and it's why it's in the guidelines as such and why articles have passed GA with no issues. That is unless screen readers have regressed in the last few years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have put my supplementary explanation pretty clear, especially I have put a tennis-oritented example on this:

You have 1000 tournaments header below GS tournaments header: does that mean the Miami Open is not only a GS event, but also a 1000 event?

Also,

The table has been vetted and passed multiple times and it's why it's in the guidelines as such and why articles have passed GA with no issues.

This is given at the issue hasn't been reported; it doesn't mean the issue does not exist. What we've done is boldly assume there were no issues because nobody complains and WP:IAR it. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be incorrect. We asked admins and screen reader experts to take part in the vetting. It WAS discussed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right there, admins, screen reader experts, or any other professional staff are the "we" here. It was discussed, but still doesn't change the fact that it is currently challenged by MOS:COLHEAD, unless we a) challenge MOS:COLHEAD; or b) continue to apply WP:IAR here, which I sort of take it as a WP:COMPROMISE. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iga_Świątek&oldid=1207273859"