Jump to content

Talk:Nicole Vaidišová

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

Biography assessment rating comment

[edit]

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Stepankova, she still is not married, please change to vaidisova —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.84.121.117 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning this article

[edit]

A discussion that may affect the name or title of this article is ongoing here. Please voice any opinions or concerns on that page. After the discussion concludes, this article may be moved to a different title, in accordance with Wikipedia's Naming Conventions. Thank you, Redux (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[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 no move at this time based on previous discussion/precedent. JPG-GR (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinek recently changed the name of this article without prior notice or discussion, even though given his prior involvement with the naming of tennis articles, he should have known that changing the name would be very controversial. The name should be changed back to "Nicole Vaidisova" and, should Darwinek wish to pursue a name change to "Nicole Vaidišová", he can pursue it through the normal WP:RM procedures for controversial moves. Tennis expert (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very important to note that this page was moved to the diacriticless title only very recently itself - [1]. Seeing as there was no separate "prior notice or discussion" here or for that one either, it seems that it was the first move that was hasty (and at least certainly no less controversial).
As the general move request to move tennis biographies to diacriticless titles at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis resulted in a "no move" verdict, I think Darwinek's move best represents and respects the community consensus on the matter expressed there. Repairing a non-consensus undiscussed move to a title which reflects a community consensus should not be penalised on procedural issues. I oppose. Knepflerle (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May 26, 2008, is hardly "very recently." And, yes, there was discussion of that move, as the mover's edit summary plainly indicated. Whether there is consensus for a move of this article depends on the views expressed concerning this article. See WP:UE. As of now, there is no consensus for moving it to "Nicole Vaidišová". Tennis expert (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary for the first move uses as rationale an RM discussion which (1) hadn't then finished and (2) then finished as no move(!), and so cannot be said represent community consensus correctly. Darwinek's move occurred after the discussion, and uses its result correctly - it respects the consensus achieved there of how the community interprets WP:UE in this case. May 2008 is really quite recent in the timeframe of an article which had stood at the original title for nearly two years. Knepflerle (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as his edits are explicitly named in this discussion, I have done the procedural courtesy of leaving a note at User_talk:Darwinek to give him chance to participate. The user who performed the first move which was not mentioned in the original move request had already been notified previously. Knepflerle (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Knepflerle is right it is a closed issue. I am bored by such a beating a dead horse issues. The "issue" is already solved and there is a general community acceptance of the use of diacritics in article names of the people. Leaving one article without diacritics in the title would create an unprecedented case. And a personal thought. Wikipedia has 2,500,000 articles and I fear users who want to create a battlefield from it, discussing every single move to diacriticized version. As Knepflerle mentioned above, controversial was a mass move to plain version of names with the "mandate" from a weak and silent discussion of less than ten users. This unprecedented plot was so evident it created a strong backlash from the community who unanimously opposed such a mass move and revised the article names to correct forms. There is no issue here, just a beating of a dead horse. Regards. - Darwinek (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the community did not care to do anything about the matter for over two years, and then when the mass requested move was raised, after a *lot* of discussion, it was concluded with no consensus. I have no argument with the individuals who wanted a change at any personal level, and I think it would be most rewarding for all concerned to move on and develop content or fight the battles which *need* fighting, such as issues of POV or BLP within tennis player articles which occasionally arise. Orderinchaos 11:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Darwinek, you're obviously not too bored by the issue or you wouldn't have unilaterally changed the name of this article without prior notice and in flagrant disregard of the WP:RM procedures (and then subsequently defended your action). And it's not a "closed" issue, as you should know from reading previous discussions of this issue. Any editor is free to request article moves for diacritics or any other reason, using the procedures you conveniently ignored, of course. The only consensus that now exists about diacritics is to use WP:UE article-by-article, which you chose to ignore out of an irrational fear that this article would be an "unprecedented case," whatever that means. "Unanimously" opposed the mass move? You're joking, right? If not, what sanitized version of the discussion were you reading? Feel free to source it here. Tennis expert (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, the discussion pertaining to this particular article has already happened and been closed, and Darwinek has moved the article to respect the consensus there. There is absolutely no need to now revisit that discussion only weeks later on every article individually. The whole point of the overarching discussion was to avoid this. Remember: the first move was undiscussed, came before the end of the RM and went directly against its decision - that inappropriate action needed repairing Knepflerle (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out where I can find the discussion on renaming this particular article as opposed to a general discussion about diacritics. I also invite you to re-read your post on June 23, 2008, where you said, "[A]ccording to WP:UE we should research the usage at every talk page and use that as a binding decision." Tennis expert (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page-by-page is the normal default way of making the decision, however in this case it was decided to discuss the articles as a group. Whatever the format, the important thing is that a discussion happened and the decision is respected. Knepflerle (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are totally incorrect. I made a number of requested moves individually with specific article-by-article justifications (look at the relevant article discussion pages for proof of this undeniable fact), but they were grouped under one section header by a WP:RM regular merely for convenience of discussion (because all the moves related to tennis biographies). It was never, ever the intention for a group decision to be made. Therefore, the administrator who closed the discussion on a group basis made a huge error, as I pointed out to her at the time. But she refused to correct the error. See this for more information on this error. Tennis expert (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your own edit log is an accurate record and paints a very different picture of how you actually interpreted the requested move at the time. "Per consensus" you moved all the ones listed and also these articles none of which were included at the RM!. You honestly expect us now to believe that you did not want the decision applied generally? Your actions then speak far louder than your words now. Knepflerle (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intentionally misrepresent facts or is it just unfortunate carelessness? Those moves were done in accordance with a general discussion, which was then overruled unilaterally by a certain administrator through mass reversions and threats of administrative action. I then proposed the moves one-by-one through WP:RM, as I have already said. Tennis expert (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The person who closed that discussion left open the possibility of reopening it, as a general discussion or article-by-article. So, I might just do that, which is what the pro-diacritics crowd has done repeatedly. Tennis expert (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how Wikipedia works. We do not have to revisit this discussion every eight weeks over hundreds of articles until you get your way. Nothing has changed in the last seven-and-a-bit weeks. You asked the community, it said no; Orderinchaos' suggestion is now the way forward. Knepflerle (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to know that current Wikipedia policy prohibits repetitive discussions and, more importantly, that consensus may not change. Naturally, it's only through discussing issues more than once that consensus can evolve. I'm glad to know that back-to-back proposals on using diacritics would no longer be allowed, especially in light of this diacritics proposal being made 1 day after this diacritics proposal failed. Tennis expert (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said, anywhere. Consensus can change, but over longer periods of time. Big discussions get reopened, but normally on the timescale of eighteen months to two years not a few weeks! And crucially the reopening will normally come on the basis of significant new arguments based on a widespread change in practice over many articles or new software developments. Neither of those have happened here. Knepflerle (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I find the Wikipedia policy that requires a certain time limit between discussions of the same issue? Apparently, you believe there is a policy for people who question the need for diacritics based on WP:UE but not for those who believe that diacritics always should be allowed based on nationalism, their inate sense of "correctness", or some other basis that has nothing to do with making an encyclopedia. Tennis expert (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No time limit is expressly defined; that doesn't mean the general principle does not hold. That the words you put in my mouth about my "beliefs" does not follow from what I wrote should be fairly obvious to third parties. Knepflerle (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I closed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis as showing consensus for no move. Although as an editor I disagreed with the consensus, the only way I can see to re-open this would be to address the use of diacritics Wikipedia-wide. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This idea has been thrown out several times already, most recently after this edit to WP:UE, which was roundly dismissed in an extensive discussion (look through WT:UE, archive 6 on). I doubt anything has significantly changed in the last five months, seeing as the current position has held for years now. Knepflerle (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wholly agree with this. Wikipedia's use of diacritics in proper names is unlikely to end soon. Also mind, redirects from the diacriticless names are very cheap and through these, readers typing these names get to the articles they want. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really get what the fuss is all about. Her name is Nicole Vaidišová, and as such there is no point in moving the article. Diacritics, Polish, Czech or any other, are surely bothering, but we do not set grammar rules for languages. Tymek (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:UE. Tennis expert (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that User:Tennis expert has initiated the same vote in violation of consensus here. If this is the kind of subversive behaviour he is trying to use to undermine policy, I strongly recommend for all his contributions to remain watched by concerned editors. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subversive? Undermining policy? Violating consensus? I am merely trying to uphold existing policy and guidelines. And I have done absolutely nothing unilaterally. I have simply requested the moves of two articles in a very transparent and open manner and provided my reasoning for those moves. Perhaps you should re-read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL before you continue trying to impune my reputation and motives. And by the way, I haven't requested a "vote" anywhere. After all, Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Tennis expert (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are disregarding the consensus a vote you have yourself initiated established. You have to provide a compelling reason, which you have not done so. I'm struggling to see your motives as honest. For future reference: Vote = A request for consensus gathering, such as a requested move, XfD's, RfA's, etc.. PS: Let's not disperse the debate and continue the discussion at Sandra Kleinová. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I can't do anything about your internal struggles. You have no reasonable basis for doubting my honesty. And WP:AGF requires you to assume my good faith, which I assure you is there in abundance. Finally, you are the person who ran from the Kleinova article to here to sound the "alert" about my behavior.... Any dispersing of debate is at your initiation. Tennis expert (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what my 'internal struggles' are, and I don't think I want to know. I didn't come here to instigate conflict, I came here to alert editors that there is a similar and relevant debate occurring on a related article. I did assume good faith. Did being the pivotal word, now we have moved past that, you seem to have disproved my assumption quite early on, and I don't appreciate being told that I'm 'required' to do anything. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tennis expert, we all use English here. However, we do not change somebody's names because we do not like the diactritics. Please write to the Czech government and tell them to get rid of them. Or write to Vaidišová and tell her to change name into Vaidisova. Tymek (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I ever say that I don't like diacritics? And where did I ever say that we should change her name? I am merely talking about the name of this Wikipedia article, not her legal name. Tennis expert (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it is settled now. Since you do like the diacritics, and you do not want to change the name of this pretty and talented girl, we have solved the problem. Tymek (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks and talents have nothing to do with this move request. Tennis expert (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2008 (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.

Pronunciation

[edit]

Could someone knowledgeable in Czech please give the IPA pronunciation of her name? I assume the last name is rendered something along the lines of [vajdiʃɔva], but I'm unsure whether her first name is pronounced [nitsɔle] or [nikɔl]. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 06:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on the Nicole, but shouldn't it be [vajɟiʃɔvaː]? (Assuming I used the correct symbol for the Czech ď) +Hexagon1 (t) 00:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, that makes sense. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 02:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for her first name, the media in the Czech Republic use only the "nikol" form. - Darwinek (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've added what I believe to be correct. It the "n" pronounced like a regular Czech n or more like a ň? BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 11:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regular "n". - Darwinek (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last question - on which syllables does the stress fall? BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 11:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ni-cole Vai-di-šo-vá. - Darwinek (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 10:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for wider input on discussion at WikiProject Tennis

[edit]

There is a long, ongoing discussion at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found in tennis articles on English-language Wikipedia (e.g., this type of table). The discussion is about whether the "official sponsored name" of a tournament - such as Pacific Life Open - or another tournament name without the sponsor - such as Indian Wells Masters - must be used in those articles. Please join the discussion here. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retired

[edit]

When players retire, the lose their place on the WTA/ITF rankings. A good example was Justine Henin; when Justine retired, Ana Ivanovic moved from No 2 in the rankings to No 1. Nicole Vaidisova is listed on the WTA and ITF sites as having a ranking. Therefore she cannot be retired. See WTA singles rankings.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, You want to say that she is actually not retired? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the WTA and ITF are concerned, she is not retired.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Than I say, let's delete that statement from the article. Let's ignore all those news reports that say she's retired: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. WTA knows it best. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is very simple.
  • In March 2010, her stepfather told the press that she retired. There are reliable sources that he said this.
  • However, she did not officially inform the WTA & ITF that she was retiring. (Hence she still has a ranking.) The advantage of this, is that it has kept her options open.
  • Her ITF professional players fee has probably been paid, either by her or someone on behalf of her. I am not sure what happens to a player's ranking if they do not pay this fee on time.
--Toddy1 (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reassessing as C class

[edit]

I have reassessed this article C class, this is due to it failing criteria B1 of the B-Class criteria. Cloudz679 11:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nicole Vaidišová. 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) 07:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nicole Vaidišová. 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) 14:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicole_Vaidišová&oldid=1204841517"