Talk:Laura Robson

External link issue

I have recently posted an external link for a profile of Laura Robson which has been repeatedly deleted. The link for Information Tennis I believe represents a good information resource for Wikipedia users as she is a rising star of the game and there is limited information available about her on the web. The website is independent and neither constitutes to spam or a personal website so i am at a loss to see how it could be deleted given that it can only aid users knowledge. I appreciate you have to moderate the section to ensure integrity of the site and this individual subject matter but I think there is somewhat of a witch-hunt against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennis Expert5 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

British or Australian?

Is she really British, or is she an Australian who is representing GB at the moment because she is living here due to her dad's job? Will she represent GB as a senior, or go back to Australia? Wilbisher (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A moot point but she left Australia at the age of 18 months old and can remember nothing much about the place. She has lived in Wimbledon, London for ten years and her speaking voice is pure middle England. My gut feeling is she considers herself British, but only time will tell 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The BBC reference says she moved from Singapore to Britain when she was seven, and that was seven years ago and not ten. The LTA reference states her residence as Middlesex, but Wimbledon is not in Middlesex. Have you some source of information to resolve these contradictions? Coyets (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This quote in "The Sun" seems to suggest she's positively choosing to currently be a Brit over an Aussie. She's also supported by the LTA, and I don't think they would give her support if they were not sure of her alligence - althought technically, she could choose to be an Aussie an any point until she makes senior representation. I have also removed her category as an English tennis player - one of those where categorisation as a Brit is most appropriate. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The 13 July Telegraph article says she's competed previously as an Aussie, and that Wimbledon was her first as a Brit. Given that (1) she's competed as both Aussie and Brit, and (2) she's not yet irrevocably bound to either nationality, I'm adding back the Aussie country tag in the infobox that got removed. I'll add it as second in the list as it isn't her current choice of country. Bazj (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This reference clearly states that she lives within a 5 minute walk of the Wimbledon club. Perhaps the LTA reference is out of date. It also says she holds a British Passport. LHMike (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

British people seem fascinated by this. How is Laura Robson any less British than Martina Navratilova is American? Both are citizens of those countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.121.230 (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

She actually only just moved to Wimbledon, within the last 6 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunny87 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Before changing it again please check Australian nationality law#Dual Citizenship and come up with some evidence she's renounced Australian nationality (if indeed a child is legally capable of renouncing nationality). Bazj (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Irrespective of what the details are of her present or past citizenship, the infobox should only include the country that she represents. Other details should be incorporated in text. ^LeaveSleaves 16:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In which case, she's competed for both and hasn't passed the point of no return. I'll revert unless you come up a citable ref that she's irrevocably committed to Britain. Bazj (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The point in question here is not her citizenship but her present representation. And that is Britain as can be confirmed here. Other details about prior representation or citizenship can go into the prose. ^LeaveSleaves 17:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. She HAS competed for both, most recently for Britain. As a junior she is not irrevocably bound to either. She could just as easily play her next tournament as an Aussie. Bazj (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is as simple as that. In order to confirm the representation it needs to be approved by International Tennis Federation. And at any point if a player wishes to change the representation s/he needs to have approval of both ITF and relevant national tennis authorities. So, I don't think your assumption that she can play for both countries at any point is incorrect. Now, if she does change her affiliation from GBR to AUS or any other nation, then infobox should be changed accordingly. If she has competed for AUS in the past (I'm not sure about this), then such information along with subsequent affiliation change should be accommodated in the prose. ^LeaveSleaves 19:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly sounds English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.52.188 (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Picture of Laura would be appropriate instead of tennis court which is currently showing. Anyone got decent picture of Laura? Hopwas2007 (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Youngest?

"The youngest competitor in the 2008 Wimbledon Championships[5]". Is that correct? Reference 5 says she was the youngest "left in the competition" at the staghe of the article. -- SGBailey (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference (BBC) states "Robson, who does not turn 15 until 21 January, was the youngest player in any event at this year's Wimbledon". Coyets (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In relation to her age, is it really necessary to have a section on her early life? At 14/15 surely all of her life so far has been her early life?! 217.43.28.96 (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Just meant that the title may need altering rather than any of the content, not sure I made that entirely clear! 217.43.28.96 (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

'Playing style'

Is it possible to ascertain a player's style simply by analysing the statistics from a small number of matches at a single tournament? Also, phrasing such as 'she often hits high numbers of winners during her matches which in turn causes her to hit quite a few unforced errors as well' reads awkwardly and offers little in the way of insightful analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.227.103 (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I've removed it, echoing your thoughts above. The section is really opinion, and the references provided don't really back it up. Actually, in general for a sports person, I don't like these "playing style" sections. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Grand Slam results

The parameters in the infobox for these results is for achievements as a professional player and not as a junior. While there is mention of those being junior titles added to the infobox for clarification, I feel this is incorrect use of the parameters. Those should only be used for results as a senior player. ^LeaveSleaves 10:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I wanted to add junior results, since there are "australianopenjuniorresults" parameters and such, but they didn't show up. I've corrected it.

Makes me wonder why those "junior results" parameters are in the infobox then. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked the parameters to include junior results in the infobox. But now it is overly long with lot of blank spaces. ^LeaveSleaves 13:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's better than nothing. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 14:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Initially registered as an Australian for tennis purposes"

Seems a bit vague to me. Why would being registered as Australian help her for Tennis purposes? I don't see it explained elsewhere. Thanks --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit.

Height

Many are fully aware she has been through a growth spurt and now stands at 5'10. However, please refrain from changing this until an official source states it, or until the wta tour site updates their profile at the beggining of next year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maza1987 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the page is updated with her current height. However, I don't understand Maza's argument. If it is correctly reported in the papers (as it is), there's no need to wait for the WTA to update their website. User:John Smith's (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Weight?

theres no weight written Madmaxxx (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Prize money

The Independentsays that she got a big cheque from the H-Cup. Where is the source for her prize money - would it take this into account? John Smith's (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox results

Please do not update this every time she progresses in a major grand slam. An uninformed reader who didn't know she was still playing would think that's as far as she's gone. Just wait until after she has stopped progressing. John Smith's (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Middle name

Someone added a middle name but to the wrong place (see here). I've removed it though until we can find a reference. Besides, I think her middle name would belong in the lead. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Too much detail

Sorry to be a critic, and apologies to the editors who have obviously put effort into this article, but I'm surprised it's considered a "good article". IMO the article is swamped by far too much match-by-match detail, rather than concentrating on the key events and milestones in her career so far. Another tennis article I've recently looked at, Li Na (tennis), has the exact same problem (see comment). It really isn't necessary or desirable, IMO, to fill page after page of career narrative with individual match results. If we really want to document these then a separate table (or even article) would be a better solution in my view. 86.181.201.14 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sluts commments

Shouldn't this article have some mention of the controversy over her 'sluts' comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.238.33 (talk • contribs)

No, I don't think that's terribly important. It's more gossip/tabloid interest than real news or relevant to a biographical article. John Smith's (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Saviour of British Tennis

I love Laura and am sure she has a great future. But to call her the saviour of British tennis in a year when Andy Murray won Olympic gold and the US Open is absurd. Her achievements may well equal his in time. But used in the intro in the way that it is makes Laura seem arrogrant and boastful, and whoever wrote it is doing her no favours. David Kemp 21.09.12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.146.100 (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The actual source says The savior of British tennis? with a question mark, it is asking the question not calling her the savior. So really a minor talking point on a website is clearly not important enough for the article so I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Grand Slam results #2 - Jr results in infobox

I have created a section at the end of "Junior career" for Robson's junior slam results, so there's now no need to put them in the infobox, as it takes up too much space unnecessarily. Thetradge (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2013 (BST)

Stop trying to remove the junior results from the infobx they are relevant please can you demonstrate how they are not relevant before removing the results from the infobox they have been re-added multiple times. The information is completely sensible, proportionate and notable. She does not" lose" those results and they do not lose their relevance, they accurately and concisely demonstrate her career progression without being selective. 22:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just thinking that surely, since she is now no longer playing on the Junior Circuit, and is established in the World's Top. 50, having her junior results as equal in relevance as her pro results to me seems a bit unbalanced - plus I've not seen any other pros with the aforementioned layout on their pages. All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem to make sense, given that she has been on the professional tour for over a year now. Thetradge (talk) 16:21, 5 April (BST) —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That is like saying just because John McEnroe plays in the Champions Series we should remove his non Champions Series playing results, which would be an absurd thing to do. Also just because it is not on other articles doesn't mean it is justification to remove it from here and doesn't meanthat the work in progress isn't to update the rest of the infoboxes. 16:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That isn't really the same thing, mainly because a) they're not listed in his infobox, and b) McEnroe is still competing on the Champions Tour. He is a former professional tennis player, Laura is currently a professional tennis player, and from what I understand it's ones professional career that bears the most significance when reading up on a tennis player. Which is more significant, the fact that McEnroe won seven Grand Slam singles titles, or that he is currently competing in a post-retirement event for fun? I'm not trying to be awkward, I'm just trying to work out why other players of the same level such as Kristina Mladenovic, Sloane Stephens and Madison Keys also have their junior results in their infobars. What is your reasoning behind wanting to keep Robson's junior results there, when it would make much more sense, and save more space to have them printed at the bottom of the "Junior Career" section of her page? 17:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetradge (talk • contribs)

The principle is the same, the principle you have asserted is when an individual finished playing at a certain level their previous results should be removed. If you wish to have a wider discussion on he inforbox please start a discussion on the Wikiproject tennis.. for info purposes here is the full list of possible parameters. For this section senior results are also included a as possible parameter.

| singlesrecord =
| singlestitles =
| highestsinglesranking =
| currentsinglesranking =
| AustralianOpenresult =
| AustralianOpenjuniorresult =
| AustralianOpenseniorresult =
| FrenchOpenresult =
| FrenchOpenjuniorresult =
| FrenchOpenseniorresult =
| Wimbledonresult =
| Wimbledonjuniorresult =
| Wimbledonseniorresult =
| USOpenresult =
| USOpenjuniorresult =
| USOpenseniorresult = The results are relevant so please can you point out why they should not be included, other than the fact Robson is no longer a Junior, which is not a credible reason. Sport and politics (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes you have explained this already, my point is why don't other similarly aged players such as Madison Keys or Mónica Puig use said layout on their infobars? Why are THEIR junior results not as important as their Pro results, whilst Robson's are seen as equal in importance? That is the one question that I was more eager to have answered, as neither of those two, especially the latter, have had anywhere near as much success at the Slams as Robson has, yet their junior results are somehow seen as not as important. The reasoning you have given behind your argument implies that all professional players should have their junior results displayed alongside their professional ones, however I have come across very few players who have said layout implemented on their pages. Please explain this further to me, as I am yet to understand why on earth such a big deal is being made out of this!

if the information is missing from other articles add it to the other articles Wikipedia does not work on the basis of this one doesn't so none must, just because the information hasn't yet been added. This is nothing to do with importance or anything else it is simply they have not been added. To be constructive go add the information on the other articles as opposed to damaging the infobox on this article, simply because other articles haven't had the information added. Be constructive add the information to the other articles. Sport and politics (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

IMHO it's better to have only professional grand slam results in the infobox, not junior results. Infobox is already so huge, so it's better to not add every little information there. Junior results can be tell on the article's text part. --Stryn (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you advocate removing senior results from senior players? in the interest of Infobox size. Infoboxes change per subject and this Infobox is no bigger or smaller than others, when compared to other sports articles. Take Motor Sports they parameters can make those Infoboxes huge. So size is a phony argument. This is about value to the article. She had a junior career not all playing professionals did. She won a Junior Grand Slam which is inherently notable, the inclusion adds value and is therefore warranted. Sport and politics (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If you take note of the article for Grigor Dimitrov, he won TWO Junior Slam titles, yet his Junior results take their place within the "Junior Career" section of his article, rather than in the infobox. You'll find the same thing with Monfils, Pavlyuchenkova (who both won THREE Junior titles), etc. The junior results don't have to be removed from the page completely, but rather given a small section at the end of the "Junior Career" section of the article, as pretty much ALL other successful junior players have!

Just go ahead and add the junior results to the infoboxes of the other pages. Just because this article is the first to have the junior results in the infobox and others don't is meaningless. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. The results themselves need to be justified as not warranted not simply "it's nowhere else". That is like saying "cars are nowhere in this road therefore I cannot drive down the road." It is a ludicrous position with no weight. Justify that the actual results are not warranted other than taking the "no other article has them there for this one can't" position. At the moment the position being advanced for removal is fanciful nonsense. Sport and politics (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

For reference please see Oliver Golding who has his junior results in his infobox without any objection. Sport and politics (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a great example, as Oliver Golding has yet to compete on the full circuit of the ATP, and is ranked outside of the world's top 400.

He is still a winner of a Junior Grand Slam and it is listed uncontroversial in the infobox. Just because the player is not world famous doesn't make the example carry any less weight. Sport and politics (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The above is nonsense you are advocating no other results except professional results. Is there advocation for not having senior results as well? The results are notable. Just because she is no longer a junior doesn't mean the result magically disappear. I see this farcical argument about info box length and it is piffle. If infoboxes really are to long why not remove doubles results and mixed doubles results for players who have only won singles results or only now playing singles tournaments. Length as an argument is complete erroneous rubbish. Sport and politics (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I would have to say that having both jr and pro results in the infobox is overkill, trivial and it plain looks bad. I don't see where it was ever discussed at the Tennis Project so there is no consensus either way. I would assume those editors who added those jr results to the template figured there were notable jr players whose results were the most important item to date. But one you start adding the pro/senior results those jr wins are simply minor trivia. Sure it can be mentioned in the article under something like "early years", but it really clogs the infobox and makes it harder to pick out the important pro results. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Join in the above discussion please do not start your own. Sport and politics (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Never saw the above talk because it was in the wrong place in the middle of a 4 year old discussion. It belongs here at the bottom. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed something else. Editor "Sport and politics" is asking for no removal until this gets settled. I don't know the full battle going on here, but at least that's reasonable if it's been here awhile. What is not reasonable is the obverse... "Sport and politics" added the material to Grigor Dimitrov right in the middle of this. You can't have it both ways. That is unfair and I'm removing it until this is done with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the tone of you inferences there. You are saying you in the right how dare anyone do something opposite what I want. Other users not just me have reverted the ips and new users who are obsessed with the removal. Sport and politics (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

For adding to the other article it was a demonstration of the absurdity of the "no other articles have it" argument. If no other have just add it. Sport and politics (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well that was wrong to do or at least you should have self-reverted. "No other articles have it" is certainly a valid argument since many like some degree of conformity at wikipedia. But it's not the only argument and it's not a really good argument. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

All the arguments for removal boil down to are; dislike of the aesthetics, that she is no longer a junior, and its not on other articles (already shown to be absurd as a reasoning). All are substance free and based in no policy. When credible points based on genuine substance and not wishy washy aesthetics or that she has grown a little older, the points being put forward for removal may be taken seriously, at the moment they are not serious points to base removal on. The information is relevant, sensible, proportionate, notable and noteworthy in the article and the infobox. What next we remove titles won by a player when changes in their nationality occur as they are "no longer playing for that country" or we remove other parameters because users potentially don't like the way it looks. Where is the line drawn? Where does potential removal on looks stop?. The informations' inclusion is notable, proportionate and sensible. The points forwarded for removal are nonsensical and free from any basis in content. Sport and politics (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

For me it's not purely a matter of aesthetics, it's also one of confusion. Laura Robson is a young player who is moving up the rankings, and I think readers could be confused by having junior results mixed in with senior ones. If she was still primarily a juniors player, ok the junior results could stay up, but she's a senior player now. People can read about her junior results in the main body of the article. The focus should be on her senior results. John Smith's (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

.....Continuing junior vs pro results in infobox

It's time to take this to the next level.

Except in rare circumstances, shall we limit player infobox content to EITHER junior grand slam tournament results OR senior (ITF/ATP/WTA) professional grand slam tournament results, but not both?

There appears to be a confusion here as Junior Grand Slams are for players on the junior circuit and Senior Grand Slams are for players on the Seniors/Champions Circuit. In the case I think what is meant is ITF/ATP Professional Grand Slams.

 Done - Clarified the wording.

• note - From the discussion above and Tennis project talk, we also appear to have "agrees" from Thetradge, Stryn, and John Smith. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• • note - As per WP:Democracy this is not a vote or counting of people. Sport and politics (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

True, but wikipedia works by consensus 99% of the time by convention. It's not like the info is being completely censored out of the article. If the polling is lopsided (and you are pretty much the lone holdout for where text is placed), an administrator will close this against you almost every single time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Listing users as being in favour is suggested a head count as a substitution for discussion. Please see WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We have been discussing since April 3. Then you take a poll to see where consensus stands. You're fairly new here...Have you not seen how this works before? The admin then looks at the consensus and also weighs the arguments, like at this flag rfc. So far your arguments have failed to convince anyone and after 2+ months it's time for some finality. This isn't even a content dispute or censoring as the info is or can be in other lesser sections of the article depending on importance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have given rational and detailed argument with evidence to justify my position such as inclusion in results infoboxes for Grand slams, all I have seen is the same tosh about aesthetics and confusion, which are just opinions and no evidential basis behind them has been shown. If this how policy is made then its not actually policy its just opinion. Sport and politics (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agree (as nominator) As the discussion directly above points out, it is much harder to read when both sets of stats are in the infobox. Also when a player turns pro and starts playing in the 4 Major tournaments, the junior results become trivial and the undue weight clogs up the box. I wouldn't censor the results, just find placement much further down in the article. Most jr. players are not even notable to begin with, unless they actually win a jr grand slam, so putting things in the infobox like "2nd round defeat in the jr French Open" when the player has a 2nd round defeat in the pro French Open seems silly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree Inclusion in infoboxes should be in all players who played in junior and senior grand slams. - The arguments of confusion are condescending to the reader as it makes out the reader to be an idiot who cannot distinguish a players Junior Professional And Senior playing careers in the same infobox. The junior results also do not all of a sudden just become trivial because in the opinion of a user turning pro makes junior results trivial. That is like saying Doubles results should be removed because a player only plays singles tennis now so the doubles results are trivial. I am sure that if that was being argued it would be laughed at. Do we remove Venus and Serena Williams Mixed doubles Grand Slam wins from their infobox as trivial as they don;t play mixed doubles any more, surely not. Do we remove the Olympics as trivial as it is not held every year and is not a grand slam. Where does this stupid trivial argument stop. If a player had a junior career it is of note as not all players have a junior career. This is similar to Motorsport where driver change formulae, would the same people here argue the when a driver in Motorsport changes formulae previous results from other formulae are trivial. Also do we remove results when a player represents a different country or has a different doubles partner as the previous results are now trivial. I strongly think not. It is exactly the same with junior and senior results they are not trivial just because a player got a older. That is like saying school exams are trivial and meaningless because you have now done different exams or higher level exams. The results from Junior and Senior Grand slams are notable as in some cases that is the whole reason a player is notable. Robson's original notability is because she won the Girl's Wimbledon, so the removal here seems even more absurd as it is removing the results which made her notable and well known in the first place. It is a clear and simple thing to have the results, users aren't thick they can easily work out the difference between current and past levels of playing tennis. Also as not all players have junior careers and even those who do have junior careers not all play in junior grand slams, playing in junior grand slams are by that definition noteworthy and notable events. Junior tournament results are listed in Grand slam results infoboxes so why is it OK to list in in one inforbox series but not another? The arguments for removal simply boil down to WP:DONTLIKE which is not a grounding for removal of notable and noteworthy events which are habitually listed in the results of the grand slams themselves. Sport and politics (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agree (Copied from WP:Tennis Talk page). Agree with nominator, although I would not per se characterize junior results as 'trivial'. Adding Jr Grand Slam results to the infobox for a player who is already a senior and as a senior has a track record at Grand Slam tournaments is over the top and leads to an overly lengthy and cluttered infobox. Additionally it gives undue weight to Jr. GS results vs. GS results. An infobox is meant to provide a quick overview of key biographical data and career results. It does not need to show ALL significant achievements, i.e. results at individual Masters / Premier tournaments are not listed in an infobox (only the Tour Finals). In this particular case less is more.--Wolbo (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - this needs to be done on a case by case basis, some great juniors will maybe make one or two senior majors. Some will make dozens. But this can't be a "one size fits all" discussion. I'm in agreement with Sport and politics who suggests we shouldn't take our readers for idiots. The infobox is clear, there's no ambiguity. If anyone thinks there is ambiguity or a viewer's perspective of "clutter", please provide evidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I put in "rare circumstances" for this very reason. I think for 95% of pro players their jr grand slam rounds are trivial in an infobox summarizing their tennis careers. Except for actually winning a jr Major, attaining any round or winning any tournament as a jr isn't even notable enough to have a wiki article. Clutter is in the eye of the beholder I guess. If 50 people look at someones closet and say it's cluttered and ugly, then it's cluttered and ugly. Maybe there's a compromise in here someplace that can be finagled. Right now, most do not want a dual stat infobox as it's trivial, cluttered, etc. Some do want a dual stat infobox, seeing the added info as vital information for our readers.

Not my first choice but what about this as a compromise. As a pro player that has participated in the main draw of a Major, we can keep only championship winning jr Majors in the infobox (maybe finals too if enough agree). No 2nd round losses in the jr French open will be listed once pro stats accumulate in the infobox. That should take care of the "great jrs you mentioned. Also, since they would be of far less importance, those stats must be placed on the infobox bottom, below singles-grandslam singles/doubles-grandslam doubles/mixed grandslam doubles/olympics/tour championships/davis cup. Certainly they can have their own mini heading though...Something like "Jr Championships." In Laura Robson's case it would be below her Olympic results and it would show Australian Open (F)2009,2010 and Wimbledon (W)2008. To be clear this is not my choice at all... but I can live with this compromise for the really good jr players once they turn pro. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

See my comment/vote below. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 14:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to what TheRamblingMan said can some evidence demonstrating and explaining the "clutter" being complained about and being used as an argument here. Sport and politics (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said above... clutter and difficulty in reading is in the eye of the beholder. I want to know easily, left to right in an infobox... pro results from pro players. Not lesser tournament trivia. Scanning a thing like this edit, makes it look like a storage closet for me. Trivia mushed up with important items.... i.e. "clutter." When there are 4 items only and each has a different name it's much easier on the eye, and all 4 are of equal importance to boot. You may not see it that way but most do. We might as well list the masters events in the infobox as well since they are far and away more important than any jr event. Of course the box will stretch to the bottom of the entire article. It's deciding what is the most important summary to include in the infobox without cluttering it with minor or trivial information. So I guess we throw the compromise suggestion out with the bathwater since you ignored it and went right back to clutter? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the last line in the above comment is an assumption of bad faith simply because a compromise opinion has been floated and not yet been answered doesn't mean anything. Simply raising another point has no bearing an compromise being floated. I also have to disagree that the suggested evidence of "clutter" is actually "clutter". It is just not it is not causing the any of the box to look out of placer and it is very easy to distinguish between Professional Grand Slams and Junior Grand Slams. If All Doubles Mixed Doubles and Singles Junior Senior and Professional were all listed in the same box i could understand the "clcutter" argument and would have some sympathy for it. I simply though cannot see how it is clutter. if in your opinion it is clutter fine, but that is simply a don't like it argument which is frowned up on when trying to build policy and consensus on Wikipedia. IF something other than a don't like argument is bought forward regarding the removal of the junior results then there will be more receptiveness to the point of view. At the moment it is not a credible point of view based in policy. Sport and politics (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If an idea is floated, and you comment twice, adding your usual incorrect "I don't like it" comment, but you ignore the compromise... then I assume you could care less about it. It's not like you haven't read this at least twice since I posted a compromise. Your opinion is it looks good, mine is it looks cluttered and is harder to read. Your opinion is it adds vital info to the box where my opinion is it's trivial and bloats the box unnecessarily and can be better placed within the article. Certainly you like it and I don't. I thought of trying something that maybe enough editors could live with as opposed to simple elimination. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think a strong dose, of keep calm, don't get personal and don't try to win need to be undertaken here. Users need to have no "demands" of other users to respond when they deem they should respond; no matter how many time another user "thinks" or "assumes" a section has been read. The points I have provided have demonstrated why inclusion is vital as it is the establishment of why Robson is notable in the first place as a tennis player. Along with the winning of a Grand Slam at any level of Tennis being Notable information. as opposed to appearing in a series of qualifying rounds. So far the clutter and trivia arguments are just a "dont like" and nothing else. It is also the start of a slippery slope of aesthetics ruling over notable information. As was said by TheRamblingMan this needs to be a case by case, at the very least, and one sizes fits all as is being suggested by the arguments for removal is just absurd. Sport and politics (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Only GS Wins listed per Fyunck(click) and maybe finals. In a nutshell my idea is that if we don't have a standard to decide upon, let's use an already exisitng guideline, that is our notabality criteria. Let's put this per tennis notability this way: We don't list e.g. Futures tournaments in the infobox and its winner doesn't either become automaticly wikicompatible. Same for jr GS, even the final(!) doesn't make you notable, only if you're a champion thus that sole result should be listed/accepted within the box. As it was previously mentioned I must add: It's different from Champions tour as the players there are already well-established names and senior GS events work on the basis of invitation not qualification or ranking. (For team events this logic works as well: any round within the Davis/Fed Cup could be listed as it makes the player immediately notable.)

At last another user with a post based in policy. At last a post that can be take seriously. We now have another user using policy, meaning that their post can be take seriously. Sport and politics (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the above suggestion on a case by case basis and on the notability of the competitor and when the junior results were added. If the junior results were added as the player was playing their junior career they must remain in perpetuity and not be removed. Simply getting older is not a reason for removing information on Wikipeida as notability of information is permanent and not temporary so if it is notable in 2010 or 2000 or 1900 is is notable still in 2013. The next question is for those who only gained notability as a senior player but had successful junior careers (not all players will have a junior career) what information is added. I believe it should be case by case. if a player though wins or reaches the final that should be automatically included along with their other performance bests in junior grand slams. if they never reach a final then the junior results should not be included. Remember notability is permanent clutter is subjective. Sport and politics (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability is a permanent reason why someone would be on wikipedia to begin with, but means nothing as to what appears in an infobox. There is no "in perpetuity" infobox policy. Across wikipedia things that could make someone notable are not in infoboxes, and information gets removed or juggled to the top or bottom of articles all the time, depending on WP:Weight. I think it's clear where consensus is on this item. We aren't even talking about banning the info... just moving the info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Mine was just a proposition not a basic rule. I started from the idea tha only jr GS wins could remain in the infobox and expanded this along the notability guideline. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 18:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And going with jr Major victories in a different jr section of the infobox was floated as an alternative we should be able to live with. I don't think they're worthy of the infobox at all in most cases but I thought it might be workable as an alternative. Fyunck(click) (talk)

Can evidence of why inclusion is "not worthy" be provided which is more than just subjective disliking of the information. The spurious "clutter" and "trivia" reasonings which were just phishing reasons searching to come across as a reasoning other than WP:IDONTLIKE have been shown to be nothing more than unfounded spuriousity. The "I don't think they're worthy" argument is just a clear showing of I don't like so I want it removed. Please see WP:NOTTEMPORARY regarding the non-temporary nature of notability. There is also no need to create a separate section for Jr. results as that would be creating an unnecessary detachment of information just for the sake of it to make a point. Users are not idiots and they are more than capable of reading the infoboxes as they are and can easily distinguish between Junior, standard and Senior Grand Slam results.Sport and politics (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the same old incorrect reasoning. WP:NOTTEMPORARY is specifically about "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." We are not talking about that at all and that doesn't seem to be sinking in to you. Weight and value of information is always subjective, which is why we bring things to consensus all the time. Almost nothing is black and white around here. Your IDONTLIKEIT propaganda is wearing a bit thin. You just don't like multiple editors reasons so you plop them in the idontlikeit category. And I do have trouble distinguishing between jr/standard/senior as it now sits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Evidence has been provided by multiple users (not just myself) as to why the information should be included. The only reason given for removal is that it is not liked. Provide evidence for removal not the same "dismiss the user who criticises me because they point out I have a vacuous argument showing i simply dislike the information and I am not winning" nonsense. Evidence based in policy such as notability has been provided for inclusion nothing of the sort has been provided for blanket removal or even any removal. Sport and politics (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Your non-compromising attitude and ridiculous statements of "not winning" or "nonsense" is not becoming a wiki editor, is very unhelpful, and is becoming a problem. And your complete dismissal of others concerns is simply pov. Almost nothing we are talking about has any sort of Policy backing. Guidelines and consensus is what we tend to use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I think some depersonalisation and calming down needs to occur here. A reasonable proposal with deliberate discussion points has been put forwards, by myself. The whole discussion is based in Policy, by those who have made sensible suggestions as opposed to "the way it looks" arguments and "clutter" and "trivia" arguments. It is simply that the view of "remove it all when they turn professional" has been dismissed by many users and that reality is simply not liked, by the user putting that point forward. I see three different proposals floated by three different users (myself being one of them) hardly a demonstration of a "non-compromising attitude". Simply pointing out nonsensical elements in points and pointing out when another user is getting over the top as they are not getting their own way, is reasonable and sensible, to try to restore a level of sanity to this discussion. There needs to be a calm and rational approach blanket inclusion and blanket removal are clearly not going to be the consensus. Three users have argued for a case by case approach and only one is still arguing for a blanket removal as seen in this edit here. I think some "compromise" is needed from the user who made that edit before they start shouting about other users having a "non-compromising attitude". Sport and politics (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you compromise between having something in an infobox and not having something in an infobox? I've removed the junior double results because it made no sense to have that in but no juniors for the singles. John Smith's (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually compromises have been put forward. While consensus so far is to remove them completely from the infobox there is also a proposal to include only wins from jr slams and have the results in a separate section of the infobox, away from the pro slam results. That did have some interest but unless it gets more it's looking like they'll be gone from the box. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Before this discussion the junior results were in both but the remove it all users only ever removed it from the singles. So in effect blanket removal from all is pre-empting the outcome of this discussion. Keeping it in one and not the other keeps the article neutral and does not favour one side or the other in this discussion. I have also basically suggested what you are saying by what criteria are you suggesting your distinction of what's in and what not be made? Strike that the above comment is another just "remove it all" user. Please provide why you are in favour of remove it all. Please can you join the discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agree I think that junior results are important, but only whilst that player is a junior or is recently moved to senior level. It confuses the reader and even a separate infobox for junior results will lead to a cluttered page. We should be focusing on the key points of a player in the infobox, and junior results are just not that significant for Laura Robson. If it was the case that she had a really poor seniors career but a good junior one, a case could be made to have the junior results. But given she has some very significant GS results, it makes sense to focus on those. John Smith's (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. Junior results are relevant for junior players and cease to have weight once a player is established at the professional level. Robson is clearly established at the professional level. Her notability stems, first and foremost, from her career and accomplishments as a professional. More generally, the purpose of the infobox is to provide an overview of key highlights pertaining to the professional accomplishments for any person whose notability is based on their career. Accomplishments as a junior, or a youth, may be relevant within the body of the article, but are too minor for infobox inclusion. Once this RfC is completed, I would consider taking this discussion a step further and seeing if we can get community agreement around a guideline whereby (as a for instance) any tennis player who has played professionally for at least a year and reached the second round or deeper into an international tournament on at least two occasions should have an infobox focusing exclusively on his or her professional career. Food for thought. Factchecker25 (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Laura Robson/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article contains a lot of unaddressed citation needed tags, thus failing criterion 1b. I will wait a week before closing this reassessment so editors can have the opportunity to fix these issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to fix this, after I get off the interstate and home tomorrowish. --Courcelles 00:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, all the existing {{citation needed}} tags are gone, though a few more obvious things need to be handled with the refs, specifically fixing dead links, and a general read through to see if citations are needed places that were not templated. I'll get to those steps tomorrow. Courcelles 05:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice job! Dead links aren't a problem for GA, so you don't need to worry about that. I do see some uncited statements that might be considered statistics (which do require citations), such as this: "Her performance pushed her up to 27 in the world, the first Briton in the top 30 since Jo Durie in 1987." --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, RL is a bit crazy (and wiki-stuff isn't much less hectic!) The article is once more free of the dreaded {{citation needed}} tags. Courcelles 04:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Good job. The article looks okay now. I'm willing to close this reassessment if you don't have anything else to add.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I went ahead and finished the dead links. Courcelles 01:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Result: Kept --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Laura Robson. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315022557/http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/draws/gs/index.html to http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/draws/gs/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100430234014/http://www.lta.org.uk/News/All-news-items/2010-04-26/Robson-climbs-to-career-high-ranking-after-semis-finish/ to http://www.lta.org.uk/News/All-news-items/2010-04-26/Robson-climbs-to-career-high-ranking-after-semis-finish/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016082418/http://www.london2012.com/tennis/schedule-and-results/ to http://www.london2012.com/tennis/schedule-and-results/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020140138/http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/posting/2012/405/MDS.pdf to http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/posting/2012/405/MDS.pdf

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) 05:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Age did not change on 21st Jan 2021

I tried to edit age and looks like it is set to auto change, but she is today 27 but it still says 26? Camblewick (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 May 2023

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 to revert undiscussed page move. (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 14:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Laura Robson (tennis) → Laura Robson – Revert page move by User:Buidhe after their creation of Laura Robson (historian) which is currently a two sentence stub, a Wikipedia:Hatnote would work better. -- AxG / ✉  22:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• • • NOTE - the original move to "Laura Robson (tennis)" was done without any discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

---

• Support - just because you create a new Laura Robson, doesn't mean you change the title of the old one with far more significant notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the tennis player gets more pageviews but I do not see any evidence that she is the primary topic in terms of the in depth coverage in reliable sources or the long-term significance. Per WP:DPT there is no clear primary topic. (t · c) buidhe 01:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Similar to Talk:Modern Baseball, this should've been a technical request. I get why people do RM but it's not how these are supposed to work. Clearly this is an undiscussed controversial move. The historian article is a one-sentence stub, it seems unlikely any readers will want it, so we don't need a twodab page. --Quiz shows 02:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Big agree here. This move should have just been reverted and then discussed if needed. If it had just been mentioned here, as opposed to an RM, I would have done it. 03:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Fyunck(click) (talk)

• Support. In addition to the procedural concerns noted above, I believe it's highly likely that the tennis player is the primary topic. The tennis player is an Olympic silver medalist; the historian's article is sourced only to book reviews and her university's faculty website. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support The tennis player is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I would be very surprised if in terms of usage, the page view numbers for the newly created historian's article would come even remotely close to those the former tennis player is still receiving (we can always re-evaluate once we have the numbers). Also, for long term significance, the tennis player continues to receive coverage from both analyses of her tennis career ([1][2][3]) and also as part of her current media career ([4][5][6]); unless I'm missing something, there's no indication that the historian's scholarly work has much significance beyond her immediate field. Iffy★Chat -- 17:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Straightforward support - unsure if the historian is notable for a page on Wikipedia to be honest, if that gets deleted, the tennis player would no longer need disambiguating like as recently as two days ago. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also, FAO @Rodw:, your edits could be reverted if the page does get moved back as you've changed the links from dab to the tennis article whenever you found these occurrences using DisamAssist. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - @AxG: for future reference, please just revert undiscussed controversial moves, or list them at WP:RM/TR for an admin or page mover to intervene. Then if the original bold mover wishes to make the case, they can do so through a controversial RM. This one here might be suitable for a speedy close, but if not, we have the non-ideal situation of the article residing at the Laura Robson (tennis) title which only one editor supports, for the next week. Anyway, support the move back, the tennis player is a clear primary topic here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

GA concerns

After reviewing the article, I am concerned that it no longer meets the GA criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• There is a lot of uncited prose, including entire paragraphs,
• The lead should be reformatted to be four paragraphs.
• The article's prose givies much more weight to earlier years of her career than later years, corresponding to when this article was last at GAR. I think the earlier sections of her careers can be summarised more effectively.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Laura Robson

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This article contains many uncited statements and paragraphs. The lead should be reformatted into 3-4 paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed the lead slightly, but I don't see any need to reduce it any further. It adequately covers her junior career, her singles career, her mixed doubles success, her injuries and her retirement (and future career, should that receive coverage). Also, the reason this article gives more weight to earlier years of her career than later years is because those are the most notable parts of her career, when she was a junior champion and rising star on the WTA tour. Iffy★Chat -- 12:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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.