Talk:Bianca Andreescu

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

A few points on nationality

There appears to be a small group of editors who insist on adding "Romanian–Canadian" or even "Romanian-born" to the lede.

There are several reasons why this is wrong:

  1. Andreescu was born in Canada, to Canadian parents who had emigrated from Romania. Unlike Milos Raonic who was born in Montenegro, which is why his article says "Montenegrin-born Canadian professional tennis player."
  2. There is no evidence that she is even a Romanian citizen. But even if she was, we probably would not include this in the lede; based on other precedents (Tom Mulcair and Drake come to mind.)
  3. Ethnic background and cultural connections have no bearing on nationality. Adding "Romanian–Canadian" violates
    WP:NATIONALITY
    which states "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead".

TrailBlzr (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Andreescu and her parents have Romanian and Canadian citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0B:8209:4F00:84CA:C9C9:E67A:81EF (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what evidence or reliable source? PKT(alk) 18:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Her parents are 100% Romanian, lived most of their lives in Romania; just because they immigrated to Canada doesn't make them any less Romanian. It's normal to have multiple identities and dual citizenships, which is the case here. Even Bianca herself is a dual citizen, for god sakes she lived and trained in Romania as a kid and was raised by Romanian parents. What more do you need to realize that she is by definition a Canadian-Romanian? If she was third generation, I'd agree on the 'ethnic background' comment, however her connection to Romania is much closer than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.210.106.84 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that is in the early life section in detail. That is where family heritage and origins belong, not in the lead. She was born in Canada, lives in Canada, and trains in Canada. She represented Canada at the World Jr Championships and Jr Fed Cup. As she got older she then represented Canada in Fed Cup. The Olympics are coming up and you can guess who she'll represent. As @TrailBlzr: said... It should absolutely be in the article, and it is, but the lead is not the best choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have others who want to chime in with placement and perhaps wording? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll write a quick fix. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:3RR repeatedly only ever get banned. TrailBlzr (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

nubian

Hello Given that Andreescu is a Nubian name, not a Romanian name, isn't the listing of Bianca Andreescu as Romanian an error, or is Romanian simply part of her ancestry and she happens to have a nubian surname? I'm asking due to it being a possible error in the article 38.111.120.74 (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

?? You will have to explain. Nubian refers to those with origin in southern Egypt and Sudan. Regardless she's Canadian with Romanian-origin parents - they may be Canadian now, idk. Cross Reference (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her parents are Canadians and were Canadians at the time of her birth. TrailBlzr (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Nubian, are you kidding me?? It is well known that names ending in -escu are typically Romanian. Besides, there are countless sources proving that she and her parents are Romanian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.210.106.84 (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

The article begins "Bianca Vanessa Andreescu (Romanian pronunciation: [andreˈesku])". I know that's what the IPA template gives you, but it raises the question, is it pronounced differently in Canada? How do umpires pronounce it? How does she herself pronounce it? Surely there's a video of her somewhere saying "Hi, I'm Bianca Andreescu"? The opening sentence should be more clear on that. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:4D49:6F9C:60CA:A315 (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation on ESPN during the US Open Final was not "andreˈesku" as it had been prior to the final. It was actually discussed on the live broadcast that she requested the pronunciation to be "Andreeesku" which is far more common when speaking Canadian English. TrailBlzr (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update of WTA ranking

An update re the WTA ranking of this player is needed, update since today, 3 February 2020, World No.6 .--93.122.250.200 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many WTA titles has Bianca won?

Instead of edit warring, let's take this to the talk page. User:James26 has been claiming that she has won 2 WTA titles and that the Grand Slam she won should be counted separately. I added a citation to the WTA who say that she has won 3 WTA titles. Why is the WTA wrong here? (also pinging User:Fyunck(click) and User:Wolbo to this discussion) Iffy★Chat -- 19:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know how many times I've asked James26 to do so.... many. The thing is this is not really the correct place since it would affect almost every article we have. This is a Tennis Project Talk page topic if a change would be made. We try to keep the infobox short and uncluttered. It really should need little in the way of sourcing since it is an amalgam of what is already in the article. If Andreescu wins another WTA title or two it will be moot since the ITF and 125k stats will be removed from the infobox as being trivial. They really are pretty trivial now since she has won 3 major league titles and no one cares about her minor league or minor-minor league titles anymore. Just like we remove jr grand slam advancement once a player starts getting senior grand slam advancement. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


A discussion right here is just fine. I'm talking about whether something in this article adheres to
WP:NOR
.
Why? Because Wikipedia policy should take priority over "Tennis Project consensus," especially if the consensus involves being dishonest in infoboxes.
The question is, how many WTA titles has she won? According to these sources, she has won two, with the US Open title being something else, a Grand Slam. The WTA site, on the other hand, incorrectly credits her with three, claiming the US Open title as one of theirs. The above sources are more reliable than the WTA site because they're neutral.
Per
No original research, the entire article, including the infobox, should reflect the truth, not anyone's personal spin on the truth ("Let's say she's won three WTA titles for the sake of convenience/tradition"). -- James26 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Proposal: Why don't we remove the specifics, which are at the center of this friction, and just say something akin to "Career titles, 9 (includes WTA, ITF, Grand Slam, and WTA 125)." -- James26 (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be even worse! 1) No one would know where the titles came from. Was it a minor league title? A minor-minor league title when she was 13? A WTA Tour title? and 2) It makes it even harder, when we eventually just change it to just her WTA Tour wins, like we do with Chris Evert, Novak Djokovic, and Serena Williams, no one will know what to eliminate. (WTA) means part of the WTA Tour for Tennis Project, where the Grand Slam events are written into the WTA bylaws and websites (even if they don't own them). (ITF) means part of the minor-minor league ITF Tour. It is simply shortened for the infobox. And the discussion is not fine here since it could affect countless thousands of articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response. The discussion is fine here because I am only talking about this article right now; you can focus on the others later. Given what you said, we can obviously just say "Pro titles, 3 (includes WTA and Grand Slams)," because that is what would be true. Your other concerns sound like fancruft.
I want to make something clear: this is not about Tennis Project consensus, it's about the core content policies, which all articles must adhere to, regardless of project. Tennis Project is clearly flawed if people think it's better to lie than tell the truth in infoboxes. These are the policies:
"Verifiability: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I have challenged the WTA source as questionable, and stated that these sources are more reliable because they're neutral. Those sources state that the US Open title is not awarded by the WTA.
"No original research: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." This means that it isn't appropriate to "simply shorten" anything for her infobox, in a misleading way.
Those are the policies which the article must adhere to. -- James26 (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy problem here at all. There is no lying at all. The only lying is you saying editors are lying, so stop with that. The WTA source is fully reliable. You seem to be stuck on what is owned by whom. The infobox says nothing about ownership. There is no original research. And why would FedCup, which is owned and whose results are published by the ITF, be more or less reliable than the WTA. This has nothing to do with ownership. The events is on the WTA Tour. Per the WTA Tour Official Rulebook, their tour calendar includes A. GRAND SLAM EVENTS, B. WTA FINALS AND WTA ELITE TROPHY, and C. WTA TOURNAMENTS. Per the WTA their Tour includes 55 events and four Grand Slams, spanning across six continents and 29 countries and regions. This is the reason we add (WTA) if there is also (ITF) minor-minor league events totaled in the same infobox. Just so readers don't think those lesser event totals are main tour victories. It's not some nefarious plot to usurp the four majors' ownership. Goodness. And you may not care about Tennis Project ramifications, but I have to being a member that works with thousands of articles. This article will eventually get changed to "Career titles: 3" when the time is right. Until then we simply break it down to major league wins and minor league wins. Really, the minor league wins should have already been removed. This whole thing is simply a difference of opinion about content on how a tiny matter is presented/separated by Tennis Project in the infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the ATP Tour does it the same way. We have the ATP Tour Calendar that includes the Grand Slam tournaments. When Nadal recently won his 85th ATP Tour title his Grand Slam tournament wins were included. There was no need for extra specifics about who owns what. No one writes he has 66 ATP Tour titles plus 19 major titles. Sportstar, Tennis World, Sport 24, Barcelona Open. Same with Serena Williams. They don't break down her 73 career titles. Whether it's NBC Sports Olympics, The Tennis Channel (Tennis.com), The BBC, The NY Times, The Bankok Post, and on and on and on. That's why we keep it short and simple in the infoboxes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has its own policies. Per

WP:BLP
, "We must get the article right."

Once again, Fyunck, I am fully aware of what is on the WTA schedule. The question raised here was, "How many WTA titles has Bianca won?" She has won two. While the US Open and the Olympic Games may be on the WTA schedule, the WTA itself does not award those titles (according to the sources I've cited). The infobox implies that the WTA does award the US Open title, without any of the extensive explanation that you've provided here. That is why the infobox is misleading.

You seem to definie a WTA title as anything on the WTA schedule. My sources say otherwise, and I called them more reliable than the WTA site because they're neutral.

Per your own words, the infobox is "an amalgam of what is already in the article." The article's body doesn't claim that the US Open was her third WTA title.

If you insist on specifying titles in the infobox, then it's a simple matter to just use the formula I had in place before: "Career titles, 9 (2 WTA, 1 Grand Slam, etc)." Otherwise, it shouldn't state that she's won three WTA titles.

One thing I can agree on is that we can remove all the unneeded minor-league stuff. -- James26 (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And my list of sources overwhelmingly disagrees with your view. You extremely narrow vision/definition of what (WTA) means in an infobox is defined simply by ownership. Tennis Project and sources disagree with you. And the box does not state she won three WTA titles (even though most of the world does). It simply says (WTA) to differentiate it from the minor league tour (ITF). Nothing more, nothing less. But hey, if everyone at Wikipedia agrees with you we'll add in a bunch more words and letters. We'll see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"[Your] extremely narrow vision/definition of what (WTA) means in an infobox is defined simply by ownership."
Yes, and that is
all we include in Wikipedia articles
-- what the most reliable sources state, plain and simple. We don't include our own definitions ("It's on the schedule, so it counts.") The reliable sources state that her US Open title wasn't awarded by the WTA. Show me a reliable source which states that it was.
Let me ask you directly: How many WTA-awarded titles has Bianca won, two or three?
Please just give me a number and not an argument. --James26 (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where Wikipedia (WTA) means ownership, and only ownership. Reliable sources have her winning three WTA titles, no matter who awarded them. I think I'll let others chime in because I'm done with this conversation. I don't need to change others minds because consensus has been set on 1000s of articles. But you do. Good luck to you on that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done repeating myself. I just showed you that link above, which says don't include your own spin on things. I also showed you reliable, neutral sources which directly state that Grand Slam titles aren't awarded by the WTA. It'd be simple to just list "Career titles" followed by a number, as with Roger Federer, and leave all the specifics out.
I suspect that all this opposition is really driven by a reluctance to change "thousands" of misleading stats in infoboxes. I'm not asking anyone to do that, I'm saying that a change should be made to this one. In any case, I just want to make sure that misleading stats are kept away from other parts of tennis articles. --James26 (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James26, what is your argument against the statement: "The Open trophy is her third title of the season, in addition to Indian Wells and Toronto, and all three events are among the biggest events that the WTA has to offer." from the US Open website? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Bianca Andreescu/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 17:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this review as part of the

GAN Backlog Drive of April to May 2020. MWright96 (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (
    lists
    )    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (
    reliable sources): c (OR
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (
    focused
    )    :
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy    .
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have
    suitable captions
    )    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead

  • "is a Canadian professional tennis player, of Romanian origin." - the comma is unneeded
  • "and is the highest-ranked Canadian in the history of the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) rankings." - the word "rankings" is not necessary I feel
  • "has been widely regarded as "fun to watch"." - pleaese state exactly who regards Andreescu's play as "fun to watch" in the lead for clarity

Early life and background

  • Her birth date is not mentioned by The Globe and Mail but the WTA Tennis bio of her does. The WTA Tennis source will have to be used to cite the information in the prose
  • "Andreescu began playing tennis in Pitești at the age of seven while living in Romania." - not mentioned by The Globe and Mail. In this instance, swap it for the source that explicitly states this information and move The Globe and Mail source to the sentence this precedes this one
  • Also the words "while living in Romania" are redundant since it is mentioned earlier in the paragraph that she and her family had returned to Romania when she was six years old
  • "U14 National Training Centre in Toronto operated by Tennis Canada." - how about Tennis Canada-run U14 National Training Centre in Toronto. instead?
    • I don't like hyphenating "Canada-run" when "Tennis Canada" is the full name. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junior career

  • "becoming the fourth straight Canadian to win that event." - the fourth Canadian in a row
  • The first three sentences require an reference to verify since the Montreal Gazette does not mention any of it
  • "in back-to-back years since Mary Joe Fernández in 1984 and 1985.[11][5]" - refs in numerical order please
  • Wikilink adductor to its respective article
  • "The pair defeated the Polish team of Maja Chwalińska and Iga Świątek in the Australian Open final, and the Russian team" - try to avoid using the same word of team in the same sentence

2015–18: First ITF titles, WTA doubles final

  • Wikilink the first mention of the term wild cards to
    Wild card (sport)
    to help those unfamiliar with sport

2019: First Premier Mandatory title, teenage US Open champion, world No. 4

  • "Andreescu had a breakthrough season that took from well outside the top 100 into the upper echelon of women's tennis." - took her
  • "She became the first wild card to" - there is some words missing here
  • "win the event in tournament history and was the first 18-year-old to win the event since Serena Williams in 1999." - repetition of the word event
  • "She became the first Canadian tennis player to win a Grand Slam singles title, and the first teenager to win a Grand Slam singles title" - know it might be difficult but a slight rewording would help to avoid close repetition of the same word(s)
  • "having received 66 (97%) of the 68 votes cast" - per cent per
    MOS:PERCENT
    • Cut a lot of this paragraph, as it was added by someone else. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020: Struggle with injuries

  • "Andreescu missed the Australian Open due to left knee injury." - due to a left knee injury.
  • "Andreescu, who was the defending champion of Indian Wells, pulled out due to her continued left knee injury," - the incorrect wikilinking in this portion of text needs to be addressed
  • "before the tournament was suspended due to coronavirus." - cancelled due to the
    2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
    .
  • The second sentence is unreferenced and will require a reliable citation to verify it

National representation

  • "they needed to win their round robin pool, win a tie against the other round robin pool winner, and then win another tie in the play-off round" - too many uses of the word "win" in the same sentence
  • "They lost the first three singles rubbers to lose the tie," - repetition of the word lost(e)
  • "and keep them in World Group II the following year."- for the following year.

Playing style

  • Wikilink forehand, topspin, backhand and drop shot2 to their respective articles
  • A link to The New Yorker and Wall Street Journal would help

Coaches

  • "did not need to leave home to train.[73][14]" - references in numerical order please

Notes

References

  • All those references that do not include authors, publication dates and access dates should be mentioned where possible
  • The page numbers for Reference 5 are missing
  • Reference 10 is dead and requires archiving
  • The bare refs of References 84 and 87 will need addressing

will put on hold to allow the nominator to make changes and respond to any of the queries raised above MWright96 (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, MWright96! I addressed everything above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: Now promoting to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bianca_Andreescu&oldid=1204854535"