# Talk:Iga Świątek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I personally like the smaller table, there is no issue at all with the extended timeline. It does not conflict with COLHEAD as it does not use !. It has been vetted by screen readers and Tennis Project for over a decade and is a guideline certified chart. The Grand Slam tournament only timeline might be best since she has a great full career statistic timeline on the subpage, but it is not the only timeline allowed. It passed GA with no issue with the timeline. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
No. MOS:COLHEAD has nothing to do with the column header !. It is the confusion with the headers that makes the issue. See the explaination For example, a screen reader reading the cell "Stuttgart, Germany" might associate the cell with the following headers: "Venue, Representing Soviet Union, Representing Belarus". Three headers are read aloud. The first and the third are correct and expected. But "Representing Soviet Union" does not apply to the lower half of the table, and a machine does not understand that. Thus, a machine will not be able to associate header and cells correctly, and will provide misleading information about the table structure to the user.
Unnamelessness (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Interesting that it has been explained to Tennis Project differently and that editors with modern screen readers have no issues at all. The table has been vetted and passed multiple times and it's why it's in the guidelines as such and why articles have passed GA with no issues. That is unless screen readers have regressed in the last few years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I think I have put my supplementary explanation pretty clear, especially I have put a tennis-oritented example on this: You have 1000 tournaments header below GS tournaments header: does that mean the Miami Open is not only a GS event, but also a 1000 event? Also, The table has been vetted and passed multiple times and it's why it's in the guidelines as such and why articles have passed GA with no issues. This is given at the issue hasn't been reported; it doesn't mean the issue does not exist. What we've done is boldly assume there were no issues because nobody complains and WP:IAR it. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
That would be incorrect. We asked admins and screen reader experts to take part in the vetting. It WAS discussed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Right there, admins, screen reader experts, or any other professional staff are the "we" here. It was discussed, but still doesn't change the fact that it is currently challenged by MOS:COLHEAD, unless we a) challenge MOS:COLHEAD; or b) continue to apply WP:IAR here, which I sort of take it as a WP:COMPROMISE. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

These three icons ,  and  are very poor to use in infobox. Accessibilty issue comes here. People with visual impair would have difficulties for disambiguation over whether this is a gold, silver or bronze. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed... I keep removing them from many articles and they keep popping up again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't there the Wikipedia page about Świątek in Polish ? It is very strange, isn't it? What a strange ignorance. 49.190.246.76 (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You're kidding right? It's at the Polish Wikpedia right here. It's not going to be in Polish at an English Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if that are any Wikipedia rules or something similar, but for me it is always very bad to leave such old photos on infoboxes articles of living people, when there are one or more good pictures of the subject that are more recent. I always try to find newer pictures of living people and update the articles. I honestly really would like to know why sometimes most editors just prefer old photos of living people on the articles. Can someone please explain?
Haddad Maia fan (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there are any rules concerning this question. I do know my criteria is different than yours. One thing wikipedia does want is a head and shoulders pic with the player looking towards the viewers left. That's the ideal pic, not some full-body pic. With that in mind we want a good sharp photo. How recent is a matter of opinion. I would place a photo of someone as they looked when they were notable. So a photo of Sampras or Connors closer to their prime as opposed to a cane and wheelchair. Most recent is not always best. For a current player I would look for the most recent good sharp pic of head and shoulders. I don't see any. The old pic was blurry and the current pic is sharp. I can tweak any pic you show me into a head shot but show me one that is legal to use. I didn't see any. I don't see that Swiatek looks substantially different in this good infobox photo and she deserves an excellent looking pic. It looks like all the good pics of her are from 2018 and 2019, and all the rest are more blurry 2023 images. Nothing even remotely usable for the last two years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
A) B).
With these two pics I'm not sure I would know which is older unless someone told me, but I think A is a better pic for the infobox. If editors disagree we can certainly go back to B. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I would go with B. It is not the best photo ever, but I don't think A is an accurate depiction of how Swiatek currently looks. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Swiatek Training Wimbledon 2025.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the pronunciation to /ɕfjɔntɛk/ from /ɕfʲɔw̃tɛk/ for the following reasons:

The w̃ doesn't appear in the linked article Help:IPA/Polish, so I'm assuming it represents an unusual or narrow transcription. For English-speaking readers wanting to know the name of Polish public figure, a transcription based on only the symbols in Help:IPA/Polish is fine.
According to Polish phonology, ą is never a nasal vowel before a stop consonant (like a t): "For example, kąt ('angle', 'corner') is /kɔnt/,... and bąk ('bumble bee') is /bɔŋk/". From what I can tell using a nasal vowel here is an anachronism or hypercorrection.
The video of Świątek saying her name in the new citation sure sounds like /ɕfjɔntɛk/ to my non-native ear. The guy in the audio file is probably using a nasal vowel, but I think he's exaggerating or hyper-correcting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayno (talk • contribs) 12:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
It's fine. I always assumed it's how we pronounce her Polish name in English. I'm Polish and English and always pronounce it with 3 syllables: Shfvee-on-tek. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Not fine. I changed it back to /ˈɕfʲɔntɛk/. There was a discussion on this talk page almost 4 years ago, and /ˈɕfʲɔntɛk/ was what the article said back then: [2]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Here we go again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iga_%C5%9Awi%C4%85tek&diff=prev&oldid=1303682868. I reverted. There's no "ee" here → https://www.instagram.com/p/CGDvy9FF0WH/. And no "yo". Just accept it as fact. The letter "i" in "Świątek" just indicates that the preceding consonant is soft (palatalized). --Moscow Connection (talk)

I'm not sure who keeps changing it, but as we argued before, some hear the ee and some do not. Some hear three syllables and some do not. Just accept that as fact too. But thanks for fixing the change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
I think the respelling is useful. The pronunciation is very much not obvious to English speakers, and the diacritic on the a is often omitted in English media. But a lot of sports fans won't be familiar with the IPA either. Would SHVYON-tek be a reasonable approximation for English speakers? Or SHVON-tek? Shayno (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
No it would not. This was discussed before when it was listed as Shvee-on-tek. Since no agreement could be reached it was decided to leave it with a link to her own words for everyone to make up their own minds... not a bunch of wikipedians to decide. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Would SHVYON-tek be a reasonable approximation for English speakers? Or SHVON-tek?--Yes, both would be reasonable. "SHVYON-tek" is better. (I think her name sounds like that to "strictly English speakers".) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
I've added "SHVYON-tek" as a respelling: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iga_%C5%9Awi%C4%85tek&diff=prev&oldid=1305347491. As a respelling, it is fine and even good. As an IPA transcription, no, not fine. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this discussion back up but I just found this video, not sure if anyone has mentioned it? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjtWEW1PV5o&t=133s) not super good with IPA and respelling pronunciation conventions so it may not be that useful but I thought I'd dump it here anyways. QWisps (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Here's that old discussion (started by a Polish IP) that I mentioned: Talk:Iga Świątek/Archive 1#need to correct approximate pronunciation. Actually, the approximate pronunciation was removed as a result. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Great, thank you. I think it's in a good state now with an accurate IPA for purists and native speakers and a rough respelling for English-speaking casual readers. Shayno (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Actually no. This has longstanding consensus per discussion not to add syllables since it is controversial. We leave it with a link to her own words for pronunciation since you can't do better than her own voice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I read the archived discussion and I don't see any consensus, just a long argument about whether it should be two syllables or three. Personally, I'm ok with either. But I'd like to see a consensus that both are worse than having no respelling at all. The fact the editors can't agree on a respelling is not a very good reason!
Having the video of her saying her own name is good, but linking out to an embedded Instagram post is clunky and may not work for all users all the time. The respelling is not perfect, but it will help some users who may otherwise get it completely wrong. I'm thinking here of a casual sports fan who knows neither Polish or IPA and might think it's pronounced /SWEE-a-teck/ (which is very common in anglophone media). Shayno (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need for a respelling... it's linked to her own words out of her own mouth. That's the best way to handle it and why it's been like that for a long time. And it's rare to see a respelling in our articles because we have to have proof of that respelling in an outside source. The article also links to her official info on the WTA website where she also says her own name in her own voice. Us trying to interpret that is not needed and a bit of improper synthesis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I think readers would profit from the added respelling. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, we have non-blog sources that phonetically spell it, but the US Open has it the "proper way" with a 3-syllable Shvee-ON-tek. And Tennis Magazine, Vogue Magazine, and newspapers do the same. Not to mention the UK, New Zealand, India, and Canada. Not my first choice to include it when we already have her saying it in her own voice, but at least we have it in sources if needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Line 166, which reads: "It was the first time since 1911 that the Wimbledon women's final ended with no lost games" is inaccurate and confusing.  The winner of Wimbledon, Iga Swiatek, did not lose any games.  Anisimova lost a total of 12 games.  I corrected this line and it was immediately reverted by an editor whose point was (I think) that it was obvious that the loser had lost games.  That may be true but the sentence still says something wrong, that no games were lost in the Wimbledon final. Just flagging this for others to weigh in on if they so choose. I don't want to get into edit-warring so I won't edit this entry again and this will be my only post and comment on the subject. IncompleteSoul (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)