Talk:Li Na

message: Discussion page for Li Na article: please suggest additions and amendments here!
:This is a very heavily POV article. It needs some fairly thorough cleaning up. We are just supposed to provide the facts, not produce an original narrative advocating her greatness. Metamagician3000 00:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not making changes as an administrator - just as a user with a reasonable understanding of NPOV. Be bold about reverting them if you disagree with (some of) them. Just keep in mind that we try to avoid expressing our own point of view either explicitly or in the language we choose. I've been looking at a lot of the tennis articles in the wake of Wimbledon and find that people need to be reminded of this. Metamagician3000 01:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I hope the edits are fine. I just revamped her page.
InoescoIsaRhino
You've cut out the POV expressions, but you've also sheared away a whole lot of the factual detail from the earlier article. Was this really necessary? Comparing the end of your run of edits with the last version before you began seems to suggest you've cut the article in half roughly speaking.
(Over a year later...) I've now restored the deleted factual content with a careful eye for editing out the POV expressions - Philip Graves  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.136.201 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: There. I did it.

message: Are her jokes in post-match interviews common? If so, are they a characteristic of her as a player? Has there been a citeable commentary on them?--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No they don't need to be mentioned funny yes needed no. You don't see on Clijsters pager her embarrasement of Mark Woodforde KnowIG (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jokes 

message: Li is variously described in the infobox and lead as having both a highest ranking and current ranking ranking (as of 31 January 2011) of #5, #7, and #9, all unsourced.  Which is it, and can we get a reliable source, so that we can clean up these inconsistencies?
The lead needs some work for better flow, as well.  —sroc (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking 

message: Needs the addition of the word female for clarity as Yevgeny Kafelnikov is from Sochi - a city regarded in some sources as in Europe and in others as in Asia.2.216.140.105 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the word Some here, on the Sochi page it states it is in Europe. Good twins (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sochi page actually says both. If Sochi is regarded as being in Asia by some sources (including the Sochi page), which it is, it is incorrect to describe Li Na as Asia's first Grand Slam singles champion as someone from an Asian city had already done it.2.216.140.105 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot agree. This is about the state. If this is about the location of the hometown, Sharapova from Nyagan, Russia could be an Asia's female no.1 and Grand Slam singles champion before Li, then Li is nothing.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tomchen1989. Li would be "East Asia's first Grand Slam champion" (I don't think the female qualifier is needed here but I could be wrong). –CWenger (^ • @) 17:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a decent solution. Parents are ethnic Belarusian, so she is more likely to be regarded as European so I don't think she greatly affects things2.216.140.105 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter what you think we need sources and all of them say first Asian. Not woman or east or west. Good twins (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems to me they mostly say first Chinese singles   . Gimmetoo (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of reliable sources say first Asian. See Google News search. For sports and many other purposes, Russian is considered European regardless of individual geography. Russian Tennis Federation is also in Tennis Europe and not Asian Tennis Federation. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, that "google news search" goes to a whole second page of links, including blogs. Like I said, it seems to me that sources mostly say first Chinese singles, based on my survey of little-known, minor news outlets like ESPN ("first Chinese player, man or woman, to win a Grand Slam singles title"); SI ("first player from China"); Fox ("China's long wait for a Grand Slam champion"); and MSNBC and Yahoo repeat the same AP story as ESPN. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asia's first Grand Slam singles champion 

message: Do we really need a detailed account of every match in every year? This data can be tabulated and the narrative can stick to significant moments in her career.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment on comment (disagree) What!? Remove what? I don't like what you imply was suggested to be changed. There are thousands (well, hundreds for sure) of tennis articles, removing all the scores from all of them is pointless (and outright not clever) and major man/hours would be needed, with dubious results. If someone does not like the scores being included, please do NOT read that part of the articles, thank you. You can just read the other sections. Was someone thinking with their b*h*nds when they suggested that? Naki (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Or are you maybe referring to the tie-break scores only? If it is that, I am fine with removing that. But not otherwise.Naki (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a suggestion... it is our rule and has been for a long time. Look at Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic... scores are absent in prose. Never tibreaks and only rarely scores in prose. The scores are relegated to charts and lists. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean someone should edit ALL tennis articles to remove ALL scores?? Not all tennis players have a special "Career matches list", no?? Naki (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone? No, not one person. It takes the time of all tennis project volunteers to do it... and it's a slow process. Like flag icon removal for countries, incorrectly formatted charts, scores in prose, articles exceeding maximum length, etc... It's a never ending process and we do the best we can in fixing them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article too long

message: "Li won the 2011 French Open singles title, becoming the first Asian player to win a Grand Slam singles title."
    
Michael Chang is Asian-American.  I would argue that he is the first Asian player to win a Grand Slam singles title (French Open 1999).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.130.30 (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of Contention 

message: Does anybody else find this:
completely non-notable and irrelevant to her personal life and likely the article in general? It is more a statement about the Chinese government than her isn't it? I think it should be removed. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I don't even remotely see the problem with the relevance of this. It comes in a section which mentions problems in her relationship with the national team, and her leaving, joining and leaving again. The tax situation seems highly relevant to me. 86.160.218.142 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Along with other problems, it is suggesting that she left the team for more money. Not appropriate for a BLP. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry extreamly notable to the Li Na story. She is seen as a rebel and is not allowed to turn professional under the Chinese. She left and turned pro. Good twins (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Perhaps part of the problem is the section title, "Personal life", which I must admit I wasn't paying a great deal of attention to. Some of the information in this section (such as her relationship with the national team) seems more about her career. Perhaps the section titled could be changed -- but I'm not sure what to... 81.159.104.136 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a stab at reorganizing it. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am changing the section title to "Off the court" while CWenger's reorganizing it... However I agree with 81.159.104.136, the problem is the section title, change it and all things'd be ok. It seems...very weird after CWenger's edit. For example Jiang Shan married her before he became her personal coach, not "Li married her personal coach, Jiang Shan"; The section "Career" has a subsection named "Early training and career", which is also "career"; and why not put things in "National team" into the section named by year? yeah, because they are "off the court" and all the blahblah below there are on the court. So I revert to the previous version, and simply rename the section title to "off the court". --Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pretty much done with re-organizing it actually. Admittedly it wasn't perfect but I thought it was an improvement. Discussion of her membership on the national team isn't exactly "off the court" either... –CWenger (^ • @) 14:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the membership on the national team can be thought "off the court", more precisely, I mean off the court of the game, the ITF events and the WTA tour. Things discussing the national team, is about the training, the management, the program, the benefit, the conflict, or even the politics, something complicated. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

text: And I don't think the money story is unfavorable toward Li at all. It is more unfavorable toward the sport system of the govt. Players deserves the money, all players outside China get the money, why she could not get it, a personal coach and other things a normal player could get? Earning money is a right, not a shame, it is oversensitive to worry about it. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not concerned about it being unfavorable to Li. I just found it irrelevant to her personally and/or not notable, much like somebody who moves to an area with lower taxes, but people seem to think it is a big deal, so I'm fine with keeping it. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentences about her taxes in "Personal life" section 

message: Can anyone tell me why 李娜 is pronounced Li Na and not Li Nuó? The pinyin for 娜 is nuó. (There is a similar word in chinese 那 pronounced na. 那 means "there" and 娜 means "elegant".) Jfmcel (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: because Li Nuó is not a name and Li Nà is. Nuó is more like an adjective, while Nà can only be a surname. Plunged (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinyin and correct pronunciation 

message: Every year Forbes publishes a list of the top 100 celebrity. For 2012, Li Na ranks #5, but the list I could find is given in Chinese, thus I don't see anywhere to integrate into the main article. But it should be included here for the record. If anyone can find the English equivalent, please integrate into the main article. I just want to give the ref. here: 2012 Forbes China Celebrity. --Daikang59 (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forbes Chinese Celebrity list 

message: Is the Fly Alone concept the same as free agent in other sports?  Admittedly in the US free agents have always been in professional sports, but what she is doing seems to be the same concept.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.93.202 (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fly Alone 

message: I won't bother to expend too much time here. But if this article can have Chinese characters in it, it can also have Serbian ones. Removal from just one Serbian is counter WP:TENNISNAMES rfc. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But not counter to tennis project consensus, nor to making sure we have direct links to our articles. I notice you only complain about a direct link when it's against your own beliefs, because when others do it by the countless thousands nary a peep is said by you. It's been explained to you many many times so it can't be a simple mistake. A huge contradiction on your part. You were told at article talk pages "We should list it here the way we have it in our article on her" and "Shame on you, User:In ictu oculi. You know very well that this question has been bandied about on Talk:Ana Ivanovic and the current consensus is not to use the accent. Blame Ana for not using the accent that NC Serbian names says she should." We have editors making sure names link to their proper page all the time but seemingly not this one for you. Are you going to revert all those other thousands also? Or do they get a pass because the end result is something you like? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, complaining abut it since the community has had 2 RfCs on this subject WP:TENNISNAMES WP:TENNISNAMES2 where special "tennis names" were overwhelmingly rejected, including by tennis editors; as also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive810#Fyunck_vs._diacritics. Also the general principle of WP:BRD. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: However in this I recognise that User Wolbo is supporting your edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:BRD Removal of Serbian letter

message: I see this is the second time it's mentioned Li first reached the world no. 2 ranking by virtue of the withdrawal of Victoria Azarenka (Vika) at Qatar Open. This is incorrect. Here is the ranking points breakdown of two players in the week of Feb 10~Feb 17, 2014 during Qatar Open. Vika 6581 points, points to defend: 900;Li 6570 points, points to defend: 0 (she didn't play the year before due to the ankle injury). The difference is only 11 points. The point distribution for Premiere 5 event, first round 1 point, second round 60 points, 3rd round 105 points. Li received the first round bye and she reached the third round. After playing in the second round, Li already accumulated enough points to overtake Vika by at least 49 points (the maximum points Vika could have after Qatar Open would still be 6581 points, she had no points to gain even if she had defended her title). Li reached the 3rd round, and that gave her a even bigger advantage. A.M.L athony (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit  replaced a true statement by a misleading statement. Before it said: "By virtue of the withdrawal of Victoria Azarenka, Li was assured of rising to a new career-high singles ranking of world No. 2 following the Qatar Total Open." That is correct. "was assured" refers to the time of Azarenka's witdrawal before the tournament. That was the time the No. 2 rank became inevitable. Your edit says: "With the win, Li reached a new career-high singles ranking of world No. 2." It was already known before the match that she would become no. 2 no matter what. Your edit sounds like she might not have become No. 2 with a loss. By the way, the ranking rules say: "If a player or team receives one (1) or more consecutive byes and loses her/their 1st match played, 1st round losers’ points will be awarded". So if Azarenka had played and won the tournament then Li would have needed the round 2 win to become No. 2, but that's irrelevant since Azarenka had already witdrawn. If there is disagreement about how to formulate it then why not simply say she became world no. 2 after the tournament without going into more detail? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  the original text may be technically correct, but it gave a "false" impression Li rose to the world no. 2 because Vika cannot defend her 900 points and Li thus benefited from that, which is not correct. Like I already explained, after received the 1st round bye, Li was guaranteed to receive 60 points for automatically advancing to the 2nd round, she will overtake Vika no matter what. Regardless of Vika's involvement in Qatar Open (withdrawal or not), once Li agreed to participate in that tournament, she would become no. 2 in the week after with at least 49 points advantage over Vika. Li actually won the 2nd round match, for which she received even more at 105 points for advancing to the 3rd round. The reason I said "with the win", because the no. 2 ranking is 100% up to Li and it's in her control, she had a bye, it would be more "confusing" if I said she reached the new height before her tournament ever started, that would sound more like she benefited from Vika's withdrawal. But you are right, it was re-edited with a simpler description that she rose to no.2 the week after. A.M.L athony (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The ranking rule I quoted (directly from page 229 of the 2014 WTA official rulebook ) means that Li would only have gotten 1 point if she lost in round 2 after getting a bye in round 1. That happened to Wozniacki in the same tournament and her WTA profile  confirms she only got 1 point. But it's not relevant now and I support the new formulation in . PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cool when wikipedia works like it's supposed to. Compromise wording that does well in informing all of our readers. Interesting stuff though on those ranking points. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: World No. 2 ranking

message: The Chinese media has reported that IMG will announce Li Na will retire on 19 September,and the China open will be the last tournament she'll play.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  retirement 

message: https://twitter.com/ChinaOpen/status/812324825335287812  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.81.233 (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second child 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Li Na. 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/20141006093240/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130125000080&cid=1104 to http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130125000080&cid=1104
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221220600/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20120417000001&cid=1504 to http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20120417000001&cid=1504
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110420041206/http://sports.cn.yahoo.com/09-10-/324/2au8z.html to http://sports.cn.yahoo.com/09-10-/324/2au8z.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208063524/http://www.wtatennis.com/head2head/player1/4846/player2/11530 to http://www.wtatennis.com/head2head/player1/4846/player2/11530
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Li Na. 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/20140502042752/http://tennis.si.com/2013/04/18/li-na-time-magazine-cover-100-most-influential/ to http://tennis.si.com/2013/04/18/li-na-time-magazine-cover-100-most-influential/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130623113151/http://www.wtatennis.com/head2head/player1/4846/player2/9499 to http://www.wtatennis.com/head2head/player1/4846/player2/9499
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Chinese women are usually very promiscuous, but she is over the top. Should we create a section that talks about how much she likes boys?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8E80:73FA:0:0:0:69 (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we mention all her (many) boyfriends?