Talk:Steve Darcis

message: I see several users or IPs disagree on mentioning or not his victory against Nadal in the lead. I removed the sentence since there is no clear consensus yet on the matter. Let's just all share our point of views. Personally, I think it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. I've never seen a single result mentioned in the lead of a tennis article. OK, Nadal is an important tennis player for his 12 Grand Slam titles, but still I don't think it has a place in the lead. If people remember him later for that match OK but now obviously people do because it's recent. --Sofffie7 (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. The Career part already has it, which is also exceptional, since tennis articles barely list first round results for players who already won an ATP 500 tournament before. Although if he set a personal record with it (and also for Nadal) and one of the few players who hold an equal head-to-head record against him thanks to that match then it worth mentioning but not in the lead. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Lajbi here. This is not lead material and it's only because it's Nadal that it's even being mentioned. We have to look at the big picture and ask ourselves "10 years from now would we include the first round upset of a #5 player in an article lead"? Usually the answer would be no. I guess after a player retires, if his only claim to fame is one major upset, then it should be mentioned in the prose... but it would need to be monumental to be included in the lead. And the word "thrashed" should not be used. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

text: The lead needs expanding anyway, but yes - I agree that having an isolated mention just of the Nadal result in it is very recentist and probably worth avoiding from an encyclopedic perspective. There was, however, a huge volume of media coverage regarding that particular match - Darcis probably increased his lifetime number of media mentions by a factor of 10 in a day - so there's a fair argument that it's by far his highest-profile accomplishment, even if it's actually not technically as impressive as winning a few other fairly major tournaments. ~ mazca talk 11:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This should have been a "no brainer" issue from the beginning.  It obviously does not belong in the intro.  Sadly and pathetically I was "warned" for edit-warring over this, however, by another editor without common sense who mistakenly thought that it was more important to issue officious warnings (just because he knew how to) rather than for an obvious style principle to be followed.  Thank you for removing it again. Afterwriting (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: @Mazca. My comment here isn't meant to be disagreeing with you, just worth to note. If we go all the way of keeping material that had media boost and/or is to be remembered for by many, instead of having the sport's main goal in focus (tournament wins/ranking points) then chair umpires/referees faults will lead the list. Then one could fairly argue that a referee/umpire's decisive mistake should be mentioned in his wiki article or even the lede. Or if a ball is to blame for a loss, because it was made too heavy then include it wihtin the Dunlop article...etc. If a sport is about winning high level tournament and a player did so (ATP 500 in this case) then it is his major achievement. Just because the rules of the game allows him to fight a champion player in the first round of a draw that doesn't mean he beat him in the final. It's still a first round match. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I understand completely. The mass of news coverage is large but won't last, the mention belongs where it is now, in the appropriate career section. :) ~ mazca talk 14:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victory against Nadal 

message: His name is mispronounced. I could say I know it because I speak French but as I'm not reliable, here's the reference: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/10141558/Wimbledon-2013-after-defeating-Rafael-Nadal-in-the-first-round-Steve-Darcis-is-handed-a-copy-of-Telegraph-Sport.html His name should be pronounced as Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice. 
Also, if you listen the video posted on Wimbledon's official Youtube account, you'll see it's pronounced like Darcy not Darcisse... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f1YyGnldJk The referee was simply unaware of it. --Sofffie7 (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: During the match with Nadal, the chair umpire repeatedly pronounced it as "Darcisse", and the BBC commentator made a point of saying they'd checked with the ATP and the chair umpire was wrong - "Darcy" is much closer to correct, I agree. ~ mazca talk 11:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the comments. I dont want to express it further, I also speak French and that's the way it should be pronounced. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Hi, thanks for raising this as a talking point.  I initially added the pronunciation based on hearing Andrew Jarret's (Wimbledon referee) reading of it during the 2013 draw, and the commentators on Wimbledon Radio during his match with Nadal. Obviously opinions vary. I have two concerns, first that the references given are not authorititive (the telegraph reference doesn't even mention pronunciation that I can see, can we get rid of it pls?), and second simply to ask: are we trying to give the pronunciation for English speakers or the way Steve Darcis himself would say it? (if they are indeed different) If the latter, can we just ask him on his twitter feed?  I found it both humorous and annoying in the days when Justine Henin was playing that every commentator and news reader would try their best (often miserable) French accent for the duration of her name and try not to stumble switching back to English.  It's a fine courtesy, and Darcy isn't a stretch like joosteen 'enin, but I think we should be clear which pronunciation we are giving.  Thanks to all tennis editors! Looks great. Ubuntu2 (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Telegraph article contains the line "Darcis, who confirmed the correct pronunciation of his name, which is the same as Jane Austen character Mr Darcy.", which is about the best we can hope for short of an explicit IPA pronunciation. It also fits basic French pronunciation, as in words like souris, where a single S ending a word is generally not pronounced. There's obviously going to be a fair bit of variety in exactly how it's pronounced (if nothing else, imagine the difference between saying "Darcy" in an English accent and in a bad French accent) but to me the important bit is the lack of a pronounced "s" sound at the end, which the previous IPA included. ~ mazca talk 15:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah so it does, I missed it.  Thanks Mazca.  Well it says something about how strictly Wimbledon is run that Steve and the umpire didn't exchange words about how to say his name properly to the millions watching!  The final ee should probably be i: rather than ɪ. Ubuntu2 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name pronunciation