Jump to content

Talk:Elena Rybakina

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

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 19:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shall review for the GAN October 2020 Backlog Drive. MWright96 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead

[edit]

Early life and background

[edit]

Junior career

[edit]

2014–18: Maiden ITF titles, federation switch

[edit]

2019: Maiden WTA title, top 50 debut

[edit]

2020: Tour-best five finals, top 20 debut

[edit]

Playing style

[edit]

Coaches

[edit]

References

[edit]

Will put the review on hold to allow the nominator to address or query the points raised above. MWright96 (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

[edit]

There has been numerous back-and-forth regarding Rybakina's nationality, and I am hoping to be able to establish a consensus. It seems (to me at least), there are three possible scenarios:

  • A: Kazakhstani
    • Rationale: Rybakina represents Kazakhstan in her sport, holds Kazakhstani citizenship, and competes under the Kazakhstani flag. Notably, she was not barred by the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club as Russian athletes were. Additionally, Rybakina represented Russia in tennis for only her junior career and while ranked outside of the Top 100 in her adult career, so most readers only know her as having represented Kazakhstan. The Women's Tennis Association also cites her as a Kazakhstani athlete.
    • Examples: Yaroslava Shvedova
    • Cons: Rybakina previously represented Russia, was born and raised in Russia, and appears to still reside in Russia, and removing Russian from her nationality may be misleading.
  • B: Russian-born Kazakhstani
    • Rationale: Rybakina was born and raised in Russia, became a Kazakhstani citizen to represent Kazakhstan in her sport, and now competes under the Kazakhstani flag.
    • Examples: Alexander Bublik
    • Cons: This description and reading may be a bit clunky and confusing for the reader to comprehend. There are also questions of whether Rybakina's Russian birth is relevant for inclusion in the lede sentence, when her situation is already described later on in the lede paragraph as (paraphrasing) "Rybakina previously represented Russia, but has represented Kazakhstan since 2018." Also, Rybakina was not banned by the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club as Russian athletes were, casting doubt into whether she can be described as Russian.
  • C: Russian-Kazakhstani
    • Rationale: Rybakina was born and raised in Russia, previously represented Russia in her sport, became a Kazakhstani citizen to represent Kazakhstan in her sport, and now competes under the Kazakhstani flag.
    • Examples: Ena Shibahara (Japanese-American)
    • Cons: Rybakina no longer represents Russia in sport and is not cited as a Russian athlete. Conflating her Russian and Kazakhstani nationalities also gives undue weight to her Russian nationality, as Rybakina represented Russia in tennis for only her junior career and while ranked outside of the Top 100 in her adult career, so this description may be misleading. Also, Rybakina was not banned by the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club as Russian athletes were, casting doubt into whether she can be described as Russian.

When I weigh the pros and cons for each proposal, I find myself supporting option A the best. I believe that it best sums up the situation without confusing readers or adding undue weight, and that Rybakina's Russian birth and past representation should instead be mentioned either in a note where her nationality is mentioned, or later on in the lede paragraph like it is currently.

I also would support attempting to establish a consensus for all tennis players in a similar situation as Rybakina.

If the question is asked, I believe Kazakhstani is a better term for Rybakina than Kazakh, as she is a citizen of Kazakhstan but not ethnically Kazakh. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we generally already prefer the "Russian-born Kazakhstani" option for these kinds of cases. The reasons being: She is a "Kazakhstani tennis player", but she has lived her entire life in Russia (including where she was born, and where she lives now). As far as we know, she had no prior connection to Kazakhstan before switching sporting nationality. It would be misleading to call her a "Russian-Kazakhstani tennis player" because as you point out, it is not correct to say she is a "Russian tennis player" in terms of her sporting nationality. Yet, I think leaving out Russian entirely could mislead people into thinking she had some connection to Kazakhstan beforehand. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Yaroslava Shvedova and Ena Shibahara are the best examples for the other options. I don't know as much about them, but I don't think they had much connection to their new nationalities either (i.e. they respectively lived in Russia and the United States their whole lives before switching). If that's true, I think they should be described as a "Russian-born Kazakhstani tennis player" and an "American-born Japanese tennis player" respectively. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A case where we would actually just use the player's current nationality even though they were born somewhere else would be Milos Raonic or Emma Raducanu because they didn't live in the countries they were born for very long. A case where we might include both nationalities hyphenated would be someone who switched countries mid-career and had significant results with both nationalities (perhaps Monica Seles, but I can't really think of a good example --- I don't think too many players who have actually done this). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other point about Wimbledon banning Russian players is misleading. They only banned Russian players (i.e. those who represent Russia --- or Belarus), it has nothing due with their general nationality. Rybakina could still be and probably still is a Russian citizen as well as a Kazakhstani citizen. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are always a bit tricky. We have Garbiñe Muguruza listed as a Spanish player even though she was born in Venezuela and lives in Switzerland. But she never played tennis in Venezuela except maybe kids events. Rybakina has kept her close ties to Russia by living there and she played her junior tennis for Russia. These are the type of player we have to look at case by case. I don't think "Russian-born Kazakhstani" is clunky. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is Wikipedia's rule/convention regarding "..-born" in the intro? If there is a rule that should apply here otherwise there need not be any insistence as it can be mentioned in the second or third... sentence. I generally don't think it's a good idea to start doing what you are doing: ascribing a meaning to the term '-born' that isn't there (keeping close ties). To my understanding anyone born and raised for however couple of years at a place native to at least one of her parents can instantly qualify to have that introductory epithet. Ergo perfectly OK to use it for Muguruza too, or Jo Konta (as well as all the Russian-born Kazakhs) — but misleading to use it for, say, Badosa or Laura Robson in the first sentense since they weren't born and raised, which is what the phrase insinuates when used as an introductory without additional context (below intro in the "personal life" section it should be OK to use the phrase even on Badosa/Robson types (since there you'd have enough space to immediately clarify). —Loginnigol 10:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments in the section below. Emmentalist (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

height

[edit]

Her height in the narrative is different from her height in the info boxes.Kdammers (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.... fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction and personal background sections

[edit]

I have edited the article to remove ambiguity about the subject's nationality. The equivocation over whether she should be regarded as a Russan or Kazakh tennis player reflects the subjective and unresolvable nature of the issue. The discussion at 'Nationality' above refers to "undue" weight being given to her Russian citizenship since she plays for Kazakhstan, but a statement about her nationality per se has no bearing on her professional status ; "weight" in respect of her tennis playing career is neither material nor appropriate. I have therefore edited to simply state her known citizenship status. The subject was born, grew up, was trained and presently lives in Russia. There is no evidence that she has given up Russian nationality. She is known to have taken a Kazakh passport; we may reasonably infer (but cannot be certain) this includes citizenship status there. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, this article must therefore assume that she remains a Russian citizen while also now being a citizen of Kazakhstan. I have balanced this in the 'personal background' section by making it clear that her move to the Kazakhstan Tennis Association was obviously in no way related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. I have insterted one citation only since the other facts are mentioned elsewhere in the article and are supported by citations there. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Jjj1238 , I see you've reverted my edit. That's as per WP:BRD so let's discuss now. I don't know which of my thoughts above you disagree with as you've reverted the whole edit without explanation. So let me expand a little and perhaps you'll come back with some thoughts? Then we can see if there are other opinions?

First, I have no axe to grind; I simply made two substantive edits to an article I felt was easily improvable for the reasons I gave above when I made them. I'll take the latter first, as it seems to me less arguable. There is an enormous amount of comment on and coverage in the media of the subject's nationality. It could hardly extend from more legitimate and important sources. There is a war on, the organisers of a world-prestigious sporting event controversially banned Russian and Belarus competitors and the event was penalised by its international body as a consequence, the subject grew up Russian and is resident in Moscow, and the subject (to make the whole thing even more extraordinary) actually won the sporting event. The worldwide discourse on the subject's nationality is clearly WP:notable and should be included in the this article.

Second, the matter of the subject's nationality. It is routine and legitimte within sport in general and tennis in particular for people to take a second nationality in order to take advantage of inducements to represent the second state sport. All of Kazakhstan's current top players are Russians who have done exactly this (much evidence is available). The arrangment is a special one and the conditions which attach to it are not known to us. We know, at least, that the subject was a Russian national from birth until 2018. The subject has reportedly (there is much evidence available here too) been given many opportunties to say she has given up her Russian citizenship and has not said this is the case; nor is there any evidence at all that it is the case. Since there are many Russian dual nationals and Kazakhstan has clearly made an arrangment which lies outside any publicly known conditions which normally apply, and because subject has remained and remains resident in Moscow with no reported penalties, we have no basis at all for inferring that she is no longer Russian.

Would you agree to putting the first matter I raise back in, and to including some content at the top of the article to the effect that there may be some disagreemnt/uncertainty about the subject's Russian nationality status?

Let me know what you think. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmentalist: My issue mainly came with the formatting of your edit. Removing nationality and claiming she holds dual citizenship is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. We do not know Rybakina's citizenship status, we know that she represents Kazakhstan and previously represented Russia. We can reasonably assume she holds Kazakhstani citizenship due to tennis nationality regulations, but Kazakhstani nationality law explicitly outlaws dual citizenship, so we should not call her a dual citizen without reliable sources confirming that status. Any investigating on our own and saying "well, it looks like her arrangement with Kazakhstan is special and she's never admitted to giving up Russian citizenship" is original research; nobody is saying that she's not a Russian citizen, but we should not say that she is one since we do not have anything confirming that claim. What we know is that she was born in Russia, used to represent Russia, and now represents Kazakhstan. I am not opposed to mentioning her Russian background, and believe that "Russian-born Kazakhstani" is the best way of expressing that, as the sporting body that she participates with regards her as exclusively a Kazakhstani player. As for the "she resides in Moscow" point, that should be removed from the article entirely and I am going to remove that right now. The source provided claiming she lives in Moscow does not say that, it just says she was born there. And as for the paragraph you added about Rybakina's background, I still find this to be giving undue weight to the topic. The Wimbledon ban did not ban all Russian and Belarusian players, it banned players who represent Russia or Belarus in competition. Rybakina does not do that so she competed without issue, and that is why players like Amanda Anisimova, Yulia Putintseva, Natela Dzalamidze, Alexander Bublik, Denis Shapovalov, and Sofia Kenin (if she did not withdraw) all could compete as well. Rybakina's situation of having been raised in a country she does not represent is odd but not uncommon in tennis, and Bublik and Putintseva are both in the exact same situation as her. The article also already covers when Rybakina switched her professional affiliation to Kazakhstan and why she did that. If some media outlets wanted to write pieces about how Rybakina winning Wimbledon was a win for Russia, then they are free to do that all they want, but it does not need to be included here since she is no longer a Russian player according to the WTA and I would say that adding these claims is editing without a neutral point of view. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Interesting points. But who she plays for in not, in the end, important. The point at issue is whether she is Russian. She was Russian until 2018 and there is no evidence that this has changed; you even agree that no-one is saying she's not Russian. So her Russian status shouldn't be changed here. That IS a violation of WP:Crystal. There's no original research involved in my assertions, by the way; I'm making the exact opposite point - that it would be necessary to show such evidence to make the claim that her nationality has changed. We can't make assertions about Kazakh law, as that WOULD be original research and moreover this situation is again by definition exceptional and beyond regular rules. On the question of the vast reportage and comment around her Russian background and winning Wimbledon; these are just facts - by definition they're neutral. And they're most certainly noteworthy. I'm not sure if you're in the UK - I am - it was big news. Anyway, since you don't like mine what's your proposal? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually whom she plays for is very important as a tennis player. You must be represented by a national tennis organization to be registered and actually play professional tennis. She is a Kazakhstani professional tennis player today. Discussion of citizenship is usually kept to the personal section of prose or perhaps the year section a change occurred. The lead mentions she switched tennis federations in 2018 and that is probably all that is needed. As for the debate about her actual citizenship status, I didn't look at that in detail, but we must stick to published facts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this @Fyunck(click). I am referring to the issue at hand, which is the extensive public interest Rybankina's nationality status and the fact that her Russian background is steadily being erased from the article. I don't doubt for a moment that tennis is, of course, a very important sport...
As far as I understand it, you think it's not important because what counts is who she plays tennis for. @Jjj1348 feels that "no-one is saying she's not Russian" and s/he would be happy with Russian-born, there should be no reference to the subject being a resident in Russia nor any to the public interest in her nationality and, like you, thinks what really counts is who she (the subject) plays tennis for rather than what her actual nationality/ies is/are.
Let me just lay out again exactly what has happened with this article in respect of the issue I raise.
First, Rybakina was described as only a Russian citizen until an edit on 23 June 2018. On that date, an unregistered editor changed this to describe her as a Kazakhstan and Russian citizen. We all agree that we may infer that at that point she did indeed become a Kazakhstan citizen. There was, and remains, no evidence that she ceased to be a Russian citizen at that point. This edit is therefore correct. It is available at; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Rybakina&diff=next&oldid=847187964
Second, on 20 Feb 2020, another unregistered user changed "Kazakh-Russian citizen" to "Russian born" Kazakh. This edit provided no evidence that the subject's Russian status had changed and so was incorrect and should be reverted. This edit is available at; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Rybakina&diff=next&oldid=941745964
Third, on 11 June 2021, an editor with no user page removed "Russian born" from the main descriptor (and provided a qualifier later). This edit is available at; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Rybakina&diff=prev&oldid=1028086125
Fourth, on 1 Jan 2022 I read the discussion at the talk page and fixed the ambiguity and previous error as described. I balanced by inserting a paragraph later explaining about the great public interest in the subject's nationality. These edits are available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Rybakina&diff=1130872908&oldid=1127944607 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Rybakina&diff=1131475120&oldid=1130872908
Fifth, on 2 Jan 2022 an unregistered user reverted my edit about the subject's nationality without explanation. This edit is available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Rybakina&diff=prev&oldid=1131066241
Sixth, on 2 Jan 2022 @Jjj1238Jjj1348 edited out the balancing details I had edited in in respect of the public interest in the subject's citizenship status. This edit is at; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Rybakina&diff=1131089556&oldid=1131066241
The net effect of these edits at present is that reference to the subject's Russian citizenship has been removed without any evidence whatever. Reference to the vast public interest in her citizenship status has also been removed. Where any reasons at all have been given, they have stressed that the subject's nationality is not important and only who she plays tennis for is. These are not valid arguments for removing relevant and noteworthy information from a WP:BLP article without evidence.
I have no axe to grind, as I say, and I would accept for the moment a compromise until new information may become available in future. Perhaps "Russian born" with a reference to the uncertainty about her current status and why this is noteworthy. As the article stands, however, it bears the hallmarks of tennis well-wishers creating an article the subject might like more. I stress that I absolutely assume the good faith of such well-wishers, but I am quite sure this harms the article. Emmentalist (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple things. We should be inferring zero... this is an encyclopedia that requires sourcing. We know she originally had Russian citizenship. We know the WTA website in their interview with Rybakina that Rybakina herself says she has Kazakhstani citizenship. We have no source that says she relinquished her Russian citizenship, regardless of Kazakhstani laws. Unless we get that reliable source, we can't say anything. Exceptions get made between govts and players. As for diminishing Russian mentions, that is natural regardless of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. She played for Russia as a junior and in the minor leagues. She had really just started playing some events on the WTA circuit when she switched to Kazakhstan because of greater financial incentives. Naomi Osaka went with Japan instead of US backing for similar reasons. Every win and final on the WTA Tour (her 5th year now) has happened as a Kazakhstani player... and the same will happen going forward. As the article gets rewritten and expanded year after year, her Russian playing days become no more than a footnote of her entire notability. That's what happens in the evolution of a tennis article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We completely agree! "We should be inferring zero...we have no source that says she relinquished her Russian citizenship, regardless of Kazakhstani laws. Unless we get that reliable source, we can't say anything. Exceptions get made between govts and players". That is exactly why the edit on 20 Feb 2020 is incorrect and should be reverted. Do you agree with that? And do you agree that there should be some reference to the worldwide interest in her status must be reflected in the article? Btw, it's super to have an intelligent and useful exchange on this, whichever way it goes. Thanks, genuinely, very much. best wishes, Emmentalist (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
I would probably add a sentence about the interest of her status, though not use "worldwide".... that's a bit over-the-top. Her status only came to light because of Russia's attack on Ukraine and subsequent banning from tournaments. It would likely be sandwiched into the 2022 section somewhere as a sentence or two. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmentalist: Yes, we have no source saying she relinquished Russian citizenship, but we also have no source saying she is still a Russian citizen. As this is a non-obvious situation, we should not be making any commentary about her Russian citizenship or lack thereof. I agree that a line in the 2022 section of the article saying something like "Rybakina's birth in Russia and previous international representation of Russia became a matter of dispute in the aftermath of Wimbledon's ban on athletes representing Russia and Belarus due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine." (could be streamlined as needed), with an addition of reliable sources discussing the issue with her nationality. Nothing further needs to be added. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That type of sentence in 2022 would work fine. Short and to the point is all that is needed. If readers want more they can read the sources given. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I agree. I've inserted the formulation { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } gave above. The exact wording I've used is; "Rybakina's birth in Russia and previous international representation of Russia became a matter of public discourse in the aftermath of her success at Wimbledon 2022, where Wimbledon had banned athletes representing Russia and Belarus due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine". I've put it in the lead as I'm not sure it'd fit anywhere else very well. I've left the description in the first line as referring to Kazakhstan citizenship only. Do amend if you want. Good result, though and thanks, both, for such an interesting and constructive chat. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is this is not lead-worthy, as discussed. The lead is always a shorter summary of the rest of prose. If it's not in the main prose it should not be shortened and in the lead. And it needs sourcing. I moved it to 2022 section and added two required sources. In the future please don't add items without a required source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My original edit was fully referenced. I don't agree it isn't lead-worthy but I'm not gonna die on that hill. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the correct phrasing (following everything stated on the talk page) be
'Elena Andreyevna Rybakina (born 17 June 1999) is a Russian professional tennis player who represents Kazakhstan in tennis. She is the reigning champion at Wimbledon and the first Kazakhstani player to win a title at a major.'
No-one has provided any evidence to suggest that Elena is kazakhstani, or views herself as kazakhstani, and it's common for sports players to gain citizenship in a country and represent it without being portayed as now 'belonging' to that country. Rugby (which I'm more familiar with) never seems to mention nationality in similar cases e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamison_Gibson-Park
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Te%27o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Hartley
Soccer seems to be similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Houghton
Indeed, Elena's lede seems overly long and overly predicated on 'kazakhstani' firsts which would be better elsewhere in the page. 109.78.13.86 (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead would define the type of tennis player she is, which is a "Kazakhstani professional tennis player". If anything it would be a Russian-born Kazakhstani professional tennis player. We would usually not use the phrase "Russian-born" in most cases because the player has moved away from their birthplace. Rybakina is a weird case. Per her own mouth she does not live anywhere. When not on tour she resides in Slovakia and Dubai. She represents Kazakhstan in the Olympics. Her parents live in Moscow. At 23 years of age she is probably still transitioning away from home and she's also probably avoiding Moscow because of Russian atrocities and the press following her every move. Pretty much everything about her professional career (which is the only reason she is notable) is Kazakhstani. She has said “I’ve been playing for Kazakhstan very, very long time. I represented in the biggest tournaments, the Olympics, which was a dream come true. People believed in me. Kazakhstan supported me so much.” Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. "Russian-born" might be fine if sources consistently refer to her as such (per WP:NATIONALITY). I have not checked. But aside from this, I do not think it would be appropriate now to use "Russian–Kazakhstani" or "Russian and Kazakhstani". Mellk (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russian-born is quite common in articles about her. Press like: NBC, UK Independent, NY Times, Tennis Majors, Reuters, etc. Perhaps it wouldn't have gotten so much press over the last 1.5 years except for the Russian invasion, but it was still in the press as in pre-invasion articles by US Open, and Tennis.com. And I'm guessing that it gets removed from the article because association with Russia is pretty toxic these days. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are also Russian businessmen living abroad who, despite making their fortune and name in Russia (including those who worked with the government), pretend they have nothing to do with the country and they instead refer to themselves using a different recently acquired citizenship. This of course has led to edits on their Wikipedia biographies to reflect this, but this is whitewashing. Mellk (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that's true. I guess it's one thing to make their association with Russia derogatory and negative, and another to simply mention where they are from and their ties with Russia. On the obverse, there are also Ukrainian articles on geography where editors want all mention of Russian names removed. I guess it's a tough balance with tensions running high among editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is mostly IPs and new accounts that do this without any understanding of the policies. Mellk (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please someone add Performance timeline for this year

[edit]

It has been more than a month for the year, 2024, and no one has added her performance timeline for this year. She has already won 2 WTA500 titles. It is high time someone mention timeline for this year. Priyavrat Chaudhary (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyavrat Chaudhary, it was only removed two hours before your message, so not sure what you're on about. If the player has a separate statistics article, as Rybakina does, that's where the full timeline will go – otherwise, it's just grand slams and year-end championships as separate tables. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 09:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bro I am talking about adding the 2024 performance timeline under section "Professional Career" Priyavrat Chaudhary (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elena_Rybakina&oldid=1217538624"