Talk:Ashleigh Barty/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashleigh Barty. 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/20120117072027/http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/draws/ws/index.html to http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/draws/ws/index.html
 * Added tag to http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/match_reports/2013-01-14/201301141358154417539.html

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) 11:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Do not edit the ranking results until the official WTA Rankings are released
Please do not disrupt this page. Jezzy-lam (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of Live WTA rankings
Is there a Wikirule against using Live WTA rankings for updating the ranking of a tennis player, as implied by previous section?--185.53.197.61 (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A wikipedia policy, no. Consensus and guidelines, yes. See Tennis Project Guidelines under "Player articles." This was done long ago to stop crystal ball projections from non-official websites. Player rankings do not change instantly. They only change officially at the beginning of a new week (usually on Mondays). Updating rankings before that would be inaccurate. Rankings can actually change in the interim period. If a player retires their ranking will be immediately removed and all other players rankings will move accordingly. Drug suspensions can have the same affect. Any other ranking site other than the WTA/ATP/ITF is not official, it would be an unofficial projection. Plus when people start updating before then often the number of weeks they are ranked gets all skewed up by the next person who edits who didn't realize someone updated the rankings prematurely. That is why it makes the most sense to go with the official results. It's easier for everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the explanations given above and I'd say only one aspect: Live rankings aren't exactly crystal ball predictions, they are certain being done only after matches, not before when the winner is not known yet. The other presented aspects make some sense and may be understood, especially the aspect re the entire number of weeks with certain ranking.--185.53.197.61 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous in the lead
We have a bit of an edit war underway about including the descriptor "indigenous" in the lead. It's probably time to discuss.

Most of the activity to include it would appear to be good faith attempts by newer editors to highlight something they see as important. Well, her Aboriginality is mentioned later in the article, so we're not keeping it a secret. One edit summary used when removing it mentioned that the Evonne Cawley article doesn't mention it in the lead. A fair point, but is that just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?

I don't feel strongly either way. But we need to pause the edit war. Thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Clear exclusion under MOS:ETHNICITY. Barty is not an activist or ethnic leader, so her ethnicity is not leadworthy. WWGB (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are probably thousands of ethnicity situations with tennis players that we never include in the lead. Shall we make sure we say that Maria Sharapova is a Siberian tennis player? Do we start making details of Eskimo tennis players if they represent Canada? That stuff gets mentioned in the personal/family section. The WTA bio doesn't find it important enough to even mention. This type of trivial addition happens all the time after a just-completed Major. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Good points people. Agree with all of that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Being an indigenous Australian is being an activist. Activism is not a choice for marginalised people. Being a leader is what she is doing - she is a leader on a world stage making an enormous contribution. It is not correct to cite the Sharapova example because Sharapova is not a person marginalised in her own country. Mrs Sussex (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, you created a new account just to comment here. What a pity your comments are mostly rubbish. Barty is an activist? Evidence please. Barty is marginalised? Evidence please. I concur that Barty is a leader, but that is in tennis, not indigenous affairs. WWGB (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a clear personal attack. Retract this, and apologise.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, and nope. WWGB (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with WWGB, her ethnicity is not what has made her notable and shouldn't be included in the opening paragraph. In order to maintain an unbaised and consistant article we should refer to the guidelines MOS:ETHNICITY. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you also agree with their conduct, in attacking the other user?--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hang on a second isn't she the National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador for Tennis Australia? Does that not count as making her an activist? LordStrawberries (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Then her being the National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador should be near the end of the lead, right after her accomplishments over the last two years. Because she is a notable player, they bestowed the title on her and she accepted it very graciously. It's pretty cool but most of that info belongs in her personal section with only a mention in the lead, so I recapped the ambassador info at the end of the lead as a compromise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there is a whole bunch of garbage here that is unencyclopedic. Is it the verifiable fact that Ashleigh Barty is an Indigenous Australian? Is it noteworthy? It seems to me we have a mixed bag of things. I will tend to agree with the previous comment that identity from marginalised backgrounds is important and that you will probably not understand this (or even fight against it) if you are not from a marginalised background. This is called white privilege and there is a succinct article about this behaviour here and its consequences in Australia. For those who are best interested do your own research first then come back once you actually have an educated position not just a reaction to the word "indigenous" however problematic (read: it isn't) you think the word is in Australia. Aside from that there is the issue, given that there is no consistency in Wikipedia about this issue... I would strongly suggest a request for consideration of the fact is in order from people who are suitably qualified to discuss this issue without drawing from their personal emotive vocabulary that helps nothing. Wikipedia should be about facts, not about being "right." Unfortunately the whole process of being "right" is exactly why I don't have an account here. People push agendas that are emotive rather than factual all the time here especially on topics (they believe) are highly emotive (that aren't actually so). It's unfortunate it takes someone becoming world number one to raise the ugly issue of racism once again. --2001:8003:641C:4B00:3026:802B:7911:A98C (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a scattergun attack on all sorts of issues. Not really sure what point(s) you are trying to make. A couple of things.... When editing here, it's important to assume good faith from other editors. It's impossible for you to know the racial background of other editors here. I can't quite quite discern what you mean by "Wikipedia should be about facts, not about being right." In fact, we really only care about what is said in reliable sources. With luck, it's both right and factual. HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Amount of details on Barty's ambassadorship?
We definitely want the fact that Barty has been named National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador in working with Tennis Australia. And adding that the goal of the ambassadorship is to "promote more indigenous participation in the sport of tennis" can work into the article also. There was no source so I added one. But then to continue talking about the number of children "Tennis NT" hopes to reach and the percentage of the population that's indigenous in the NT, is a bit much imho. That is something for the source to tell us and perhaps a new Wikipedia article on the Tennis NT program. I removed this new addition pending discussion. Any other thoughts on this? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the NT material is not relevant in a bio article. Tennis "clinics" like this are nothing more than "feel good" stories. WWGB (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * How in the name of God, Vishnu, Thor, the sun god Ra, Apollo, Zeus, and Allah as well as mother nature and the laws of science is a persons identity or anything to do with a persons identity an example of a feel good journalism story? This displays pure incompetence and lack of knowledge to construct an unbiased opinion that would actually listen to what Indigenous Australians are thinking. It's the type of groupthink that leads to things like indigenous protectionism in Australia. Which is the general level of incompetence that leads to open racism, racial profiling and racialisation on Wikipedia. --120.22.79.115 (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Where a person calls someone incompetent it is not a personal attack, it's a sign of a persons inability under Wikipedia policy to properly understand the issue and form a neutral perspective. As a person who has majors at university in areas that qualify me to have a formal opinion as well as a post-graduate degree in areas that qualify me to have a stronger formal opinion I have SOME but not all of the understanding of the issue I am not a self-identified person in this case. I don't profess to understand the issue from their perspective in full. What I DO understand is that the NEUTRAL term for an Indigenous, Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander or South Sea Islander is all of the aforementioned. As a self-identified Indigenous person Ash Barty SHOULD be identified as such in this article and any other construct is open racism. There is also no "part." The two qualifications that are legally bound in Australia for Indigenous status are self identification and acceptance of self identification by the local indigenous identity grouping in the area. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Australian laws, rules and regulations are, just like the laws, rules and regulations of any country other than the United States, totally irrelevant here, since the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia and operates the servers all Wikipedia sites are housed on, is registered and headquartered in the United States, and governed by U.S. laws only. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What the heck does this have to do with the price of eggs? This topic is about the amount of trivial detail on her ambassadorship, not whether she is indigenous. The indigenous fact is in the article multiple times so I have no idea why this is being brought up. Rant somewhere else and keep things on topic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * So now we're not only ignoring the fact that this is an Australian English article, we're also ignoring common usage terms. As an IP I honestly can't be bothered finding the appropriate policies here. Even if I did quote them, like most arguments on Wikipedia I am going to assume you would ignore them anyway. You see it's all about the precedent of how we speak, in this country, where the article is located, on the precedents of what happens in this country (which is Australia) and the term part anything when it comes to humans is quite offensive due to the longstanding history surrounding protectionism in Australia. I'm gonna assume you don't care about that either.


 * When the person clearly self-identifies as being indigenous and is recognised in her community as indigenous according to the law, and according to her people, this is enough recognition in and of itself to put indigenous when and where it is necessary, and as with everything on Wikipedia there can be more than one reason for notability. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Go back and actually READ the lead. It already states "Barty is an Indigenous Australian and serves as the National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador for Tennis Australia". You see, IT'S IN THERE! Now go away, stop ranting, and have a lie down. WWGB (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to wanting her (part) ethnicity to be mentioned at the very beginning of the lead, as her most defining trait, they seem to object to the use of the term "indigenous", and instead want her to be described as being Aboriginal Australian, and that article leaves a clue to why. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 09:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to have included a dif and not an article your incompetence to understand the nuances of this subject says exactly why you are incompetent to edit here in this space. You also continue to use a highly racialised term. Once again, there is no "part" when describing an Indigenous, Aboriginal, Torres Strait or South Sea Islander self-identifying person and this is both a legal and academic fact. Your failure to address the true and correct term is the problem here. You are editing in an Australian space and therefore Australian conventions apply. I would ask that you respect those conventions or self declare your incompetence and discontinue editing in this space. When it comes to dealing with conventions with self-identified people in Australia context is important and even if you are trying to make an argument you are failing miserably as the lines are blurry with regard to the term they use to self-identify. Given you have no understanding what so ever and a displayed habit of not wanting to learn anything that might be useful in editing in a space that can be controversial I would suggest you declare yourself incompetent to edit here. That is neither a personal attack or anything otherwise untoward it's just a matter of facts. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "There is no 'part' when describing an Indigenous [or] Aboriginal...self-identifying person..." Agreed. Show where the article currently states that she is part-indiginous/Aboriginal, other than the discussion of only one of her parents being Ngarigo while the other is of English origins. —C.Fred (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It' the tendentious discussion from the person above. I have also tried to reasonably discuss this issue in relation to their knowledge and behavior elsewhere. Indigenous is a catch-all term but it's also blurry as it runs the risk of the type of groupthink that all "Indigenous" people are the same and this is the level of "tribal" association indigenous people have been trying to avoid since Captain Cook got here. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent, I can't just say "you're just a white" to an Anglo-Australian. They won't get it. It's not (generally) offensive. Unfortunately, if you start saying you're just an indigenous person, it can be offensive. But it also depends on the choice of the person of how they identify. So when I see someone say "part" indigenous, I assume a deliberately offensive statement that brings up the colour terminology for race issue in Australia. As this is an Australian article first, then Australian conventions apply here. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Since nothing needs done to the article, can we close this discussion? —C.Fred (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since nothing needs done to the article, can we close this discussion? —C.Fred (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * My part in this discussion is done --124.181.82.220 (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It's odd that no one but me seems to object to the frequent accusations about racism and incompetence here, but maybe things like that are a normal part of everyday "civilized" discussions down under. It's not acceptable where I live, though... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This article on what seems like a rather extremist Australian blog seems to have a direct connection to the IP's actions, BTW, referring to the removal of the "indigenous/aboriginal" repeatedly added at the very beginning of the lead of this article as "digital genocide" (and referring to the national anthem of Australia as a "white supremacist song"). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Everyone objects, it's just not worth it with this anon IP. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You are not doing anything other than pushing your own extremist agenda... Get a bandwagon and go someplace else, please? If you want to petition to have the policy, and the general opinion of the community, as well as the academic perspective, changed about how indigenous people are referred to start a petition with the Australian government. This is not the forum to have your grievances heard. As this is an Australian article either deal with the way things are according to Australian conventions as Wikipedia does or start a new one through the process I mentioned above. As I have now helped you, I wish you all the success in the world in having your grievances heard but as I said above, but you failed to either see or ignored. My part in this discussion is now closed. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And there was much rejoicing! Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous Australian or simply Australian?
This edit war is disgracefully racist. It smacks of white privilege and fragility. Ash identifies as Aboriginal and is acknowledged as such by the community. Her father is described as an Indigenous Australian. Cathy Freeman is described as an Indigenous Australian on her page. It is a way to convey identity which can be different to background or heritage. I have Viking heritage but I don't identify as Viking. She does not need to be recognised by white people as an activist to legitimise this descriptor. The Aboriginal community sees this edit war as blatant racism. It is one word, it is an accurate description of her identity. The people taking it out need to consider why they are so fragile and triggered by it. Sharyn4939 (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Cathy Freeman and Evonne Goolagong do not include ethnicity in the first sentence. Why should Ash Barty be any different? WWGB (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sharyn4939 : It is not acceptable Wikipedia style to include a person's ethnicity in the opening sentence(s) unless this has some major significance to the person's profession, not just to their personal "identity". We don't include mention of a person's sexual orientation for the same reason. Anyone's ethnicity or sexual orientation, if they require any mention at all, is included elsewhere in an article but NOT in the opening sentence. Yahboo (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, why shouldn't it be on the first line? Nowhere on the page does it describe her as an Indigenous Australian. Her Nationality is described as Australian. It says her Dad is an Indigenous Australian but that she only has Indigenous heritage. Compare this to Deborah Mailman who is described as an Indigenous Australian and the second line says she is an Aboriginal Actress. Ms Dhu is described an Australian Aboriginal woman in the first line - so I am pretty sure you are making up protocols to suit here. Indigenous identity is mentioned in the first line of many - Albert Namatjira, Eddie Mabo, Harold Thomas.. and that is 2 minutes of googling. We are talking about someone's ethnic / cultural identity here - if it is appropriate to call someone Australian then it is equally appropriate to call someone Indigenous Australian. AND AGAIN - IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR NON INDIGENOUS PEOPLE TO POLICE HOW INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IDENTIFY. Do you not understand what I am saying here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharyn4939 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what any other articles may do, I am not "making up" any protocols. We normally only refer to a person's nationality in the opening sentence, not their ethnicity or any other "identity" unless this is of major notability. By your logic we should, apparently, also refer to all non-indigenous Australians as being a "White Australian" or "European Australian". Yahboo (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to have much awareness or sensitivity of these issues. No, there is no need to refer to non Indigenous Australians as White or European because they are the dominant culture and so the label is interchangeable. There are issues behind this idea of which you are ignorant. The distinction between Aboriginal Australian and Australian is absolutely a statement of Nationality for many Indigenous people. You might not understand how the current edit war is racist, but that does not mean that it isn't. https://www.welcometocountry.org/digital-genocide-ash-bartys-race-repeatedly-removed/ Wikipedia has become just another platform of White Privilege where the resistance to the inclusion of one word is ridiculous. It's one word. It's an accurate word. Why are people so triggered? (Sharyn4939 (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC))


 * Per MOS:ETHNICITY, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". Barty is notable for being a top tennis player. While it is undeniable that Barty is indigenous, that is not the reason for her notability. WWGB (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * WWGB : Nowhere on the page is she referred to as an Indigenous Australian. If you were an Aboriginal person or sensitive to the issues of Aboriginal Australia you would understand it's notability. But again, you seem to be comfortable making determinations about how Indigenous people should and shouldn't be described. I have opened a dispute over this. I have only just ventured into the world of Wikipedia but have learned very quickly that Aboriginal voices are not very important here and that editors have no concept of what is culturally appropriate and are not interested in hearing. (Sharyn4939 (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC))
 * What the heck are you talking about? The lead already says ""Barty is of Indigenous heritage and serves as the National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador for Tennis Australia." Prose also says her father is "a Ngarigo Indigenous Australian" and her mother is "the daughter of English immigrants." Later in prose we have a quote from Barty, "I'm a very proud Indigenous woman..."


 * That should be more than satisfactory. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Accusing others of racism without proof and using all caps are not good practice on Wikipedia. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 08:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think it matters. I think this is an acceptable edit. I would not make that edit. But I don't think it's a big deal. I would ask if it is in the interests of indigenous Australians to place that identity in the first sentence of the biography of a very accomplished Ngarigo Indigenous Australian? The alternative, which is in place now, is to call her simply an Australian. I don't think there is anything terribly offensive in simply mentioning the dominant power. That would not be "White or European". That would be "Australian". I think the term "Australian" represents the presiding government. It too could be omitted. But once again I wouldn't favor that. Omitting the term "Australian" from the first sentence of the lede is not utterly unacceptable but I don't recommend it. This is a biography of an accomplished person. If that person takes pride in their Ngarigo identity I think that identity should be prominently stated. But the first sentence of the lede is for such things as reason for notability, date of birth, and the prevailing governmental entity, which in this case is Australia. Also, I've taken the liberty of changing the section heading. WP:TALKNEW says "Keep headings neutral" Bus stop (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2019
Suggest the re-insertion of the word "indigenous" before "Australian tennis player" in the opening line. …|Thebrisc (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. Please establish a consensus for this change  making an edit request.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 04:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Plus that information is already in the lead where it says "Barty is of Indigenous heritage and serves as the National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador for Tennis Australia." Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Further, the MOS is clear that the introductory sentence should mention nationality of people, not ethnicity. Therefore, no descriptor is needed to modify her nation of citizenship, Australia. —C.Fred (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * For heaven sake there is no need for a consensus when it comes to common use terms in Australian English and Indigenous is one of many common terms along with Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, and South Sea Islander for self-identified people. Anything else is a tendentious argument and to be honest, not much short of racism. This discussion was archived for a reason. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * However, you have not presented any evidence that self-identified people are not Australian citizens, so the intro will not be changed. —C.Fred (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting a little tired of racism coming out of your mouth as often as blinking. Find somewhere else to peddle that baloney. Consensus is needed whenever there is a dispute, and this is a question of placement, not whether it belongs in the article. Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not needed on common usage terms... At all, where is, what is, and if you want to push this agenda you will be declared a laughing stock by all and sundry. It is not a matter of presenting that they are not "Australian" citizens either as that would preclude their reference as First Nations people. Australia is just the funny name we came up with for this place we now reside in and what its referenced as by the commonwealth. However their common usage name is recognised by law and by principle in this country and if you want to edit in this space you will submit yourself to the common vernacular of this country.  --124.181.82.220 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Barty represents Australia in the Fed Cup. Unless you have evidence that she holds citizenship in some other nation or other sovereign, passport-issuing entity, then the intro shall refer to her as Australian. Period. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, I do agree that in the section on her background, it is better to just say that she is indigenous Australian; we do not need to qualify her status by saying her grandmother was indigenous, as an IP editor attempted to do. —C.Fred (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was actually her paternal great grandmother, according to the source the IP provided, and Barty knew nothing about it until she was 12, and had already played tennis for eight years. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * When and how and by what percentage is particularly irrelevant. You might actually want to think about what the purpose of pushing that wheelbarrow uphill is about. --2001:8003:6450:C400:B822:E5B8:F94F:7035 (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In Australia it doesn't matter if you are one billionth part aborigine, you can still be indigenous. That isn't the case with most other countries such as the USA's Native Americans. I'm guessing it's tough for many English speaking persons to get a handle on how such a minor percentage could possibly be considered indigenous, but Australian law simply handles it differently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is particularly the problem with this issue and it crops up, which where other editors have said that local conventions DO apply to local issues and you can end up being buried in wiki-politics for issues you simply may not understand. The issue of competence is well worth exploring. We do not need consensus to understand the the sky is blue and as with most Australians in the majority perspective in Australia, we really do understand that the sky is blue when it comes to dealing with indigenous people and how they are described in this country (Australia). Inserting an international agenda particularly does not help and I'd like to refer to this point:


 * Editors should "…avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors." --2001:8003:6450:C400:F0D8:930D:DDBB:7CD6 (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * And what "significant errors" have been introduced by non-indigenous editors, do tell! WWGB (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a significant error being made by people who do not understand the conventions of race in Australia and if you do not understand the conventions of how we have gotten to this point then you really need to revisit whether you are competent to be having this discussion here at all.


 * As has been said above, it really does not matter about what percentage or when a person becomes aware of the facts that they are indigenous in Australia and you really should revisit your sisyphus conundrum here as it won't change the facts of the matter. --2001:8003:6450:C400:F0D8:930D:DDBB:7CD6 (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You did not answer my question. What significant error has been made? Barty is described in the lead as an Indigenous Australian. What is the issue here? WWGB (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This has gone way off-topic. IP, stop telling everyone that they're wrong/incompetent (or, further, suggesting that racism is involved) and listen; ethnicity isn't placed in the introductory sentence of BLP articles regardless of country – that's just how Wikipedia works, and we (as a fellow Australian) are not an exception to the rule. Clearly a consensus was needed (and this is as clear-cut a consensus as you can get), and again, Barty's indigenous heritage is already mentioned in the lead, which is more than satisfactory. The end. 4TheWynne  (talk  •  contribs)  04:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * To be fair I find it laughable that this is considered a controversial topic at all. To begin with the sky clearly is blue. With regard to the matter the fact that it triggers some people and the fact that a right wing populist perspective exists is also neither here nor there. As the courts adjudicated in Australia, the perspective of one Andrew Bolt is not worth the paper it's written on and he was taken to task for his op-ed about indigenous Australians and their place in Australia. Therefore this matter regarding one's identity and place in Australia is settled and if you need a stronger source than section 18c of the Antidiscrimination act then you clearly fail the test of competency to edit in relation to matters surrounding Indigenous Australians.


 * If people want to argue the facts of the matter about a problematic use of the term "Indigenous" in an article beyond this point, from a pure factual point of view it's like arguing 2+2 = 72 and you're incompetent if you want to do that. As to placing a small mention at the end of a paragraph, and saying its enough, if you want to make that point, very well... --2001:8003:6450:C400:F0D8:930D:DDBB:7CD6 (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

So would the wikipedia editors who have blocked this please go to the [List of Palestinians] - nearly all of whom have some conjugation of 'Palestinian' in the first sentence - and edit and protect them all? Because Palestine is not a nation. [Ramsey Nijem] and [Omar Sheika] are described as Paestinian in the first few lines even though they were born in the USA. This is one of many examples of indigenous disputed nationhood being recognised as notable by Wikipedia editors. I suggest Ash Barty be described as Indigenous Australian in the first sentence or two. Who agrees? Please state your agreement to reverse the false and unrepresentative 'consensus' which is claimed to exist in this matter.

SeventhHell (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Palestinians Ramsey Nijem Omar Sheika SeventhHell (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe because there are limited people editing many of those articles. The youtuber born in the USA in 1990 should say simply "American." In general terms he is actually an American citizen of Palestinian decent. It's why well known people like Andre Agassi don't say Armenian-American. He's American. When we get fiercely pro-Greece editors working on Pete Sampras article, it will suddenly change to Greek-American rather than American. It gets fixed rather quickly. Maybe most of the editors working on "List of Palestinians" are Palestinians or have strong ties to the Palestinian people... I really don't know. There will always be a few Irish-American, Serbian-Canadian type articles around, and it is often a case-by-case type of thing. Because Barty has very recently become the sport's Australian Indigenous Tennis Ambassador, that fact became important to the lead section and was added. Otherwise the details would have remained in the background section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, [], by saying "I really don't know" you concede the argument. [List of First Nations people]] offers further examples. I appreciate that there are a lot of specialist tennis editors claiming authority over this article, but the fact is that Ash Barty's notability in Australia is as an indigenous sports star and Aboriginal icon, and the article should reflect that. The cultural erasure of Barty by Wikipedia is making national news media at the moment and making Wikipedia ridiculous. As a temporary compromise I suggest at the very least adding
 * ethnicity = Indigenous Australian into her personal information box as per another Australian Indigenous sports star, Cathy Freeman. SeventhHell (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no such field as "ethnicity" in Template:Infobox tennis biography. WWGB (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok WWGB, there isn't an "ethnicity" field in the tennis info box, even though there is in the {{Infobox sportsperson - which is all the more reason to include Barty's indigeneity within the first couple of sentences. Putting her indigeneity in the 18th sentence - *after* the tennis infobox contradicts notability. SeventhHell (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I propose the following edit, as per the Lionel Rose article : Ashleigh Barty (born 24 April 1996) is an Australian professional tennis player and former cricketer. She is ranked No. 1 in the world in singles by the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) and is the second Indigenous Australian WTA singles No. 1 after Evonne Goolagong Cawley.{{efn|

Please respond ASAP. Thanks, SeventhHell (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Evonne Goolagong Cawley, Serena Williams, Venus Williams etc were World No 1 players and do not mention ethnicity in the first paragraph of their articles. Why would Barty be treated any differently? WWGB (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. For the reasons dicussed above - notability. Evonne Goolagong Cawley's indigeneity is mentioned in the 4th sentence of her article, Barty's in the 18th sentence of her article. Why is Cawley's indigeneity given greater emphasis? Editors have created an extraoridinarily long first parapraph for Barty - the emphasis should be raised in accordance eith its notability.
 * 2. Barty is Australia's National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador, Goolagong Cawley was not.
 * 4. Indigeneity is not ethnicity. Indigeneity is contested nationhood, ethnicity is genealogical cultural descent.
 * 5. Neither Williams sister is indigenous American, why have you mentioned them?
 * 6. Equal weight. Why have you not responded to any of the examples given of articles about indigenous people? Add List of Native American sportspeople. Each person's indigeneity is mentioned as relevant, in Barty's case it is particularly relevant as she is the National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador, and self-identifies as indigenous. SeventhHell (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Barty's is mentioned in the Lead... that is far more prominent. Goolagong's mention that she is from an "Australian Aboriginal family" is in the family section where it is supposed to be. Barty happens to have a larger lead section. Goolagongs lead section should actually be much larger than Barty's and that will happen in the future. This has all been discussed before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Fyunck. A mention in the lead is not prominent if it's 500 words in. Would you please explain why you think a mention in the 18th sentence is prominent? Kindly please respond to my questions above. 90% of people view Wikipedia on smartphones requiring metres of scrolling to get to the mentoon of Barty's indigeneity. This has not been discussed before, if you claim it has please would you show me where? You are a single editor. You do not have consensus on the exact placement of the word 'indigenous' in the article. Objecting to all proposed compromise to raise prominence is not consensus. Wikipedia is being pilloried in Australia because of this. Seeing as you have created the comparison with Goolagong Cawley as the benchmark and so far have made nil response to my constructive commentary, I will edit this article similarly to Goolagong Cawley's. Many thanksSeventhHell (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually there was consensus. It would usually not be there at all in the lead except that Barty is the indigenous tennis ambassador for Tennis Australia. We agreed on it's placement. I actually think that bookend placements in the lead tend to be more prominent than mid lead. You are also a single editor also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Naomi Osaka's 'ethnicity' is in the 5th sentence. SeventhHell (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Naomi Osaka's Asian heritage is in her 3rd sentence.
 * Proposed compromise
 * Side-by-side, without prejudice:
 * "{{Nihongo|Naomi Osaka|大坂 なおみ {{IPA-ja|o̞ːsäkä näo̞mʲi}}|Ōsaka Naomi|extra=born October 16, 1997}} is a Japanese professional tennis player. She is the reigning champion in women's singles at the Australian Open. Osaka has been ranked No. 1 by the Women's Tennis Association (WTA), and is the first Asian player to hold the top ranking in singles."
 * "Ashleigh Barty (born 24 April 1996) is an Australian professional tennis player and former cricketer. She is ranked No. 1 in the world in singles by the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) and is the second Indigenous Australian WTA singles No. 1 after Evonne Goolagong Cawley."
 * Comments?
 * SeventhHell (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's much better the way we have it now, clumping her aboriginal status with her ambassadorship. We also have to be careful as the term "Indigenous Australian" is offensive to some who would rather use the term aboriginal. I hate making it too in-your-face since it seems to cheapen the fact she is Australian. It's like saying Serena Williams is the 4th black American player to win a Major. That would be fine in her heritage section but in the lead it makes it sound funky. I look at her as American. Maybe Australia is different and they like to enhance the fact that some people are Australians and some are Indigenous Australians. I certainly don't know every country's idiosyncrasies. When she was given her ambassadorship it seemed appropriate for the lead, but otherwise it just seems a little off for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * As per the sbs reference you have removed, Barty self-identifies as Indigenous Australian, and as per the last 6 months of discussion, it is highly notable, also as per my last talk page it is parallel and consistent with Naomi Osaka's entry. SeventhHell (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Highly notable...I would think not, but it is notable and is in the article. I'm not going to keep arguing the point because it's a minor blip in all the things that have to be edited in tennis articles, but I really think its placement now actually detracts from her as a person and as an Australian tennis player, and the article is the worse for it. But so be it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Is anyone notable for being second, except maybe Buzz Aldrin? WWGB (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL. It's better to be the second pancake since the first is a throwaway. Laver is probably more notable today as the second male to win a Grand Slam, compared to Don Budge being the first. Of course Laver won two. Fyunck(click) (talk)
 * For what it's worth, I think {{u|Sportsfan77777}}'s most recent version ("...and is the second Australian WTA singles No. 1 after fellow Indigenous Australian player Evonne Goolagong Cawley.") would be the best compromise, as it moves it up the section and gives the fact greater emphasis, but not too much. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  06:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hiya editing cartel, WWGB/Fyunck/4thewynne/sportsfan7777 - So when can we scratch numbers 3 to 12 from the List of people who have walked on the Moon? How good is ridiculing my edit with pancake comparisons and still not responding to any of my questions? So be it. Pillar one: wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sporting almanac. This means that sporting prowess is not the only notable feature. In this case, there are 800,000 Indigenous Australians and they've had two WTA no 1s, there are 4,500,000,000 Asian people and they've had one. Cue all the ridicule and jokey extrapolations of that you can muster, but the fact remains it is a very notable feature, given nobody has yet responded to why Naomi Osaka's Asian heritage is in her 3rd sentence. So kindly please revert to Sportsfan77777's last edit as a compromise, or I will when I can get to a computer. Later... SeventhHell (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

From an outside perspective, it's fascinating to see everyone being so heated up over this so-called 'racism'. It certainly seems that the ethnicity/race of the individual is mentioned right from the start of the article, and I don't really understand why it should be paraded to the viewer in flashing neon, as some of those posting comments about that here appear to wish should be done.

Also in some sense I feel that the way the ethnicity issue is introduced in the article is actually wishful thinking, because it's presenting AB with EGC as though they are equals because somehow AB may have a drop or two of native blood flowing in her veins... as though they have a shared heritage and shared struggles because of their both having native blood, yet that appears unlikely to be the case in reality, both due to the difference in the percentage of native blood and the very long span of years that elapsed since EGC was involved in the sport and the drastic shift in thoughts and attitudes pertaining to race that have occurred over that very long time.

For example it would have been an amazing (and no doubt very mixed emotion) thing for EGC to have been declared an "honorary white" when playing in South Africa in 1972, something that AB would never have experienced anything like, and nor would she have been required or thought of in that regard had she been playing in South Africa in 1972 because she doesn't physically resemble anything other than a white Australian.

So it's beyond comprehension how this whole race thing connected to AB is such a big deal when it's unlikely to have affected her life in any way other than positively. For racism (as a minority race) to be a factor in somebody's life, if they physically resemble the majority race, they would have to personally draw attention to their affiliation with that minority race or nobody who was so inclined would have any reason to exhibit racism toward that individual.

Calling people racist for not saying this person (who physically resembles a white person) is "spiritually black" (or whatever) surely must be considered more offensive than the alleged racism itself?

And what of the individual this article is about? Does she actually want attention called to her race/ethnicity? Does she want that to be what she is defined by, instead of just being recognized as a champion? Or in other words she's not just "a champion" but "an indigenous champion"? Did anybody bother to ask? หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Real Australian
Why is it indigenous Australian, not Real Australian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.108.45 (talk) 12:04, 9 Jul 2021 (UTC)
 * "Real Australian" is not a term mentioned in Indigenous Australians. —C.Fred (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Real Australian" as an expression doesn't exist in any credible context. -- Tytrox (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

No good headshots?
There was an infobox photo that was a good headshot of Barty, but it was replaced with an action shot. The view of her face is minimal and in profile. We have plenty of action shots; why do we not have a photo that clearly shows her face for identification purposes? —C.Fred (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies. Was trying to get a similar image to the one used in the Roger Federer article. I thought it was pretty similar? DiamondIIIXX (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Misleading
"Through her father, she is a member of the Ngaragu people." - Through her father - or her great-grandfather? --UNSIGNED 2001:16B8:C168:FD00:E9D6:E57B:576E:43CD
 * The 1st citation clearly states her father.
 * The 2nd citation however states her great-grandmother, but not clear on which parent this relation is through, though it could infer the relation is her father's grandmother. It's otherwise clear that 1 of the 2 is clear that it's her father. -- Tytrox (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What is misleading? She is a member of the Ngaragu people because her father is a member of the Ngaragu people. He is a member of the Ngaragu people because his parent and grandmother is a member of the Ngaragu people... etc. --99of9 (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Were you replying to me? I didn't create this topic, which was done so by IP 2001:16B8:C168:FD00:E9D6:E57B:576E:43CD but unsigned, and the bot didn't pick up on this. -- Tytrox (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just continuing the thread - I don't think I pinged you particularly. But it's true that I didn't notice the unsigned IP, thanks. --99of9 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just continuing the thread - I don't think I pinged you particularly. But it's true that I didn't notice the unsigned IP, thanks. --99of9 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NO CONSENSUS User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 00:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Despite the vote being more than 2-1 against a move, this is a "no consensus" close and not a "consensus not to move" close. Many of the votes are pure votes, and several of them make claims that are contrary to policy. There is no policy against using nicknames as a title if they are common names. However, there is no consensus whether Ashleigh or Ash is more commonly used in the news media. Regarding self-identification, while her Twitter account uses Ash, her ITF profile is Ashleigh, and opposers state that she would use a nickname there if she strongly preferred it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 00:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)  User:力 (power~enwiki,  π ,  ν ) 00:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ashleigh Barty → Ash Barty – WP:COMMONNAME. News sources overwhelming refer to her as Ash Barty and she seems to refer to herself by that name on her social media. Park3r (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Voting in support for this. -- Tytrox (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose - official WTA website, Grand Slam entry lists and most reputable news sources (e.g. BBC, CNN, news.com.au) continue to use 'Ashleigh' rather than 'Ash'. F1lover 22   talk  15:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Media are not consistent with her name. Although there's about 8 times more results of "Ashleigh Barty" than "Ash Barty", even if you include the term "tennis", they all use either variant. -- Tytrox (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per F1lover22. We use official names from the WTA/ITF websites, unless the media has a clear preference for an alternative (which isn't the case here). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose It is not like the case of Stan Wawrinka. At very least, more "Ashleigh Barty" were referred to her in terms of the Wimbledon win as far as I am concerned. Unnamelessness (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Redirect works just fine, no need to change. LH7605 (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Leave as is. There is no need to make diminutive here. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: News sources do not "overwhelming"ly refer to her as "Ash", in fact it's 2:1 in the other direction—Google shows 10,000 which use "Ashleigh" in the title, vs 5000 which use "Ash" . —Somnifuguist (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: the claim that news sources "overwhelmingly" refer to her as Ash is overwhelmingly false. Ashleigh is her name and she hasn't changed it anywhere. Ash is primarily a spoken diminutive of pretty much all people named Ashleigh. So nothing extra or unique is happening with her. --Loginnigol (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - For now, there are more sources that use Ashleigh, and that is the official name at WTA and ITF events. --WEBDuB (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: Ashleigh is her full name. It would be better just to make mention of it in the article, as with other nicknames --Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: She refers to herself as Ash on her own twitter account, Fox Sports, ABC News, 9 WWOS (Official Wimbledon broadcaster in Australia), Sydney Morning Herald, Yahoo Sport, SBS, News.com.au, 7 News, The Guardian, Herald Sun, The New Daily, Sporting News, ESPN all call her "Ash". The list goes on. Should be changed according to WP:COMMONNAME. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to compare the two names to show which is the common name. Just looking at one name is not a comparison. Hzh (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Yes, recentism, but would we be advised to wait and see what the post-Wimbledon and Olympics coverage does with her name? That may tip the scale on what her common name is. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support due to Barty's self-reference, primarily. WTA, Grand Slam, etc. is just a formality. &mdash;Jonny Nixon (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. We made a similar decision in the case of Dan Evans (or Daniel Evans, per the ATP/ITF). Rovingrobert (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose. No evidence provided that Ash Barty is the common name, in fact Google Trends suggests Ashleigh Barty is the common name - . Hzh (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Huge Oppose that's more of a nickname. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contribs)  05:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose leave as is. Her name is Ashleigh, the diminutive should not be the title of the article. Violette Martin (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 410k for Ash vs 73k for Ashleigh google hits on .com.au sites, where they are much more likely to use her preferred name in articles, rather than just what is in the official guidebook. Countering Somnifuguist's counts, when you restrict it to intitle and .com.au, there are 2800 for Ash and 700 for Ashleigh. It's not "just a nickname," it's literally her preferred name, as per her own social media sites. As per the guideline "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". The-Pope (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim referred to news sources. My counts limit the search to Google's news tab, and "intitle:" ensures it's not just a passing mention. Without intitle it is 3.2:1.4 million Ashleigh:Ash. Your counts aren't limited to news sites, so any blog, forum, etc. is included, which is out of the scope of the initial claim. Limiting to .com.au sites does show that "Ash" is more commonly used in Australia, but that doesn't say much given that using nicknames for everyone (and especially sportspeople) is part of Australian culture. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, so we should use the 2:1 globally preferred name, not a locally favoured diminutive. It is not similar to Dan Evans mentioned above, where the diminutive is 2:1 preferred by global news sources . —Somnifuguist (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Something else. Her notability is directly related to her tennis prowess. She must register with the ITF in order to compete in any tennis event and she registers with her preferred spelling of her first name. It's her choice. She has registered under "Ashleigh Barty." It's what she wants to be called in her profession. She can change it if she wants with the ITF. Stanislaw Wawrinka went by Stanislaw for quite awhile but later changed his name in the ITF database to Stan. Wikipedia did likewise shortly thereafter. If Ashleigh wants to be known as "Ash" in tennis all she has to do is contact the ITF. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Her notability is also directly related to her cricket prowess. She is on the cricket.com.au website as Ash. The-Pope (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now: I have never heard her referred to as "Ash" (I've heard "Ashleigh" on news broadcasts and tennis commentaries). If she is routinely referred to as "Ash" later on, we can revisit this request. --Mirokado (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "None" of her accomplishments (official tennis records) list her as "Ash"... also not WTA, Olympics, etc. I prefer to be known as "Arrrmondo"... with 3r's...Doesn't change my passport... Mjquinn_id (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

She is always reffered to as Ash Barty. You rarely hear her full name. User:14.200.53.228 – posted in the wrong Talk section; reposted by Rovingrobert (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I agree to change.
 * Oppose If she wanted to be known professionally as Ash Barty, she would've changed her name in her WTA and ITF profiles. 'Ash' is an informal nickname, which is said as often as 'Ashleigh' during her matches. Almost nobody says Daniel Evans or Cori Gauff anymore.--Narciso003 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support She is overwhelmingly referred to as just Ash Barty in the press, and she has made it plain that she prefers Ash to Ashleigh, as is the case with Stan Wawrinka, Coco Gauff, and Dan Evans. However: her name on the ITF and WTA website is still listed as Ashleigh Barty, so that throws a spanner into the works, somewhat. --Alexxbrookss (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't use nicknames in article titles. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Tell that to Baby Face Nelson, to his face, I darz ya. Anyway, yes, nicknames are often use in titles, and in sports articles it's not uncommon. But for this one, Oppose, Ashleigh seems fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nicknames for article titles are certainly a thing. It's the reason why this discussion was raised.
 * Joe Biden? Tony Abbott? Tim Cahill?  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 22:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong support: Clear common name. The fact that the article has existed at the longer title for so long is incredulous. I'm surprised to see so many editors disagreeing, and being especially vague in their reasoning for doing so. Sean Stephens (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed at how vague you are in saying Ash is the most common version of her name. It's incredulous to the rest of us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I nominated the article for moving (and stand by that request). I strongly suspect, however, you'll find a geographic divide between those who oppose the move and those who support it. Australian media (Barty's home country) do indeed overwhelmingly refer to her as "Ash" (as does the athlete herself). Park3r (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think it depends on informal vs formal. The Australian Open formally calls her Ashleigh as seen here, but has writers do more informal stories that use Ash, such as here. She has asked tennis authorities to use Asleigh, but she can always change her maind as Stan Wawrinka did. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have had my say on this, I think WP:COMMONNAME is the governing policy here.Park3r (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose: I'm not seeing that news sources overwhelmingly refer to her as Ash. The New York Times uses Ashleigh, Wall Street Journal uses Ashleigh , The Telegraph uses both , RTÉ uses Ashleigh , The Age uses Ash , Reuters uses Ash , Associated Press uses both , Nikkei uses both , Deutsche Welle uses Ashleigh .  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 03:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Her name first name Ashleigh as per WTA/ Tennis Australia. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Subject appears to prefer "Ash" per social media profiles. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

States reached the quarters at the 2020 Olympics, she reached the semis.
Correct to show she reached the semis 212.250.190.131 (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)