Talk:Alexandra Eala

Alex Eala → Alexandra Eala

Should this article be renamed to Alexandra Eala? This is how her name appears on both the WTA and ITF websites, as well as her personal Instagram. Mellamelina (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes... and it has now been moved by another editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello beautiful Alexandra how are you feeling

and how's your day? 41.113.132.2 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 24 March 2025

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: No consensus. Editors pointed to evidence of both versions of the name in use by sources and by Eala herself in different contexts. There was no overall consensus that one is clearly more accepted or commonly recognizable than the other. The result is that the page remains at Alexandra Eala which is the most recent stable title. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Alexandra Eala → Alex EalaAlex Eala – Most WP:RS uses "Alex Eula". Also as per WP:CONCISE. The WTA and ITF websites should not be the only factor and her personal Instagram is "Alexandra Eala @alex.eala" Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 11:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - But she herself does not. She has registered with the WTA and ITF as Alexandra Eala. She can change it anytime she wants and the ITF/WTA will oblige. They did the same with Stanislaw Wawrinka when he decided he wanted to be known as Stan. Her notability is only because of her professional tennis career and in professional tennis she has registered as Alexandra Eala. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Comment Alex is a common diminutive nickname. Would WP:NOTOFFICIAL apply? Big name media outlets in her home country (ABS-CBN, Spin.ph, Tiebreaker Times, One Sports, etc.) have consistently used "Alex Eala" in their articles. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  It can certainly be mentioned in the article personal section that she is often called "Alex" but in just looking at some major sources we have CNN, Tennis.com, and ESPN calling her Alexandra. That and the fact she has registered with the governing bodies of tennis as Alexandra would indicate to me we should not change the article title. I do see one on one personal camera interviews where the announcer calls her Alex, but they would be on a more familiar setting like my friends would be with me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose – As stated by Fyunck(click). Eala plays on the circuits under the name Alexandra, not Alex.Kacir 11:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  What policies are we citing here? Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

If that would be the case for tennis players, the Carolina Alves (tênis) article would have to be renamed to "Carol Meli" or "Carolmeli" as it is on her Instagram, for example, but no one would ever think to do that, because it doesn't make sense

Haddad Maia fan (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Haddad Maia fan (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you really get what I'm saying here what I'm saying is Alex Eala is a widely accepted rendering of her name. The Instagram is not the sole justification here, and looks like most WP:RS under her article at Carolina Alves (tennis) does in fact use "Carol Meligeni".Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

It is used a bunch, that's true. Not more than Alexandra and not by her own personal registration spelling with the governing bodies of the sport. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

One thing is to use a well known nickname of the subject throughout the article, but the other thing is to rename the article itself with the nickname which is something very uncommon to do since it's usually used the name by which the athlete goes on official events and media

Haddad Maia fan (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC) Haddad Maia fan (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per others. ScarletViolet 10:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support per COMMONNAME, it's clearly the name most used by the media and herself. ATP is just one source.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  She has registered her own name spelling as Alexandra. And media use both spellings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  To illustrate how absurd this is, take Beatriz Haddad Maia as an example. She is widely known simply as Bia or Haddad Maia, and in the early years of her career, the Brazilian media often referred to her as "Bia Maia." However, most people and media outlets do not call her "Beatriz Haddad Maia" in full. Despite this, her name appears in that format across all tournaments and governing bodies of tennis and sports in general, which is why her Wikipedia article follows the same standard. There is no reason to change that—just as with Eala.Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment No counterpoint policy to WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOTOFFICIAL has been put forward here. Why does the WTA and ITF overrides what a lot of media outlets call the subject. I understand that when in doubt, its reasonable to follow the WTA/ITF records especially for more obscure tennis players who are notable enough to have an article but Eala is anything but.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes there has. 1. It's not the most common name as shown in multiple sources and posts here. 2. Her own choice of professional name preference has massive weight. The ITF/WTA doesn't just plop in any old name in the registry... they follow the specific instructions of the player. That's a big deal. The only reason she is notable at all is because of professional tennis, and she has told professional tennis how to address her. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: Tambayan Philippines, WikiProject Tennis, WikiProject Women's sport, and WikiProject Biography/Sports and games have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:24, 13 April 2025 (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.

WTA 125 vs WTA Challengers

WTA 125 is the formal name, WTA Challengers are informal, unlike the ATP Challenger which has a trademark. Tabilay (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

True, but the WTA also uses the term, so the governing bodies realize it is the common term. For our readers we want to make sure they realize that it's not like the WTA 1000, WTA 500, and WTA 250 events. It's a different ballgame being a minor league 125 event that is above the minor-minor league ITF tournaments. The 125s are part of a transitional developmental tour. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) Agree, the ATP did it right by trademarking and branding it.. A lot of non-tennis followers don't get that its not part of the Hologic tour, so they put headlines like new WTA champions. Tabilay (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

When I was entering the Challengers, I was instructed to use WTA 125, and I followed that guidance. However, I believe it would be more beneficial to use the informal term to avoid confusing it with the top-tier WTA Tour events for those who aren't as familiar. Tabilay (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Or at least the first time or in headers. If a player plays most of their career in Challengers it'll be mentioned and you'll realize it's a lesser tour. The problem happens when a player like Eala keeps playing a mixture of Main Tour and Challenger Tour events. Readers have to be informed they are apples and oranges so they don't get confused. And writing first she played a WTA 250 and then she played a WTA 125, or leaving it as she won a WTA event, isn't fair to our readers. It has always been tough because the ATP and a Futures Tour, and Challenger Tour, and a Main Tour... with the Challenger Tour paying out starting at 100k. The women only had an ITF Tour and a WTA Main Tour... with the ITF paying out from 15k to 150k. So the ITF encompassed the money payout of the men's Futures and Challengers. Now the women also have a Challenger level Tour in the WTA 125s. It works the same as the mens Challengers but for some reason they didn't trademark WTA Challenger Tour. But the term is not informal... it's right there in the advertising that it's a different tour. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I haven't seen developed articles of other WTA players writing out "WTA Challengers" in the prose. I think the link to the WTA 125 tournaments page in the opening sentence for the 2025 section is enough. If it helps, that's also indicated in Eala's WTA Challenger finals section.

But if you both find it really necessary, then I propose the following copy: "Eala began 2025 by competing in two events of the WTA Challenger Tour, reaching the semifinals and the second round of the WTA 125 Canberra Tennis International and WTA 125 L&T Mumbai Open, respectively." Would that suffice? Freedom Wall (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. For my money once you say the Challenger Tour at the start we don't even need the WTA 125 terms before each event. And I'd call it the "Mumbai Open" and scrub the L&T sponsorship. We don't usually include that. And one of the reasons you don't see a lot of WTA Challenger stuff on many players is because they stick with one tour or the other. Right now Eala is going back and forth and we don't want readers to think she is playing on the main tour with these victories. This could also be remedied by stating at the top of a section something like: "In 2025, Eala continued to play tournaments on the main WTA Tour while also playing WTA 125 events on the developmental WTA Challenger Tour." Then throughout the section as long as you said an event was a WTA 125 event, proper foundation would have been laid that already explained that a WTA 125 tournament is a lower tiered event. So long as our readers can't get confused I'm good. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with removing the sponsorship, but I included the WTA 125 terms to have readers connect that the Challenger Tour = WTA 125. That said, I don't think we need to mention her playing on the main WTA tour. The differentiation is already implied once we establish the WTA 125 events as a part of another tour. Freedom Wall (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, but many are going overboard with listing each and every ITF title in prose. Those things are filled with college and high school kids. They are less than minor league and already shown in the tables below. I think just the number of titles is enough, especially if the event doesn't even have a linked tournament name. Those are really tiny little things and not worthwhile to include. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with that too. The prose doesn't actually add any new information at all, so it's also quite redundant. Freedom Wall (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere did we say the 125s were a different tour and level. I thought we agreed to mention it at least once, and I don't mean with a link. I added it once. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click)

I was just basing the levels

based on the WTA TOUR AND ATP TOUR WIKI ARTICLES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTA_Tour?wprov=sfla1

The WTA Tour (also known as the Hologic WTA Tour for sponsorship reasons) is a worldwide top-tier tennis tour for women and organized by the Women's Tennis Association.[1] The second-tier tour is the WTA 125 series, and third-tier is the ITF Women's World Tennis Tour. The men's equivalent is the ATP Tour.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Tour

The ATP Tour (known as ATP World Tour between January 2009 and December 2018) is the sole worldwide top-tier tennis tour for men organized by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) founded in 1990 that replaced the earlier dual Grand Prix Circuit and WCT Circuit. The second-tier tour is the ATP Challenger Tour and the third-tier is the ITF Men's World Tennis Tour. The equivalent women's organisation is the WTA Tour. Tabilay (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

But we can't assume in a wall of text that readers know that WTA 125 means a lower level of tennis. Readers see WTA 1000, WTA 500, WTA 250, and now WTA 125. The WTA 1000, 500, and 250 are different tournament tiers but the same Tour level. The WTA 125 is a completely different tour level. The name is similar to the others but that's the only thing similar and readers not clicking on links should be told that front and center. We don't say the Amarillo Armadillos won the World Series of baseball. We say the minor league Amarillo Armadillos won the minor league World Series. It's still professional, but we make sure readers know they aren't the same as the NY Yankees. So somewhere on first mention we let readers know the WTA 125 a minor league tennis tour event.... a Challenger Tour tournament. We don't just throw in WTA 250 and WTA 125 without that dividing line of context.

We have (four majors, WTA Finals, Olympics, WTA 1000, WTA 500, WTA 250) all on the main WTA Tour calendar of tournaments. Then we drop down to the (still professional) WTA Challenger Tour of WTA 125 tournaments. Then we drop down again to the (still professional) ITF Tour which has W100, W75, W50, W35, and W15, tiers of tournaments. It would be nice if the Challenger Tour had a different name than WTA 125, but it doesn't. We still must make sure readers know the difference other than clicking a link. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click)

No problem. I haven't deleted the reference 'challenger level,' and I won't be doing for any future changes. Tabilay (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Infobox titles

Just a reminder. The infobox shows her most important titles, not all her pro titles. Right now she has a minor league development tile (WTA 125), and five minor-minor league ITF titles. That's the best she's done thus far. If at any time in the future she wins a WTA 250 title or above that slate is wiped clean and we put that she has 1 title only... we would not include the lesser stuff just because they are professional wins, only the main tour at that point. As far as whether we show both WTA 125 and ITF titles at the same time in the infobox, I think I have seen it handled both ways... sort of editor choice to work it out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Amount of edit changes is a bit too much

This article does not need rewriting every other day. Things were looking better a few weeks ago and now suddenly we have sentences instead of paragraphs and sources removed, etc... We had things ok and we don't need to keep changing things each and every day. It's overkill. When a new item happens that isn't trivial we add it in chronological order. If it's amazing we consider changing the section header by removing the least important thing and adding the new important thing. We don't want bloat and trivia but we and our readers expect some stability. Lets keep our eye on the ball here, ok? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Also using the strange parameter "url-status=live" to the sourcing is causing errors. Don't add that parameter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I guess this wasn't read by the editor who seems to edit this page 10x a day every day. Please stop with the editing, especially all the piecemeal editing that should be handled in your sandbox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Ref name change

Tabilay, can you explain this edit, with summary FixedReferenceName ? It didn't fix anything. In addition, that very reference was the subject of a recent Teahouse question which is continuing at Help talk:CS1 errors, and messing with that very name just muddies the waters. What was your goal, here? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I was the one who pasted an edit from my sandbox that was the source of the error, i just forgot to remove the duped citation. I thought my refname was too generic so i just renamed it. Tabilay (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. In normal circumstances, yes, that would be fine, but I would have held off a bit in this case while this was being investigated. In any case, no sense reverting, that would just muddy things further. Thanks for the quick response. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Residence dispute

Usually a player has one main residence not multiple. Some players have five houses and we don't put in each and every one. Until recently the WTA and ATP listed a residence city and that is what we used, but today they don't list that anymore. I tried to fix the issue but that didn't work so I'm bringing it here. For many Wikipedia biographies they have eliminated the residence parameter as "not needed", and I'm not sure I agree with that, but we certainly should not have more than one prime residence in an infobox which contains only the most important data. Multi-homes is something for a personal section, not an infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) My 2 cents

I’m not even sure this is something that should be debated. It is so trivial for a wiki article.

Maybe a legal document, such as one recorded in her official passport or visa, could settle this issue.

Fact 1: She’s Filipino, which is why one editor wants to add an address to support that claim.

Fact 2: As a professional player who travels often, she lists Mallorca as her home base.

Fact 3: There is no legal document showing that Miss Eala is a permanent resident of Spain. Unlike Filipina actress Bea Alonzo, who is an official legal resident of Spain but not a Spanish citizen, Eala has no such documented status. Bea Alonzo reportedly secured permanent residency through Spain’s Golden Visa program after investing more than €500,000 in a Madrid apartment. Tabilay (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

https://wise.com/us/blog/spain-golden-visa

I just found out that Golden Visa program has expired in 2025. Tabilay (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

"but we certainly should not have more than one prime residence in an infobox which contains only the most important data"—who says this should be the case?

Eala has maintained residence in Metro Manila, besides her obvious one in Spain where she trains. These articles definitely maintain she has residence(s) in Metro Manila, the Philippines:

https://tribune.net.ph/2026/06/14/history-making-eala-set-for-homecoming https://mb.com.ph/2026/07/09/alex-eala-set-for-homecoming-this-july https://www.philstar.com/campus/sports/2026/07/10/2541062/eala-set-grand-homecoming https://www.rappler.com/sports/tennis-alex-eala-homecoming-fan-meet-july-2026/ https://bworldonline.com/sports/2026/07/09/762404/eala-set-for-homecoming-ahead-of-hardcourt-season-and-us-open/

Even without the references above, we can, by all means, add multiple residences, and no one must use "should" in Wikipedia for non-definitive, non-MOS content creation and maintenance.

CallumPaxton (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Baloney.... who made you GOD? It is standard practice in most articles to use one residence... in fact it is now standard to eliminate it altogether. I don't particularly care which to use but it should ONLY be her main residence... hence "residence" not residences. If you feel it should be Metro Manila, I'm fine with that if it gets sourced the most. Just not both. And don't remove the discussion tag while this is ongoing. Others will see the problem and join in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I will not respond to such an irrelevant, lowly first question.

Also, who are you to determine "standard practice"? Do you define it? Where is it written in Wikipedia MOS that there "should ONLY" be one residence?

"Should" is not a word used by editors to other editors, especially when claims are unfounded and without definite grounds. Thanks.

CallumPaxton (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Baloney again to someone who keeps removing content and not following standard practice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

"Baloney" and "...who made you GOD?" do not, in any way, help in arriving at resolutions. Unnecessary, unintelligent, and does not show good faith. Continue with this line of "argument" (non-argument) and there will be no response on my end. Thanks. CallumPaxton (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

This is getting too crazy for me so I reported the situation and will let administration handle it. I'm beginning to feel a bit bullied. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Replied there, too. This is why dispute resolutions must be done in good faith, not condescension and attacks—replying to a fellow editor with "Baloney.... who made you GOD?" is not only counterproductive and irrelevant to the resolution process, but it is also disrespectful, and, in my opinion, a form of bullying. If anything, I am the one being bullied here. And I will not have it. Thanks.

CallumPaxton (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

So we both feel bullied... good for us. I'm fine with whatever residence is her main residence per sources, but this is in dispute and the article being tagged as such should not be removed until this dispute is sorted out. I brought this dispute here in good faith and labeled the article accordingly. You removing two different templates twice is wrong and why it is sitting with administrators to sort out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no good faith in addressing a fellow editor with "Baloney... who made you GOD?" There is only condescension and disrespect there. The templates were removed because they were unnecessary. Sources have been provided to support the argument that multiple residences are permissible, if not necessary, when the context calls for it. The other editor, however, continues to insist on their version, with nary a proof or source/reference to support their argument. Templates are only necessary when there is a lack of sources/references to support content/information, but not in this case. Sources have been provided by this editor for the argument that both residence information are necessary; the other editor who objects to this have so far only reverted edits and added unnecessary templates, but has not provided any source/reference to support their argument, again, zero reliable sources and/or references for their argument.

Moving forward, please seek resolution in good faith and with respect. The other editor may begin by not addressing their fellow editors with ""Baloney... who made you GOD?".

Thanks.

CallumPaxton (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

And that happened with your ownership claims in your summary. I opened this in good faith even with your summary remark. But your "who are you to determine "standard practice" remark was snotty from the getgo. I have no idea why it is standard for people on Wikipedia to have one main residence in the infobox (or more commonly these days no residence at all)... that's just the way things are. I'm not even saying that there can't be exceptional circumstances that two residences be listed in an infobox... but it should be pretty darned exceptional. What I'm saying is this is disputed and that template should remain. Tennis Project as a whole has now been notified to look at this case and see if it merits an exception. It'll be interesting to see what they think. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Neither a disputed template nor disputed content should remain in a biography of a living person during a discussion. Applicable policy sections are WP:BLPRESTORE requiring consensus for restoration and WP:BURDEN requiring an inline citation for doing so. And if the content is verifiable and people still don't want to include the content for whichever reason, WP:ONUS applies and it still stays out of the article until a consensus for inclusion is found. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: So both the template and residence(s) should be removed if there is a dispute? Interesting and I can't say I really see that in practice here. I actually usually see both remain during disputes, though I don't doubt you are correct per rules. This is only for BLPs, correct? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

If the content is removed, where's the need for the "disputed" template? If there's a dispute about a template, why should the template be treated significantly differently than other disputed content? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I was simply asking for the future, not this incident. They should both be removed if it's a BLP and then discussed by all parties to figure out what to do. I think I get that part. I was looking at the template very differently. I was thinking this looks to be a content dispute, we are getting nowhere, lets put up the template so everyone can join in the discussion I created on the talk page. You say it doesn't really work that way so you straightened me out for the future with BLPs. But it's different for a non-BLP? I want to make sure I understand so I don't goof it up again some other day. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Theoretically, this isn't limited to BLPs; WP:VNOT and the section directly following it apply to all articles. For BLPs it's extra strict but the general principle of keeping disputed content away from an article isn't BLP-specific. Regarding templates, inviting specific editors can be done using {{Please see}} on their user talk pages; inviting the community can be done using a third opinion or an RfC; none of this requires a template inside the article itself. The templates surely have a right to exist and there are situations where they're helpful; we use them to draw attention to requested moves, deletion discussions et cetera and we do enforce the presence of deletion discussion templates against people removing them. So you're asking for general advice where there's no one-for-all solution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

(One major difference between BLPs and non-BLPs in this regard is that WP:3RRNO has an exception for removing the content and WP:PREFER puts a duty to avoid protecting policy-violating content on admins, so an article might get locked in a state containing disputed content and that's often okay unless it's a biography of a living person. Trying to enforce WP:ONUS in a non-biography can quickly lead to a block regardless of whether that was right; doing so for a biography of a living person is usually excused.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for some clarity. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Yet another unnecessary dispute over pointless information. This is why we should leave it out entirely. This information is utterly trivial in articles dealing with people spending their time exercising their notable profession travelling the world. Totally not worth fighting over like this, just don't list any residence at all!Tvx1 09:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Coach / Coaching Team

We have a problem now.

I regret adding multiple coaches to the infobox, since the official WTA page lists Joan Bosch as her primary coach. The separate coaches section exists to document the different coaches who have contributed to her career.

For now, I’ll revert the infobox coach to Bosch, as listed by the WTA and as has been on this wiki article the longest. Tabilay (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

There is some grey area in the coach section of the infobox. Yes, it must only be the current coach, but some players have more than one coach. All I can say is the infobox should contain the most pertinent data to the article. It shows major wins but not lesser wins. It doesn't show every nationality a player has, only the nationalities they competed under. It should show the main coach, but if there is truly a dual coaching team (as long as it's current and sourced in the main body), then that's ok. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) I only started the coach section to get things moving, and I still consider it a work in progress. I’d encourage other editors to add to it.

There are also other draft writeups, such as equipment and gear, that I didn’t think were necessary for a Wikipedia section since they don’t appear on other player pages, so I chose not to add them here. I’m trying to be restrained in how much I add to this as well. Tabilay (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Fine by me. In future, if there'd be two or more coaches, start of coaching year needs to be added per coach. Thanks. CallumPaxton (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@CallumPaxton Just document it properly on the coaches section. Tabilay (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)