![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
We need to revise around 50 articles that are to be classified as top importance tennis articles, so that in the future, there will be minimal arguments about it. I am sure that players which are notable throughout the world for playing tennis should be in the category such as, Federer, as well as the obvious stuff, ( Tennis obviously... the Grand Slams etc.) Bear in mind that we couldn't go wild and add every player who has won a tennis match... or even a grand slam. -- Dark Falls talk 11:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
While watching Andy Roddick play at Wimbledon, I went to Wikipedia to look for the fastest serves in the men's game and the women's game. I couldn't find any information, which leads me to propose/suggest a List of records in tennis. It would contain not just fastest serves, but also most victories, most weeks at #1, most consecutive weeks at #1, most Grand Slam titles, most titles per Grand Slam, most titles (ATP, Masters and Grand Slam), longest winning streaks, etcetera. It would be similar to the List of Formula One records. Any thoughts/suggestions? A ecis Brievenbus 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Totalinarian ( talk · contribs) recently started to merge Template:Wimbledon tournaments and Template:Wimbledon Championships, then requested that the former be deleted and began changing the templates included on all Wimbledon pages. I disagree with this change, but think it's worth discussing. Are the Amateur and Open eras different enough that they should have different template? This is the norm right now, see for example Template:French Championships (tennis) and Template:French Open tournaments or Template:U.S. National Championships (tennis) and Template:US Open tournaments. I think this break is quite reasonable. Nearly every statement about tennis history is qualified with "in the open era", so there really is a meaningful break. The open-era templates represent the current tournaments, whereas the amateur-era templates are entirely of historical interest. Separating them also avoids an unwieldy info box at the bottom of each slam article. -- dantheox 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that for individual tournaments, such as 2007 Tennis Masters Cup, or 2007 Queen's Club Championships, there should be a box stating the champions of each event, just like the GrandSlamInfo Template, If anyone would like to whip one up, that would be most appreciated. Maybe there could be differnt ones for the ATP Tour and Tennis Masters Cup. - Allied45 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I've created the NEW ATP Infobox! And will be making a WTA Tour infobox also! The New Infobox:
{{{1}}} {{{2}}} | ||
---|---|---|
Date: | ||
Edition: | ||
Defending champions | ||
Men's singles | ||
{{{defchampms}}} | ||
Men's doubles | ||
{{{defchampmd}}} | ||
Champions | ||
Men's singles | ||
{{{champms}}} | ||
Men's doubles | ||
{{{champmd}}} |
Allied45 04:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a consistent order for listing tournament winners in the few Wikipedia pages I've seen for WTA Tournaments. Some lists start with the most recent winner(s) (e.g. Indian Wells) and others start with the first/earliest winner (e.g. San Diego). Is there a general consensus on what order needs to be followed?
Also I would like to update the Wimbledon womens doubles winners lists with finalists and scores. Could anyone tell me how to separate the mens champions list from the women's like the entries for the other Grand Slam events? Thanks! IsidoreR 22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a regular member of this WikiProject, but I'd like to make some changes to how Davis Cup and Fed Cup articles are written. I've been doing a lot of work for Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template over the past few months, improving the way flag icons are generated. Some of you may have noticed some work I just completed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, where I replaced over 900 country-specific flag templates with 7 parameterized templates. The new templates are built upon the identical internal mechanism as the familiar {{ flag}} and {{ flagicon}} templates, so usage is quite straightforward.
I'd like to do the same thing here. Currently, there are 200 templates in Category:Davis Cup team templates and another 142 templates in Category:Fed Cup team templates. I can replace all of them with two templates! I have already created {{ davis}} and {{ fed}}, and they work for almost every team.
Usage is very simple: instead of {{USAdc}}
, you would use {{davis|USA}}
to produce
United States. The new templates can work with nation names (not just country codes) if you prefer when editing:
{{fed|Russia}}
produces
Russia. Historical flag variants are handled by using the same template arguments as with {{
flagicon}}, so you don't have to learn a new system. Just as
{{flagicon|RSA|1928}}
produces
,
{{fed|RSA|1928}}
produces
South Africa. The
1928
parameter has the same effect.
I hope you can see the obvious benefits to this proposal:
I am not suggesting that I impose a lot of work on the editors of this project. I am prepared to make all the substitutions and template deletions myself. I'd just like your approval and feedback before I proceed.
One related question: Are the flags used in {{ CARdc}}, {{ ECAdc}} and {{ POCdc}} really the correct ones for those multi-national teams, or just place-holders because they seemed like the best fit? I'd like to know how to best substitute for those templates.
Thanks, Andrwsc 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It's been two weeks with no more discussion on my proposal, so I'm going to be WP:BOLD and go ahead with the changes! Andrwsc 04:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added links to a new Article Guidelines subproject on the main page. This was motivated by seeing the 2007 Wimbledon Championships article, which is a complete mess. We should have guidelines and links to exemplary articles for each type of tennis page. This will help to channel the enthusiasm some pages get during grand slams, and provide a forum for reaching consensus on stylistic issues. I've started the discussion on the subproject page for everyone to chime in.
I think a good start would be the 2007 Wimbledon Championships article I mentioned before. If we can make it into something respectable, we could point to it as a guide when the 2007 US Open rolls around. -- dantheox 20:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
We are having a problem in what constitutes a slam over in the wiki article "Grand Slam Women's Singles Champions." The original framers of the article greyed out pre-1925 French winners on the basis that the event was open only to French Club members until 1925. Obviously the Wiki "French Open Winners" article would include everyone... no problem there. But when it come to totaling slams we run into a problem. Most books I've come across include the other big 3 events from their inception but they were supposed to be open to all countries, even if very few other countries sent players way back then. But now we have an editor of the page who insists that the French be included from it's inception in totaling all slams. His claim is that since no country sent players to the US Championships it was pretty much the same as the French Championships. It's gotten heated and we are at an impass because most of the posters their don't seem to care enough about this particular item to express a viewpoint. I posted this in the articles' talk page:
Thoughts on the French Championships. I'm asking here what the active members on this article think about changing the pre-1925 French Championships to make it count as a slam. I could show you stacks of evidence from books that would show why it should not be included and Mr Ryoung will say the same in his opposing view, so that won't help you at all. I'm asking for people to go to a book store or library or your own book shelf and see what it says under "Slam Titles." The individual Tourny names won't help here since of course someplace like the Australian Open would list everyone who has ever won their tourney, as would a book when you look up Australian Open. But those are taken care of here in the wikipedia under the individual tourney names. The French Open wiki site lists all past winners as it should. But this article is "Grand Slam Women's Singles Champions" , a different beast altogether. Look up total slam titles in whatever sources you would like and make an informed decision and post it here so we can see some sort of consensus on what everyone is thinking. 5 or 6 posts won't really help but if we can get a couple dozen thoughts it might help for making a better article and a way to solve this logjam. I hesitate to go to mediated arbritation because a non-tennis person will make a decision on a teniis related article but if we must we must.
1. I would vote for keeping the status quo for the pre-1925 French Open; Grayed out names, no slam numbering or counting until it was open to International players in 1925. Fyunck(click) 05:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Greetings,
I believe that articles listing past history should be do just that. The facts of the matter are, that all four of the currently-recognized 'Grand Slam' tennis singles championships evolved over the years. The Australian Open even went through a patch in the 1970's where top stars, such as Borg, Connors, and McEnroe, often didn't bother to show up...resulting in slam 'champions' like Brian Teacher. This is hardly comparable to today, when all four titles are vigorously contested by the likes of Roger Federer and Serena Williams. Other major changes throughout the years have included the 'opening' of the tournaments to professionals in 1968 (beginning at, of all places...Roland Garros!), the elimination of the 'challenge round' in 1922, etc. To not count the French championships prior to 1925 would be akin to not counting Babe Ruth's home runs, because of the exclusion of 'black' players from 1880 to 1947 in baseball. It also misses the historicity of the years. 'Greying out' is an inhospitable snub, especially when one considers that the game of 'tennis' or 'tenez' originated in the chateau of France.
Let's not forget what the NAME of the article is: "Grand Slam Women's Singles Champions." Since the term 'Grand Slam' wasn't even coined until 1933. Strictly speaking, there was no such thing as a 'grand slam' until some 56 years after the first Wimbledon tournament in 1877. Further, doing a little digging we find this about the early U.S. 'Open':
Only clubs that were members of the United States National Lawn Tennis Association were permitted to enter.
Also, the first 29 mens singles winners at Wimbledon were from the U.K. Early fields for both men and women tended to be limited to not just people from the same nation, but also the upper-class elite (hence the idea of an 'amateur' championship, to discourage the common people, who needed to be paid to survive, from competing). Note the lists on these articles recognize this, and count the titles two ways: Open-era and 'All-time.' I think 'All-time' means all-time, not just 'what Fyunckclick feels like.' I note the World Almanac lists Suzanne Lenglen with 12 titles. I note the Encyclopedia Britannica lists the French champions since 1891. I note that most of the competitors most-affected (Henri Cochet, Jean Borotra, Suzanne Lenglen) demonstrated their top-notch ability. Even Max Decugis won some Olympic medals.
Perhaps the biggest argument against Fyunclick, however, is that the 'French only' rule wasn't really enforced:
the first French Championship, the pre-curser to the French Open, was staged in Paris in 1891 and won by a certain H. Briggs - an Englishman.
So, it appears the first-ever title, in 1891, was won by...an Englishman? Clearly, Mr. Fyunclick's 'anti-French' crusade should come to an end. For 20+ years I have followed tennis, and though some sources tend to list only the winners since 1968 or whatever, most, when listing 'all-time' lists, do just that. Clearly, a learned tennis person knows that Roy Emerson's 12 'slams' are worth less, because Rod Laver and Pancho Gonzales were restricted entry during Emerson's years of winning titles, and Emerson never won a title once the championships were 'open' to professionals. Yet the same cannot be said for Suzanne Lenglen, Henri Cochet, and Jean Borotra...the 1920's-early 1930's were the 'golden age' of French tennis, and their success then has never been repeated. Ryoung122 08:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Doing a little more research, we find that the 1892 and 1897 French (mens) finalists were also Englishmen:
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-french-men-s-singles-champions-and-finalists
And, further, in 1925 the French was 'promoted' as an 'international' tournament to enchance its prestige and get foreign visitors. To now turn around and punish the French for inviting foreigners to compete is simply wrong. T(Remember, the French were aslo the first to open their tournament to professionals in 1968.) A search of the historical record finds that, contrary to oft-repeated commentary, the French championships did not actually 'exclude' foreigners. Thus, the rationale for 'greying out' is moot.
Now, no one would argue that the 1891 tournament in any way resembled the level of competition today. But the same can and should be said for Wimbledon in 1877 (Spencer Gore never won again) or the U.S. Open in 1881.
Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 08:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
How could answers.com take that from Wikipedia, if it's not on Wikipedia? And if it is, that just goes to show you that you are not considering the larger picture. You are focused on merely 'winning' an argument rather than respecting history. Ryoung122 09:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Numerous sources, from the World Almanac to the Encylopedia Britannica to ESPN list the French winners since 1891. Here's another one, from CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/05/24/singles.wnners/
Also, the argument that the pre-1925 champions should be exluded because foreigners 'weren't allowed' has been shown to be false.
However, perhaps the best argument to be made is that Wikipedia, unlike a published work, is an edited entry that anyone can edit. To achieve 'consensus' requires respecting multiple points of view. A notation has already been made for the year '1925'. To simply act like pre-1925 titleholders didn't exist smacks of one-dimensional, dictatorial, and parochial meddling. I find it hard to believe that just one individual, going by an alias, has deemed himself more important than international media sources like CNN. Ryoung122 09:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
USA Today also lists since 1891, no 'exlusionary' rule:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/majors-women.htm
Note these are English and American sources, not French sources. The best thing anyone can do here is to treat the French Open with the same respect as the other three: list the titleists since tournament inception. Even if the "Australian Open" was once the "Australiasian championships." Ryoung122 09:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Ryoung122 09:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Currently, many Davis Cup (and Fed Cup) articles have sections that show this list of participating teams in each group & region. They are shown like:
Participating Teams | |||
---|---|---|---|
{{BRAdc|20|<br>}} | {{CANdc|20|<br>}} | {{COLdc|20|<br>}} | |
{{MEXdc|20|<br>}} | {{PERdc|20|<br>}} | {{VENdc|20|<br>}} |
Is there any specific reason why this tabular format is desired, instead of just a simpler bulleted list, such as:
Thanks, Andrwsc 10:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Recently, editors User:Wolbo and User:Tennis expert have engaged in continuous reversions on each other's edits on the Roger Federer page. The disagreement is over the issue of wikilinks to tournaments in the performance timelines. E.g., Wolbo favors a layout where one can click on, say a W in a table to be directed to, say, the Wimbledon 2003 draw. Tennis expert is against on grounds of making editing of the tables more difficult. The issue has been discusse somewhat scattered around the Wiki, so let us all settle the issue at this place. I made a post on Tennis expert's talk page, when he labelled one of Wolbo's reversion vandalism, I repeat this post here, as a start to the discussion:
My opinion is that the idea of links to draws is nice, as it highlights these main draw articles. Also, we do not need to make it a mandatory thing on all players' article. Since, the Federer article is going for GA and eventually FA, it would be a very nice touch to the article. And for retired greats, there would be no problem of making updating of tables more difficult. An argument I don't think is that good in any case. Please put your opinions here. Thanks.-- HJensen, talk 16:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Very few editors other than myself go around checking the edits made by others to ensure that the timelines remain correct. This is already a very time consuming process. Making the timelines even more difficult to edit because we keep adding complicated "enhancements" to tables that, in edit mode, are very user unfriendly just doesn't make sense, as does not having a standardized way of presenting the timelines (e.g., requiring certain players to have links to the draws while saying, oh well, it's not required for others). Perhaps HJensen and Wolbo would volunteer to conform all the hundreds of timelines that currently exist to this proposed way of doing things. Maybe I have missed it, but I haven't noticed either of them making the effort so far. Tennis expert 05:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Template:Top ten North American male tennis players has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — MC 22:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone here read Dutch? There was a proposal on the Dutch Wikipedia (now implemented) to, I assume from looking at that chart, drop the sponsors' names. Should we do this here? (cf. WP:COMMONNAME?) — MC 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone has been messing with Forehand, but I'm heading off for the night and don't have the time to untangle it. Maybe one of you can take a look? -- Falcorian (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy Connors has been nominated for the Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. Any editors who would be interested in collaborating to improve this article should indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 17:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because many use a term doesn't make it correct. When I grew up in the 60's, 70's and 80's the only term I heard to describe the Aussie, French, Wimbledon and US Opens were "Majors." Somewhere, probably during Navratilova's dominance, the term "Slam" was used for the individul tournies. This made sense as winning all 4 in a calendar year was a "Grand Slam", a term used since the 30's. But people got lazy, sportscasters included, and started calling the individual tournies "Grand Slams" incorrectly. In conversation you let that slide, but this is an encyclopedia! Can't we at least get it right here? Do not call them "Grand Slams", call them Majors or Slams. The headings in all the wiki Tennis articles should reflect this. Maybe if enough people see it printed the correct way the debasement of the term will change. Fyunck(click) 18:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have created a tennis set nomination for Version 0.7, please take a look and leave comments. What we need to know are: (a) Is this a suitable list of the top tennis players (13 male + 13 female), plus other key articles? (b) Are the articles of a reasonable quality? I realise that such lists are subjective, but I made up the lists based on details posted on the list pages, as well as my own (small) personal knowledge. I realise that the older players will typically get less coverage, but we do want to make sure the selection covers the truly major players from all time periods. Please give feedback. Thanks, Walkerma 03:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The list of most wanted articles was recently updated, and I've created a section for the many tennis biographies on there. If anyone gets bored, here's a good place to find something to do ;). -- Spyder_Monkey ( Talk) 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Any thoughts? Should I add it to the WP barnstars page?
Ban
Ray
13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to give a heads up to those who edit tennis-related articles. When referring to the tennis player, Mike Leach, please use " Mike Leach (tennis)" instead of " Mike Leach", since the latter links to the football coach. Thanks! → Wordbuilder ( talk) 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
When are you guys going to reach a consensus on whether to use "US Open" or "U.S. Open"?
I'm currently in a discussion with
Tennis expert on which one to use and he keeps saying a consensus was not reached on this issue. But then in his edit summary he says changes were made against consensus. So is he right that a consensus was not made
here in
April 2007 or is he right a consensus was made elsewhere?
I'm also writing here, because I think we need someone else to either mediate or join the conversation on either this talk page or on the
US Open (tennis) talk page. --
203.220.170.192 (
talk)
02:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you add details of all abbreviations used - both the literal expansion and what that actually means to the articles of tennis players. (I suggest a template for easy inclusion into lots of players.) For example, in Tim Henman the table at the end is full of many coloured "R1, RR, QF, W". I guess, but do NOT know that this means "The player got as far as Round 1, RR??? no idea, Quarter finals, Won the event." But if that is the case then the totals don't add up. There are 11 wins listed with the total being 12 and yet there is only one "W". It makes no sense to the non-expert. Also remember that there will be readers whose first language is not English. -- SGBailey ( talk) 23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I created article Laura DuPont, perhaps someone could mosey over there, check it out, and rate it (stub class, methinks). Thank you. Guldenat ( talk) 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the importance scale, the general one was confusing and unsuitable for this project. Any thoughts are welcome. Ban Ray 11:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please can someone look at this article, it needs a rewrite as it doesn't seem to flow too well. I'm trying to do this for several other female tennis-player articles as well. If you see the talk page, you'll see what I mean. Thanks, -- Solumeiras talk 11:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I could not find this issue discussed elsewhere, so permit me to raise it here. Why, exactly, are we identifying players with national flags in contexts where the players are not representing countries? I understand the exception of IO games, Fed Cup and Davis Cup, but what about WTA/ITF/ATP tournaments? The players playing there are competing as individuals; in some cases, the issue of nationality is not straightforward, and the player actually possesses several passports. Players train and live in various places. National anthems are not played before tournament matches or at the moment of awarding winners, national representation win totals or orther statistics are not maintained by ITF (except in the national team competition case), WTA or ATP. Please explain, exactly what justifies branding players with national flags in international tennis, other than in the national team competition contexts? -- Mareklug talk 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
As I've been watching the Australian Open I've been reading a few tennis-related articles and am pretty surprised by the poor quality of them in general. Most are not written in an encyclopedic tone, and read as if they are articles in a magazine or similar publication. There are a lot of weasel words that need dealing with, puffers, and NPOV policy needs to be applied. I don't have the time, inclination or expertise to fix the vast number of articles that needs fixing, but its something the Wikiproject needs to look at. The articles I read were (but from what I've seen this is the tip of the iceberg) Maria Sharapova, Steffi Graf (and a lot of other bios) & 2008 Australian Open. It's definitely good writing, but just not suitable for an encyclopedia. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Some help would be appreciated with this new article. Many of the google hits turn up foreign language sites, so hopefully somebody associated with this project will have better resources. Pairadox ( talk) 10:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me or does that page title make no sense? I understand why the 'Open' was taken out but as it stands the name is really ambiguous. Would it be an option to change 'French Men's' to 'Roland-Garros'? Crickettragic ( talk) 13:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how much interest that participants with this Wikiproject may want to get involved with a related Wikibook, but I'm leaving this note here to inform those who may be interested that the Tennis Wikibook is currently nominated for deletion on Wikibooks.
This book is certainly in sad shape in terms of offering any realistic information about how to play the game or go into depth about the topic, and it would be appreciated if somebody interested in the topic could help add content to those pages. The primary rationale for deletion is due to the fact that the information in this book is of such poor quality that it doesn't merit even being on Wikibooks any more. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 16:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Florida Gators Barnstar | |
For good and thorough work pertaining to articles about the Florida Gators. |
Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while, and some articles wait up to 50 days for a review. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject Tennis is to try to find time to review Ogre (game) and Nashville Sounds. If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Since this is something that is going to involve a number of articles, and something that is likely to cause a little bit of commotion, I thought it would be wise to have a discussion before doing it, even though it is ultimately pretty much unavoidable. This seemed to be the most appropriate forum, since people here are more specifically devoted to tennis-related articles. I will try to post notices about this discussion on the talk pages of as many articles as I can remember that are to be affected.
So the thing is: there is a significant number of tennis biographies that are, right now, violating the naming conventions of the English-language Wikipedia, namely
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). The situation concerns biographies of tennis players of Slav and South American countries (that I have noticed so far). As it is stated in our Naming Convention, which I linked above, in the case of spelling of a person's name, on the English-language Wikipedia (thus not applicable to other Wikipedias necessarily, subject to local policies), the name of the article is to be the preferred spelling in the English-speaking world, if it exists. If not, then we use the original spelling in the native language. In the case of tennis players, the preferred spelling in English is easily verifiable by how those names are spelled by the ATP and the WTA respectively — which is used normally by the media and any other means of divulgation in English-speaking countries.
What that means for practical purposes is: no diacritics, romanization of any non-Latin letters or symbols, as done not by Wikipedia, but by the sources (in this case, the ATP and the WTA). Currently, many biographies are not observing this, such as
Fernando González,
Ana Ivanović,
Ivan Ljubičić and
Radek Štěpánek. In addition, there is the peculiar case of Novak Djokovic (spelled as is): while the article has been moved to the appropriate naming on this Wikipedia, the player's name continues to be listed on other tennis-related articles routinely as Novak Đoković, the original spelling in Serbian. All of those will need to be fixed.
Obviously, there are many people, especially people who contribute only sporadically to Wikipedia, and possibly concentrated on tennis alone, or maybe limited to a small number of biographies or tennis-related articles, and thus will be unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, who might tend to call upon "national issues" and claim that the original spelling needs to be kept out of "respect for the countries" from which the player comes. Unfortunately, this argument cannot prosper ultimately, for the reasons I've explained above. But I've seen this argument time and again, especially concerning Slav players (and especially on Djokovic's entry). Therefore, if there is anything anyone would like to point out about this, it would be preferrable that we get any problems out of the way now.
But again, ultimately the naming conventions are clear: this is the English-language Wikipedia, and in here we use the preferred spelling in the English-speaking world if it exists. In the case of tennis players, it clearly exists and it is easily verified.
Redux (
talk)
00:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This does not really refer to us placing an alphabet before any other. This is about a methodology and the established fact that on the English-language Wikipedia content is written in English. That applies to the spelling of people's names as well: if there is a preferred spelling used in the English-speaking world, that is what is going to be used on this Wikipedia as the article's title. We are not making this up as we go along, this is an established methodology of work — and a logical one, obviously, since this is the English-language Wikipedia. You should notice that this is about the naming of articles. This is not about excluding or hiding the native-language spelling of anyone's name. As a matter of fact, we are required to give it in the opening paragraph. Not to mention that it is good practice to have the original spelling exist as a redirect to the correctly-placed article.
Now, even though this is not a discussion about deletion, regarding this kind of personal sentiment towards how the English-language Wikipedia is written, there is a page that completely applies here (
mutatis mutandi):
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically the third section,
#Personal point of view, and in it, the subsections
"I like it" and
"I don't like it".
In order to oppose the concerned moves validly, you need to indicate either that there is no preferred spelling in the English-speaking world, which causes the article title to default to the native-language spelling, or that the English-speaking world happens to spell it exactly like the native spelling, which means that the article would already be at the correct location. In the case of tennis players, that is evidently difficult to conceive, since this needs to be backed by verifiable sources, and since both the ATP and the WTA use English as their working languages and they themselves list the players excluding diacritics and so on, the players' profiles on the official website of the concerned governing entity becomes a quasi-indisputable proof of the preferred spelling in English.
Redux (
talk)
23:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This thread is now over a week old. In addition to the naming conventions that need to be followed, there was no sustainable opposition made here, aside the "I like it"/"I don't like it" remarks that, as I mentioned before, cannot prosper (see my previous comments). On the contrary, consensus is overwhelmingly clear in support of the already-existing naming conventions that, on the English-language Wikipedia, we will use the preferred spelling used in the English-speaking world — in the case of tennis, verified by the spelling used for each player on the official websites of the ATP and the WTA.
That being the case, barring the presentation of something new and relevant, we will commence the implementation of the outcome tomorrow, May 19. This will consist of 2 lines of action: the main one will be the moving of all biographies concerned to the ATP/WTA-used spelling; the second action will be the correcting of the players' names' spelling in all instances where it was spelled using the native-language spelling, both in results articles, such as in
2008 Hamburg Masters - Singles and in all biographies with career statistics boards, such as
Rafael Nadal#All finals (41), where the article's title is unaffected by this and it will not be moved, but the opponents' names on that board will be changed to match the spelling used in the English-speaking world.
Needless to say that the second part, although technically easier, represents a massive effort. So we will be counting on the help of all of those willing to. And this brings up an important point: once the spellings are corrected, if people, be it anons or other registered users, start reverting it back to the native-spellings, please do not engage them in revert wars. Revert once, inform them of the naming conventions and of this discussion. If they either ignore you or reply with answers such as "Wikipedia is disrespecting X country/culture/langugage" and go on to re-revert it again, report it immediately to the administrators at
their noticeboard. As I mentioned, anyone trying to "force" articles or spellings to stay how they personally think those should be will be incurring in several policy violations and will be subject to administrative measures.
Redux (
talk)
19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
What's the best way to include the native spelling? For the Serb players I've just been putting Serb Latin; what about the rest of the Slavonic players, and the Hispanic ones? I really don't how to format this. Yohan euan o4 ( talk) 07:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
only Central European countrys use a different versions of the Latin alphabet then English people. The country's language article should say what alpabeth they use. Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 22:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Minor problem is that all their trainers, friends and family members are not listed at ATP/WTA. So right now we have a strange mix of Anglicised and original names. Squash Racket ( talk) 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What is special about tennis players that they deserve special treatment on Wikipedia? Why not to apply this rule to all articles? Why it is OK to have José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Gerhard Schröder, Agim Çeku, Kimi Räikkönen, Nicklas Bäckström and not Tomáš Berdych?-- Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S ( talk) 11:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, no any difference. It seems that this thread was made specifically in order to impose some double criteria of couple guys , member of "anti-diacritics squad", universal , self-proclaimed "experts".-- Aradic-es ( talk) 08:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
So ,I see this proposal as an alternative way to impose POV. What is the difference between the biographies of tennis player, , politicians scientists. -- Aradic-es ( talk) 10:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
So, I see no reasons for making this thread but to impose some "no-diacritic" . And no , I see no WP:AGF in this proposal. Yes, Couple of guys here are trying to persuade us that "this is not anti-diacritics movement" . That is same as saying "We don't ban the Chinese people enter here-just to those who are shorter than 190 centimeters" or "we do not ban the black race people enter here-just to those who have curly hair" . So predictable and transparent tricks-old as the world itself -- Aradic-es ( talk) 10:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, off course. You don't understand . Like usual.nothing that I write. --
Añtó| Àntó (
talk)
13:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I am just trying to use the same rhetorics as you are. Which usually is in the following steps:
respecting them and your opponent is NOT.
whatever change was made emphasize it as "historical" etc.
As we can see so called consensusabout "Novak Đoković" hat was made in April 2008 , just 7 days after 2 years of discussion- used good opportunity in good time. Syncronized acting and imposed the rule.more -less same user -member of anti-diacritics squad. Great job. Congratulations!
there are couple users repaeting the same arguments in couple articles and/or wikipedia policy discussions:PMAnderson,TennisExpert,PhillipBaird Shearer ,Somedumbyankee and ,of course, our dear Norse PhD HJensen. Since there was no any consensus about usage of diacrics at general level I consider this as a hidden illegal attempt. --
Añtó| Àntó (
talk)
09:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Suggest that those proposing the multiple move at WP:RM#19 May 2008 consult WP:RM#Moving several pages at once for the recommended procedure. Andrewa ( talk) 09:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A delicate issue as "no diacritics" argument certainly cannot be done without a RM. A RM should be held, and not for multiple pages but for each individual page. If there is consensus on them that they can be moved, they will. Otherwise, they should not be moved. This is a controversial move (and for the record, one which I strongly oppose).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This something I just noticed tonight, and it made it somewhat difficult and confusing to visually assimilate the match scores I was reading.
Apparently on March 23, someone or somebot (or some combo of the two, since there were multiple edits per minute being made by the same IP address) decided to change the presentation format of the tennis scores in hundreds of articles. See [3].
The changes all have the edit comment of: "MoS: Hyphens are often wrongly used for disjunction in Wikipedia; this is especially common in sports scores."
This is just a HORRIBLE change to have made, and I would like to see the scores changed back and no edit war ensue.
Tennis (and similarly volleyball, table tennis, etc.) scores are quite different from scores in many other sports (such as baseball, football, basketball, soccer, etc.) in that the scores follow a predictable format and that a match score contains a multiple of the component set scores.
So in tennis, you could conceivably report the scores of a match as 64 61 with no punctuation aside from the space and still be understood. You could even report a tiebreak set as 763 and still be understood.
On the other hand, a basketball score of 131-2, however unlikely, needs some punctuation (or to use the above editors terminology, some visual disjunction) to distinguish it from a score of 13-12.
And in basketball and similar sports, there is just ONE score to report upon for each match. So there is no need to concern yourself with horizontal spacing of the scores visually, and its effect on the ability of the reader to assimilate the meaning of the scores.
In tennis, however, you have a series of scores for each match, so you need to concern yourself with each piece of a set score as well as the visual presentation of a match score.
Consider the following presentations of the same match score:
64 16 763 6711 75
6-4, 1-6, 7-6(3), 6-7(11), 7-5
6–4, 1–6, 7–6 (3), 6–7 (11), 7–5
Hmmm ... I am not even sure if that is going to show up as intended.
But anyway, the point is that while all three versions of the scores can be read and understood, the first version is difficult to visually assimilate, the 2nd version (which was used before the edits were made) is the easiest to assimilate, and the 3rd version, the current version, is more difficult to assimilate.
(Please note that I also have changed the tiebreak display here to what I have always seen used in websites and news reports, no SPACE between the set score and the parenthesis with the tiebreak score).
The elongated hyphen (pardon me for not knowing the technical term) has the visual effect of pushing the end of one set score closer visually to the start of the next set score than to the start of its own set score. That is, a score of 5-7, 6-1, 6-2 looks more like 5 7 6 1 6 2.
And the additional space before the tiebreak score serves only to further turn what should be a visually clean match score into a giant blob of hyphens, numbers, and parentheses.
Of course, if the 3rd example above does not contain the elongated hyphens, you may not be seeing what I am talking about.
If you have seen what I am talking about, what are your thoughts? ShabbatSam ( talk) 05:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Could someone point out where in wiki is the naming convention for female players? As far as last names being listed in charts as the married name or the name by which the player played under whilst competing. I don't know whether she changed it or not but if she did would we put down Steffi Graf Agassi or simply Steffi Graf? Chris Evert Norman or Chris Evert? Maureen Connolly Brinker or Maureen Connolly? Just a query so I don't mess things up and I couldn't find it listed anywhere. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
HJensen, see WP:CON. Tennis expert ( talk) 06:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the Mikhail Youzhny page needs a cleanup aswell as more references being added?
In my opinion it's a mess. Dan the Man1983 ( talk) 05:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Tennis_scores#User:Tennis_scores and assess whether the list is encyclopedic material that can be added to a tennis article. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Most dictionaries only recognise "runners-up" as the plural of "runner-up" [4] though Merriam-Webster throws "runner-ups" a small bone as "also" occurring.
More than half the pages on Wikipedia where the word "runner ups" occurs relate to tennis ( "Runner-ups" site:en.wikipedia.org tennis "Runner-ups" site:en.wikipedia.org -tennis). You might want to think about changing your standard layout. Regards, jnestorius( talk) 00:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I made some templates for ATP Race , I think its useful. There are links
{{ATP Race header}}
{{ATP Race player}}
{{ATP Race footer}}
So, I want your argument about it.This is an example:
{{ATP Race header|s=2008|u=2008-06-23}} {{ATP Race player |s=2008 | pos= 1 | p = Rafael Nadal | n = ESP | pgs1 =90 | rgs1 =SF | pgs2 =200 | rgs2 ='''W''' | pgs3 = | rgs3n =n | pgs4 = | rgs4 = | pms1 =45 | rms1 =SF | pms2 =70 | rms2 =F | pms3 =100 | rms3 ='''W''' | pms4 =1 | rms4 =R32 | pms5 =100 | rms5 ='''W''' | pms6 = | rms6n =n | pms7 = | rms7 = | pms8 = | rms8 = | pms9 = | rms9 = | bo1 = Torneo Godó | pbo1 =60 | rbo1 ='''W''' | bo2 = Queen's Club Championships | pbo2 =45 | rbo2 ='''W''' | bo3 = Chennai Open | pbo3 =24 | rbo3 =F | bo4 = Dubai Tennis Championships | pbo4 =15 | rbo4 =QF | bo5 = ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament | pbo5 =5 | rbo5 =R16 }} {{ATP Race footer}}
And this is thr result:
Race updated: 2008-06-23
Rk | Name | Nation | Grand Slams | Masters Series | Best other | Total | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AUS | RGA | WIM | USO | IND | MIA | MON | ROM | HAM | TOR | CIN | MAD | PAR | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||
1 | Rafael Nadal | ![]() |
90 SF |
200 W |
— | 45 SF |
70 F |
100 W |
1 R32 |
100 W |
— | 60 W |
45 W |
24 F |
15 QF |
5 R16 |
755 |
I recently moved the template pre open era to Template:Pre Open Era Wimbledon Gentlemen's singles champions, as the main list is named thus. Should gentlemen be the norm? And should all other pages be moved accordingly? Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What's our policy on articles about junior players? I remember a discussion about Bernard Tomic some time ago, but I had been without internet for eight mounts, so I don't know is policy changed? Couple of days ago, someone made Bojana Jovanovski article, and its terrible. What to do? :) -- Göran Smith ( talk) 20:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated the tennis-related article Rome Masters 2006 Final for deletion according with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please have your say on the issue here. - Allied45 ( talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I know that the Wikipedia article lists Roland Garros' name as the French Open, but I think we should change it to Roland Garros. Never as it been officially known as The French Open, only by some English commentators. On the Roland Garros website it makes no reference to the French Open, and I think it should be called by it's official name, Roland Garros. -- MacMad ( talk · contribs) 05:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I just moved Template:GrandSlamInfo to Template:TennisEventInfo, made it so this template can take "gender-free" events (e.g. "Event - Singles", as opposed to "Event - Men's Singles") and then redirected to it Template:AtpTourInfo and Template:WtaTourInfo. The only thing that those last two templates provided that the first one doesn't is generic light blue/pink colours in template headers, but as each different tournament should have its own colour anyway (as per the inter-year navbox colours) this isn't much of a loss. I added the other colours to the template where they exist.
Finally, I created Template:TennisEvents and Template:TennisEvents2 to act as counterparts to Template:GrandSlamEvents. The former has no "Mixed Singles" event but both men's and women's events (and, in the case of Miami Masters, boy's and girl's events too). The latter is gender-free. Again, I provided colours matching those of the inter-year navboxes where possible. These templates obviously need to be populated onto individual event articles. I hope you find them useful! rst20xx ( talk) 20:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Also I've made a template for Draw keys, similar to Template:Performance timeline legend - rst20xx ( talk) 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to find the article on this (I knew we had one), and finally found it at Rainout (sports). I set up some appropriate redirects, but at present Rainout (sports) only refers to rain stopping play in baseball and motorsports; it's very US-centric. Not knowing that much about tennis, I wondered if the experts here at WP:TENNIS might like to put together a paragraph regarding the effect of rain on outdoors tennis on the Rainout (sports) article? I have left a similar sort of message on the WP:CRICKET talk page. Neıl ☄ 11:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
As I've been recently working on improving tournaments articles from the 1994 ATP Tour, I have tried to dig the archives of the ATP and ITF websites to determine exactly of what series was part each tournament in the 1994 calendar. I have found that, aside from the Grand Slams, the Davis Cup and the Year-End Championships, there were something like 60+ small tournaments, similar to the current International Series, under the appellation World Series - and I have created a template for them :
The remaining 21 events seem to fall into two categories:
Milan, Memphis, Philadelphia, Stuttgart Indoor, Barcelona, Tokyo Outdoor, Stuttgart Outdoor, Washington, Indianapolis and New Haven are all labeled CSD by the ITF website.
Indian Wells, Key Biscayne, Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome, Montreal-Toronto, Cincinnati, Stockholm, Paris Indoor, and, to my great surprise, Sydney Indoor and Tokyo Indoor are labeled CSS by the ITF.
That leaves me with two questions: First, what do CSD and CSS mean ? I guess the CS stand for Championships Series, but what what do the D and the S mean ?
Secondly, why are Sydney and Tokyo Indoor put in the same category as the Super Nine events ? Were they really eleven top tier events in 1994, or is it a mistake from the ITF ?
You can see Sydney and Tokyo Indoor labeled as CSS by looking in Boris Becker's 1994 calendar, for example.
I'd appreciate your input on these questions, which would allow me the create templates for those two series, for the year of '94 and all other calendars of the nineties, and continue to improve individual events articles. Cheers, -- Plafond ( talk) 12:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be a conflict in articles that mention size ranks of tennis centers. See Talk:USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center. Apparently there is no consensus (or even a discussion yet) on how to qualify such claims. Number of courts? Spectator total seating? - newkai t- c 01:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if one of you tennis experts would review the comment about Corria in our article on Yips and either cite the comment or remove it; as his biog article does not mention yips, I'm concerned about WP:OR. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
As we can see here , here, here , here , here here and here, User:Tennis expert has involved himself in a huge "anti-diacritics" with no any support just renaming the pages independently. In some the moves he is calling this thread as referrence. -- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 10:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
(reset) Sorry, what? As far as I can see, the only thing you can be referring to in that thread is Aradic-es' reference to the failed proposals here, here and here. But I have no idea what that has to do with what I'm suggesting. I'm simply suggesting you create a page, oh you could use this one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article Guidelines. And in there, you could create a section about diacritics, and this WikiProject's consensus on their (dis)use in tennis articles. And then in the future, when this debate crops up, you'd only have to point to that, and it'd be better proof of consensus than some past thread. The only reason you could possibly have for not doing that is if you don't really have any consensus here in the first place - rst20xx ( talk) 23:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I have told so many times:what is the difference between tennis player, politicians, scientist. How is that their names should be different??-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 06:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, and tennisExpert is try to impose spelling from tennis related websites that never use diacritics. Such as : Atp , ITF , Davis cup , Tennis hall of fame-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
New-comers to the discussion Yosef1987 ( talk) 23:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
In the bios, should it be like Miami Masters or Sony Ericsson Open etc?? Taking it to the right place from the wrong place Yosef1987 ( talk) 15:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert, please hear me out, this is not my reference, I've already gave you a link and you refused to check it out carefully, so here's what I'll say, check this out, and this here, also you'll find out a page says: "The 2008 Miami Masters (also known as the Sony Ericsson Open for sponsorship reasons)...", it is a de facto as well as the site I gave you that sponsors change, like when Miami MS was called: Nasdaq 100, I don't know how else to explain, you don't try to explain it to me what you think, which I am willing to hear but not like this: The link you provided uses the sponsors' names. Enough said, because The link I provided uses the sponsors' names and the tournaments names as well !!! Thank you Yosef1987 ( talk) 22:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
One more thing please to "Tennis expert", Official calender, let's see what it says: "Pacific Life Open – Indian Wells", but a few years back it would have been "Another sponsor – Indian Wells". Same for Miami/Sony/Nasdaq and the whole gang Yosef1987 ( talk) 22:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
....also, all the templates, every where on tennis articles, do not mention sponsors, because they change, copy and paste from Indian Wells Masters, the ATP Masters Series Tournaments template: Indian Wells · Miami · Monte Carlo · Rome · Hamburg · Montreal/Toronto · Cincinnati · Stockholm/Essen/Stuttgart/Madrid · Paris. Please refer to all my replies before replying, because definitely this reply is not a reference, just proving a point, because consistency is mandatory to Wikipedia Yosef1987 ( talk) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this should end like this, I am not mad at anyone, I am proving my point for a better Wikipedia. Oh forgot to say, the sponsor name for Monte-Carlo MS is Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters not just Monte-Carlo Masters :):):) I have asked for a support, should be on the way from the Tennis Project members hopefully, that is extra opinions, 3 won't do it Yosef1987 ( talk) 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, lots of debate here. Why don't we formally settle this with a vote, ala Gdansk Vote. -- Armchair info guy ( talk) 08:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
For new-comers to this discussion, here is what's going on: each tournament has 2 names, a name that doesn't change over time and is basically the host city's name (e.g. Miami) and we have the sponsor's name, which changes whenever a new sponsor takes over, now which name to use in the biographies, remember that a player's career can witness sponsor changes, and it is good to point that templates here and the tables and the statistics use the simple name (e.g. Miami)
Example:
Consistency and accuracy is the target, thank you Yosef1987 ( talk) 23:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Only skimmed the debate, but my two opinion: I would see things continue as they currently are at Canada Masters and 2004 Canada Masters, i.e.
Additionally (and this is where the debate seems to be focused), I think the tennis player articles should avoid sponsorship names as well. Now, as for why: the ATP seem to often use the sponsorship title, but not always (e.g. here). If the ATP consistently used the sponsorship names, I'd agree with Nishkid64, but sometimes they use non-sponsorship (because sometimes it's less confusing!), hence in my opinion both are acceptable, and hence I'd go for the less confusing option, i.e. the non-sponsor names. As for the "1000 Series", well that's a different matter... rst20xx ( talk) 23:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert: Won't say much so my point becomes very simple: Sponsors change over time, so to maintain accuracy and factuality would be impossible in all bios bec of the different eras and we saw that happen even in the recent era (the Nasdaq 100 thing) Yosef1987 ( talk) 10:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert: in Arantxa Sanchez Vicario and Lindsay Davenport: are you referring to the piping? Actually there isn't much on those articles, mainly only the grand slams...am not against piping, but here's a question, since the articles themselves here are non-sponsor named, why use a sponsor name to link to a non-sponsor named article? Example: 2006 Miami Masters - Men's Singles...I guess if we settle this it'll be over... Yosef1987 ( talk) 12:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Something everyone has forgotten is that using the official sponsored names of tournaments is something we've been doing for a very long time. I did not just "invent" the idea. See List of tennis tournaments, for example. So, what's the big deal? Tennis expert ( talk) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's do a brief survey of what the English-language news media does around the world. And let's use the
Sony Ericsson Open in
Key Biscayne, Florida as the example.
(1) New York Times:
uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami)
(2) London Times:
uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami)
(3) Sydney Morning Herald:
uses the official sponsored name
(4) International Herald Tribune:
uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami)
(5) Times of India:
uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami)
(6) Dawn (Pakistan):
uses the official sponsored name
(7) Reuters:
uses the official sponsored name
(8) USA Today:
uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami)
(9) Tennis.com:
uses the official sponsored name
(10) Xinhua (People's Republic of China):
uses the official sponsored name
(11) The Star (South Africa):
uses the official sponsored name.
(12) Pravda (Russia):
uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami).
Tennis expert (
talk)
06:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's do a brief counter-survey of what the English-language news media does around the world. And let's use the
Miami Masters as the example again.
(1) New York Times:
uses "Miami Masters"
(2) The Times:
uses "Miami Masters"
(3) Sydney Morning Herald:
uses "Miami Masters"
(4) International Herald Tribune:
uses "Miami Masters"
(5) Times of India:
uses "Miami Masters"
(6) Dawn (Pakistan):
uses "Miami Masters"
(7) Reuters:
uses "Miami Masters"
(8) USA Today:
uses "Miami Masters"
(9) Tennis.com:
uses "Miami Masters"
(10) Xinhua (People's Republic of China):
uses "Miami Masters"
(11) The Star (South Africa):
uses "Miami Masters".
(12) Pravda (Russia):
uses "Miami Open"?!?
I have to say, that is the most pointless activity I have ever been forced to carry out -
rst20xx (
talk)
14:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Here are two tables based on the Roger Federer article that illustrate what I am advocating. The first table is the status quo. The second table is my proposal. As you can see, what I am advocating is neither radical nor unreasonable.
ATP Masters Series singles finals (23)
Wins (14)
Year | Championship | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Hamburg | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Indian Wells | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Hamburg (2) | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Toronto (Canada) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
2005 | Indian Wells (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 |
2005 | Miami | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 |
2005 | Hamburg (3) | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) |
2005 | Cincinnati | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 |
2006 | Indian Wells (3) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 |
2006 | Miami (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) |
2006 | Toronto (Canada) (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 |
2006 | Madrid | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 |
2007 | Hamburg (4) | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 |
2007 | Cincinnati (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
ATP Masters Series singles finals (23)
Wins (14)
Year | Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Masters Series Hamburg | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Pacific Life Open | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Masters Series Hamburg (2) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Rogers Cup | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
2005 | Pacific Life Open (2) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 |
2005 | NASDAQ-100 Open | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 |
2005 | Masters Series Hamburg (3) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) |
2005 | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 |
2006 | Pacific Life Open (3) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 |
2006 | NASDAQ-100 Open (2) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) |
2006 | Rogers Cup (2) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 |
2006 | Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid | Madrid, Spain | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 |
2007 | Masters Series Hamburg (4) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 |
2007 | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (2) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
Tennis expert ( talk) 06:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert, consensus is clearly against your opinion here. Several editors have voiced opposition to your opinion, presenting well reasoned arguments that both names are acceptable, but the latter is preferable as it is simpler. If you do not respect consensus, I will be forced to take this issue to some kind of higher body - rst20xx ( talk) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Another reason in favor of the proposal is that it helps with sorting. The proposal would allow people to sort by official name or by tournament location while the status quo allows sorting only by location. This is especially useful in the career results tables (not shown above). Tennis expert ( talk) 18:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is a third possibility that preserves sortability and data that many of us would like to see:
ATP Masters Series singles finals (23)
Wins (14)
Year | Tournament Name | Sponsored Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Hamburg Masters (1) | Masters Series Hamburg (1) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Indian Wells Masters (1) | Pacific Life Open (1) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Hamburg Masters (2) | Masters Series Hamburg (2) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Canada Masters (1) | Rogers Cup (1) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
2005 | Indian Wells Masters (2) | Pacific Life Open (2) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 |
2005 | Miami Masters (1) | NASDAQ-100 Open (1) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 |
2005 | Hamburg Masters (3) | Masters Series Hamburg (3) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) |
2005 | Cincinnati Masters (1) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (1) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 |
2006 | Indian Wells Masters (3) | Pacific Life Open (3) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 |
2006 | Miami Masters (2) | NASDAQ-100 Open (2) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) |
2006 | Canada Masters (2) | Rogers Cup (2) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 |
2006 | Madrid Masters | Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid | Madrid, Spain | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 |
2007 | Hamburg Masters (4) | Masters Series Hamburg (4) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 |
2007 | Cincinnati Masters (2) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (2) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
Tennis expert ( talk) 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I do like the new table, the official and the sponsored names appearing is a good idea. But I think that the LOCATION column should be taken out, like:
ATP Masters Series singles finals (23)
Wins (14)
Year | Tournament Name | Sponsored Tournament Name | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Hamburg Masters (1) | Masters Series Hamburg (1) | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Indian Wells Masters (1) | Pacific Life Open (1) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Hamburg Masters (2) | Masters Series Hamburg (2) | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Canada Masters (1) | Rogers Cup (1) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
2005 | Indian Wells Masters (2) | Pacific Life Open (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 |
2005 | Miami Masters (1) | NASDAQ-100 Open (1) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 |
2005 | Hamburg Masters (3) | Masters Series Hamburg (3) | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) |
2005 | Cincinnati Masters (1) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (1) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 |
2006 | Indian Wells Masters (3) | Pacific Life Open (3) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 |
2006 | Miami Masters (2) | NASDAQ-100 Open (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) |
2006 | Canada Masters (2) | Rogers Cup (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 |
2006 | Madrid Masters | Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 |
2007 | Hamburg Masters (4) | Masters Series Hamburg (4) | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 |
2007 | Cincinnati Masters (2) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
But I find a problem with this: When Madrid masters place was taken by another masters and when Canada changes between Toronto/Montréal... But I don't think a location column should be there since in mostly case it's replicated information. 81.184.38.52 ( talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I would oppose the current table while the sponsor names are wikilinked, as this constitutes overlinking - rst20xx ( talk) 14:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Or well, if you want we may have a completed info table (this is a half joke)
ATP Masters Series singles finals (23)
Wins (14)
Year | Tournament Name | Sponsored Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final | Match Time | Aces | Doubles Faults | Spectators |
2002 | Hamburg Masters (1) | Masters Series Hamburg (1) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 | ||||
2004 | Indian Wells Masters (1) | Pacific Life Open (1) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 | ||||
2004 | Hamburg Masters (2) | Masters Series Hamburg (2) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 | ||||
2004 | Canada Masters (1) | Rogers Cup (1) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 | ||||
2005 | Indian Wells Masters (2) | Pacific Life Open (2) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 | ||||
2005 | Miami Masters (1) | NASDAQ-100 Open (1) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 | ||||
2005 | Hamburg Masters (3) | Masters Series Hamburg (3) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) | ||||
2005 | Cincinnati Masters (1) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (1) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 | ||||
2006 | Indian Wells Masters (3) | Pacific Life Open (3) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 | ||||
2006 | Miami Masters (2) | NASDAQ-100 Open (2) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) | ||||
2006 | Canada Masters (2) | Rogers Cup (2) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 | ||||
2006 | Madrid Masters | Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid | Madrid, Spain | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 | ||||
2007 | Hamburg Masters (4) | Masters Series Hamburg (4) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 | ||||
2007 | Cincinnati Masters (2) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (2) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
As you see, the info on the table should be minimal, otherwise we can put something like this. 62.57.197.139 ( talk) 15:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Check this out everyone, from from the french wiki, where tennis is a featured article, this is Federer's career, you'll need to expand the tables, it uses both names in the table, I like that, and I guess that's great for everyone, even Nadal is like that on wiki fr and everyone else, ha? What do you think everyone???
Leaves out the career details, which I guess we'd go for non-sponsor name, for all the reason's I've discussed Yosef1987 ( talk) 13:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey everyone, it is getting confusing now, where are we now please? Thanks Yosef1987 ( talk) 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, well I think the consensus is either to have both sponsor and non-sponsor names, or to just have non-sponsor. I'm going to set up a straw poll on this, as despite some opposing such a move, I think it would demonstrate clear consensus for one and not the other, thus concluding the argument; I think the fact that we haven't done this is part of the reason that this discussion has dragged on for so long - rst20xx ( talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
So, to be clear:
Year | Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Hamburg Masters (1) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Indian Wells Masters (1) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Hamburg Masters (2) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Canada Masters (1) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
2005 | Indian Wells Masters (2) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 |
2005 | Miami Masters (1) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 |
2005 | Hamburg Masters (3) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) |
2005 | Cincinnati Masters (1) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 |
2006 | Indian Wells Masters (3) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 |
2006 | Miami Masters (2) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) |
2006 | Canada Masters (2) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 |
2006 | Madrid Masters | Madrid, Spain | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 |
2007 | Hamburg Masters (4) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 |
2007 | Cincinnati Masters (2) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
Year | Tournament Name | Sponsored Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Hamburg Masters (1) | Masters Series Hamburg | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Indian Wells Masters (1) | Pacific Life Open | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Hamburg Masters (2) | Masters Series Hamburg | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Canada Masters (1) | Rogers Cup | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
2005 | Indian Wells Masters (2) | Pacific Life Open | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 |
2005 | Miami Masters (1) | NASDAQ-100 Open | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 |
2005 | Hamburg Masters (3) | Masters Series Hamburg | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) |
2005 | Cincinnati Masters (1) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 |
2006 | Indian Wells Masters (3) | Pacific Life Open | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 |
2006 | Miami Masters (2) | NASDAQ-100 Open | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) |
2006 | Canada Masters (2) | Rogers Cup | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 |
2006 | Madrid Masters | Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid | Madrid, Spain | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 |
2007 | Hamburg Masters (4) | Masters Series Hamburg | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 |
2007 | Cincinnati Masters (2) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
Year | Sponsored Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Masters Series Hamburg (1) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Pacific Life Open (1) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Masters Series Hamburg (2) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Rogers Cup (1) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
2005 | Pacific Life Open (2) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 |
2005 | NASDAQ-100 Open (1) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 |
2005 | Masters Series Hamburg (3) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) |
2005 | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (1) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 |
2006 | Pacific Life Open (3) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 |
2006 | NASDAQ-100 Open (2) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) |
2006 | Rogers Cup (2) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 |
2006 | Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid | Madrid, Spain | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 |
2007 | Masters Series Hamburg (4) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 |
2007 | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (2) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
Please state your position below - rst20xx ( talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Support b) When I am looking up information about a tennis player, I find it very useful to be presented with the tournament they won and the name of the tournament at the time they won it. It would be possible to find this information using the wikilinks, but table b) displays the information I want at a glance. Coyets ( talk) 08:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I realise that straw polls are not a substitute for establishing consensus through discussion, but I hope that support for a) will be so overwhelming that it will demonstrate that there is broad consensus, and that opposition is small (one?) but highly vocal vocal - rst20xx ( talk) 19:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
62.57.197.139 kinda brought it up with the "joke" table, but I just don't see the need for separate columns for the tournament name and location. The only reason I can come up with for having two is for sorting separately, but the names and cities are usually the same. The exception is Montreal/Toronto, and sorting by city could cause confusion there, since they are the same tournament. Only one column seems just fine:
Year | Tournament | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Hamburg Masters, Hamburg, Germany (1) | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Indian Wells Masters, Indian Wells, California, U.S. (1) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Hamburg Masters, Hamburg, Germany (2) | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Canada Masters, Toronto, Canada (1) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
etc. |
Another thing: is this only for the Masters table, or for the complete results table as well? Because most of the regular tournaments' articles are the sponsored names, do we care about putting the tournament name in that table, too?
Also, to raise a broader issue, do we need a separate table to Masters/Tier I events? The information in any of the tables discussed would just be repeated in that table. The Masters and Grand Slams are already highlighted in the full table with color and (in some cases) bold text. -- Spyder_Monkey ( Talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)ç
I refuse to participate in a poll (straw or otherwise) that violates Wikipedia policy because it is being used as a substitute for and early terminator of discussion and the subsequent establishment of consensus. Plus, b) is not even my proposal; so, this "poll" doesn't allow people to choose from among all the available proposals. Finally, even if polling were a valid method, which it is not, 81.184.38.42/ Wikitestor and all his sockpuppets are not allowed to vote because he has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tennis expert ( talk) 06:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I mean the changes from the Master Series and International Gold Series to the new 1000series and 500series.
This will knock-out completely the info we actually have organized and I think we may do a line and make new tables for that. Please expose here your arguments. PD: please tennisexpert, don't post something similar to "It will be done like xxx article." because i'm not the only one tired of your prepotency here. Wikitestor ( talk) 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The top level tournaments will be known as "Masters 1000" tournaments in 2009 according to the official ATP calendar. Tennis expert ( talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
For the performance timelines, I'm sure we'll end up doing something like what some of the women's articles have - see this diacritic-named article for an example. In fact, generally looking at the women's stuff would be good: See also this - rst20xx ( talk) 23:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
TennisPortal -> Hey, I fixed up {{TennisPortal}} to include on pages related to Tennis (for 2009) - Mjquin_id ( talk) 04:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that we eliminate having separate Tennis Masters Series, Tennis Masters Cup, and WTA Tour Championships tables in all tennis biographies and instead have a "Career Finals" table with appropriate color coding. (The Grand Slam tournaments tables would remain.) Here's an example of what I am talking about using the data for Rafael Nadal:
Wins (31)
|
|
No. | Date | Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
1. | August 15 2004 | Orange Prokom Open | Sopot, Poland | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
2. | February 20 2005 | Brasil Open | Costa do Sauípe, Brazil | Clay |
![]() |
6–0, 6–7(2), 6–1 |
3. | February 27 2005 | Abierto Mexicano TELCEL | Acapulco, Mexico | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–0 |
4. | April 17 2005 | Masters Series Monte Carlo | Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–1, 0–6, 7–5 |
5. | April 24 2005 | Open Sabadell Atlántico | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 7–6(4), 6–3 |
6. | May 8 2005 | Internazionali BNL d'Italia | Rome | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 3–6, 6–3, 4–6, 7–6(6) |
7. | June 5 2005 | French Open | Paris | Clay |
![]() |
6–7(6), 6–3, 6–1, 7–5 |
8. | July 10 2005 | Swedish Open | Båstad, Sweden | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–4 |
9. | July 24 2005 | Mercedes Cup | Stuttgart, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3, 6–4 |
10. | August 14 2005 | Rogers Cup | Montréal, Canada | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 4–6, 6–2 |
11. | September 18 2005 | China Open | Beijing | Hard |
![]() |
5–7, 6–1, 6–2 |
12. | October 23 2005 | Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid | Madrid, Spain | Hard (i) |
![]() |
3–6, 2–6, 6–3, 6–4, 7–6(3) |
13. | March 4 2006 | Dubai Duty Free Men's Open | Dubai, United Arab Emirates | Hard |
![]() |
2–6, 6–4, 6–4 |
14. | April 23 2006 | Masters Series Monte Carlo | Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–2, 6–7(2), 6–3, 7–6(5) |
15. | April 30 2006 | Open Sabadell Atlántico | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 6–4, 6–0 |
16. | May 14 2006 | Internazionali BNL d'Italia | Rome | Clay |
![]() |
6–7(0), 7–6(5), 6–4, 2–6, 7–6(5) |
17. | June 11 2006 | French Open | Paris | Clay |
![]() |
1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6(4) |
18. | March 18 2007 | Pacific Life Open | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard |
![]() |
6–2, 7–5 |
19. | April 22 2007 | Masters Series Monte Carlo | Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 6–4 |
20. | April 29 2007 | Open Sabadell Atlántico | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
21. | 13 May 2007 | Internazionali BNL d'Italia | Rome | Clay |
![]() |
6–2, 6–2 |
22. | June 10 2007 | French Open | Paris | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 4–6, 6–3, 6–4 |
23. | July 22 2007 | Mercedes Cup | Stuttgart, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 7–5 |
24. | April 27 2008 | Masters Series Monte Carlo | Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
7–5, 7–5 |
25. | May 4 2008 | Open Sabadell Atlántico | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 4–6, 6–1 |
26. | May 18 2008 | Masters Series Hamburg | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
7–5, 6–7(3), 6–3 |
27. | June 8 2008 | French Open | Paris | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–0 |
28. | June 15 2008 | The Artois Championships | Queen's Club, London | Grass |
![]() |
7–6(6), 7–5 |
29. | July 6 2008 | Wimbledon | London | Grass |
![]() |
6–4, 6–4, 6–7(5), 6–7(8), 9–7 |
30. | July 27 2008 | Rogers Cup | Toronto, Canada | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 6–2 |
31. | August 17, 2008 | Summer Olympics | Beijing, China | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 7-6(2), 6-3 |
Tennis expert ( talk) 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No. | Date | Tournament | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
1. | August 15 2004 | Sopot, Poland | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
2. | February 20 2005 | Costa do Sauípe, Brazil | Clay |
![]() |
6–0, 6–7(2), 6–1 |
3. | February 27 2005 | Acapulco, Mexico | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–0 |
4. | April 17 2005 | Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–1, 0–6, 7–5 |
I like Tennis Expert's Idea and am completly 100 percent behind him; however, I also think that I am against Spider Monkey's idea with only having the city it is located. I am pretty sure that most people will not realize what tournament it is if they only have the city and country there. I know that there are many tennis stadiums in Paris and it will be hard for newcomers of tennis to differ between French Open and the Paris Intl. Championships. Reply to my talk page for any more ideas or comments! Hurricane06 ( talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC).
I like Spyder_Monkey's table, but would prefer to still have the (non-sponsored) tournament name visible, as it makes the tournament much easier to identify. So, in an ideal world, I would have this:
No. | Date | Tournament | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
1. | August 15 2004 | Orange Prokom Open, Sopot, Poland | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
2. | February 20 2005 | Brasil Open, Costa do Sauípe, Brazil | Clay |
![]() |
6–0, 6–7(2), 6–1 |
3. | February 27 2005 | Abierto Mexicano TELCEL(2), Acapulco, Mexico | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–0 |
4. | April 17 2005 | Monte Carlo Masters, Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–1, 0–6, 7–5 |
5. | June 15 2008 | Queen's Club Championships(4), London, England | Grass |
![]() |
7–6(6), 7–5 |
Note not Artois Championships, but Queen's Club Championships - rst20xx ( talk) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(split from the above general discussion -- Spyder_Monkey ( Talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC))
Also I think the colours could be a little bit stronger, as they're hard to see on some monitors (except of course the Olympic colour). Not intrusive though, more like this:
Legend |
Grand Slam Tournaments (5) |
Tennis Masters Cup (0) |
Olympic Gold (1) |
ATP Masters Series (12) |
ATP Tour (13) |
Chars, rst20xx ( talk) 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I see tennisexpert keeps IGNORING EVERYONE and just posting the tables with this style, I will post how the tables were BEFORE they started changing them all, like they are now:
|
|
No. | Date | Tournament, Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
1. | August 15 2004 | Sopot, Poland | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
2. | February 20 2005 | Costa do Sauípe, Brasil | Clay |
![]() |
6–0, 6–7(2), 6–1 |
3. | February 27 2005 | Acapulco, Mexico | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–0 |
4. | April 17 2005 | Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–1, 0–6, 7–5 |
5. | April 24 2005 | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 7–6(4), 6–3 |
6. | May 8 2005 | Masters Series Rome, Italy | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 3–6, 6–3, 4–6, 7–6(6) |
7. | June 5 2005 | French Open, Paris, France | Clay |
![]() |
6–7(6), 6–3, 6–1, 7–5 |
8. | July 10 2005 | Båstad, Sweden | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–4 |
9. | July 24 2005 | Stuttgart, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3, 6–4 |
10. | August 14 2005 | Masters Series Montréal ( Canada) | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 4–6, 6–2 |
11. | September 18 2005 | Beijing, China | Hard |
![]() |
5–7, 6–1, 6–2 |
12. | October 23 2005 | Master Series Madrid, Spain | Hard (i) |
![]() |
3–6, 2–6, 6–3, 6–4, 7–6(3) |
13. | March 4 2006 | Dubai, United Arab Emirates | Hard |
![]() |
2–6, 6–4, 6–4 |
14. | April 23 2006 | Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–2, 6–7(2), 6–3, 7–6(5) |
15. | April 30 2006 | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 6–4, 6–0 |
16. | May 14 2006 | Masters Series Rome, Italy | Clay |
![]() |
6–7(0), 7–6(5), 6–4, 2–6, 7–6(5) |
17. | June 11 2006 | French Open, Paris, France | Clay |
![]() |
1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6(4) |
18. | March 18 2007 | Masters Series Indian Wells, USA | Hard |
![]() |
6–2, 7–5 |
19. | April 22 2007 | Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 6–4 |
20. | April 29 2007 | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
21. | May 13 2007 | Masters Series Rome, Italy | Clay |
![]() |
6–2, 6–2 |
22. | June 10 2007 | French Open, Paris, France | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 4–6, 6–3, 6–4 |
23. | July 22 2007 | Stuttgart, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 7–5 |
24. | April 27 2008 | Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
7–5, 7–5 |
25. | May 4 2008 | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 4–6, 6–1 |
26. | May 18 2008 | Masters Series Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
7–5, 6–7(3), 6–3 |
27. | June 8 2008 | French Open, Paris, France | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–0 |
28. | June 15 2008 | London Queen's Club, United Kingdom | Grass |
![]() |
7–6(6), 7–5 |
29. | July 6 2008 | Wimbledon, London, United Kingdom | Grass |
![]() |
6–4, 6–4, 6–7(5), 6–7(8), 9–7 |
30. | July 27 2008 | Masters Series Toronto (Canada) | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 6–2 |
31. | August 17, 2008 | Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics, China | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 7-6(2), 6-3 |
This means, NOT SPONSORED NAMES, like we talked in the discussion above, the tournament names and the country, theres not more info needed. 81.184.39.254 ( talk) 17:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems the sponsored names in tables thing is somewhat going in circles. My reading of the discussion so far is that every editor except Tennis expert would prefer not to have sponsored names, but have non-sponsored names instead, where possible. Tennis expert claims that the fact he opposes non-sponsored names means there's no consensus for non-sponsored names, but I think almost all editors would consider that one voice opposing something is not enough to override consensus in favour of that something, and that's really the crux of the issue we're having here - rst20xx ( talk) 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert is still going about changing the tables from sponsored to nonsponsored, citing the edit summary as "copyedit". Look at this edit he made today. I would expect editors involved in the above discussion to cease all changes directly related to it until its conclusion, and I think this is seriously disruptive behaviour - rst20xx ( talk) 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, Tennis expert's edits are continuing, but he's changed tack slightly. Looking here for example, he appears to instead be (1) removing tournament locations and (2) carrying out the bizarre practice of linking to the French Wikipedia, where no English article is available. I still think these edits are somewhat disruptive - (1) is directly under discussion, and I think any changes to the tables at all now should clearly be brought about through consensus, which there is not for either (1) or (2). I have taken the preliminary step of notifying Tennis expert of this discussion on his talk page, here, and if his edits continue, then I feel we need to report him - rst20xx ( talk) 18:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You didn't get the point yet: he doesn't care about this discussion, he keeps doing the things he wants, look up: we have been like 2 days on the discussion and like everyone doesn't want sponsored names, and now he opens a new discussion for the general table with the same sponsored style again. He should be taken out of this discussion since he is not interacting with the other people. 81.184.39.254 ( talk) 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
... even when we are trying to get a consensus and mostly everyone doesn't want his style.
I don't know if we can do anything about this because instead of being quiet and talk properly on the discussion, he is changing old players articles to sponsored styles (and probably later he will use this to reason to put the new ones like them). I think this should be reported since he is thinking that he owns the wikipedia or something, ignoring all the rest of us. 81.184.39.254 ( talk) 17:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that there needs to be a project to create articles for each Masters Series tournament, in the same way as the concise Grand Slam articles. I have started to create articles for tournaments such as 1999 Indian Wells Masters but most only have articles stretching back to 2006. 03md ( talk) 22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Since semi-protection of Talk is rare, I'd like to beg your indulgence. An IP editor who has been evading his block is continuing to post here. His main interest is tennis articles. Please let me know (at User talk:EdJohnston) if anyone objects to a short period of semi-protection. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Over the last few weeks I've been on the World's biggest tagging spree, tagging all tennis articles that I could find as being part of WikiProject Tennis. Further to just basic tagging, I also gave importance levels to all non-player, non-coach pages, and gave classes to lists and all other non-article pages.
The tagging spree took WP:Tennis from this:
Tennis articles |
Importance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | ||
Quality | |||||||
![]() |
1 | 1 | |||||
B | 3 | 22 | 19 | 7 | 4 | 55 | |
Start | 7 | 12 | 29 | 41 | 83 | 172 | |
Stub | 2 | 15 | 66 | 112 | 195 | ||
Assessed | 10 | 36 | 64 | 114 | 199 | 423 | |
Unassessed | 1 | 17 | 7 | 2 | 888 | 915 | |
Total | 11 | 53 | 71 | 116 | 1087 | 1338 |
to this:
Tennis articles |
Importance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | ||
Quality | |||||||
![]() |
1 | 1 | 2 | ||||
B | 4 | 24 | 16 | 8 | 4 | 56 | |
C | 1 | 1 | |||||
Start | 11 | 13 | 33 | 53 | 62 | 172 | |
Stub | 1 | 5 | 24 | 72 | 92 | 194 | |
List | 5 | 50 | 3 | 14 | 72 | ||
Assessed | 21 | 92 | 78 | 148 | 158 | 497 | |
Unassessed | 54 | 121 | 1024 | 2367 | 1927 | 5493 | |
Total | 75 | 213 | 1102 | 2515 | 2085 | 5990 |
And, additionally:
and:
I'd call that successful! 4652 articles newly tagged, and before I tagged the players, Unknown-importance was down to 327 articles, so I gave importance levels to most of the articles originally in there.
Now, if the rest of you can just maintain pages as tagged in the future, I'd be most happy! (Seriously, if you creates a page, please tag it.) Also, if anyone wants to go on an assessment drive, now they can find all the articles to do so - rst20xx ( talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Many of you will know of the activities of Lightbot with respect to delinking dates that are not autoformattable, adding unit conversions, and other janitorial edits. It has touched over 160,000 articles with edits relating to dates and units. I've made a new request for bot approval that is largely a clarification/extension of two previous approvals. The wording has been revised to make it more explicit and easier to read and check by people who encounter the bot for the first time.
One editor from Wikiproject Tennis has already written opposing the revised approval. I would be grateful if other editors could comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we are going to have some problems with singles performance timetable for women, because there are big changes in tournament categories (there are no Tier I, II, III, and IV). [5] We have 3 mounts to design new disign for singles performance timetables! Does someone have ideas! :) -- Göran Smith ( talk) 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Tournament | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | Career SR | Career W/L |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Current WTA Tier I Tournaments5 | |||||||||||
Doha | Not Held |
Not Tier I | QF | 0 / 1 | 2–1 | ||||||
Indian Wells | A | 2R | A | 1R | 1R | 2R | 2R | 4R | SF | 0 / 7 | 7–7 |
Miami | A | LQ | A | 1R6 | 3R | 2R | 2R | 3R | F | 0 / 7 | 10–7 |
Charleston | A | A | LQ | A | 2R | 1R | 1R | W | QF | 1 / 6 | 8–5 |
Berlin | A | A | A | A | A | SF | 1R | QF | QF | 0 / 4 | 8–4 |
Rome | A | A | A | 1R6 | LQ | 2R | QF | W | W | 2 / 6 | 15–4 |
Montréal / Toronto | A | A | A | A | 2R | 1R | 3R7 | F | QF | 0 / 5 | 9–4 |
Tokyo | A | A | A | A | A | 1R | 1R | QF | 0 / 3 | 1–3 | |
Moscow | A | A | A | A | A | 1R | A | A | 0 / 1 | 0–1 | |
Former WTA Tier I Tournaments5 | |||||||||||
San Diego | A | A | A | A | 2R | 3R | 3R | 3R | Not Held |
0 / 4 | 6–4 |
Zürich | A | A | A | A | A | 2R | 2R | 2R | Not Tier I |
0 / 3 | 2–3 |
Tournament | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | Career SR | Career W/L |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WTA Mandatory Premier Tournaments | ||||||||||||
Indian Wells | A | 2R | A | 1R | 1R | 2R | 2R | 4R | SF | 0 / 7 | 7–7 | |
Key Biscayne | A | LQ | A | 1R6 | 3R | 2R | 2R | 3R | F | 0 / 7 | 10–7 | |
Madrid | Not Held | 0 / 0 | 0–0 | |||||||||
Beijing | Not Held | Not Tier I | 0 / 0 | 0–0 | ||||||||
Former WTA Tier I Tournaments that are not WTA Mandatory Premier Tournaments | ||||||||||||
Charleston | A | A | LQ | A | 2R | 1R | 1R | W | QF | Not MP |
1 / 6 | 8–5 |
Berlin | A | A | A | A | A | SF | 1R | QF | QF | Not MP |
0 / 4 | 8–4 |
Rome | A | A | A | 1R6 | LQ | 2R | QF | W | W | Not MP |
2 / 6 | 15–4 |
Montréal / Toronto | A | A | A | A | 2R | 1R | 3R7 | F | QF | Not MP |
0 / 5 | 9–4 |
Tokyo | A | A | A | A | A | 1R | 1R | QF | Not MP |
0 / 3 | 1–3 | |
Moscow | A | A | A | A | A | 1R | A | A | Not MP |
0 / 1 | 0–1 | |
Zürich | A | A | A | A | A | 2R | 2R | 2R | Not Tier I |
Not MP |
0 / 3 | 2–3 |
San Diego | A | A | A | A | 2R | 3R | 3R | 3R | Not Held |
0 / 4 | 6–4 | |
Doha | Not Held |
Not Tier I | QF | Not Held |
0 / 1 | 2–1 |
Tennis expert ( talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all...
An image used in the article, specifically Image:Kikikiwi.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.
You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.-- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 01:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This project has two FAs (both video games) and three GAs (one about to be demoted unless serious work is done (Sharapova)) - the football project has over 100 featured articles and lists. Is this as good as it gets? Can we please collaborate and start with saving Maria and then perhaps dare to push an article or two towards FA? I'm sure it can be done. The Rambling Man ( talk) 23:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I sense that there's a lot of talent and diligence among the core of tennis editors at WP. This is why I find it striking that there's not a single featured item in the field, unlike the other major sports, which over the years have produced a stunning array of FAs and FLs.
My first question is whether there are plans to work towards featured content by this WIkiProject. By second question is whether people realise that under the current situation, tennis articles are ruled from of promotion because they would breach FA Criterion 2 and Featured List Criterion 5. This is because one of your number puts a lot of time into following and reverting the efforts of people who are trying to apply MoS, MOSNUM, MOSLINK and CONTEXT rules on the linking of chronological itmes to tennis articles. It's a great pity.
I can only offer my assistance (if my RL work permits) to editors who would like to identify likely candidates and polish them up for nomination. It's usually an exciting task. Tony (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? I see nobody put that in Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer profiles, but I see there is in many other that info. Today, I opened Ernests Gulbis to see that giant table. What to do in this case? Do we have a consensus on that issue? -- Göran S ( talk) 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it is OK for retied players, but for active, I think it's too much information. -- Göran S ( talk) 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
IMO it is absurd that a table that runs the risk of going out of date half the days of the year should be in the article of a current player. All of this information, guaranteed to be up to date, is easily available on the ATP Gulbis page we link to in the External Links. If we're searching for a consensus here, I'm on the side of the these tables not being given on the pages of active players. almost- instinct 23:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
From the first line of the External Links section of Ernests Gulbis is
which on the page reads "Ernests Gulbis at the Association of Tennis Professionals". The invitation to compare Gulbis "Head-to-head" with any other ATP player, not just a random selection, is quite clear on that page almost- instinct 08:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
A number of bios have a "notable matches" section. Invariably, no neutral point of view set of criteria is provided for what makes the specific matches more notable than any other match. I believe we should remove these sections - what do the rest of you think? The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to help change the Project Portal to a template more like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microbiology; check them out.... - Mjquin_id ( talk) 05:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The template seems to work on the whole however, for tie breaks won 6–1 (i.e. 7–61) it doesn't seem to work - see here or here, for me they both display 7–60.99999999999998. I had a quick look at the syntax but couldn't figure out what was wrong (I'm no pro with it) so thought i'd refer it here to see if someone can fix it. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems that there's currently no interest and therefore no real chance of dragging the project out of the mire which it's stuck in right now regarding decent quality (i.e. GA/FA/FL) material. I'm looking forward to contributing to a real push for a featured tennis article in a few months time, I hope some of you will still be here to join me, with enthusiasm and interest in improving the Wikipedia. That's why we're here and why these WikiProjects exist. Good luck everyone. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
As this page is under semi-protection, IP users may not be able to add their comments to this discussion. If you would like to, please feel free to place comments on my talk page and I will transpose them here (provided they're not from the offending user that caused the block. Gnowor ( talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have invited wider input [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21], and notified all WP:Tennis members, and request that the conversation moves to this section.
To reiterate, this discussion is about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I shall now attempt to provide a brief summary of the arguments made so far:
Thanks for any input you can provide - rst20xx ( talk) 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Rst20xx, there are several problems with your summary. (1) Your summary should include a very brief disclosure about your position on these issues so that people new to the discussion can determine for themselves whether your summary is accurate and impartial. (2) Please don't censor the request for discussion by prematurely denigrating one of the options, as you did in your last bullet. That option is still on the table. (3) A big part of this debate is whether the separate tables for Tennis Masters Series tournaments, the Tennis Masters Cup, and the WTA Tour Championships should be deleted in favor of having just one table that covers all kinds of tournaments plus one other table that covers just Grand Slam tournaments. (4) Your summary fails to disclose that the official sponsored names of tennis tournaments is already frequently used in English-language Wikipedia articles and is the standard in French-language Wikipedia articles. Therefore, the current consensus appears to be that whether official sponsored names is used in a particular English-language article is up to the editors of that article, which makes perfect sense to me and avoids widespread and unproductive edit warring.
Aside from the problems with your summary, I have the following additional comments. (1) The most directly relevant article to this discussion, List of tennis tournaments, has long used the official sponsored names of virtually all current tournaments and for most tournaments from the past that are no longer being held. An English-language Wikipedia ban on official sponsored names would require a complete rewrite of that article, which is one of the most useful tennis-related articles on Wikipedia. (2) See my previous comment here, which emphasizes how important official sponsored names are to some editors and how including them is costless. (3) See this perfectly reasonable suggestion. (4) I have said before, "The problem with one column including both the name of a tournament and its location is that the location is no longer sortable." That's a huge problem for frequent tennis editors. Tennis expert ( talk) 07:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Here I ask again, since the articles themselves here are non-sponsor named, why use a sponsor name to link to a non-sponsor named article? I am with the non-sponsored names. Yosef1987 ( talk) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I was pre-warned that this was "a long and muddled discussion", and I have to agree. The answer is very simple: Use the non-sponsor version, per WP:SPAM (we're not here to provide free advertising), WP:NOT (WP is not a commercial billboard, in this case), WP:UNDUE (the commercial sponsor has no direct relevance to the sport or the nature of the event), etc. And simply (per WP:SENSE) because the commercial sponsor can change again and again and again, in the space of a quite short span (see Premier League Snooker for a wild but real example), not to mention that many events have more than one sponsor. The only draft guideline specifically on this topic so far (initially written for cue sports but intended to eventually be genericized to an all-sports style guide, since we badly need one), WP:CUESPELL#Naming of tournaments and other events, spells this all out pretty clearly. The commercial-sponsor-name-of-X-time-period version of the event's name is not important in a table or list like those above. Simply enumerating the sponsor versions of event names in the event articles and making sure redirects exist from those names to the articles is entirely sufficient. PS: I am not watchlisting this, as the discussion here has been too noisy and circular to be productive, and we have guidelines for a reason; I don't see any WP:IAR-actionable reason to ignore them at play in this case, which isn't special. If I'm needed for a clarification of this rationale, please drop me a note at my talk page. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
(reset) Ah, Gnownor, I see what you're saying now and I'm sorry but you misunderstand the anti-sponsored side slightly. To quote my opening post: "For some tournaments there is no clear non-sponsored name, in which case, all editors agree that the sponsored name must be used." You just gave four examples of such tournaments. So, I repeat my question: "Can you give an example of a tournament with both a sponsored and non-sponsored name where the sponsored name is much more heavily documented?" rst20xx ( talk) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not a simple issue. The bottom line is that this issue depends on what editors want to do. For many reasons, including verifiability and reliability of sources, the official sponsored names of tournaments should be used. This is common practice on English-language Wikipedia and appears to be almost universal practice on French-language Wikipedia. Also, I do not understand the squeamishness with using official sponsored names. Tennis tournaments are business enterprises that rely on sponsorship (and certain other revenues) to survive, which makes the sponsorship directly relevant (your criterion) to the tournaments. When we refer to a tournament's official name that includes a sponsor, we are reflecting real world facts. For example, it is an irrefutable fact that the official name of the tournament in Indian Wells, California is the "Pacific Life Open". To ignore that name in favor of something like "Indian Wells Masters" is unencyclopedic because that name is not factual. Do you also object to the name of the ExxonMobil article? If so, what should we call it? Something like Biggest oil company in the world or Corporation responsible for the big oil spill in Alaska? If you don't object, then what is your criteria for saying that business names are fine for some article names but not for others? By the way, no tournament has more than one sponsored name. We are obviously not talking here about listing all the sponsors for each tournament. Tennis expert ( talk) 08:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Tennis Expert, you write "Five or six people here cannot overturn the consensus of hundreds of tennis article editors". Where are all these editors? You appear to be saying that as long as you oppose something, then a new consensus cannot be formed. How many people would it take to make you accept a new consensus (as you know, consensus can change)? Well, for the record, I am not against sponsored names per se, and does not fall into a hypothetical group of squeamishness people having some inherent preference against sponsors. I just want to foster recognizability and continuity in tables. And in terms of the Masters Tournaments that started it all I find it unsatisfactorily and confusing for non fans that the same tournament (in terms of location, ATP-status) changes name in tables (Nasdaq 100 some years, Sony Ericsson the next, and so on). I am all for verifiability, and looking at the official calendar from the ATP for 2008, here, wee see that the ATP names the Masters Events by their sponsor (and, incidentally, they place Sony Ericsson Open in Miami ;-) ), but a Masters tournament held in Indian Wells doesn't have a name; what do we do there? In any case, for a given year the sponsor names will of course be used by the ATP. When they show results for players, however, they identify tournaments without sponsor names: (Nadal 2008). So by ATP logic, when presenting player results, we should use the non-sponsor name? I think it is a matter of choice, as both kind of names can be verified, and I would favor the way ATP presents the player's results (Google counts are particularly poor here; if they did not "favored" the sponsored name, it is time to find a new sponsor!). The performance tables would become much more easily readable. Moreover, I think a player should only have one table for wins and finals, with tournament types appropriately distiguished by color. No seperate Slam or Masters tables. And let us, in accordance with recent wikipolicy, get rid of the ugly wikilinked dates in first (or second) column. Whether there chould be a separate location column, I am indifferent towards. I can live without it, but it doesn't harm. -- HJensen, talk 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Tennis tournament articles should in theory be located at their common name location. If they are not, they should be moved there. (Obviously, any such moves would have to be via formal proposals.) Similarly, the links in the tables should show the common name.... see where I'm going? Howsabout the links just reflect the location of the tournament articles? And then if any articles are located in the wrong place, we simply need to propose the moving of the articles, and then the links can be updated too. This would be a much more sophisticated way of doing things, as it would handle things on a case by case basis, whilst at the same time it would remove any need for piping - rst20xx ( talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No. | Date | Tournament | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
1. | August 15 2004 | Indian Wells Masters, Indian Wells, U.S. | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
2. | February 20 2005 | Los Angeles Classic, Los Angeles, U.S. | Hard |
![]() |
6–0, 6–7(2), 6–1 |
...or if using the two-column format:
No. | Date | Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
1. | August 15 2004 | Indian Wells Masters | Indian Wells, U.S. | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
2. | February 20 2005 | Los Angeles Classic | Los Angeles, U.S. | Hard |
![]() |
6–0, 6–7(2), 6–1 |
A case-by-case evaluation based purely on predominance of usage in reliable sources is exactly what I and all our naming policies support. The predominant name should be chosen whether it contains a sponsor name or not. Knepflerle ( talk) 00:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to restate my proposal because I think it's got a bit muddled above. It's basically that the tables should in theory use the common name, and the articles should in theory be located at the common name, therefore the tables should be the same as the article location. And if anyone disagrees with any article location, because they think it's not at the common name, then they can request the article be moved through the usual WP:RM controversial moves process, and if the move is carried out, the tables can be updated to reflect the new article location. (Correct me if I'm wrong but) I think Spyder_Monkey finds for himself that the common name for most tournaments would just be its geographic location, but I think others disagree. As Tennis expert says, he sees the common name as the official sponsored name. I myself see it as the non-sponsored name, where one exists, and the sponsored name were there isn't one, and this isn't always just the location (at the very least, it would include "Cup", or "Open", or "Masters", or "Championship" or something) - rst20xx ( talk) 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Right. Would anyone apart from Tennis expert have any problems if we declare this consensus that:
If so, we can move on to other things, such as whether there should be a separate location column - rst20xx ( talk) 23:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
First off, I don't know why the persistence on the sponsor name with no strong reasons, but here is a new issue, the sponsor names like: Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid and Internazionali BNL d'Italia are not English names, I cannot even pronounce them, and that is for sure against some policy of the English Wikipedia and I guess from all my posts my English level is clearly not weak and yet English is not my mother tongue
We need a poll of 4 simple choices, not about the table format, but about the information it self
...and some how we decicide on the location column (which is extra useless information) Yosef1987 ( talk) 16:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The ATP site itself uses the City Names to refer to tournaments in tables: [ Andy Murray's Ranking Breakdown Page at ATP Site] ShabbatSam ( talk) 08:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe that we should use the non-sponsored name since many people watching tennis, including me, don't know who is sponsoring the tournament. Also, if the tournament is sponsored by a group, then they should be acknowleged in the commercials or even on the court itself (like the Australian Open (Garnier is one of the sponsored groups)) If anyone has more say to having the sponsored name on our tables, then we will need to find a way to communicate which tournament that one is since most people, if you say " Internazionali BNL d'Italia", they won't think " Rome Masters". Heck, I didn't even know that the tournament was even sponsored. The sponsored name will only confuse people. Hurricane06 ( talk) 11:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC).
I don't know if you saw the new 2009 ATP Tour calender? ... it's full of colour, see [23] :) For some time we had colours for WTA Tier tournaments, and not for ATP, so I think it's time to add some.
I propose, according to the ATP site, from this
Legend (Singles) |
Grand Slam (0) |
Tennis Masters Cup (0) |
ATP Masters Series (0) |
ATP Tour (0) |
to change to this:
Legend (Singles) |
Grand Slam (0) |
ATP finals (0) |
Masters 1000 (0) |
500 Series and Internat.Series Gold (0) |
250 Series and Inernat.Series (0) |
And WTA Tour, to add two more colours for Premier and International Tournaments. I didn't use exact colours from WTA, because, I thnik they are to dark, and these don't so "standout" from original.
Legend |
Grand Slam (1) |
WTA Championships |
Tier I (2) |
Tier II (4) |
Tier III (2) |
Tier IV & V (1) |
Premier (2) |
International (0) |
Does 500 replace International Series Gold, and 250 International Series? Do you like this colours? :-))) -- Göran S ( talk) 18:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Oxford St and I have a different views on this, so we ask members of project to have a last say on this issue. I hope that at least 5 people will vote. :-) -- Göran S ( talk) 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I would expect every player to have either the "WTA" or "ATP" "Navboxes" at the bottom. I would expect them to contain things like: MainPage, Tournaments, Players, etc...
I would further expect any Tournament page to have a Navbox showing "Levels" of tournaments? Like Grand Slam, Masters, Sattelites, Exhibition, etc.?
I would then even further expect the both the main article link AND a link to the current year's tournament
Wimbledon (
2009)
Would this be an unreasonable thought pattern?
Mjquin_id (
talk)
21:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of worrying too much about the template overloads on most pages, and the colours of boxes, ought this project not focus on attempting to get at least one article featured? Otherwise I am seriously beginning to question the purpose of a project whose major contributors seem content to say "well it's always been that way so that way it will stay" - 0 FAs, 1 GA in total. Very sad indeed. The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 10:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert claims that the linking of standalone years ( 1991, 1992...) is permitted in tennis articles (against the Manual of Style), but I haven't seen a mention of it in the WP:Tennis archives. If someone could point me to a discussion, I'd appreciate it. - Dudesleeper / Talk 10:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's not rubbish. As has been proven time and again concerning the naming of tennis articles (diacritics versus not using diacritics), a general policy like WP:UE can be overriden through a more specific consensus for particular types of articles. Maybe we should revisit the naming of those articles given that you are so convinced that a general policy always prevails, regardless of a more specific consensus. Tennis expert ( talk) 11:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that wikilinking of dates and years should be abandoned in all tennis-related articles. The wikilinks serve no purpose, except for the autoformatting feature, which is irrelevant for most readers. So let us just get rid of those links—the sooner the better. -- HJensen, talk 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now, Billie Jean King is a useful example of why this so-called consensus to link individual years is simply not working. You undid Lightbot's attempt to make the article uniform and in its current state it is itself inconsistent. For example, why isn't 1968 linked in the prose? And 1961? But yet suddenly, 1969 and 1970 seem to take on more relevance and are linked in the prose. And then from 1971 they're not linked. Then you have a few sortable tables where the years are not linked each time when they should be. And finally grand slam summary tables which go on and relink the years individually once again (in bold). If they were piped to say Year in tennis then I'd buy it, but not to just the year - what's the relevance? It's a mess and all Lightbot was trying to do was clear it up. The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasm for articles, Tennis expert. One of the primary features of Wikipedia is articles should be changed. Can we work together to change the status quo? Lightmouse ( talk) 12:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What is missing from this debate is a clear statement from Tennis expert as to why s/he would want to take a stand against a long-standing movement in WP from scattergun linking to smart linking; the deprecation of date autoformatting is merely the most recent important change in practice that is part of this movement—not something that a few hair-brained editors thought up overnight. I certainly hope that our readers aren't having to put up with bright-blue blizzards of useless links in tennis-related articles. Tony (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I be slightly cheeky here, and refer the various very experienced editors now partaking in this conversation to the very long conversation above, spanning from section 5 to section 9? It is along much the same lines, only this time, it is about the use of sponsored names in player performance tables, instead of linking years. There, nearly every editor partaking in the discussion has come out against sponsored names (to some degree, often completely), and yet Tennis expert still refuses to accept that there is consensus against them, as he is citing the articles (which again, use a mixture of sponsored and non-sponsored) as his consensus - rst20xx ( talk) 19:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a change in policies as explained clearly by Tony. So we need no new consensus. Just get rid of the links.-- HJensen, talk 22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This has all become rather silly. To contravene the MoS, you need to demonstrate "common sense" or good reason. But I see neither put up here as a reason not to nuke these frightful little year-links in tennis articles. Tony (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I am baffled as well over this thing. I think it is fair to ask Tennis Expert again, when you think consensus is reached? I acknowledge it is hard to define, but at least every editor must have a private idea about it. Here, we have a situation where as far as I can see nobody wants the links (including Tennis Expert) and a situation where they are against guidelines. In such a situation I think it would be of interest to know how long we should wait until you feel a consensus is reached? For me it has been reached on this issue. Very clearly indeed. I don't think we would be setting a dangerous precedent for fast decisions if we stopped the whole thing now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HJensen ( talk • contribs) 09:56, September 7, 2008
Hi, I've been reading up a lot on the various discussions about wikilinking dates and came across your invitation to join the discussion regarding the linking of years in tennis articles. I'm a bit confused, as I came here expecting to find Tennis Expert giving examples why the linking of years in tennis articles is a good thing. Instead, all I can see is that a lot of articles have year links, that Tennis Expert agrees are redundant and don't refer to anything about tennis (if they linked to [[2006 Tennis season|2006]], that is fine, but linking to [[2006]] is pointless. We all asgree on that. I'm just wondering whether anyone else from the Tennis Project supports the inclusion of these links, for reasons other than "I've seen years linked in other tennis articles, so thought I would, and assumed consensus". If the years do get unlinked and members of WP:TENNIS then think "hey - where have our lovely blue links gone", then this discussion can continue. It seems like Tennis Expert is standing up for editors (against his own preference - an admirable quality), regardless of the fact that a) the editors don't realise this discussion is happening, b) that the year linking is pointless and against the MOS guidelines, c) probably wouldn't notice the difference and couldn't care less.
I would suggest that delinking continues, until other WP:TENNIS members come forward, and that Tennis Expert hops off the fence, is WP:BOLD and tries to reflect his own views and wishes. If WP:TENNIS (not just Tennis Expert) can actually come forward and prove (or create) consensus (other than "this is what we've always done so lets continue without taking a look to work out why we do it") then this discussion will carry more weight.– MDCollins ( talk) 00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The parallels between this conversation and the one above about non-sponsored names are astounding. In both cases, consensus is against Tennis expert's point of view, but in both cases he is refusing to acknowledge that - rst20xx ( talk) 15:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think we're in a position now where we have (at least) two clear ways ahead. I'd like to understand who is in favour of which approach. Please indicate your support under the relevant summary. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I am assuming that this is an effort to develop a new or changed consensus concerning tennis articles and not an effort to make edits without the new or changed consensus. My comments below are provided under those assumptions. Tennis expert ( talk) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
(a) the discussion around dates is very long now. (b) I rather think it relates more specifically to "Article Guidelines"; which has very few discussions.
I also added an attempt at a comprimise proposal.
Mjquin_id (
talk)
18:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Tony1 raised a good point a couple of sections ago - this project clearly has keen editors (as shown in the previous two sections) but has no tennis-based featured content at all. And only one GA (as Maria Sharapova is to be delisted soon if she hasn't already and one of the other two GAs is about a footballer who had a minor role as a tennis player). Most articles are wikilink statistical nightmares. There also seems to be a driving force to deliberately not follow the WP:MOS and other guidelines such as WP:TRIVIA, WP:SUMMARY, WP:LENGTH. What do regular contributors think? Is it worth trying for a Featured article? The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
My opinions on this issue:
But I guess some will vehemently object to it, thus making it a dead end. But then we will never see a tennis player featured—only musicians and Pokémon characters.-- HJensen, talk 12:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1107 articles are assigned to this project, of which 133, or 12.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I know this is pretty old, but I am performing an AWB General cleanup of these (and most) pages connected to the Tennis Portal. NOTE:This does NOT include any date unlinking... Please holler, if you see issues. -- Mjquin_id ( talk) 16:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
By now I'm sure you're sick of me banging on about the poor quality of pretty much every single tennis article here on Wikipedia - almost all have some maintenance tags or [citation needed] added to them and they fall very very short of even GA quality. I've come up against a brick wall in the aforementioned user who suggests that a "current consensus" overrides the need to improve articles to meet with GA or FA criteria. A recent example was when I removed spaces between citations which the editor in question re-inserted. I've been trying to advocate the WP:MOS which is mandated for featured quality articles but instead the editor in question is adamant that an existing "consensus" (which is nebulous at best) overules all other editors. That was, until, he was overuled by another tennis editor. I've asked Tennis expert to contribute to this discussion as he now seems 100% dedicated to removing all edits I make to any tennis articles, despite his own edits, in part, resulting in Maria Sharapova being delisted as a GA. He does not even have the courtesy to reply to me, either personally or on Wiki, simply removing my note without comment as he has every right to do, but which is hardly the behaviour of someone collaborating in an attempt to improve every article in the tennis project. I would appreciate some advice from other project editors how best to handle this situation. Not wishing to blow my own trumpet (so I will), I've managed to successfully have 11 featured articles, 18 featured lists and two featured topics promoted in the past couple of years so I have a fair idea what is required. Unfortunately right now I don't seem to be allowed to help. All the best to you all from week one of my journey! The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 09:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
As an outsider to WP:TENNIS, I'm not going to join in your tables/sponsorship discussions, but I feel that the links in the tournament tables discussed above should be present in all rows of the table, and not just the first occurrence. I'm thinking mainly the tournament names - whether the sponsored names or non sponsored names are used. (Personal preference would be to [[wikilink Tournament Name | pipe the Sponsored name]]. WP:CONTEXT supports this by saying that
This is particularly important if using sortable tables, where the first occurrence might not be the first displayed reference/link.
— MDCollins 23:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The article Platform tennis has unfortunately had to be deleted, as it was from its creation pasted from external sources. Although the copyright was not addressed during the standard week of investigation, I'm presuming that this article may be of interest to your project. I bring it to your attention in case someone would like to create at least a stub on the subject to turn resultant redlinks blue until a more complete article can be constructed. Thanks. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This user has taken up the issue of using the aforementioned link as a genuine external link. You may find a background of this discussion at my talk page. Since he feels that my intentions of removing these links is biased, I'm hoping that a discussion here, with multiple editors, should help clear some air on the issue. Thanks. LeaveSleaves ( talk) 03:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, this site is a valid source for tennis bios. Yes, this site does solicit and apparently displays advertising, although I can't see any. But it also has good biographical information, as far as I can tell, more information than is in the WP articles. However, User:LeaveSleaves thinks that the information is out of date and not updated. I don't see that but maybe LeaveSleaves can show us how inaccurate it is. And I don't see how much different this site is from Internet Movie Database which is certainly a commercial site and solicits advertising and yet is linked in every actor, director and film article around, and even having its own template. -- EPadmirateur ( talk) 17:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) LeaveSleaves, you've said several times that this link fails WP:EL on multiple counts. I must be dense because I don't see exactly where it is failing. I thought I had answered each of the points you have raised but apparently not. So could you enumerate those counts explicitly for me? You asked "Should we add all of them to the articles then?". No, only the best one or possibly two. Do you know a better link that has extended biographical information? Is there an official web site for Wawrinka? -- EPadmirateur ( talk) 16:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
So, do people still think we should link to a site where bios (with no authors) appear to be "heavily inspired" by Wikipedia articles? It introduces an uncanny circularity, that I have encountered many times before: Trying to find sources for some statement in a wikipedia article on the net, you just find the statement several times, but in all cases in bios that are lifted off Wikipedia. This is why citing sources is so extremely important. Many take, without knowing it, unsourced speculation on Wikipedia and publish it, thus eventually make it "true" as more and more repeats it. Comments anybody? -- HJensen, talk 12:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Describing significant matches from the players career is definitely acceptable. Such matches may include Grand Slams, Masters series, tournament wins, wins over major players, major losses etc. What should probably be avoided is describing each and every match and tournament proceedings. As for sourcing, most of such results can be cited thorough major news sites, local or otherwise. Leave Sleaves talk 18:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
After being invited to discussion of this 'subject' by LeaveSleaves following an incidental addition of an Information Tennis Link my views are that it is a duty of a Wikipedia editor to source those links that contravene the rules, Wikipedia is a not a link farm afterall. However, I as a sports journalist myself and covering a range of sports, I have used Information Tennis as a resource tool myself. I would suggest that the fact the website itself does not source its information should not prove to be a sticking point, since the site to my knowledge is factual and does not include any errors, which I must say I have noticed on many Wikipedia articles in certain key facts such as dates.You would need to take the website on the face of what it is, which appears to be a non-bias, independent site, removed from fansites which have particular motives and bias and adding no value to Wikipedia users. When looking at the subject of credible and professional tennis sites there of course the official ATP and WTA websites, other than that there are little if any sites of creditability. This is why i feel Information Tennis offers a good external link and if anything should maybe be embraced and used more commonly. I have also read the discussion above and have noticed that the issue of 'old content' has somewhat changed in recent months on the site with a new approach to player profiles. This gives both important statistical and biographical information, many far more detailed than those of the professional body sites such as the ATP. I recently cleaned a few players external links up on Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick which I feel Wikipedia editors have neglected, with external links to fansites and other very poor quality websites. It is important for these discussions to take place and to have a spectrum of views on board. I wonder Leave Sleaves where your issues are? The Wawrinka one for example for me adds to the experience of a Wikipedia user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SportsJournalistEditor ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
At the age of 14 he began playing international junior events and entered the satellite circuit the following year.
In August he represented Switzerland at the Olympic Games in Beijing where he played in both the singles and doubles competition. In singles play he made an early second round exit to Austria's Jurgen Melzer, but in doubles he teamed up with world number one Roger Federer to win Olympic Gold. In the semi-final they faced the much favoured American Bryan twins, Mike and Bown which they defeated in straight sets 7-6(6), 6-4. In the final they defeated Simon Aspelin and Thomas Johansson of Sweden to take the title. At the US Open he reached the fourth round, losing to eventual finalist Andy Murray who was eventually defeated by countryman Roger Federer.
Wawrinka started playing international junior events at age 14 and entered the satellite circuit the following year.
In the 2008 Olympics, he teamed with Roger Federer in the men's doubles. On 15 August, they beat the favoured American Bryan twins, Mike and Bob, 7-6(6), 6-4 in the semi-finals. They defeated Simon Aspelin and Thomas Johansson of Sweden in the finals, 6-3, 6-4, 6-7(4), 6-3. He also reached the 4th round of the 2008 US Open, where British player Andy Murray defeated him in straight sets (6-1, 6-3, 6-3). Fellow Swiss player Roger Federer would eventually defeat Murray in the final.
The quality of many of these articles are extremely poor. So many people treat the articles like a news service, putting every single match result on there, using tabloidese language and occasionally, even using the tennis player's first name - and these terrible changes have often stayed for months and months. On the occasion that a user (myself and numerous others) has tried to take a tennis article by the scruff of the neck, giving it a scrupulous clean-up, re-writing some particularly poor parts of the article but retaining the essence of the original article, User:Tennis expert has waded in in almost every case, bullying the "daring" user into submission.
I have been working on the Maria Sharapova article since the beginning of the summer, the article has improved from C-Class to being seriously considered for Good article status. However, Tennis expert did not take kindly to having his work changed and edited, and therefore, ever since, has been embarking on a mission to try and restore his preferred version of the article, reverting hundreds of edits, and employing gutter tactics to get his way - his bringing up my past errors to discredit my present work on Sharapova despite my legitimately exercising a clean start. His trying to get someone who disagreed with him on wikilinking years banned on a petty technicality is another example of the tactics he regularly employs.
Not that Tennis expert's bizarre behaviour is limited to the Sharapova article. The Serena Williams article is another prime case - that article is poor, mountains of unreferenced statements, poor writing in many places, and most crucially, a complete misweighting in terms of the material for each season - 2002-2003 (when Williams was absolutely dominant in women's tennis, winning five of the eight Grand Slams during this period) has just a few lines each, whereas 2007 (when Williams was ranked just #7 at the end of the year) has about four times as much, listing every single tournament she played in. So, myself and numerous others tried to give the article a radical change, to make it more accessible to the average user... but each time, Tennis expert came in and tried to shout them down, reverting and reverting. When a discussion was held, Tennis expert again bullied people into shutting up, citing an apparent consensus despite himself being the only person in favour of the previous version [...]
[...] In particular, take a look at Dinara Safina, the current world #3 and who is moving close to #1, and honestly tell me that is up to Wikipedia's standards. I would try and give that article a cleanup, but I am under no illusion that Tennis expert would not once again try and revert me incessently. There was a similar situation on Rafael Nadal (a dispute I was not involved in) - see here. On the rare occasion that someone does not give into Tennis expert's intimidation, he scrapes the bottom of the gutter in an attempt to get his own way, as I have already shown.
I have always believed that apparent "consensus" should not get in the way of improving the very poor quality of many of these articles. However, I have now personally lost patience and am not willing to just sit around putting in good work just to have it incessently reverted by Tennis expert. Wikipedia is obviously a great project, and the tennis articles have a massive potential. What a shame that that potential will never be realised, due almost entirely to the bizarre, bewildering and frankly rather disturbing overpossessiveness and control-freakery Tennis expert exercises over these articles. Musiclover565 ( talk) 17:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
(1) You guys apparently do not understand WP:CONSENSUS. If there is consensus for the current version of an article, then you can change the article only if you get consensus for the changes. One editor cannot simply announce to the world that "my edits are an improvement" and then use edit-warring tactics to force his changes to stick. This is one of many tactics, including outright dishonesty and misrepresentation, that Musiclover565 and his many sockpuppets have used for the last 4 months. (2) Your edits of the Maria Sharapova article in June, Musiclover565, were considered for GA status only because you requested it. The request was denied. Other regular editors of the article not only disagreed with GA status, but downgraded the article to "C" class precisely because your edits made the article worse. This is another instance of your constant misrepresentations of fact. (3) The Sharapova article before your unilateral edits in June was not "my" version. It was instead the work product of many editors over many months. This is another instance of your constant misrepresentations of fact. (4) Any edit can be reverted, including an edit that you (Musiclover565) believe is an improvement. See WP:BRD. Tennis expert ( talk) 10:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I will be trying to get archiving working again on this page. Not sure whay it is not working. Probably set it to 30 days? Any other ideas? -- Mjquin_id ( talk) 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Archiving SET; using User:MiszaBot_II - I moved it from 90d to 180d... -- Mjquin_id ( talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've posted this on Rafa Nadal's discussion, but usually there's not much activity there, so I make a c&p here:
Tournament | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | Career SR | Career W-L | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grand Slam tournaments | |||||||||||||
Australian Open | A | A | 3R | 4R | A | QF | SF | 0 / 4 | 14–4 | ||||
French Open | A | A | A | W | W | W | W | 4 / 4 | 28–0 | ||||
Wimbledon | A | 3R | A | 2R | F | F | W | 1 / 5 | 22–4 | ||||
US Open | A | 2R | 2R | 3R | QF | 4R | SF | 0 / 6 | 16–6 | ||||
SR | 0 / 0 | 0 / 2 | 0 / 2 | 1 / 4 | 1 / 3 | 1 / 4 | 2 / 4 | 0 / 0 | 5 / 19 | N/A | |||
Win-Loss | 0 – 0 | 3–2 | 3–2 | 13–3 | 17–2 | 20–3 | 24–2 | 0 – 0 | N/A | 80–14 | |||
Year-End Championship | |||||||||||||
Tennis Masters Cup | A | A | A | A | SF | SF | A | 0 / 2 | 4–4 | ||||
Olympic Games | |||||||||||||
Summer Olympics | Not Held | A | Not Held | W | NH | 1 / 1 | 6–0 | ||||||
ATP Masters Series 1000 | |||||||||||||
Indian Wells | A | A | 3R | A | SF | W | SF | 1 / 4 | 16–3 | ||||
Miami | A | A | 4R | F | 2R | QF | F | 0 / 5 | 14–5 | ||||
Monte Carlo | A | 3R | A | W | W | W | W | 4 / 5 | 24–1 | ||||
Rome | A | A | A | W | W | W | 2R | 3 / 4 | 17–1 | ||||
Madrid | A | 1R | 2R | W | QF | QF | SF | 1 / 6 | 13–5 | ||||
Toronto / Montreal | A | A | 1R | W | 3R | SF | W | 2 / 5 | 16–3 | ||||
Cincinnati | A | A | 1R | 1R | QF | 2R | SF | 0 / 5 | 6–5 | ||||
Shanghai | NMS | Not Held | Not Masters Series | 0 / 0 | 0 – 0 | ||||||||
Paris | A | LQ | A | A | A | F | QF | 0 / 2 | 6–2 | ||||
Hamburg | A | 3R | A | A | A | F | W | NMS | 1 / 3 | 11–2 |
-
As we see here, Nadal hasn't won any Shangai. Which is false, he has won one (Since he won Madrid before). He also will have 1 Madrid now (the Hamburg one). They actually are SUBSTITUTIVE! It should be like this:
Tournament | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | Career SR | Career W-L | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grand Slam tournaments | |||||||||||||
Australian Open | A | A | 3R | 4R | A | QF | SF | 0 / 4 | 14–4 | ||||
French Open | A | A | A | W | W | W | W | 4 / 4 | 28–0 | ||||
Wimbledon | A | 3R | A | 2R | F | F | W | 1 / 5 | 22–4 | ||||
US Open | A | 2R | 2R | 3R | QF | 4R | SF | 0 / 6 | 16–6 | ||||
SR | 0 / 0 | 0 / 2 | 0 / 2 | 1 / 4 | 1 / 3 | 1 / 4 | 2 / 4 | 0 / 0 | 5 / 19 | N/A | |||
Win-Loss | 0 – 0 | 3–2 | 3–2 | 13–3 | 17–2 | 20–3 | 24–2 | 0 – 0 | N/A | 80–14 | |||
Year-End Championship | |||||||||||||
Tennis Masters Cup | A | A | A | A | SF | SF | A | 0 / 2 | 4–4 | ||||
Olympic Games | |||||||||||||
Summer Olympics | Not Held | A | Not Held | W | NH | 1 / 1 | 6–0 | ||||||
ATP Masters Series 1000 | |||||||||||||
Indian Wells | A | A | 3R | A | SF | W | SF | 1 / 4 | 16–3 | ||||
Miami | A | A | 4R | F | 2R | QF | F | 0 / 5 | 14–5 | ||||
Monte Carlo | A | 3R | A | W | W | W | W | 4 / 5 | 24–1 | ||||
Rome | A | A | A | W | W | W | 2R | 3 / 4 | 17–1 | ||||
Madrid | A | 3R | A | A | A | F | W | 1 / 3 | 11–2 | ||||
Toronto / Montreal | A | A | 1R | W | 3R | SF | W | 2 / 5 | 16–3 | ||||
Cincinnati | A | A | 1R | 1R | QF | 2R | SF | 0 / 5 | 6–5 | ||||
Shangai | A | 1R | 2R | W | QF | QF | SF | 1 / 6 | 13–5 | ||||
Paris | A | LQ | A | A | A | F | QF | 0 / 2 | 6–2 |
IMPORTANT: Notice that for example, on the Shangai line, the links until 2008 have points to MADRID still! on 2009 they will start linking to Shangai.
This should be commented before changing all the players timelines... 62.57.197.191 ( talk) 15:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Here. Yosef1987 ( talk) 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm GA reviewing this and have been told that the main editor of the article, Oxford St., is having a wikibreak and the duration is unknown. Would anyone like to get to work on the article? It would be a shame to have to fail it on lapse of time. -- Philcha ( talk)
Hello there, the above article, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 00:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Just looking at Fernando Verdasco#Early years and noticed reference to Spain F1 and Spain F3, to what do these refer ? GrahamHardy ( talk) 15:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Some background info:
So, I'd like to get consensus on where we should put this "Rivalry with X" content in tennis bios.
My preference is to revert back to the way I originally created it as a subsection at the end of "Career". Obviously the rivalry is part of a player's career. Plus, the precedent is already there with Sampras and Laver.
Another possible decision is would we want to apply any agreed upon format to all tennis bios where a notable rivalry is mentioned? This would include all 8 of the bios with their own stand-alone rivalry articles, Laver, and anyone else whom I'm unaware of.
I look forward to everyone's feedback. Thanks. -- Armchair info guy ( talk) 01:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone here explain the actions of Ambassador Dunlop? I've already asked him/her to use the edit summary and explain what they're doing, to no avail. Is there any agreed use for this field in the infobox? As it is Ambassador Dunlop seems set on adding it to every tennis player. My understanding of this field is it should be added when a player retires, specifying the date they retired from competitive tennis. Adding it to current players, IMHO, is about as pointless as adding a "Died: living" field to every BLP article. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I am well on the way to creating the Masters Series articles I talked about (see this template) but I was wondering whether anyone was willing to do the singles draw pages and some of the lead sections on main articles (details on top seeds) as I only have time to create main pages. Some of the 1990s articles are given their sponsored names (e.g. 1998 Eurocard Open) and others their original name (e.g. 1998 Monte Carlo Open). Let me known on my talk page or here if you can help. 03md ( talk) 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm also interested to help - I'm actually just starting to add draws to grand slam articles like f.e. 2005 Australian Open - Women's Singles. I'm a real newbie, but I keep it safe by copying existing draw templates, feedback is appreciated. I'm sure I'm gonna keep running into articles to add simple draws or seeds lists for some time to come Swirlingblacklilly ( talk) 21:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
We need to revise around 50 articles that are to be classified as top importance tennis articles, so that in the future, there will be minimal arguments about it. I am sure that players which are notable throughout the world for playing tennis should be in the category such as, Federer, as well as the obvious stuff, ( Tennis obviously... the Grand Slams etc.) Bear in mind that we couldn't go wild and add every player who has won a tennis match... or even a grand slam. -- Dark Falls talk 11:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
While watching Andy Roddick play at Wimbledon, I went to Wikipedia to look for the fastest serves in the men's game and the women's game. I couldn't find any information, which leads me to propose/suggest a List of records in tennis. It would contain not just fastest serves, but also most victories, most weeks at #1, most consecutive weeks at #1, most Grand Slam titles, most titles per Grand Slam, most titles (ATP, Masters and Grand Slam), longest winning streaks, etcetera. It would be similar to the List of Formula One records. Any thoughts/suggestions? A ecis Brievenbus 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Totalinarian ( talk · contribs) recently started to merge Template:Wimbledon tournaments and Template:Wimbledon Championships, then requested that the former be deleted and began changing the templates included on all Wimbledon pages. I disagree with this change, but think it's worth discussing. Are the Amateur and Open eras different enough that they should have different template? This is the norm right now, see for example Template:French Championships (tennis) and Template:French Open tournaments or Template:U.S. National Championships (tennis) and Template:US Open tournaments. I think this break is quite reasonable. Nearly every statement about tennis history is qualified with "in the open era", so there really is a meaningful break. The open-era templates represent the current tournaments, whereas the amateur-era templates are entirely of historical interest. Separating them also avoids an unwieldy info box at the bottom of each slam article. -- dantheox 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that for individual tournaments, such as 2007 Tennis Masters Cup, or 2007 Queen's Club Championships, there should be a box stating the champions of each event, just like the GrandSlamInfo Template, If anyone would like to whip one up, that would be most appreciated. Maybe there could be differnt ones for the ATP Tour and Tennis Masters Cup. - Allied45 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I've created the NEW ATP Infobox! And will be making a WTA Tour infobox also! The New Infobox:
{{{1}}} {{{2}}} | ||
---|---|---|
Date: | ||
Edition: | ||
Defending champions | ||
Men's singles | ||
{{{defchampms}}} | ||
Men's doubles | ||
{{{defchampmd}}} | ||
Champions | ||
Men's singles | ||
{{{champms}}} | ||
Men's doubles | ||
{{{champmd}}} |
Allied45 04:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a consistent order for listing tournament winners in the few Wikipedia pages I've seen for WTA Tournaments. Some lists start with the most recent winner(s) (e.g. Indian Wells) and others start with the first/earliest winner (e.g. San Diego). Is there a general consensus on what order needs to be followed?
Also I would like to update the Wimbledon womens doubles winners lists with finalists and scores. Could anyone tell me how to separate the mens champions list from the women's like the entries for the other Grand Slam events? Thanks! IsidoreR 22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a regular member of this WikiProject, but I'd like to make some changes to how Davis Cup and Fed Cup articles are written. I've been doing a lot of work for Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template over the past few months, improving the way flag icons are generated. Some of you may have noticed some work I just completed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, where I replaced over 900 country-specific flag templates with 7 parameterized templates. The new templates are built upon the identical internal mechanism as the familiar {{ flag}} and {{ flagicon}} templates, so usage is quite straightforward.
I'd like to do the same thing here. Currently, there are 200 templates in Category:Davis Cup team templates and another 142 templates in Category:Fed Cup team templates. I can replace all of them with two templates! I have already created {{ davis}} and {{ fed}}, and they work for almost every team.
Usage is very simple: instead of {{USAdc}}
, you would use {{davis|USA}}
to produce
United States. The new templates can work with nation names (not just country codes) if you prefer when editing:
{{fed|Russia}}
produces
Russia. Historical flag variants are handled by using the same template arguments as with {{
flagicon}}, so you don't have to learn a new system. Just as
{{flagicon|RSA|1928}}
produces
,
{{fed|RSA|1928}}
produces
South Africa. The
1928
parameter has the same effect.
I hope you can see the obvious benefits to this proposal:
I am not suggesting that I impose a lot of work on the editors of this project. I am prepared to make all the substitutions and template deletions myself. I'd just like your approval and feedback before I proceed.
One related question: Are the flags used in {{ CARdc}}, {{ ECAdc}} and {{ POCdc}} really the correct ones for those multi-national teams, or just place-holders because they seemed like the best fit? I'd like to know how to best substitute for those templates.
Thanks, Andrwsc 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It's been two weeks with no more discussion on my proposal, so I'm going to be WP:BOLD and go ahead with the changes! Andrwsc 04:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added links to a new Article Guidelines subproject on the main page. This was motivated by seeing the 2007 Wimbledon Championships article, which is a complete mess. We should have guidelines and links to exemplary articles for each type of tennis page. This will help to channel the enthusiasm some pages get during grand slams, and provide a forum for reaching consensus on stylistic issues. I've started the discussion on the subproject page for everyone to chime in.
I think a good start would be the 2007 Wimbledon Championships article I mentioned before. If we can make it into something respectable, we could point to it as a guide when the 2007 US Open rolls around. -- dantheox 20:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
We are having a problem in what constitutes a slam over in the wiki article "Grand Slam Women's Singles Champions." The original framers of the article greyed out pre-1925 French winners on the basis that the event was open only to French Club members until 1925. Obviously the Wiki "French Open Winners" article would include everyone... no problem there. But when it come to totaling slams we run into a problem. Most books I've come across include the other big 3 events from their inception but they were supposed to be open to all countries, even if very few other countries sent players way back then. But now we have an editor of the page who insists that the French be included from it's inception in totaling all slams. His claim is that since no country sent players to the US Championships it was pretty much the same as the French Championships. It's gotten heated and we are at an impass because most of the posters their don't seem to care enough about this particular item to express a viewpoint. I posted this in the articles' talk page:
Thoughts on the French Championships. I'm asking here what the active members on this article think about changing the pre-1925 French Championships to make it count as a slam. I could show you stacks of evidence from books that would show why it should not be included and Mr Ryoung will say the same in his opposing view, so that won't help you at all. I'm asking for people to go to a book store or library or your own book shelf and see what it says under "Slam Titles." The individual Tourny names won't help here since of course someplace like the Australian Open would list everyone who has ever won their tourney, as would a book when you look up Australian Open. But those are taken care of here in the wikipedia under the individual tourney names. The French Open wiki site lists all past winners as it should. But this article is "Grand Slam Women's Singles Champions" , a different beast altogether. Look up total slam titles in whatever sources you would like and make an informed decision and post it here so we can see some sort of consensus on what everyone is thinking. 5 or 6 posts won't really help but if we can get a couple dozen thoughts it might help for making a better article and a way to solve this logjam. I hesitate to go to mediated arbritation because a non-tennis person will make a decision on a teniis related article but if we must we must.
1. I would vote for keeping the status quo for the pre-1925 French Open; Grayed out names, no slam numbering or counting until it was open to International players in 1925. Fyunck(click) 05:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Greetings,
I believe that articles listing past history should be do just that. The facts of the matter are, that all four of the currently-recognized 'Grand Slam' tennis singles championships evolved over the years. The Australian Open even went through a patch in the 1970's where top stars, such as Borg, Connors, and McEnroe, often didn't bother to show up...resulting in slam 'champions' like Brian Teacher. This is hardly comparable to today, when all four titles are vigorously contested by the likes of Roger Federer and Serena Williams. Other major changes throughout the years have included the 'opening' of the tournaments to professionals in 1968 (beginning at, of all places...Roland Garros!), the elimination of the 'challenge round' in 1922, etc. To not count the French championships prior to 1925 would be akin to not counting Babe Ruth's home runs, because of the exclusion of 'black' players from 1880 to 1947 in baseball. It also misses the historicity of the years. 'Greying out' is an inhospitable snub, especially when one considers that the game of 'tennis' or 'tenez' originated in the chateau of France.
Let's not forget what the NAME of the article is: "Grand Slam Women's Singles Champions." Since the term 'Grand Slam' wasn't even coined until 1933. Strictly speaking, there was no such thing as a 'grand slam' until some 56 years after the first Wimbledon tournament in 1877. Further, doing a little digging we find this about the early U.S. 'Open':
Only clubs that were members of the United States National Lawn Tennis Association were permitted to enter.
Also, the first 29 mens singles winners at Wimbledon were from the U.K. Early fields for both men and women tended to be limited to not just people from the same nation, but also the upper-class elite (hence the idea of an 'amateur' championship, to discourage the common people, who needed to be paid to survive, from competing). Note the lists on these articles recognize this, and count the titles two ways: Open-era and 'All-time.' I think 'All-time' means all-time, not just 'what Fyunckclick feels like.' I note the World Almanac lists Suzanne Lenglen with 12 titles. I note the Encyclopedia Britannica lists the French champions since 1891. I note that most of the competitors most-affected (Henri Cochet, Jean Borotra, Suzanne Lenglen) demonstrated their top-notch ability. Even Max Decugis won some Olympic medals.
Perhaps the biggest argument against Fyunclick, however, is that the 'French only' rule wasn't really enforced:
the first French Championship, the pre-curser to the French Open, was staged in Paris in 1891 and won by a certain H. Briggs - an Englishman.
So, it appears the first-ever title, in 1891, was won by...an Englishman? Clearly, Mr. Fyunclick's 'anti-French' crusade should come to an end. For 20+ years I have followed tennis, and though some sources tend to list only the winners since 1968 or whatever, most, when listing 'all-time' lists, do just that. Clearly, a learned tennis person knows that Roy Emerson's 12 'slams' are worth less, because Rod Laver and Pancho Gonzales were restricted entry during Emerson's years of winning titles, and Emerson never won a title once the championships were 'open' to professionals. Yet the same cannot be said for Suzanne Lenglen, Henri Cochet, and Jean Borotra...the 1920's-early 1930's were the 'golden age' of French tennis, and their success then has never been repeated. Ryoung122 08:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Doing a little more research, we find that the 1892 and 1897 French (mens) finalists were also Englishmen:
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-french-men-s-singles-champions-and-finalists
And, further, in 1925 the French was 'promoted' as an 'international' tournament to enchance its prestige and get foreign visitors. To now turn around and punish the French for inviting foreigners to compete is simply wrong. T(Remember, the French were aslo the first to open their tournament to professionals in 1968.) A search of the historical record finds that, contrary to oft-repeated commentary, the French championships did not actually 'exclude' foreigners. Thus, the rationale for 'greying out' is moot.
Now, no one would argue that the 1891 tournament in any way resembled the level of competition today. But the same can and should be said for Wimbledon in 1877 (Spencer Gore never won again) or the U.S. Open in 1881.
Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 08:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
How could answers.com take that from Wikipedia, if it's not on Wikipedia? And if it is, that just goes to show you that you are not considering the larger picture. You are focused on merely 'winning' an argument rather than respecting history. Ryoung122 09:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Numerous sources, from the World Almanac to the Encylopedia Britannica to ESPN list the French winners since 1891. Here's another one, from CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/05/24/singles.wnners/
Also, the argument that the pre-1925 champions should be exluded because foreigners 'weren't allowed' has been shown to be false.
However, perhaps the best argument to be made is that Wikipedia, unlike a published work, is an edited entry that anyone can edit. To achieve 'consensus' requires respecting multiple points of view. A notation has already been made for the year '1925'. To simply act like pre-1925 titleholders didn't exist smacks of one-dimensional, dictatorial, and parochial meddling. I find it hard to believe that just one individual, going by an alias, has deemed himself more important than international media sources like CNN. Ryoung122 09:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
USA Today also lists since 1891, no 'exlusionary' rule:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/majors-women.htm
Note these are English and American sources, not French sources. The best thing anyone can do here is to treat the French Open with the same respect as the other three: list the titleists since tournament inception. Even if the "Australian Open" was once the "Australiasian championships." Ryoung122 09:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Ryoung122 09:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Currently, many Davis Cup (and Fed Cup) articles have sections that show this list of participating teams in each group & region. They are shown like:
Participating Teams | |||
---|---|---|---|
{{BRAdc|20|<br>}} | {{CANdc|20|<br>}} | {{COLdc|20|<br>}} | |
{{MEXdc|20|<br>}} | {{PERdc|20|<br>}} | {{VENdc|20|<br>}} |
Is there any specific reason why this tabular format is desired, instead of just a simpler bulleted list, such as:
Thanks, Andrwsc 10:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Recently, editors User:Wolbo and User:Tennis expert have engaged in continuous reversions on each other's edits on the Roger Federer page. The disagreement is over the issue of wikilinks to tournaments in the performance timelines. E.g., Wolbo favors a layout where one can click on, say a W in a table to be directed to, say, the Wimbledon 2003 draw. Tennis expert is against on grounds of making editing of the tables more difficult. The issue has been discusse somewhat scattered around the Wiki, so let us all settle the issue at this place. I made a post on Tennis expert's talk page, when he labelled one of Wolbo's reversion vandalism, I repeat this post here, as a start to the discussion:
My opinion is that the idea of links to draws is nice, as it highlights these main draw articles. Also, we do not need to make it a mandatory thing on all players' article. Since, the Federer article is going for GA and eventually FA, it would be a very nice touch to the article. And for retired greats, there would be no problem of making updating of tables more difficult. An argument I don't think is that good in any case. Please put your opinions here. Thanks.-- HJensen, talk 16:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Very few editors other than myself go around checking the edits made by others to ensure that the timelines remain correct. This is already a very time consuming process. Making the timelines even more difficult to edit because we keep adding complicated "enhancements" to tables that, in edit mode, are very user unfriendly just doesn't make sense, as does not having a standardized way of presenting the timelines (e.g., requiring certain players to have links to the draws while saying, oh well, it's not required for others). Perhaps HJensen and Wolbo would volunteer to conform all the hundreds of timelines that currently exist to this proposed way of doing things. Maybe I have missed it, but I haven't noticed either of them making the effort so far. Tennis expert 05:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Template:Top ten North American male tennis players has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — MC 22:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone here read Dutch? There was a proposal on the Dutch Wikipedia (now implemented) to, I assume from looking at that chart, drop the sponsors' names. Should we do this here? (cf. WP:COMMONNAME?) — MC 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone has been messing with Forehand, but I'm heading off for the night and don't have the time to untangle it. Maybe one of you can take a look? -- Falcorian (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy Connors has been nominated for the Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. Any editors who would be interested in collaborating to improve this article should indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 17:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because many use a term doesn't make it correct. When I grew up in the 60's, 70's and 80's the only term I heard to describe the Aussie, French, Wimbledon and US Opens were "Majors." Somewhere, probably during Navratilova's dominance, the term "Slam" was used for the individul tournies. This made sense as winning all 4 in a calendar year was a "Grand Slam", a term used since the 30's. But people got lazy, sportscasters included, and started calling the individual tournies "Grand Slams" incorrectly. In conversation you let that slide, but this is an encyclopedia! Can't we at least get it right here? Do not call them "Grand Slams", call them Majors or Slams. The headings in all the wiki Tennis articles should reflect this. Maybe if enough people see it printed the correct way the debasement of the term will change. Fyunck(click) 18:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have created a tennis set nomination for Version 0.7, please take a look and leave comments. What we need to know are: (a) Is this a suitable list of the top tennis players (13 male + 13 female), plus other key articles? (b) Are the articles of a reasonable quality? I realise that such lists are subjective, but I made up the lists based on details posted on the list pages, as well as my own (small) personal knowledge. I realise that the older players will typically get less coverage, but we do want to make sure the selection covers the truly major players from all time periods. Please give feedback. Thanks, Walkerma 03:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The list of most wanted articles was recently updated, and I've created a section for the many tennis biographies on there. If anyone gets bored, here's a good place to find something to do ;). -- Spyder_Monkey ( Talk) 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Any thoughts? Should I add it to the WP barnstars page?
Ban
Ray
13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to give a heads up to those who edit tennis-related articles. When referring to the tennis player, Mike Leach, please use " Mike Leach (tennis)" instead of " Mike Leach", since the latter links to the football coach. Thanks! → Wordbuilder ( talk) 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
When are you guys going to reach a consensus on whether to use "US Open" or "U.S. Open"?
I'm currently in a discussion with
Tennis expert on which one to use and he keeps saying a consensus was not reached on this issue. But then in his edit summary he says changes were made against consensus. So is he right that a consensus was not made
here in
April 2007 or is he right a consensus was made elsewhere?
I'm also writing here, because I think we need someone else to either mediate or join the conversation on either this talk page or on the
US Open (tennis) talk page. --
203.220.170.192 (
talk)
02:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you add details of all abbreviations used - both the literal expansion and what that actually means to the articles of tennis players. (I suggest a template for easy inclusion into lots of players.) For example, in Tim Henman the table at the end is full of many coloured "R1, RR, QF, W". I guess, but do NOT know that this means "The player got as far as Round 1, RR??? no idea, Quarter finals, Won the event." But if that is the case then the totals don't add up. There are 11 wins listed with the total being 12 and yet there is only one "W". It makes no sense to the non-expert. Also remember that there will be readers whose first language is not English. -- SGBailey ( talk) 23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I created article Laura DuPont, perhaps someone could mosey over there, check it out, and rate it (stub class, methinks). Thank you. Guldenat ( talk) 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the importance scale, the general one was confusing and unsuitable for this project. Any thoughts are welcome. Ban Ray 11:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please can someone look at this article, it needs a rewrite as it doesn't seem to flow too well. I'm trying to do this for several other female tennis-player articles as well. If you see the talk page, you'll see what I mean. Thanks, -- Solumeiras talk 11:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I could not find this issue discussed elsewhere, so permit me to raise it here. Why, exactly, are we identifying players with national flags in contexts where the players are not representing countries? I understand the exception of IO games, Fed Cup and Davis Cup, but what about WTA/ITF/ATP tournaments? The players playing there are competing as individuals; in some cases, the issue of nationality is not straightforward, and the player actually possesses several passports. Players train and live in various places. National anthems are not played before tournament matches or at the moment of awarding winners, national representation win totals or orther statistics are not maintained by ITF (except in the national team competition case), WTA or ATP. Please explain, exactly what justifies branding players with national flags in international tennis, other than in the national team competition contexts? -- Mareklug talk 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
As I've been watching the Australian Open I've been reading a few tennis-related articles and am pretty surprised by the poor quality of them in general. Most are not written in an encyclopedic tone, and read as if they are articles in a magazine or similar publication. There are a lot of weasel words that need dealing with, puffers, and NPOV policy needs to be applied. I don't have the time, inclination or expertise to fix the vast number of articles that needs fixing, but its something the Wikiproject needs to look at. The articles I read were (but from what I've seen this is the tip of the iceberg) Maria Sharapova, Steffi Graf (and a lot of other bios) & 2008 Australian Open. It's definitely good writing, but just not suitable for an encyclopedia. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Some help would be appreciated with this new article. Many of the google hits turn up foreign language sites, so hopefully somebody associated with this project will have better resources. Pairadox ( talk) 10:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me or does that page title make no sense? I understand why the 'Open' was taken out but as it stands the name is really ambiguous. Would it be an option to change 'French Men's' to 'Roland-Garros'? Crickettragic ( talk) 13:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how much interest that participants with this Wikiproject may want to get involved with a related Wikibook, but I'm leaving this note here to inform those who may be interested that the Tennis Wikibook is currently nominated for deletion on Wikibooks.
This book is certainly in sad shape in terms of offering any realistic information about how to play the game or go into depth about the topic, and it would be appreciated if somebody interested in the topic could help add content to those pages. The primary rationale for deletion is due to the fact that the information in this book is of such poor quality that it doesn't merit even being on Wikibooks any more. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 16:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Florida Gators Barnstar | |
For good and thorough work pertaining to articles about the Florida Gators. |
Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while, and some articles wait up to 50 days for a review. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject Tennis is to try to find time to review Ogre (game) and Nashville Sounds. If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Since this is something that is going to involve a number of articles, and something that is likely to cause a little bit of commotion, I thought it would be wise to have a discussion before doing it, even though it is ultimately pretty much unavoidable. This seemed to be the most appropriate forum, since people here are more specifically devoted to tennis-related articles. I will try to post notices about this discussion on the talk pages of as many articles as I can remember that are to be affected.
So the thing is: there is a significant number of tennis biographies that are, right now, violating the naming conventions of the English-language Wikipedia, namely
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). The situation concerns biographies of tennis players of Slav and South American countries (that I have noticed so far). As it is stated in our Naming Convention, which I linked above, in the case of spelling of a person's name, on the English-language Wikipedia (thus not applicable to other Wikipedias necessarily, subject to local policies), the name of the article is to be the preferred spelling in the English-speaking world, if it exists. If not, then we use the original spelling in the native language. In the case of tennis players, the preferred spelling in English is easily verifiable by how those names are spelled by the ATP and the WTA respectively — which is used normally by the media and any other means of divulgation in English-speaking countries.
What that means for practical purposes is: no diacritics, romanization of any non-Latin letters or symbols, as done not by Wikipedia, but by the sources (in this case, the ATP and the WTA). Currently, many biographies are not observing this, such as
Fernando González,
Ana Ivanović,
Ivan Ljubičić and
Radek Štěpánek. In addition, there is the peculiar case of Novak Djokovic (spelled as is): while the article has been moved to the appropriate naming on this Wikipedia, the player's name continues to be listed on other tennis-related articles routinely as Novak Đoković, the original spelling in Serbian. All of those will need to be fixed.
Obviously, there are many people, especially people who contribute only sporadically to Wikipedia, and possibly concentrated on tennis alone, or maybe limited to a small number of biographies or tennis-related articles, and thus will be unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, who might tend to call upon "national issues" and claim that the original spelling needs to be kept out of "respect for the countries" from which the player comes. Unfortunately, this argument cannot prosper ultimately, for the reasons I've explained above. But I've seen this argument time and again, especially concerning Slav players (and especially on Djokovic's entry). Therefore, if there is anything anyone would like to point out about this, it would be preferrable that we get any problems out of the way now.
But again, ultimately the naming conventions are clear: this is the English-language Wikipedia, and in here we use the preferred spelling in the English-speaking world if it exists. In the case of tennis players, it clearly exists and it is easily verified.
Redux (
talk)
00:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This does not really refer to us placing an alphabet before any other. This is about a methodology and the established fact that on the English-language Wikipedia content is written in English. That applies to the spelling of people's names as well: if there is a preferred spelling used in the English-speaking world, that is what is going to be used on this Wikipedia as the article's title. We are not making this up as we go along, this is an established methodology of work — and a logical one, obviously, since this is the English-language Wikipedia. You should notice that this is about the naming of articles. This is not about excluding or hiding the native-language spelling of anyone's name. As a matter of fact, we are required to give it in the opening paragraph. Not to mention that it is good practice to have the original spelling exist as a redirect to the correctly-placed article.
Now, even though this is not a discussion about deletion, regarding this kind of personal sentiment towards how the English-language Wikipedia is written, there is a page that completely applies here (
mutatis mutandi):
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically the third section,
#Personal point of view, and in it, the subsections
"I like it" and
"I don't like it".
In order to oppose the concerned moves validly, you need to indicate either that there is no preferred spelling in the English-speaking world, which causes the article title to default to the native-language spelling, or that the English-speaking world happens to spell it exactly like the native spelling, which means that the article would already be at the correct location. In the case of tennis players, that is evidently difficult to conceive, since this needs to be backed by verifiable sources, and since both the ATP and the WTA use English as their working languages and they themselves list the players excluding diacritics and so on, the players' profiles on the official website of the concerned governing entity becomes a quasi-indisputable proof of the preferred spelling in English.
Redux (
talk)
23:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This thread is now over a week old. In addition to the naming conventions that need to be followed, there was no sustainable opposition made here, aside the "I like it"/"I don't like it" remarks that, as I mentioned before, cannot prosper (see my previous comments). On the contrary, consensus is overwhelmingly clear in support of the already-existing naming conventions that, on the English-language Wikipedia, we will use the preferred spelling used in the English-speaking world — in the case of tennis, verified by the spelling used for each player on the official websites of the ATP and the WTA.
That being the case, barring the presentation of something new and relevant, we will commence the implementation of the outcome tomorrow, May 19. This will consist of 2 lines of action: the main one will be the moving of all biographies concerned to the ATP/WTA-used spelling; the second action will be the correcting of the players' names' spelling in all instances where it was spelled using the native-language spelling, both in results articles, such as in
2008 Hamburg Masters - Singles and in all biographies with career statistics boards, such as
Rafael Nadal#All finals (41), where the article's title is unaffected by this and it will not be moved, but the opponents' names on that board will be changed to match the spelling used in the English-speaking world.
Needless to say that the second part, although technically easier, represents a massive effort. So we will be counting on the help of all of those willing to. And this brings up an important point: once the spellings are corrected, if people, be it anons or other registered users, start reverting it back to the native-spellings, please do not engage them in revert wars. Revert once, inform them of the naming conventions and of this discussion. If they either ignore you or reply with answers such as "Wikipedia is disrespecting X country/culture/langugage" and go on to re-revert it again, report it immediately to the administrators at
their noticeboard. As I mentioned, anyone trying to "force" articles or spellings to stay how they personally think those should be will be incurring in several policy violations and will be subject to administrative measures.
Redux (
talk)
19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
What's the best way to include the native spelling? For the Serb players I've just been putting Serb Latin; what about the rest of the Slavonic players, and the Hispanic ones? I really don't how to format this. Yohan euan o4 ( talk) 07:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
only Central European countrys use a different versions of the Latin alphabet then English people. The country's language article should say what alpabeth they use. Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 22:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Minor problem is that all their trainers, friends and family members are not listed at ATP/WTA. So right now we have a strange mix of Anglicised and original names. Squash Racket ( talk) 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What is special about tennis players that they deserve special treatment on Wikipedia? Why not to apply this rule to all articles? Why it is OK to have José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Gerhard Schröder, Agim Çeku, Kimi Räikkönen, Nicklas Bäckström and not Tomáš Berdych?-- Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S ( talk) 11:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, no any difference. It seems that this thread was made specifically in order to impose some double criteria of couple guys , member of "anti-diacritics squad", universal , self-proclaimed "experts".-- Aradic-es ( talk) 08:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
So ,I see this proposal as an alternative way to impose POV. What is the difference between the biographies of tennis player, , politicians scientists. -- Aradic-es ( talk) 10:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
So, I see no reasons for making this thread but to impose some "no-diacritic" . And no , I see no WP:AGF in this proposal. Yes, Couple of guys here are trying to persuade us that "this is not anti-diacritics movement" . That is same as saying "We don't ban the Chinese people enter here-just to those who are shorter than 190 centimeters" or "we do not ban the black race people enter here-just to those who have curly hair" . So predictable and transparent tricks-old as the world itself -- Aradic-es ( talk) 10:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, off course. You don't understand . Like usual.nothing that I write. --
Añtó| Àntó (
talk)
13:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I am just trying to use the same rhetorics as you are. Which usually is in the following steps:
respecting them and your opponent is NOT.
whatever change was made emphasize it as "historical" etc.
As we can see so called consensusabout "Novak Đoković" hat was made in April 2008 , just 7 days after 2 years of discussion- used good opportunity in good time. Syncronized acting and imposed the rule.more -less same user -member of anti-diacritics squad. Great job. Congratulations!
there are couple users repaeting the same arguments in couple articles and/or wikipedia policy discussions:PMAnderson,TennisExpert,PhillipBaird Shearer ,Somedumbyankee and ,of course, our dear Norse PhD HJensen. Since there was no any consensus about usage of diacrics at general level I consider this as a hidden illegal attempt. --
Añtó| Àntó (
talk)
09:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Suggest that those proposing the multiple move at WP:RM#19 May 2008 consult WP:RM#Moving several pages at once for the recommended procedure. Andrewa ( talk) 09:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A delicate issue as "no diacritics" argument certainly cannot be done without a RM. A RM should be held, and not for multiple pages but for each individual page. If there is consensus on them that they can be moved, they will. Otherwise, they should not be moved. This is a controversial move (and for the record, one which I strongly oppose).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This something I just noticed tonight, and it made it somewhat difficult and confusing to visually assimilate the match scores I was reading.
Apparently on March 23, someone or somebot (or some combo of the two, since there were multiple edits per minute being made by the same IP address) decided to change the presentation format of the tennis scores in hundreds of articles. See [3].
The changes all have the edit comment of: "MoS: Hyphens are often wrongly used for disjunction in Wikipedia; this is especially common in sports scores."
This is just a HORRIBLE change to have made, and I would like to see the scores changed back and no edit war ensue.
Tennis (and similarly volleyball, table tennis, etc.) scores are quite different from scores in many other sports (such as baseball, football, basketball, soccer, etc.) in that the scores follow a predictable format and that a match score contains a multiple of the component set scores.
So in tennis, you could conceivably report the scores of a match as 64 61 with no punctuation aside from the space and still be understood. You could even report a tiebreak set as 763 and still be understood.
On the other hand, a basketball score of 131-2, however unlikely, needs some punctuation (or to use the above editors terminology, some visual disjunction) to distinguish it from a score of 13-12.
And in basketball and similar sports, there is just ONE score to report upon for each match. So there is no need to concern yourself with horizontal spacing of the scores visually, and its effect on the ability of the reader to assimilate the meaning of the scores.
In tennis, however, you have a series of scores for each match, so you need to concern yourself with each piece of a set score as well as the visual presentation of a match score.
Consider the following presentations of the same match score:
64 16 763 6711 75
6-4, 1-6, 7-6(3), 6-7(11), 7-5
6–4, 1–6, 7–6 (3), 6–7 (11), 7–5
Hmmm ... I am not even sure if that is going to show up as intended.
But anyway, the point is that while all three versions of the scores can be read and understood, the first version is difficult to visually assimilate, the 2nd version (which was used before the edits were made) is the easiest to assimilate, and the 3rd version, the current version, is more difficult to assimilate.
(Please note that I also have changed the tiebreak display here to what I have always seen used in websites and news reports, no SPACE between the set score and the parenthesis with the tiebreak score).
The elongated hyphen (pardon me for not knowing the technical term) has the visual effect of pushing the end of one set score closer visually to the start of the next set score than to the start of its own set score. That is, a score of 5-7, 6-1, 6-2 looks more like 5 7 6 1 6 2.
And the additional space before the tiebreak score serves only to further turn what should be a visually clean match score into a giant blob of hyphens, numbers, and parentheses.
Of course, if the 3rd example above does not contain the elongated hyphens, you may not be seeing what I am talking about.
If you have seen what I am talking about, what are your thoughts? ShabbatSam ( talk) 05:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Could someone point out where in wiki is the naming convention for female players? As far as last names being listed in charts as the married name or the name by which the player played under whilst competing. I don't know whether she changed it or not but if she did would we put down Steffi Graf Agassi or simply Steffi Graf? Chris Evert Norman or Chris Evert? Maureen Connolly Brinker or Maureen Connolly? Just a query so I don't mess things up and I couldn't find it listed anywhere. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
HJensen, see WP:CON. Tennis expert ( talk) 06:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the Mikhail Youzhny page needs a cleanup aswell as more references being added?
In my opinion it's a mess. Dan the Man1983 ( talk) 05:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Tennis_scores#User:Tennis_scores and assess whether the list is encyclopedic material that can be added to a tennis article. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Most dictionaries only recognise "runners-up" as the plural of "runner-up" [4] though Merriam-Webster throws "runner-ups" a small bone as "also" occurring.
More than half the pages on Wikipedia where the word "runner ups" occurs relate to tennis ( "Runner-ups" site:en.wikipedia.org tennis "Runner-ups" site:en.wikipedia.org -tennis). You might want to think about changing your standard layout. Regards, jnestorius( talk) 00:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I made some templates for ATP Race , I think its useful. There are links
{{ATP Race header}}
{{ATP Race player}}
{{ATP Race footer}}
So, I want your argument about it.This is an example:
{{ATP Race header|s=2008|u=2008-06-23}} {{ATP Race player |s=2008 | pos= 1 | p = Rafael Nadal | n = ESP | pgs1 =90 | rgs1 =SF | pgs2 =200 | rgs2 ='''W''' | pgs3 = | rgs3n =n | pgs4 = | rgs4 = | pms1 =45 | rms1 =SF | pms2 =70 | rms2 =F | pms3 =100 | rms3 ='''W''' | pms4 =1 | rms4 =R32 | pms5 =100 | rms5 ='''W''' | pms6 = | rms6n =n | pms7 = | rms7 = | pms8 = | rms8 = | pms9 = | rms9 = | bo1 = Torneo Godó | pbo1 =60 | rbo1 ='''W''' | bo2 = Queen's Club Championships | pbo2 =45 | rbo2 ='''W''' | bo3 = Chennai Open | pbo3 =24 | rbo3 =F | bo4 = Dubai Tennis Championships | pbo4 =15 | rbo4 =QF | bo5 = ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament | pbo5 =5 | rbo5 =R16 }} {{ATP Race footer}}
And this is thr result:
Race updated: 2008-06-23
Rk | Name | Nation | Grand Slams | Masters Series | Best other | Total | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AUS | RGA | WIM | USO | IND | MIA | MON | ROM | HAM | TOR | CIN | MAD | PAR | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||
1 | Rafael Nadal | ![]() |
90 SF |
200 W |
— | 45 SF |
70 F |
100 W |
1 R32 |
100 W |
— | 60 W |
45 W |
24 F |
15 QF |
5 R16 |
755 |
I recently moved the template pre open era to Template:Pre Open Era Wimbledon Gentlemen's singles champions, as the main list is named thus. Should gentlemen be the norm? And should all other pages be moved accordingly? Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What's our policy on articles about junior players? I remember a discussion about Bernard Tomic some time ago, but I had been without internet for eight mounts, so I don't know is policy changed? Couple of days ago, someone made Bojana Jovanovski article, and its terrible. What to do? :) -- Göran Smith ( talk) 20:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated the tennis-related article Rome Masters 2006 Final for deletion according with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please have your say on the issue here. - Allied45 ( talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I know that the Wikipedia article lists Roland Garros' name as the French Open, but I think we should change it to Roland Garros. Never as it been officially known as The French Open, only by some English commentators. On the Roland Garros website it makes no reference to the French Open, and I think it should be called by it's official name, Roland Garros. -- MacMad ( talk · contribs) 05:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I just moved Template:GrandSlamInfo to Template:TennisEventInfo, made it so this template can take "gender-free" events (e.g. "Event - Singles", as opposed to "Event - Men's Singles") and then redirected to it Template:AtpTourInfo and Template:WtaTourInfo. The only thing that those last two templates provided that the first one doesn't is generic light blue/pink colours in template headers, but as each different tournament should have its own colour anyway (as per the inter-year navbox colours) this isn't much of a loss. I added the other colours to the template where they exist.
Finally, I created Template:TennisEvents and Template:TennisEvents2 to act as counterparts to Template:GrandSlamEvents. The former has no "Mixed Singles" event but both men's and women's events (and, in the case of Miami Masters, boy's and girl's events too). The latter is gender-free. Again, I provided colours matching those of the inter-year navboxes where possible. These templates obviously need to be populated onto individual event articles. I hope you find them useful! rst20xx ( talk) 20:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Also I've made a template for Draw keys, similar to Template:Performance timeline legend - rst20xx ( talk) 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to find the article on this (I knew we had one), and finally found it at Rainout (sports). I set up some appropriate redirects, but at present Rainout (sports) only refers to rain stopping play in baseball and motorsports; it's very US-centric. Not knowing that much about tennis, I wondered if the experts here at WP:TENNIS might like to put together a paragraph regarding the effect of rain on outdoors tennis on the Rainout (sports) article? I have left a similar sort of message on the WP:CRICKET talk page. Neıl ☄ 11:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
As I've been recently working on improving tournaments articles from the 1994 ATP Tour, I have tried to dig the archives of the ATP and ITF websites to determine exactly of what series was part each tournament in the 1994 calendar. I have found that, aside from the Grand Slams, the Davis Cup and the Year-End Championships, there were something like 60+ small tournaments, similar to the current International Series, under the appellation World Series - and I have created a template for them :
The remaining 21 events seem to fall into two categories:
Milan, Memphis, Philadelphia, Stuttgart Indoor, Barcelona, Tokyo Outdoor, Stuttgart Outdoor, Washington, Indianapolis and New Haven are all labeled CSD by the ITF website.
Indian Wells, Key Biscayne, Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome, Montreal-Toronto, Cincinnati, Stockholm, Paris Indoor, and, to my great surprise, Sydney Indoor and Tokyo Indoor are labeled CSS by the ITF.
That leaves me with two questions: First, what do CSD and CSS mean ? I guess the CS stand for Championships Series, but what what do the D and the S mean ?
Secondly, why are Sydney and Tokyo Indoor put in the same category as the Super Nine events ? Were they really eleven top tier events in 1994, or is it a mistake from the ITF ?
You can see Sydney and Tokyo Indoor labeled as CSS by looking in Boris Becker's 1994 calendar, for example.
I'd appreciate your input on these questions, which would allow me the create templates for those two series, for the year of '94 and all other calendars of the nineties, and continue to improve individual events articles. Cheers, -- Plafond ( talk) 12:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be a conflict in articles that mention size ranks of tennis centers. See Talk:USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center. Apparently there is no consensus (or even a discussion yet) on how to qualify such claims. Number of courts? Spectator total seating? - newkai t- c 01:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if one of you tennis experts would review the comment about Corria in our article on Yips and either cite the comment or remove it; as his biog article does not mention yips, I'm concerned about WP:OR. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
As we can see here , here, here , here , here here and here, User:Tennis expert has involved himself in a huge "anti-diacritics" with no any support just renaming the pages independently. In some the moves he is calling this thread as referrence. -- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 10:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
(reset) Sorry, what? As far as I can see, the only thing you can be referring to in that thread is Aradic-es' reference to the failed proposals here, here and here. But I have no idea what that has to do with what I'm suggesting. I'm simply suggesting you create a page, oh you could use this one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article Guidelines. And in there, you could create a section about diacritics, and this WikiProject's consensus on their (dis)use in tennis articles. And then in the future, when this debate crops up, you'd only have to point to that, and it'd be better proof of consensus than some past thread. The only reason you could possibly have for not doing that is if you don't really have any consensus here in the first place - rst20xx ( talk) 23:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I have told so many times:what is the difference between tennis player, politicians, scientist. How is that their names should be different??-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 06:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, and tennisExpert is try to impose spelling from tennis related websites that never use diacritics. Such as : Atp , ITF , Davis cup , Tennis hall of fame-- Añtó| Àntó ( talk) 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
New-comers to the discussion Yosef1987 ( talk) 23:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
In the bios, should it be like Miami Masters or Sony Ericsson Open etc?? Taking it to the right place from the wrong place Yosef1987 ( talk) 15:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert, please hear me out, this is not my reference, I've already gave you a link and you refused to check it out carefully, so here's what I'll say, check this out, and this here, also you'll find out a page says: "The 2008 Miami Masters (also known as the Sony Ericsson Open for sponsorship reasons)...", it is a de facto as well as the site I gave you that sponsors change, like when Miami MS was called: Nasdaq 100, I don't know how else to explain, you don't try to explain it to me what you think, which I am willing to hear but not like this: The link you provided uses the sponsors' names. Enough said, because The link I provided uses the sponsors' names and the tournaments names as well !!! Thank you Yosef1987 ( talk) 22:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
One more thing please to "Tennis expert", Official calender, let's see what it says: "Pacific Life Open – Indian Wells", but a few years back it would have been "Another sponsor – Indian Wells". Same for Miami/Sony/Nasdaq and the whole gang Yosef1987 ( talk) 22:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
....also, all the templates, every where on tennis articles, do not mention sponsors, because they change, copy and paste from Indian Wells Masters, the ATP Masters Series Tournaments template: Indian Wells · Miami · Monte Carlo · Rome · Hamburg · Montreal/Toronto · Cincinnati · Stockholm/Essen/Stuttgart/Madrid · Paris. Please refer to all my replies before replying, because definitely this reply is not a reference, just proving a point, because consistency is mandatory to Wikipedia Yosef1987 ( talk) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this should end like this, I am not mad at anyone, I am proving my point for a better Wikipedia. Oh forgot to say, the sponsor name for Monte-Carlo MS is Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters not just Monte-Carlo Masters :):):) I have asked for a support, should be on the way from the Tennis Project members hopefully, that is extra opinions, 3 won't do it Yosef1987 ( talk) 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, lots of debate here. Why don't we formally settle this with a vote, ala Gdansk Vote. -- Armchair info guy ( talk) 08:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
For new-comers to this discussion, here is what's going on: each tournament has 2 names, a name that doesn't change over time and is basically the host city's name (e.g. Miami) and we have the sponsor's name, which changes whenever a new sponsor takes over, now which name to use in the biographies, remember that a player's career can witness sponsor changes, and it is good to point that templates here and the tables and the statistics use the simple name (e.g. Miami)
Example:
Consistency and accuracy is the target, thank you Yosef1987 ( talk) 23:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Only skimmed the debate, but my two opinion: I would see things continue as they currently are at Canada Masters and 2004 Canada Masters, i.e.
Additionally (and this is where the debate seems to be focused), I think the tennis player articles should avoid sponsorship names as well. Now, as for why: the ATP seem to often use the sponsorship title, but not always (e.g. here). If the ATP consistently used the sponsorship names, I'd agree with Nishkid64, but sometimes they use non-sponsorship (because sometimes it's less confusing!), hence in my opinion both are acceptable, and hence I'd go for the less confusing option, i.e. the non-sponsor names. As for the "1000 Series", well that's a different matter... rst20xx ( talk) 23:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert: Won't say much so my point becomes very simple: Sponsors change over time, so to maintain accuracy and factuality would be impossible in all bios bec of the different eras and we saw that happen even in the recent era (the Nasdaq 100 thing) Yosef1987 ( talk) 10:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert: in Arantxa Sanchez Vicario and Lindsay Davenport: are you referring to the piping? Actually there isn't much on those articles, mainly only the grand slams...am not against piping, but here's a question, since the articles themselves here are non-sponsor named, why use a sponsor name to link to a non-sponsor named article? Example: 2006 Miami Masters - Men's Singles...I guess if we settle this it'll be over... Yosef1987 ( talk) 12:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Something everyone has forgotten is that using the official sponsored names of tournaments is something we've been doing for a very long time. I did not just "invent" the idea. See List of tennis tournaments, for example. So, what's the big deal? Tennis expert ( talk) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's do a brief survey of what the English-language news media does around the world. And let's use the
Sony Ericsson Open in
Key Biscayne, Florida as the example.
(1) New York Times:
uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami)
(2) London Times:
uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami)
(3) Sydney Morning Herald:
uses the official sponsored name
(4) International Herald Tribune:
uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami)
(5) Times of India:
uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami)
(6) Dawn (Pakistan):
uses the official sponsored name
(7) Reuters:
uses the official sponsored name
(8) USA Today:
uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami)
(9) Tennis.com:
uses the official sponsored name
(10) Xinhua (People's Republic of China):
uses the official sponsored name
(11) The Star (South Africa):
uses the official sponsored name.
(12) Pravda (Russia):
uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami).
Tennis expert (
talk)
06:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's do a brief counter-survey of what the English-language news media does around the world. And let's use the
Miami Masters as the example again.
(1) New York Times:
uses "Miami Masters"
(2) The Times:
uses "Miami Masters"
(3) Sydney Morning Herald:
uses "Miami Masters"
(4) International Herald Tribune:
uses "Miami Masters"
(5) Times of India:
uses "Miami Masters"
(6) Dawn (Pakistan):
uses "Miami Masters"
(7) Reuters:
uses "Miami Masters"
(8) USA Today:
uses "Miami Masters"
(9) Tennis.com:
uses "Miami Masters"
(10) Xinhua (People's Republic of China):
uses "Miami Masters"
(11) The Star (South Africa):
uses "Miami Masters".
(12) Pravda (Russia):
uses "Miami Open"?!?
I have to say, that is the most pointless activity I have ever been forced to carry out -
rst20xx (
talk)
14:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Here are two tables based on the Roger Federer article that illustrate what I am advocating. The first table is the status quo. The second table is my proposal. As you can see, what I am advocating is neither radical nor unreasonable.
ATP Masters Series singles finals (23)
Wins (14)
Year | Championship | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Hamburg | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Indian Wells | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Hamburg (2) | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Toronto (Canada) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
2005 | Indian Wells (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 |
2005 | Miami | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 |
2005 | Hamburg (3) | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) |
2005 | Cincinnati | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 |
2006 | Indian Wells (3) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 |
2006 | Miami (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) |
2006 | Toronto (Canada) (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 |
2006 | Madrid | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 |
2007 | Hamburg (4) | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 |
2007 | Cincinnati (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
ATP Masters Series singles finals (23)
Wins (14)
Year | Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Masters Series Hamburg | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Pacific Life Open | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Masters Series Hamburg (2) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Rogers Cup | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
2005 | Pacific Life Open (2) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 |
2005 | NASDAQ-100 Open | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 |
2005 | Masters Series Hamburg (3) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) |
2005 | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 |
2006 | Pacific Life Open (3) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 |
2006 | NASDAQ-100 Open (2) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) |
2006 | Rogers Cup (2) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 |
2006 | Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid | Madrid, Spain | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 |
2007 | Masters Series Hamburg (4) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 |
2007 | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (2) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
Tennis expert ( talk) 06:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert, consensus is clearly against your opinion here. Several editors have voiced opposition to your opinion, presenting well reasoned arguments that both names are acceptable, but the latter is preferable as it is simpler. If you do not respect consensus, I will be forced to take this issue to some kind of higher body - rst20xx ( talk) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Another reason in favor of the proposal is that it helps with sorting. The proposal would allow people to sort by official name or by tournament location while the status quo allows sorting only by location. This is especially useful in the career results tables (not shown above). Tennis expert ( talk) 18:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is a third possibility that preserves sortability and data that many of us would like to see:
ATP Masters Series singles finals (23)
Wins (14)
Year | Tournament Name | Sponsored Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Hamburg Masters (1) | Masters Series Hamburg (1) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Indian Wells Masters (1) | Pacific Life Open (1) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Hamburg Masters (2) | Masters Series Hamburg (2) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Canada Masters (1) | Rogers Cup (1) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
2005 | Indian Wells Masters (2) | Pacific Life Open (2) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 |
2005 | Miami Masters (1) | NASDAQ-100 Open (1) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 |
2005 | Hamburg Masters (3) | Masters Series Hamburg (3) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) |
2005 | Cincinnati Masters (1) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (1) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 |
2006 | Indian Wells Masters (3) | Pacific Life Open (3) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 |
2006 | Miami Masters (2) | NASDAQ-100 Open (2) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) |
2006 | Canada Masters (2) | Rogers Cup (2) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 |
2006 | Madrid Masters | Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid | Madrid, Spain | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 |
2007 | Hamburg Masters (4) | Masters Series Hamburg (4) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 |
2007 | Cincinnati Masters (2) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (2) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
Tennis expert ( talk) 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I do like the new table, the official and the sponsored names appearing is a good idea. But I think that the LOCATION column should be taken out, like:
ATP Masters Series singles finals (23)
Wins (14)
Year | Tournament Name | Sponsored Tournament Name | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Hamburg Masters (1) | Masters Series Hamburg (1) | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Indian Wells Masters (1) | Pacific Life Open (1) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Hamburg Masters (2) | Masters Series Hamburg (2) | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Canada Masters (1) | Rogers Cup (1) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
2005 | Indian Wells Masters (2) | Pacific Life Open (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 |
2005 | Miami Masters (1) | NASDAQ-100 Open (1) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 |
2005 | Hamburg Masters (3) | Masters Series Hamburg (3) | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) |
2005 | Cincinnati Masters (1) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (1) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 |
2006 | Indian Wells Masters (3) | Pacific Life Open (3) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 |
2006 | Miami Masters (2) | NASDAQ-100 Open (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) |
2006 | Canada Masters (2) | Rogers Cup (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 |
2006 | Madrid Masters | Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 |
2007 | Hamburg Masters (4) | Masters Series Hamburg (4) | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 |
2007 | Cincinnati Masters (2) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (2) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
But I find a problem with this: When Madrid masters place was taken by another masters and when Canada changes between Toronto/Montréal... But I don't think a location column should be there since in mostly case it's replicated information. 81.184.38.52 ( talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I would oppose the current table while the sponsor names are wikilinked, as this constitutes overlinking - rst20xx ( talk) 14:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Or well, if you want we may have a completed info table (this is a half joke)
ATP Masters Series singles finals (23)
Wins (14)
Year | Tournament Name | Sponsored Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final | Match Time | Aces | Doubles Faults | Spectators |
2002 | Hamburg Masters (1) | Masters Series Hamburg (1) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 | ||||
2004 | Indian Wells Masters (1) | Pacific Life Open (1) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 | ||||
2004 | Hamburg Masters (2) | Masters Series Hamburg (2) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 | ||||
2004 | Canada Masters (1) | Rogers Cup (1) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 | ||||
2005 | Indian Wells Masters (2) | Pacific Life Open (2) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 | ||||
2005 | Miami Masters (1) | NASDAQ-100 Open (1) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 | ||||
2005 | Hamburg Masters (3) | Masters Series Hamburg (3) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) | ||||
2005 | Cincinnati Masters (1) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (1) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 | ||||
2006 | Indian Wells Masters (3) | Pacific Life Open (3) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 | ||||
2006 | Miami Masters (2) | NASDAQ-100 Open (2) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) | ||||
2006 | Canada Masters (2) | Rogers Cup (2) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 | ||||
2006 | Madrid Masters | Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid | Madrid, Spain | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 | ||||
2007 | Hamburg Masters (4) | Masters Series Hamburg (4) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 | ||||
2007 | Cincinnati Masters (2) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (2) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
As you see, the info on the table should be minimal, otherwise we can put something like this. 62.57.197.139 ( talk) 15:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Check this out everyone, from from the french wiki, where tennis is a featured article, this is Federer's career, you'll need to expand the tables, it uses both names in the table, I like that, and I guess that's great for everyone, even Nadal is like that on wiki fr and everyone else, ha? What do you think everyone???
Leaves out the career details, which I guess we'd go for non-sponsor name, for all the reason's I've discussed Yosef1987 ( talk) 13:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey everyone, it is getting confusing now, where are we now please? Thanks Yosef1987 ( talk) 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, well I think the consensus is either to have both sponsor and non-sponsor names, or to just have non-sponsor. I'm going to set up a straw poll on this, as despite some opposing such a move, I think it would demonstrate clear consensus for one and not the other, thus concluding the argument; I think the fact that we haven't done this is part of the reason that this discussion has dragged on for so long - rst20xx ( talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
So, to be clear:
Year | Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Hamburg Masters (1) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Indian Wells Masters (1) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Hamburg Masters (2) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Canada Masters (1) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
2005 | Indian Wells Masters (2) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 |
2005 | Miami Masters (1) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 |
2005 | Hamburg Masters (3) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) |
2005 | Cincinnati Masters (1) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 |
2006 | Indian Wells Masters (3) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 |
2006 | Miami Masters (2) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) |
2006 | Canada Masters (2) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 |
2006 | Madrid Masters | Madrid, Spain | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 |
2007 | Hamburg Masters (4) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 |
2007 | Cincinnati Masters (2) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
Year | Tournament Name | Sponsored Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Hamburg Masters (1) | Masters Series Hamburg | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Indian Wells Masters (1) | Pacific Life Open | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Hamburg Masters (2) | Masters Series Hamburg | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Canada Masters (1) | Rogers Cup | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
2005 | Indian Wells Masters (2) | Pacific Life Open | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 |
2005 | Miami Masters (1) | NASDAQ-100 Open | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 |
2005 | Hamburg Masters (3) | Masters Series Hamburg | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) |
2005 | Cincinnati Masters (1) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 |
2006 | Indian Wells Masters (3) | Pacific Life Open | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 |
2006 | Miami Masters (2) | NASDAQ-100 Open | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) |
2006 | Canada Masters (2) | Rogers Cup | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 |
2006 | Madrid Masters | Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid | Madrid, Spain | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 |
2007 | Hamburg Masters (4) | Masters Series Hamburg | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 |
2007 | Cincinnati Masters (2) | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
Year | Sponsored Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Masters Series Hamburg (1) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Pacific Life Open (1) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Masters Series Hamburg (2) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Rogers Cup (1) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
2005 | Pacific Life Open (2) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–2, 6–4, 6–4 |
2005 | NASDAQ-100 Open (1) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–7(4), 7–6(5), 6–3, 6–1 |
2005 | Masters Series Hamburg (3) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5, 7–6(4) |
2005 | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (1) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 7–5 |
2006 | Pacific Life Open (3) | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3, 6–0 |
2006 | NASDAQ-100 Open (2) | Key Biscayne, Florida, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–6(5), 7–6(4), 7–6(6) |
2006 | Rogers Cup (2) | Toronto, Canada | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
2–6, 6–3, 6–2 |
2006 | Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid | Madrid, Spain | Hard (indoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–1, 6–0 |
2007 | Masters Series Hamburg (4) | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–0 |
2007 | Western & Southern Financial Group Masters (2) | Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–1, 6–4 |
Please state your position below - rst20xx ( talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Support b) When I am looking up information about a tennis player, I find it very useful to be presented with the tournament they won and the name of the tournament at the time they won it. It would be possible to find this information using the wikilinks, but table b) displays the information I want at a glance. Coyets ( talk) 08:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I realise that straw polls are not a substitute for establishing consensus through discussion, but I hope that support for a) will be so overwhelming that it will demonstrate that there is broad consensus, and that opposition is small (one?) but highly vocal vocal - rst20xx ( talk) 19:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
62.57.197.139 kinda brought it up with the "joke" table, but I just don't see the need for separate columns for the tournament name and location. The only reason I can come up with for having two is for sorting separately, but the names and cities are usually the same. The exception is Montreal/Toronto, and sorting by city could cause confusion there, since they are the same tournament. Only one column seems just fine:
Year | Tournament | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
2002 | Hamburg Masters, Hamburg, Germany (1) | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–4 |
2004 | Indian Wells Masters, Indian Wells, California, U.S. (1) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3 |
2004 | Hamburg Masters, Hamburg, Germany (2) | Clay |
![]() |
4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 |
2004 | Canada Masters, Toronto, Canada (1) | Hard (outdoor) |
![]() |
7–5, 6–3 |
etc. |
Another thing: is this only for the Masters table, or for the complete results table as well? Because most of the regular tournaments' articles are the sponsored names, do we care about putting the tournament name in that table, too?
Also, to raise a broader issue, do we need a separate table to Masters/Tier I events? The information in any of the tables discussed would just be repeated in that table. The Masters and Grand Slams are already highlighted in the full table with color and (in some cases) bold text. -- Spyder_Monkey ( Talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)ç
I refuse to participate in a poll (straw or otherwise) that violates Wikipedia policy because it is being used as a substitute for and early terminator of discussion and the subsequent establishment of consensus. Plus, b) is not even my proposal; so, this "poll" doesn't allow people to choose from among all the available proposals. Finally, even if polling were a valid method, which it is not, 81.184.38.42/ Wikitestor and all his sockpuppets are not allowed to vote because he has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tennis expert ( talk) 06:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I mean the changes from the Master Series and International Gold Series to the new 1000series and 500series.
This will knock-out completely the info we actually have organized and I think we may do a line and make new tables for that. Please expose here your arguments. PD: please tennisexpert, don't post something similar to "It will be done like xxx article." because i'm not the only one tired of your prepotency here. Wikitestor ( talk) 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The top level tournaments will be known as "Masters 1000" tournaments in 2009 according to the official ATP calendar. Tennis expert ( talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
For the performance timelines, I'm sure we'll end up doing something like what some of the women's articles have - see this diacritic-named article for an example. In fact, generally looking at the women's stuff would be good: See also this - rst20xx ( talk) 23:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
TennisPortal -> Hey, I fixed up {{TennisPortal}} to include on pages related to Tennis (for 2009) - Mjquin_id ( talk) 04:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that we eliminate having separate Tennis Masters Series, Tennis Masters Cup, and WTA Tour Championships tables in all tennis biographies and instead have a "Career Finals" table with appropriate color coding. (The Grand Slam tournaments tables would remain.) Here's an example of what I am talking about using the data for Rafael Nadal:
Wins (31)
|
|
No. | Date | Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
1. | August 15 2004 | Orange Prokom Open | Sopot, Poland | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
2. | February 20 2005 | Brasil Open | Costa do Sauípe, Brazil | Clay |
![]() |
6–0, 6–7(2), 6–1 |
3. | February 27 2005 | Abierto Mexicano TELCEL | Acapulco, Mexico | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–0 |
4. | April 17 2005 | Masters Series Monte Carlo | Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–1, 0–6, 7–5 |
5. | April 24 2005 | Open Sabadell Atlántico | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 7–6(4), 6–3 |
6. | May 8 2005 | Internazionali BNL d'Italia | Rome | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 3–6, 6–3, 4–6, 7–6(6) |
7. | June 5 2005 | French Open | Paris | Clay |
![]() |
6–7(6), 6–3, 6–1, 7–5 |
8. | July 10 2005 | Swedish Open | Båstad, Sweden | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–4 |
9. | July 24 2005 | Mercedes Cup | Stuttgart, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3, 6–4 |
10. | August 14 2005 | Rogers Cup | Montréal, Canada | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 4–6, 6–2 |
11. | September 18 2005 | China Open | Beijing | Hard |
![]() |
5–7, 6–1, 6–2 |
12. | October 23 2005 | Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid | Madrid, Spain | Hard (i) |
![]() |
3–6, 2–6, 6–3, 6–4, 7–6(3) |
13. | March 4 2006 | Dubai Duty Free Men's Open | Dubai, United Arab Emirates | Hard |
![]() |
2–6, 6–4, 6–4 |
14. | April 23 2006 | Masters Series Monte Carlo | Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–2, 6–7(2), 6–3, 7–6(5) |
15. | April 30 2006 | Open Sabadell Atlántico | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 6–4, 6–0 |
16. | May 14 2006 | Internazionali BNL d'Italia | Rome | Clay |
![]() |
6–7(0), 7–6(5), 6–4, 2–6, 7–6(5) |
17. | June 11 2006 | French Open | Paris | Clay |
![]() |
1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6(4) |
18. | March 18 2007 | Pacific Life Open | Indian Wells, California, U.S. | Hard |
![]() |
6–2, 7–5 |
19. | April 22 2007 | Masters Series Monte Carlo | Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 6–4 |
20. | April 29 2007 | Open Sabadell Atlántico | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
21. | 13 May 2007 | Internazionali BNL d'Italia | Rome | Clay |
![]() |
6–2, 6–2 |
22. | June 10 2007 | French Open | Paris | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 4–6, 6–3, 6–4 |
23. | July 22 2007 | Mercedes Cup | Stuttgart, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 7–5 |
24. | April 27 2008 | Masters Series Monte Carlo | Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
7–5, 7–5 |
25. | May 4 2008 | Open Sabadell Atlántico | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 4–6, 6–1 |
26. | May 18 2008 | Masters Series Hamburg | Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
7–5, 6–7(3), 6–3 |
27. | June 8 2008 | French Open | Paris | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–0 |
28. | June 15 2008 | The Artois Championships | Queen's Club, London | Grass |
![]() |
7–6(6), 7–5 |
29. | July 6 2008 | Wimbledon | London | Grass |
![]() |
6–4, 6–4, 6–7(5), 6–7(8), 9–7 |
30. | July 27 2008 | Rogers Cup | Toronto, Canada | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 6–2 |
31. | August 17, 2008 | Summer Olympics | Beijing, China | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 7-6(2), 6-3 |
Tennis expert ( talk) 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No. | Date | Tournament | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
1. | August 15 2004 | Sopot, Poland | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
2. | February 20 2005 | Costa do Sauípe, Brazil | Clay |
![]() |
6–0, 6–7(2), 6–1 |
3. | February 27 2005 | Acapulco, Mexico | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–0 |
4. | April 17 2005 | Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–1, 0–6, 7–5 |
I like Tennis Expert's Idea and am completly 100 percent behind him; however, I also think that I am against Spider Monkey's idea with only having the city it is located. I am pretty sure that most people will not realize what tournament it is if they only have the city and country there. I know that there are many tennis stadiums in Paris and it will be hard for newcomers of tennis to differ between French Open and the Paris Intl. Championships. Reply to my talk page for any more ideas or comments! Hurricane06 ( talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC).
I like Spyder_Monkey's table, but would prefer to still have the (non-sponsored) tournament name visible, as it makes the tournament much easier to identify. So, in an ideal world, I would have this:
No. | Date | Tournament | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
1. | August 15 2004 | Orange Prokom Open, Sopot, Poland | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
2. | February 20 2005 | Brasil Open, Costa do Sauípe, Brazil | Clay |
![]() |
6–0, 6–7(2), 6–1 |
3. | February 27 2005 | Abierto Mexicano TELCEL(2), Acapulco, Mexico | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–0 |
4. | April 17 2005 | Monte Carlo Masters, Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–1, 0–6, 7–5 |
5. | June 15 2008 | Queen's Club Championships(4), London, England | Grass |
![]() |
7–6(6), 7–5 |
Note not Artois Championships, but Queen's Club Championships - rst20xx ( talk) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(split from the above general discussion -- Spyder_Monkey ( Talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC))
Also I think the colours could be a little bit stronger, as they're hard to see on some monitors (except of course the Olympic colour). Not intrusive though, more like this:
Legend |
Grand Slam Tournaments (5) |
Tennis Masters Cup (0) |
Olympic Gold (1) |
ATP Masters Series (12) |
ATP Tour (13) |
Chars, rst20xx ( talk) 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I see tennisexpert keeps IGNORING EVERYONE and just posting the tables with this style, I will post how the tables were BEFORE they started changing them all, like they are now:
|
|
No. | Date | Tournament, Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
1. | August 15 2004 | Sopot, Poland | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
2. | February 20 2005 | Costa do Sauípe, Brasil | Clay |
![]() |
6–0, 6–7(2), 6–1 |
3. | February 27 2005 | Acapulco, Mexico | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–0 |
4. | April 17 2005 | Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–1, 0–6, 7–5 |
5. | April 24 2005 | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 7–6(4), 6–3 |
6. | May 8 2005 | Masters Series Rome, Italy | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 3–6, 6–3, 4–6, 7–6(6) |
7. | June 5 2005 | French Open, Paris, France | Clay |
![]() |
6–7(6), 6–3, 6–1, 7–5 |
8. | July 10 2005 | Båstad, Sweden | Clay |
![]() |
2–6, 6–2, 6–4 |
9. | July 24 2005 | Stuttgart, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–3, 6–4 |
10. | August 14 2005 | Masters Series Montréal ( Canada) | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 4–6, 6–2 |
11. | September 18 2005 | Beijing, China | Hard |
![]() |
5–7, 6–1, 6–2 |
12. | October 23 2005 | Master Series Madrid, Spain | Hard (i) |
![]() |
3–6, 2–6, 6–3, 6–4, 7–6(3) |
13. | March 4 2006 | Dubai, United Arab Emirates | Hard |
![]() |
2–6, 6–4, 6–4 |
14. | April 23 2006 | Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–2, 6–7(2), 6–3, 7–6(5) |
15. | April 30 2006 | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 6–4, 6–0 |
16. | May 14 2006 | Masters Series Rome, Italy | Clay |
![]() |
6–7(0), 7–6(5), 6–4, 2–6, 7–6(5) |
17. | June 11 2006 | French Open, Paris, France | Clay |
![]() |
1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6(4) |
18. | March 18 2007 | Masters Series Indian Wells, USA | Hard |
![]() |
6–2, 7–5 |
19. | April 22 2007 | Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 6–4 |
20. | April 29 2007 | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
21. | May 13 2007 | Masters Series Rome, Italy | Clay |
![]() |
6–2, 6–2 |
22. | June 10 2007 | French Open, Paris, France | Clay |
![]() |
6–3, 4–6, 6–3, 6–4 |
23. | July 22 2007 | Stuttgart, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
6–4, 7–5 |
24. | April 27 2008 | Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco | Clay |
![]() |
7–5, 7–5 |
25. | May 4 2008 | Barcelona, Spain | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 4–6, 6–1 |
26. | May 18 2008 | Masters Series Hamburg, Germany | Clay |
![]() |
7–5, 6–7(3), 6–3 |
27. | June 8 2008 | French Open, Paris, France | Clay |
![]() |
6–1, 6–3, 6–0 |
28. | June 15 2008 | London Queen's Club, United Kingdom | Grass |
![]() |
7–6(6), 7–5 |
29. | July 6 2008 | Wimbledon, London, United Kingdom | Grass |
![]() |
6–4, 6–4, 6–7(5), 6–7(8), 9–7 |
30. | July 27 2008 | Masters Series Toronto (Canada) | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 6–2 |
31. | August 17, 2008 | Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics, China | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 7-6(2), 6-3 |
This means, NOT SPONSORED NAMES, like we talked in the discussion above, the tournament names and the country, theres not more info needed. 81.184.39.254 ( talk) 17:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems the sponsored names in tables thing is somewhat going in circles. My reading of the discussion so far is that every editor except Tennis expert would prefer not to have sponsored names, but have non-sponsored names instead, where possible. Tennis expert claims that the fact he opposes non-sponsored names means there's no consensus for non-sponsored names, but I think almost all editors would consider that one voice opposing something is not enough to override consensus in favour of that something, and that's really the crux of the issue we're having here - rst20xx ( talk) 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert is still going about changing the tables from sponsored to nonsponsored, citing the edit summary as "copyedit". Look at this edit he made today. I would expect editors involved in the above discussion to cease all changes directly related to it until its conclusion, and I think this is seriously disruptive behaviour - rst20xx ( talk) 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, Tennis expert's edits are continuing, but he's changed tack slightly. Looking here for example, he appears to instead be (1) removing tournament locations and (2) carrying out the bizarre practice of linking to the French Wikipedia, where no English article is available. I still think these edits are somewhat disruptive - (1) is directly under discussion, and I think any changes to the tables at all now should clearly be brought about through consensus, which there is not for either (1) or (2). I have taken the preliminary step of notifying Tennis expert of this discussion on his talk page, here, and if his edits continue, then I feel we need to report him - rst20xx ( talk) 18:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You didn't get the point yet: he doesn't care about this discussion, he keeps doing the things he wants, look up: we have been like 2 days on the discussion and like everyone doesn't want sponsored names, and now he opens a new discussion for the general table with the same sponsored style again. He should be taken out of this discussion since he is not interacting with the other people. 81.184.39.254 ( talk) 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
... even when we are trying to get a consensus and mostly everyone doesn't want his style.
I don't know if we can do anything about this because instead of being quiet and talk properly on the discussion, he is changing old players articles to sponsored styles (and probably later he will use this to reason to put the new ones like them). I think this should be reported since he is thinking that he owns the wikipedia or something, ignoring all the rest of us. 81.184.39.254 ( talk) 17:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that there needs to be a project to create articles for each Masters Series tournament, in the same way as the concise Grand Slam articles. I have started to create articles for tournaments such as 1999 Indian Wells Masters but most only have articles stretching back to 2006. 03md ( talk) 22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Since semi-protection of Talk is rare, I'd like to beg your indulgence. An IP editor who has been evading his block is continuing to post here. His main interest is tennis articles. Please let me know (at User talk:EdJohnston) if anyone objects to a short period of semi-protection. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Over the last few weeks I've been on the World's biggest tagging spree, tagging all tennis articles that I could find as being part of WikiProject Tennis. Further to just basic tagging, I also gave importance levels to all non-player, non-coach pages, and gave classes to lists and all other non-article pages.
The tagging spree took WP:Tennis from this:
Tennis articles |
Importance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | ||
Quality | |||||||
![]() |
1 | 1 | |||||
B | 3 | 22 | 19 | 7 | 4 | 55 | |
Start | 7 | 12 | 29 | 41 | 83 | 172 | |
Stub | 2 | 15 | 66 | 112 | 195 | ||
Assessed | 10 | 36 | 64 | 114 | 199 | 423 | |
Unassessed | 1 | 17 | 7 | 2 | 888 | 915 | |
Total | 11 | 53 | 71 | 116 | 1087 | 1338 |
to this:
Tennis articles |
Importance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | ||
Quality | |||||||
![]() |
1 | 1 | 2 | ||||
B | 4 | 24 | 16 | 8 | 4 | 56 | |
C | 1 | 1 | |||||
Start | 11 | 13 | 33 | 53 | 62 | 172 | |
Stub | 1 | 5 | 24 | 72 | 92 | 194 | |
List | 5 | 50 | 3 | 14 | 72 | ||
Assessed | 21 | 92 | 78 | 148 | 158 | 497 | |
Unassessed | 54 | 121 | 1024 | 2367 | 1927 | 5493 | |
Total | 75 | 213 | 1102 | 2515 | 2085 | 5990 |
And, additionally:
and:
I'd call that successful! 4652 articles newly tagged, and before I tagged the players, Unknown-importance was down to 327 articles, so I gave importance levels to most of the articles originally in there.
Now, if the rest of you can just maintain pages as tagged in the future, I'd be most happy! (Seriously, if you creates a page, please tag it.) Also, if anyone wants to go on an assessment drive, now they can find all the articles to do so - rst20xx ( talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Many of you will know of the activities of Lightbot with respect to delinking dates that are not autoformattable, adding unit conversions, and other janitorial edits. It has touched over 160,000 articles with edits relating to dates and units. I've made a new request for bot approval that is largely a clarification/extension of two previous approvals. The wording has been revised to make it more explicit and easier to read and check by people who encounter the bot for the first time.
One editor from Wikiproject Tennis has already written opposing the revised approval. I would be grateful if other editors could comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we are going to have some problems with singles performance timetable for women, because there are big changes in tournament categories (there are no Tier I, II, III, and IV). [5] We have 3 mounts to design new disign for singles performance timetables! Does someone have ideas! :) -- Göran Smith ( talk) 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Tournament | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | Career SR | Career W/L |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Current WTA Tier I Tournaments5 | |||||||||||
Doha | Not Held |
Not Tier I | QF | 0 / 1 | 2–1 | ||||||
Indian Wells | A | 2R | A | 1R | 1R | 2R | 2R | 4R | SF | 0 / 7 | 7–7 |
Miami | A | LQ | A | 1R6 | 3R | 2R | 2R | 3R | F | 0 / 7 | 10–7 |
Charleston | A | A | LQ | A | 2R | 1R | 1R | W | QF | 1 / 6 | 8–5 |
Berlin | A | A | A | A | A | SF | 1R | QF | QF | 0 / 4 | 8–4 |
Rome | A | A | A | 1R6 | LQ | 2R | QF | W | W | 2 / 6 | 15–4 |
Montréal / Toronto | A | A | A | A | 2R | 1R | 3R7 | F | QF | 0 / 5 | 9–4 |
Tokyo | A | A | A | A | A | 1R | 1R | QF | 0 / 3 | 1–3 | |
Moscow | A | A | A | A | A | 1R | A | A | 0 / 1 | 0–1 | |
Former WTA Tier I Tournaments5 | |||||||||||
San Diego | A | A | A | A | 2R | 3R | 3R | 3R | Not Held |
0 / 4 | 6–4 |
Zürich | A | A | A | A | A | 2R | 2R | 2R | Not Tier I |
0 / 3 | 2–3 |
Tournament | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | Career SR | Career W/L |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WTA Mandatory Premier Tournaments | ||||||||||||
Indian Wells | A | 2R | A | 1R | 1R | 2R | 2R | 4R | SF | 0 / 7 | 7–7 | |
Key Biscayne | A | LQ | A | 1R6 | 3R | 2R | 2R | 3R | F | 0 / 7 | 10–7 | |
Madrid | Not Held | 0 / 0 | 0–0 | |||||||||
Beijing | Not Held | Not Tier I | 0 / 0 | 0–0 | ||||||||
Former WTA Tier I Tournaments that are not WTA Mandatory Premier Tournaments | ||||||||||||
Charleston | A | A | LQ | A | 2R | 1R | 1R | W | QF | Not MP |
1 / 6 | 8–5 |
Berlin | A | A | A | A | A | SF | 1R | QF | QF | Not MP |
0 / 4 | 8–4 |
Rome | A | A | A | 1R6 | LQ | 2R | QF | W | W | Not MP |
2 / 6 | 15–4 |
Montréal / Toronto | A | A | A | A | 2R | 1R | 3R7 | F | QF | Not MP |
0 / 5 | 9–4 |
Tokyo | A | A | A | A | A | 1R | 1R | QF | Not MP |
0 / 3 | 1–3 | |
Moscow | A | A | A | A | A | 1R | A | A | Not MP |
0 / 1 | 0–1 | |
Zürich | A | A | A | A | A | 2R | 2R | 2R | Not Tier I |
Not MP |
0 / 3 | 2–3 |
San Diego | A | A | A | A | 2R | 3R | 3R | 3R | Not Held |
0 / 4 | 6–4 | |
Doha | Not Held |
Not Tier I | QF | Not Held |
0 / 1 | 2–1 |
Tennis expert ( talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all...
An image used in the article, specifically Image:Kikikiwi.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.
You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.-- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 01:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This project has two FAs (both video games) and three GAs (one about to be demoted unless serious work is done (Sharapova)) - the football project has over 100 featured articles and lists. Is this as good as it gets? Can we please collaborate and start with saving Maria and then perhaps dare to push an article or two towards FA? I'm sure it can be done. The Rambling Man ( talk) 23:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I sense that there's a lot of talent and diligence among the core of tennis editors at WP. This is why I find it striking that there's not a single featured item in the field, unlike the other major sports, which over the years have produced a stunning array of FAs and FLs.
My first question is whether there are plans to work towards featured content by this WIkiProject. By second question is whether people realise that under the current situation, tennis articles are ruled from of promotion because they would breach FA Criterion 2 and Featured List Criterion 5. This is because one of your number puts a lot of time into following and reverting the efforts of people who are trying to apply MoS, MOSNUM, MOSLINK and CONTEXT rules on the linking of chronological itmes to tennis articles. It's a great pity.
I can only offer my assistance (if my RL work permits) to editors who would like to identify likely candidates and polish them up for nomination. It's usually an exciting task. Tony (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? I see nobody put that in Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer profiles, but I see there is in many other that info. Today, I opened Ernests Gulbis to see that giant table. What to do in this case? Do we have a consensus on that issue? -- Göran S ( talk) 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it is OK for retied players, but for active, I think it's too much information. -- Göran S ( talk) 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
IMO it is absurd that a table that runs the risk of going out of date half the days of the year should be in the article of a current player. All of this information, guaranteed to be up to date, is easily available on the ATP Gulbis page we link to in the External Links. If we're searching for a consensus here, I'm on the side of the these tables not being given on the pages of active players. almost- instinct 23:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
From the first line of the External Links section of Ernests Gulbis is
which on the page reads "Ernests Gulbis at the Association of Tennis Professionals". The invitation to compare Gulbis "Head-to-head" with any other ATP player, not just a random selection, is quite clear on that page almost- instinct 08:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
A number of bios have a "notable matches" section. Invariably, no neutral point of view set of criteria is provided for what makes the specific matches more notable than any other match. I believe we should remove these sections - what do the rest of you think? The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to help change the Project Portal to a template more like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microbiology; check them out.... - Mjquin_id ( talk) 05:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The template seems to work on the whole however, for tie breaks won 6–1 (i.e. 7–61) it doesn't seem to work - see here or here, for me they both display 7–60.99999999999998. I had a quick look at the syntax but couldn't figure out what was wrong (I'm no pro with it) so thought i'd refer it here to see if someone can fix it. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems that there's currently no interest and therefore no real chance of dragging the project out of the mire which it's stuck in right now regarding decent quality (i.e. GA/FA/FL) material. I'm looking forward to contributing to a real push for a featured tennis article in a few months time, I hope some of you will still be here to join me, with enthusiasm and interest in improving the Wikipedia. That's why we're here and why these WikiProjects exist. Good luck everyone. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
As this page is under semi-protection, IP users may not be able to add their comments to this discussion. If you would like to, please feel free to place comments on my talk page and I will transpose them here (provided they're not from the offending user that caused the block. Gnowor ( talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have invited wider input [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21], and notified all WP:Tennis members, and request that the conversation moves to this section.
To reiterate, this discussion is about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I shall now attempt to provide a brief summary of the arguments made so far:
Thanks for any input you can provide - rst20xx ( talk) 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Rst20xx, there are several problems with your summary. (1) Your summary should include a very brief disclosure about your position on these issues so that people new to the discussion can determine for themselves whether your summary is accurate and impartial. (2) Please don't censor the request for discussion by prematurely denigrating one of the options, as you did in your last bullet. That option is still on the table. (3) A big part of this debate is whether the separate tables for Tennis Masters Series tournaments, the Tennis Masters Cup, and the WTA Tour Championships should be deleted in favor of having just one table that covers all kinds of tournaments plus one other table that covers just Grand Slam tournaments. (4) Your summary fails to disclose that the official sponsored names of tennis tournaments is already frequently used in English-language Wikipedia articles and is the standard in French-language Wikipedia articles. Therefore, the current consensus appears to be that whether official sponsored names is used in a particular English-language article is up to the editors of that article, which makes perfect sense to me and avoids widespread and unproductive edit warring.
Aside from the problems with your summary, I have the following additional comments. (1) The most directly relevant article to this discussion, List of tennis tournaments, has long used the official sponsored names of virtually all current tournaments and for most tournaments from the past that are no longer being held. An English-language Wikipedia ban on official sponsored names would require a complete rewrite of that article, which is one of the most useful tennis-related articles on Wikipedia. (2) See my previous comment here, which emphasizes how important official sponsored names are to some editors and how including them is costless. (3) See this perfectly reasonable suggestion. (4) I have said before, "The problem with one column including both the name of a tournament and its location is that the location is no longer sortable." That's a huge problem for frequent tennis editors. Tennis expert ( talk) 07:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Here I ask again, since the articles themselves here are non-sponsor named, why use a sponsor name to link to a non-sponsor named article? I am with the non-sponsored names. Yosef1987 ( talk) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I was pre-warned that this was "a long and muddled discussion", and I have to agree. The answer is very simple: Use the non-sponsor version, per WP:SPAM (we're not here to provide free advertising), WP:NOT (WP is not a commercial billboard, in this case), WP:UNDUE (the commercial sponsor has no direct relevance to the sport or the nature of the event), etc. And simply (per WP:SENSE) because the commercial sponsor can change again and again and again, in the space of a quite short span (see Premier League Snooker for a wild but real example), not to mention that many events have more than one sponsor. The only draft guideline specifically on this topic so far (initially written for cue sports but intended to eventually be genericized to an all-sports style guide, since we badly need one), WP:CUESPELL#Naming of tournaments and other events, spells this all out pretty clearly. The commercial-sponsor-name-of-X-time-period version of the event's name is not important in a table or list like those above. Simply enumerating the sponsor versions of event names in the event articles and making sure redirects exist from those names to the articles is entirely sufficient. PS: I am not watchlisting this, as the discussion here has been too noisy and circular to be productive, and we have guidelines for a reason; I don't see any WP:IAR-actionable reason to ignore them at play in this case, which isn't special. If I'm needed for a clarification of this rationale, please drop me a note at my talk page. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
(reset) Ah, Gnownor, I see what you're saying now and I'm sorry but you misunderstand the anti-sponsored side slightly. To quote my opening post: "For some tournaments there is no clear non-sponsored name, in which case, all editors agree that the sponsored name must be used." You just gave four examples of such tournaments. So, I repeat my question: "Can you give an example of a tournament with both a sponsored and non-sponsored name where the sponsored name is much more heavily documented?" rst20xx ( talk) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not a simple issue. The bottom line is that this issue depends on what editors want to do. For many reasons, including verifiability and reliability of sources, the official sponsored names of tournaments should be used. This is common practice on English-language Wikipedia and appears to be almost universal practice on French-language Wikipedia. Also, I do not understand the squeamishness with using official sponsored names. Tennis tournaments are business enterprises that rely on sponsorship (and certain other revenues) to survive, which makes the sponsorship directly relevant (your criterion) to the tournaments. When we refer to a tournament's official name that includes a sponsor, we are reflecting real world facts. For example, it is an irrefutable fact that the official name of the tournament in Indian Wells, California is the "Pacific Life Open". To ignore that name in favor of something like "Indian Wells Masters" is unencyclopedic because that name is not factual. Do you also object to the name of the ExxonMobil article? If so, what should we call it? Something like Biggest oil company in the world or Corporation responsible for the big oil spill in Alaska? If you don't object, then what is your criteria for saying that business names are fine for some article names but not for others? By the way, no tournament has more than one sponsored name. We are obviously not talking here about listing all the sponsors for each tournament. Tennis expert ( talk) 08:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Tennis Expert, you write "Five or six people here cannot overturn the consensus of hundreds of tennis article editors". Where are all these editors? You appear to be saying that as long as you oppose something, then a new consensus cannot be formed. How many people would it take to make you accept a new consensus (as you know, consensus can change)? Well, for the record, I am not against sponsored names per se, and does not fall into a hypothetical group of squeamishness people having some inherent preference against sponsors. I just want to foster recognizability and continuity in tables. And in terms of the Masters Tournaments that started it all I find it unsatisfactorily and confusing for non fans that the same tournament (in terms of location, ATP-status) changes name in tables (Nasdaq 100 some years, Sony Ericsson the next, and so on). I am all for verifiability, and looking at the official calendar from the ATP for 2008, here, wee see that the ATP names the Masters Events by their sponsor (and, incidentally, they place Sony Ericsson Open in Miami ;-) ), but a Masters tournament held in Indian Wells doesn't have a name; what do we do there? In any case, for a given year the sponsor names will of course be used by the ATP. When they show results for players, however, they identify tournaments without sponsor names: (Nadal 2008). So by ATP logic, when presenting player results, we should use the non-sponsor name? I think it is a matter of choice, as both kind of names can be verified, and I would favor the way ATP presents the player's results (Google counts are particularly poor here; if they did not "favored" the sponsored name, it is time to find a new sponsor!). The performance tables would become much more easily readable. Moreover, I think a player should only have one table for wins and finals, with tournament types appropriately distiguished by color. No seperate Slam or Masters tables. And let us, in accordance with recent wikipolicy, get rid of the ugly wikilinked dates in first (or second) column. Whether there chould be a separate location column, I am indifferent towards. I can live without it, but it doesn't harm. -- HJensen, talk 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Tennis tournament articles should in theory be located at their common name location. If they are not, they should be moved there. (Obviously, any such moves would have to be via formal proposals.) Similarly, the links in the tables should show the common name.... see where I'm going? Howsabout the links just reflect the location of the tournament articles? And then if any articles are located in the wrong place, we simply need to propose the moving of the articles, and then the links can be updated too. This would be a much more sophisticated way of doing things, as it would handle things on a case by case basis, whilst at the same time it would remove any need for piping - rst20xx ( talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No. | Date | Tournament | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
1. | August 15 2004 | Indian Wells Masters, Indian Wells, U.S. | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
2. | February 20 2005 | Los Angeles Classic, Los Angeles, U.S. | Hard |
![]() |
6–0, 6–7(2), 6–1 |
...or if using the two-column format:
No. | Date | Tournament Name | Tournament Location | Surface | Opponent in Final | Score in Final |
1. | August 15 2004 | Indian Wells Masters | Indian Wells, U.S. | Hard |
![]() |
6–3, 6–4 |
2. | February 20 2005 | Los Angeles Classic | Los Angeles, U.S. | Hard |
![]() |
6–0, 6–7(2), 6–1 |
A case-by-case evaluation based purely on predominance of usage in reliable sources is exactly what I and all our naming policies support. The predominant name should be chosen whether it contains a sponsor name or not. Knepflerle ( talk) 00:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to restate my proposal because I think it's got a bit muddled above. It's basically that the tables should in theory use the common name, and the articles should in theory be located at the common name, therefore the tables should be the same as the article location. And if anyone disagrees with any article location, because they think it's not at the common name, then they can request the article be moved through the usual WP:RM controversial moves process, and if the move is carried out, the tables can be updated to reflect the new article location. (Correct me if I'm wrong but) I think Spyder_Monkey finds for himself that the common name for most tournaments would just be its geographic location, but I think others disagree. As Tennis expert says, he sees the common name as the official sponsored name. I myself see it as the non-sponsored name, where one exists, and the sponsored name were there isn't one, and this isn't always just the location (at the very least, it would include "Cup", or "Open", or "Masters", or "Championship" or something) - rst20xx ( talk) 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Right. Would anyone apart from Tennis expert have any problems if we declare this consensus that:
If so, we can move on to other things, such as whether there should be a separate location column - rst20xx ( talk) 23:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
First off, I don't know why the persistence on the sponsor name with no strong reasons, but here is a new issue, the sponsor names like: Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid and Internazionali BNL d'Italia are not English names, I cannot even pronounce them, and that is for sure against some policy of the English Wikipedia and I guess from all my posts my English level is clearly not weak and yet English is not my mother tongue
We need a poll of 4 simple choices, not about the table format, but about the information it self
...and some how we decicide on the location column (which is extra useless information) Yosef1987 ( talk) 16:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The ATP site itself uses the City Names to refer to tournaments in tables: [ Andy Murray's Ranking Breakdown Page at ATP Site] ShabbatSam ( talk) 08:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe that we should use the non-sponsored name since many people watching tennis, including me, don't know who is sponsoring the tournament. Also, if the tournament is sponsored by a group, then they should be acknowleged in the commercials or even on the court itself (like the Australian Open (Garnier is one of the sponsored groups)) If anyone has more say to having the sponsored name on our tables, then we will need to find a way to communicate which tournament that one is since most people, if you say " Internazionali BNL d'Italia", they won't think " Rome Masters". Heck, I didn't even know that the tournament was even sponsored. The sponsored name will only confuse people. Hurricane06 ( talk) 11:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC).
I don't know if you saw the new 2009 ATP Tour calender? ... it's full of colour, see [23] :) For some time we had colours for WTA Tier tournaments, and not for ATP, so I think it's time to add some.
I propose, according to the ATP site, from this
Legend (Singles) |
Grand Slam (0) |
Tennis Masters Cup (0) |
ATP Masters Series (0) |
ATP Tour (0) |
to change to this:
Legend (Singles) |
Grand Slam (0) |
ATP finals (0) |
Masters 1000 (0) |
500 Series and Internat.Series Gold (0) |
250 Series and Inernat.Series (0) |
And WTA Tour, to add two more colours for Premier and International Tournaments. I didn't use exact colours from WTA, because, I thnik they are to dark, and these don't so "standout" from original.
Legend |
Grand Slam (1) |
WTA Championships |
Tier I (2) |
Tier II (4) |
Tier III (2) |
Tier IV & V (1) |
Premier (2) |
International (0) |
Does 500 replace International Series Gold, and 250 International Series? Do you like this colours? :-))) -- Göran S ( talk) 18:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Oxford St and I have a different views on this, so we ask members of project to have a last say on this issue. I hope that at least 5 people will vote. :-) -- Göran S ( talk) 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I would expect every player to have either the "WTA" or "ATP" "Navboxes" at the bottom. I would expect them to contain things like: MainPage, Tournaments, Players, etc...
I would further expect any Tournament page to have a Navbox showing "Levels" of tournaments? Like Grand Slam, Masters, Sattelites, Exhibition, etc.?
I would then even further expect the both the main article link AND a link to the current year's tournament
Wimbledon (
2009)
Would this be an unreasonable thought pattern?
Mjquin_id (
talk)
21:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of worrying too much about the template overloads on most pages, and the colours of boxes, ought this project not focus on attempting to get at least one article featured? Otherwise I am seriously beginning to question the purpose of a project whose major contributors seem content to say "well it's always been that way so that way it will stay" - 0 FAs, 1 GA in total. Very sad indeed. The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 10:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Tennis expert claims that the linking of standalone years ( 1991, 1992...) is permitted in tennis articles (against the Manual of Style), but I haven't seen a mention of it in the WP:Tennis archives. If someone could point me to a discussion, I'd appreciate it. - Dudesleeper / Talk 10:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's not rubbish. As has been proven time and again concerning the naming of tennis articles (diacritics versus not using diacritics), a general policy like WP:UE can be overriden through a more specific consensus for particular types of articles. Maybe we should revisit the naming of those articles given that you are so convinced that a general policy always prevails, regardless of a more specific consensus. Tennis expert ( talk) 11:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that wikilinking of dates and years should be abandoned in all tennis-related articles. The wikilinks serve no purpose, except for the autoformatting feature, which is irrelevant for most readers. So let us just get rid of those links—the sooner the better. -- HJensen, talk 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now, Billie Jean King is a useful example of why this so-called consensus to link individual years is simply not working. You undid Lightbot's attempt to make the article uniform and in its current state it is itself inconsistent. For example, why isn't 1968 linked in the prose? And 1961? But yet suddenly, 1969 and 1970 seem to take on more relevance and are linked in the prose. And then from 1971 they're not linked. Then you have a few sortable tables where the years are not linked each time when they should be. And finally grand slam summary tables which go on and relink the years individually once again (in bold). If they were piped to say Year in tennis then I'd buy it, but not to just the year - what's the relevance? It's a mess and all Lightbot was trying to do was clear it up. The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasm for articles, Tennis expert. One of the primary features of Wikipedia is articles should be changed. Can we work together to change the status quo? Lightmouse ( talk) 12:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What is missing from this debate is a clear statement from Tennis expert as to why s/he would want to take a stand against a long-standing movement in WP from scattergun linking to smart linking; the deprecation of date autoformatting is merely the most recent important change in practice that is part of this movement—not something that a few hair-brained editors thought up overnight. I certainly hope that our readers aren't having to put up with bright-blue blizzards of useless links in tennis-related articles. Tony (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I be slightly cheeky here, and refer the various very experienced editors now partaking in this conversation to the very long conversation above, spanning from section 5 to section 9? It is along much the same lines, only this time, it is about the use of sponsored names in player performance tables, instead of linking years. There, nearly every editor partaking in the discussion has come out against sponsored names (to some degree, often completely), and yet Tennis expert still refuses to accept that there is consensus against them, as he is citing the articles (which again, use a mixture of sponsored and non-sponsored) as his consensus - rst20xx ( talk) 19:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a change in policies as explained clearly by Tony. So we need no new consensus. Just get rid of the links.-- HJensen, talk 22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This has all become rather silly. To contravene the MoS, you need to demonstrate "common sense" or good reason. But I see neither put up here as a reason not to nuke these frightful little year-links in tennis articles. Tony (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I am baffled as well over this thing. I think it is fair to ask Tennis Expert again, when you think consensus is reached? I acknowledge it is hard to define, but at least every editor must have a private idea about it. Here, we have a situation where as far as I can see nobody wants the links (including Tennis Expert) and a situation where they are against guidelines. In such a situation I think it would be of interest to know how long we should wait until you feel a consensus is reached? For me it has been reached on this issue. Very clearly indeed. I don't think we would be setting a dangerous precedent for fast decisions if we stopped the whole thing now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HJensen ( talk • contribs) 09:56, September 7, 2008
Hi, I've been reading up a lot on the various discussions about wikilinking dates and came across your invitation to join the discussion regarding the linking of years in tennis articles. I'm a bit confused, as I came here expecting to find Tennis Expert giving examples why the linking of years in tennis articles is a good thing. Instead, all I can see is that a lot of articles have year links, that Tennis Expert agrees are redundant and don't refer to anything about tennis (if they linked to [[2006 Tennis season|2006]], that is fine, but linking to [[2006]] is pointless. We all asgree on that. I'm just wondering whether anyone else from the Tennis Project supports the inclusion of these links, for reasons other than "I've seen years linked in other tennis articles, so thought I would, and assumed consensus". If the years do get unlinked and members of WP:TENNIS then think "hey - where have our lovely blue links gone", then this discussion can continue. It seems like Tennis Expert is standing up for editors (against his own preference - an admirable quality), regardless of the fact that a) the editors don't realise this discussion is happening, b) that the year linking is pointless and against the MOS guidelines, c) probably wouldn't notice the difference and couldn't care less.
I would suggest that delinking continues, until other WP:TENNIS members come forward, and that Tennis Expert hops off the fence, is WP:BOLD and tries to reflect his own views and wishes. If WP:TENNIS (not just Tennis Expert) can actually come forward and prove (or create) consensus (other than "this is what we've always done so lets continue without taking a look to work out why we do it") then this discussion will carry more weight.– MDCollins ( talk) 00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The parallels between this conversation and the one above about non-sponsored names are astounding. In both cases, consensus is against Tennis expert's point of view, but in both cases he is refusing to acknowledge that - rst20xx ( talk) 15:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think we're in a position now where we have (at least) two clear ways ahead. I'd like to understand who is in favour of which approach. Please indicate your support under the relevant summary. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I am assuming that this is an effort to develop a new or changed consensus concerning tennis articles and not an effort to make edits without the new or changed consensus. My comments below are provided under those assumptions. Tennis expert ( talk) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
(a) the discussion around dates is very long now. (b) I rather think it relates more specifically to "Article Guidelines"; which has very few discussions.
I also added an attempt at a comprimise proposal.
Mjquin_id (
talk)
18:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Tony1 raised a good point a couple of sections ago - this project clearly has keen editors (as shown in the previous two sections) but has no tennis-based featured content at all. And only one GA (as Maria Sharapova is to be delisted soon if she hasn't already and one of the other two GAs is about a footballer who had a minor role as a tennis player). Most articles are wikilink statistical nightmares. There also seems to be a driving force to deliberately not follow the WP:MOS and other guidelines such as WP:TRIVIA, WP:SUMMARY, WP:LENGTH. What do regular contributors think? Is it worth trying for a Featured article? The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
My opinions on this issue:
But I guess some will vehemently object to it, thus making it a dead end. But then we will never see a tennis player featured—only musicians and Pokémon characters.-- HJensen, talk 12:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1107 articles are assigned to this project, of which 133, or 12.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I know this is pretty old, but I am performing an AWB General cleanup of these (and most) pages connected to the Tennis Portal. NOTE:This does NOT include any date unlinking... Please holler, if you see issues. -- Mjquin_id ( talk) 16:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
By now I'm sure you're sick of me banging on about the poor quality of pretty much every single tennis article here on Wikipedia - almost all have some maintenance tags or [citation needed] added to them and they fall very very short of even GA quality. I've come up against a brick wall in the aforementioned user who suggests that a "current consensus" overrides the need to improve articles to meet with GA or FA criteria. A recent example was when I removed spaces between citations which the editor in question re-inserted. I've been trying to advocate the WP:MOS which is mandated for featured quality articles but instead the editor in question is adamant that an existing "consensus" (which is nebulous at best) overules all other editors. That was, until, he was overuled by another tennis editor. I've asked Tennis expert to contribute to this discussion as he now seems 100% dedicated to removing all edits I make to any tennis articles, despite his own edits, in part, resulting in Maria Sharapova being delisted as a GA. He does not even have the courtesy to reply to me, either personally or on Wiki, simply removing my note without comment as he has every right to do, but which is hardly the behaviour of someone collaborating in an attempt to improve every article in the tennis project. I would appreciate some advice from other project editors how best to handle this situation. Not wishing to blow my own trumpet (so I will), I've managed to successfully have 11 featured articles, 18 featured lists and two featured topics promoted in the past couple of years so I have a fair idea what is required. Unfortunately right now I don't seem to be allowed to help. All the best to you all from week one of my journey! The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 09:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
As an outsider to WP:TENNIS, I'm not going to join in your tables/sponsorship discussions, but I feel that the links in the tournament tables discussed above should be present in all rows of the table, and not just the first occurrence. I'm thinking mainly the tournament names - whether the sponsored names or non sponsored names are used. (Personal preference would be to [[wikilink Tournament Name | pipe the Sponsored name]]. WP:CONTEXT supports this by saying that
This is particularly important if using sortable tables, where the first occurrence might not be the first displayed reference/link.
— MDCollins 23:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The article Platform tennis has unfortunately had to be deleted, as it was from its creation pasted from external sources. Although the copyright was not addressed during the standard week of investigation, I'm presuming that this article may be of interest to your project. I bring it to your attention in case someone would like to create at least a stub on the subject to turn resultant redlinks blue until a more complete article can be constructed. Thanks. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This user has taken up the issue of using the aforementioned link as a genuine external link. You may find a background of this discussion at my talk page. Since he feels that my intentions of removing these links is biased, I'm hoping that a discussion here, with multiple editors, should help clear some air on the issue. Thanks. LeaveSleaves ( talk) 03:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, this site is a valid source for tennis bios. Yes, this site does solicit and apparently displays advertising, although I can't see any. But it also has good biographical information, as far as I can tell, more information than is in the WP articles. However, User:LeaveSleaves thinks that the information is out of date and not updated. I don't see that but maybe LeaveSleaves can show us how inaccurate it is. And I don't see how much different this site is from Internet Movie Database which is certainly a commercial site and solicits advertising and yet is linked in every actor, director and film article around, and even having its own template. -- EPadmirateur ( talk) 17:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) LeaveSleaves, you've said several times that this link fails WP:EL on multiple counts. I must be dense because I don't see exactly where it is failing. I thought I had answered each of the points you have raised but apparently not. So could you enumerate those counts explicitly for me? You asked "Should we add all of them to the articles then?". No, only the best one or possibly two. Do you know a better link that has extended biographical information? Is there an official web site for Wawrinka? -- EPadmirateur ( talk) 16:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
So, do people still think we should link to a site where bios (with no authors) appear to be "heavily inspired" by Wikipedia articles? It introduces an uncanny circularity, that I have encountered many times before: Trying to find sources for some statement in a wikipedia article on the net, you just find the statement several times, but in all cases in bios that are lifted off Wikipedia. This is why citing sources is so extremely important. Many take, without knowing it, unsourced speculation on Wikipedia and publish it, thus eventually make it "true" as more and more repeats it. Comments anybody? -- HJensen, talk 12:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Describing significant matches from the players career is definitely acceptable. Such matches may include Grand Slams, Masters series, tournament wins, wins over major players, major losses etc. What should probably be avoided is describing each and every match and tournament proceedings. As for sourcing, most of such results can be cited thorough major news sites, local or otherwise. Leave Sleaves talk 18:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
After being invited to discussion of this 'subject' by LeaveSleaves following an incidental addition of an Information Tennis Link my views are that it is a duty of a Wikipedia editor to source those links that contravene the rules, Wikipedia is a not a link farm afterall. However, I as a sports journalist myself and covering a range of sports, I have used Information Tennis as a resource tool myself. I would suggest that the fact the website itself does not source its information should not prove to be a sticking point, since the site to my knowledge is factual and does not include any errors, which I must say I have noticed on many Wikipedia articles in certain key facts such as dates.You would need to take the website on the face of what it is, which appears to be a non-bias, independent site, removed from fansites which have particular motives and bias and adding no value to Wikipedia users. When looking at the subject of credible and professional tennis sites there of course the official ATP and WTA websites, other than that there are little if any sites of creditability. This is why i feel Information Tennis offers a good external link and if anything should maybe be embraced and used more commonly. I have also read the discussion above and have noticed that the issue of 'old content' has somewhat changed in recent months on the site with a new approach to player profiles. This gives both important statistical and biographical information, many far more detailed than those of the professional body sites such as the ATP. I recently cleaned a few players external links up on Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick which I feel Wikipedia editors have neglected, with external links to fansites and other very poor quality websites. It is important for these discussions to take place and to have a spectrum of views on board. I wonder Leave Sleaves where your issues are? The Wawrinka one for example for me adds to the experience of a Wikipedia user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SportsJournalistEditor ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
At the age of 14 he began playing international junior events and entered the satellite circuit the following year.
In August he represented Switzerland at the Olympic Games in Beijing where he played in both the singles and doubles competition. In singles play he made an early second round exit to Austria's Jurgen Melzer, but in doubles he teamed up with world number one Roger Federer to win Olympic Gold. In the semi-final they faced the much favoured American Bryan twins, Mike and Bown which they defeated in straight sets 7-6(6), 6-4. In the final they defeated Simon Aspelin and Thomas Johansson of Sweden to take the title. At the US Open he reached the fourth round, losing to eventual finalist Andy Murray who was eventually defeated by countryman Roger Federer.
Wawrinka started playing international junior events at age 14 and entered the satellite circuit the following year.
In the 2008 Olympics, he teamed with Roger Federer in the men's doubles. On 15 August, they beat the favoured American Bryan twins, Mike and Bob, 7-6(6), 6-4 in the semi-finals. They defeated Simon Aspelin and Thomas Johansson of Sweden in the finals, 6-3, 6-4, 6-7(4), 6-3. He also reached the 4th round of the 2008 US Open, where British player Andy Murray defeated him in straight sets (6-1, 6-3, 6-3). Fellow Swiss player Roger Federer would eventually defeat Murray in the final.
The quality of many of these articles are extremely poor. So many people treat the articles like a news service, putting every single match result on there, using tabloidese language and occasionally, even using the tennis player's first name - and these terrible changes have often stayed for months and months. On the occasion that a user (myself and numerous others) has tried to take a tennis article by the scruff of the neck, giving it a scrupulous clean-up, re-writing some particularly poor parts of the article but retaining the essence of the original article, User:Tennis expert has waded in in almost every case, bullying the "daring" user into submission.
I have been working on the Maria Sharapova article since the beginning of the summer, the article has improved from C-Class to being seriously considered for Good article status. However, Tennis expert did not take kindly to having his work changed and edited, and therefore, ever since, has been embarking on a mission to try and restore his preferred version of the article, reverting hundreds of edits, and employing gutter tactics to get his way - his bringing up my past errors to discredit my present work on Sharapova despite my legitimately exercising a clean start. His trying to get someone who disagreed with him on wikilinking years banned on a petty technicality is another example of the tactics he regularly employs.
Not that Tennis expert's bizarre behaviour is limited to the Sharapova article. The Serena Williams article is another prime case - that article is poor, mountains of unreferenced statements, poor writing in many places, and most crucially, a complete misweighting in terms of the material for each season - 2002-2003 (when Williams was absolutely dominant in women's tennis, winning five of the eight Grand Slams during this period) has just a few lines each, whereas 2007 (when Williams was ranked just #7 at the end of the year) has about four times as much, listing every single tournament she played in. So, myself and numerous others tried to give the article a radical change, to make it more accessible to the average user... but each time, Tennis expert came in and tried to shout them down, reverting and reverting. When a discussion was held, Tennis expert again bullied people into shutting up, citing an apparent consensus despite himself being the only person in favour of the previous version [...]
[...] In particular, take a look at Dinara Safina, the current world #3 and who is moving close to #1, and honestly tell me that is up to Wikipedia's standards. I would try and give that article a cleanup, but I am under no illusion that Tennis expert would not once again try and revert me incessently. There was a similar situation on Rafael Nadal (a dispute I was not involved in) - see here. On the rare occasion that someone does not give into Tennis expert's intimidation, he scrapes the bottom of the gutter in an attempt to get his own way, as I have already shown.
I have always believed that apparent "consensus" should not get in the way of improving the very poor quality of many of these articles. However, I have now personally lost patience and am not willing to just sit around putting in good work just to have it incessently reverted by Tennis expert. Wikipedia is obviously a great project, and the tennis articles have a massive potential. What a shame that that potential will never be realised, due almost entirely to the bizarre, bewildering and frankly rather disturbing overpossessiveness and control-freakery Tennis expert exercises over these articles. Musiclover565 ( talk) 17:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
(1) You guys apparently do not understand WP:CONSENSUS. If there is consensus for the current version of an article, then you can change the article only if you get consensus for the changes. One editor cannot simply announce to the world that "my edits are an improvement" and then use edit-warring tactics to force his changes to stick. This is one of many tactics, including outright dishonesty and misrepresentation, that Musiclover565 and his many sockpuppets have used for the last 4 months. (2) Your edits of the Maria Sharapova article in June, Musiclover565, were considered for GA status only because you requested it. The request was denied. Other regular editors of the article not only disagreed with GA status, but downgraded the article to "C" class precisely because your edits made the article worse. This is another instance of your constant misrepresentations of fact. (3) The Sharapova article before your unilateral edits in June was not "my" version. It was instead the work product of many editors over many months. This is another instance of your constant misrepresentations of fact. (4) Any edit can be reverted, including an edit that you (Musiclover565) believe is an improvement. See WP:BRD. Tennis expert ( talk) 10:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I will be trying to get archiving working again on this page. Not sure whay it is not working. Probably set it to 30 days? Any other ideas? -- Mjquin_id ( talk) 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Archiving SET; using User:MiszaBot_II - I moved it from 90d to 180d... -- Mjquin_id ( talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've posted this on Rafa Nadal's discussion, but usually there's not much activity there, so I make a c&p here:
Tournament | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | Career SR | Career W-L | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grand Slam tournaments | |||||||||||||
Australian Open | A | A | 3R | 4R | A | QF | SF | 0 / 4 | 14–4 | ||||
French Open | A | A | A | W | W | W | W | 4 / 4 | 28–0 | ||||
Wimbledon | A | 3R | A | 2R | F | F | W | 1 / 5 | 22–4 | ||||
US Open | A | 2R | 2R | 3R | QF | 4R | SF | 0 / 6 | 16–6 | ||||
SR | 0 / 0 | 0 / 2 | 0 / 2 | 1 / 4 | 1 / 3 | 1 / 4 | 2 / 4 | 0 / 0 | 5 / 19 | N/A | |||
Win-Loss | 0 – 0 | 3–2 | 3–2 | 13–3 | 17–2 | 20–3 | 24–2 | 0 – 0 | N/A | 80–14 | |||
Year-End Championship | |||||||||||||
Tennis Masters Cup | A | A | A | A | SF | SF | A | 0 / 2 | 4–4 | ||||
Olympic Games | |||||||||||||
Summer Olympics | Not Held | A | Not Held | W | NH | 1 / 1 | 6–0 | ||||||
ATP Masters Series 1000 | |||||||||||||
Indian Wells | A | A | 3R | A | SF | W | SF | 1 / 4 | 16–3 | ||||
Miami | A | A | 4R | F | 2R | QF | F | 0 / 5 | 14–5 | ||||
Monte Carlo | A | 3R | A | W | W | W | W | 4 / 5 | 24–1 | ||||
Rome | A | A | A | W | W | W | 2R | 3 / 4 | 17–1 | ||||
Madrid | A | 1R | 2R | W | QF | QF | SF | 1 / 6 | 13–5 | ||||
Toronto / Montreal | A | A | 1R | W | 3R | SF | W | 2 / 5 | 16–3 | ||||
Cincinnati | A | A | 1R | 1R | QF | 2R | SF | 0 / 5 | 6–5 | ||||
Shanghai | NMS | Not Held | Not Masters Series | 0 / 0 | 0 – 0 | ||||||||
Paris | A | LQ | A | A | A | F | QF | 0 / 2 | 6–2 | ||||
Hamburg | A | 3R | A | A | A | F | W | NMS | 1 / 3 | 11–2 |
-
As we see here, Nadal hasn't won any Shangai. Which is false, he has won one (Since he won Madrid before). He also will have 1 Madrid now (the Hamburg one). They actually are SUBSTITUTIVE! It should be like this:
Tournament | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | Career SR | Career W-L | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grand Slam tournaments | |||||||||||||
Australian Open | A | A | 3R | 4R | A | QF | SF | 0 / 4 | 14–4 | ||||
French Open | A | A | A | W | W | W | W | 4 / 4 | 28–0 | ||||
Wimbledon | A | 3R | A | 2R | F | F | W | 1 / 5 | 22–4 | ||||
US Open | A | 2R | 2R | 3R | QF | 4R | SF | 0 / 6 | 16–6 | ||||
SR | 0 / 0 | 0 / 2 | 0 / 2 | 1 / 4 | 1 / 3 | 1 / 4 | 2 / 4 | 0 / 0 | 5 / 19 | N/A | |||
Win-Loss | 0 – 0 | 3–2 | 3–2 | 13–3 | 17–2 | 20–3 | 24–2 | 0 – 0 | N/A | 80–14 | |||
Year-End Championship | |||||||||||||
Tennis Masters Cup | A | A | A | A | SF | SF | A | 0 / 2 | 4–4 | ||||
Olympic Games | |||||||||||||
Summer Olympics | Not Held | A | Not Held | W | NH | 1 / 1 | 6–0 | ||||||
ATP Masters Series 1000 | |||||||||||||
Indian Wells | A | A | 3R | A | SF | W | SF | 1 / 4 | 16–3 | ||||
Miami | A | A | 4R | F | 2R | QF | F | 0 / 5 | 14–5 | ||||
Monte Carlo | A | 3R | A | W | W | W | W | 4 / 5 | 24–1 | ||||
Rome | A | A | A | W | W | W | 2R | 3 / 4 | 17–1 | ||||
Madrid | A | 3R | A | A | A | F | W | 1 / 3 | 11–2 | ||||
Toronto / Montreal | A | A | 1R | W | 3R | SF | W | 2 / 5 | 16–3 | ||||
Cincinnati | A | A | 1R | 1R | QF | 2R | SF | 0 / 5 | 6–5 | ||||
Shangai | A | 1R | 2R | W | QF | QF | SF | 1 / 6 | 13–5 | ||||
Paris | A | LQ | A | A | A | F | QF | 0 / 2 | 6–2 |
IMPORTANT: Notice that for example, on the Shangai line, the links until 2008 have points to MADRID still! on 2009 they will start linking to Shangai.
This should be commented before changing all the players timelines... 62.57.197.191 ( talk) 15:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Here. Yosef1987 ( talk) 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm GA reviewing this and have been told that the main editor of the article, Oxford St., is having a wikibreak and the duration is unknown. Would anyone like to get to work on the article? It would be a shame to have to fail it on lapse of time. -- Philcha ( talk)
Hello there, the above article, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 00:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Just looking at Fernando Verdasco#Early years and noticed reference to Spain F1 and Spain F3, to what do these refer ? GrahamHardy ( talk) 15:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Some background info:
So, I'd like to get consensus on where we should put this "Rivalry with X" content in tennis bios.
My preference is to revert back to the way I originally created it as a subsection at the end of "Career". Obviously the rivalry is part of a player's career. Plus, the precedent is already there with Sampras and Laver.
Another possible decision is would we want to apply any agreed upon format to all tennis bios where a notable rivalry is mentioned? This would include all 8 of the bios with their own stand-alone rivalry articles, Laver, and anyone else whom I'm unaware of.
I look forward to everyone's feedback. Thanks. -- Armchair info guy ( talk) 01:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone here explain the actions of Ambassador Dunlop? I've already asked him/her to use the edit summary and explain what they're doing, to no avail. Is there any agreed use for this field in the infobox? As it is Ambassador Dunlop seems set on adding it to every tennis player. My understanding of this field is it should be added when a player retires, specifying the date they retired from competitive tennis. Adding it to current players, IMHO, is about as pointless as adding a "Died: living" field to every BLP article. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I am well on the way to creating the Masters Series articles I talked about (see this template) but I was wondering whether anyone was willing to do the singles draw pages and some of the lead sections on main articles (details on top seeds) as I only have time to create main pages. Some of the 1990s articles are given their sponsored names (e.g. 1998 Eurocard Open) and others their original name (e.g. 1998 Monte Carlo Open). Let me known on my talk page or here if you can help. 03md ( talk) 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm also interested to help - I'm actually just starting to add draws to grand slam articles like f.e. 2005 Australian Open - Women's Singles. I'm a real newbie, but I keep it safe by copying existing draw templates, feedback is appreciated. I'm sure I'm gonna keep running into articles to add simple draws or seeds lists for some time to come Swirlingblacklilly ( talk) 21:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |