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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I was wondering if this article should only name each player once with their fastest serve, rather than attempting to list all serves? If the men's section was accurate (my searching suggests it isn't, because Taylor Dent [1], Mark Phillipoussis [2] and Greg Rusedski [3] have other serves which could appear in this table but are only listed once), it would repeat the same names several times. This may entail a rename changing serves to servers. Cassandra 73 ( talk) 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
We can work on developing some sort of consenus right now between the two of us, since you are interest in this article, and what about other tennis articles are you interested in joining this project. Thanks, for pointing my attention to this article, since I am an Project Manager here, which in no way applies WP:OWN like I own this forum, and did not even know about this article. So, what do you think? We'll work it out! BLUE DOG TN 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on the format and sourcing, so what would your recommendation be on behalf of this article? I don't know what to do! Thanks.
BLUE
DOG
TN
21:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Articles like 2009 China Open (tennis) have navboxes like {{ 2009 WTA Tour}}. Articles about singles and doubles events like 2009 China Open - Women's Singles have no navboxes. This makes it hard to navigate from there to other Women's Singles articles. I suggest adding a navbox like {{ 2009 WTA Tour - Singles}} which is based on {{ 2009 WTA Tour}} but links to the singles events instead of the main articles. Similar navboxes could be made for doubles and ATP Tour. A downside would be a lot of red links to later tournaments during the year. Alternatively there could be a larger navbox with links to both main article, singles and doubles. PrimeHunter ( talk) 22:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Vitalia Diatchenko stats and wins are all wrong. I've no time to fix them. Can someone help me to do it? Thanks Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 18:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to give people one more chance to weigh in about score in prose; as I am about to start removing them; especially from some of the larger articles. - Just to re-iterate, I am working on recording a number of articles, but reading scores just sounds terrible. They are in the tables, often in the same article, but always behind a link; so they really are redundant. Please bring coherent reasons for the scores to exist within the prose. -- Mjquinn_id ( talk) 04:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Under a lot of articles I see tables for how players are doing in grandslams, ending in "Career win-loss". Sometimes these numbers don't seem to add up to how players have done - e.g. Elena Baltacha, which says she's 3-3 for the Auz Open. Does this only count games in the main draw and not qualifying or something? John Smith's ( talk) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Katie_O'Brien#Inappropriate_levels_of_detail -- Dweller ( talk) 16:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm planning on bringing the article to GA or at least B-class. I think it would be too big to go year-by-year so instead I will do a few years at a time. Like in the mid to late 90's he didn't have very much success at all. What do others think? Because Federer is too big because of the year-by-year info on every tournament he participates in. Aaroncrick ( talk) 02:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know what to call them, but this is what I'm referring to, for example from the 2009 Australian Open:
I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, and appreciate what this is trying to accomplish, but is this really necessary? It's interesting to see when certain people went out in the tournaments, but isn't that what the bracket is for? And not only that, the bracket does a better job in showing who they had beaten and who they lost to. And the Singles Seeds section provides the information of who seeded players lost to directly on the grand slam's page.
Frankly, I believe the table is cluttered and uninformative (at least in the sense that there are multiple places within the article that show the same information). At the very least, the placement before the prose of the article is perplexing. I should think that the title page of the tournament (e.g. 2009 Australian Open) should have the least amount of clutter and be prose in the sense of a tournament summary, plus day summaries, along with details of important events. I don't think it should be a bevy of cluttered charts. The chart in question, honestly, does nothing for me, especially when I can get the information elsewhere in the article. Maybe it's just different strokes for different folks and it really helps some people visualise the tournament :) If so, there's nothing wrong with that, and we could focus on reorganisation.
However, that said, since the information in the chart is easily discerned elsewhere in the article, or the bracket pages, is there really a point in having that, and could those charts just be deleted? Captain Courageous ( talk) 05:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 04:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This just does not make since to put the defending champion before the winner of the slam on the article, and if it is standard usage it needs to be readdressed to put the winner first and the defending in the second sentence! Tennis Authority 21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC
Hello tennis fans & workers. I wonder if anyone can help with the above article. Since the summertime an anon user has blanked a couple of sections of this article over forty times! It looks as though that's all they have done, but that is more persistence than i would expect from a casual vandal. So, what i wonder is, is there any controversy or question about this player that would make this, maybe, the action of him or someone with a relationship to him? I mean, we want to be encyclopaedic, but we want to remember BLP too, don't we? Alternatively, if all the info i'm about to restore is accurate, i'll just keep it on my watchlist.... Cheers, Lindsay Hi 04:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi tennis folks. I'm doing some sleuthing about Lisa Pier, about whom a new article was created today. The article claims she is the world number 31 after playing in the fourth round of the 2008 women's open in France. I can't find any sources to verify this claim (or her existence). I've traced her addition to the 2008 French Open - Women's Singles article to a series of IP edits yesterday that completely transformed the content of the article: diff here. Is this just straight-up vandalism? Does this player exist? Gonzonoir ( talk) 15:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
On the Andy Murray article we currently have, yet again, a tussle about the updating of Grand Slam results on the info box before they are actual results. Can we have something documented here on the project pages that makes guidelines about this concrete? It has always been my understanding of usual practice on tennis players articles that this should not be updated until after the player has exited the tournament, thus ensuring that the info box stays in agreement with the rest of the stats on the article. It is also the case that a 'result' isn't a 'result' until it is final, Wikipedia isn't a running scoreboard. Can we get agreement on this? Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Relatedly, what about "current rankings"? People are madly updating provisional rankings based on current results, before any official change to the ATP listing, regardless of whether they have a source (even for the crystal-ball-gazing, much less the official ranking), and in some cases, outright wrongly. (Such as "demoting" Nadal to #4 before Murray'd beaten Nadal.) I've no objection to noting in the body text what changes to the ranking there will be (with an appropriate source, of course). But surely seeing "current rating (1st February)" in an infobox, in January, is rather silly. Smartiger ( talk) 08:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Same with "current rankings"; until they are published (at least on the ATP or USTA websites) they are only educated guesses. We do not publish those. -- Mjquinn_id ( talk) 03:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The scores for Roland Garros and winners are not reported by the slam website [4], ESPN [5], Grand Slam History [6], and CBS Sports [7]. There is a user who says these are to be included, but cites very obscure sources, which I believe if the slam does not report them and three other source two very credible, they should not be included at all. BLUE DOG TN 01:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Fyunck(click), I know now why you faught so hard to include the 1941-1945 winners in the table, which is because of this [ EX], [ EX2], and I would love to know your original source for putting this information onto wikipedia? I think you need to find a more reputable source such a a slam or a sports source like ESPN or Tennis Magazine in order to add them back. I don't even know if these results are even true? I need an explaination, please? BLUE DOG TN 03:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This is something that has always irked me about tennis biographies--the need to write about every tournament they're in for the year. I know it's important, or whatever, but most of that information is included in their results tables. If one compares Roger Federer's 2009 to comparable articles... like the Chicago Bulls, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods you will notice (one example) the Chicago Bulls article doesn't go into so much detail for their seasons. 2009 was a great year for Federer, but isn't there some way cut back on the information and stick with only the good/interesting stuff? I think a manual of style for tennis biographies in regards to their annual seasons could be beneficial! on camera (t) 02:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I like the idea of creating these career biographies articles to really cut back on the tennis biographies sizes. It's a good solution (and the category); I say go for it with other articles with length issues! on camera (t) 02:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I normally don't comment using such strong words as I'm about to, but I think that this splitting of the Roger Federer article has been very poorly done and as of now, is a complete mess. Why do I think so? Just look at the current version of the main Roger Federer article following the split by Bluedogtn. The only photo remaining in the entire article body (outside the infobox) is one of Rafael Nadal!! And no photos of Federer outside the infobox?!?! Meanwhile, ALL of the photos from the article body are now sitting in Roger Federer career biography, along with a lot of important career information which really MUST be in the main article in order for it to have even a semblance of completeness. The article still has a ton of info about his rivalries, but almost nothing about his career beyond a few meager sentences. The article now gives major undue-weight to minor topics like the rivalries and "Equipment, apparel, endorsements", while omitting a huge amount of essential info. It went from being a good-article candidate to barely C-class because of that split. Not good. Properly splitting an article requires a lot more thought and work than just cutting an entire section and pasting it into a separate new article.
If there is a consensus that the article is too long, then fine, go ahead and create a separate "full career biography" article, while still leaving a nice career summary in that section. But don't simply cut ALL of the career info and ALL of the photos out of the main article. That just ruins the main article, and leaves it as an amputated incomplete wreck. That's what is there now. I do not think that most readers would find that the changes made in the split were an improvement or a positive contribution. Most readers would react as I did, when I happened to revisit the article for the first time since the split (I had previously read it many times over the past few years). My first thought was "WTF happened to the article and all the photos???" The massive amount of deletion almost looks like a vandal hit it. At least now there is a split template informing readers of the situation. But most casual readers don't read our templates, they just use Wikipedia to get useful info. Remember that we are writing an encyclopedia for an audience of readers, and they'd much rather have a long but reasonably complete article, instead of an amputated torso with multiple links to sub-articles which contain the real info and photos.
Sorry if my comments seem harsh, but I really wanted to write them immediately to reflect the reaction of disgust I felt upon seeing the mangled Federer article, with only a single Nadal photo left within it. And then finding out that such a split had been done with almost no prior discussion or consensus-building attempts. I took a quick glance at the Rafael Nadal article, and the problems after the split are almost as bad there (although at least the only remaining photo in the text is of Nadal, instead of someone else like Federer). I assume your other splits have been done the same way and share similar major problems. Please stop splitting any more articles in that way, until you learn the proper way to do it (see below).
So how to fix this? The easiest and best short-term solution is to simply re-insert the entire deleted career info and photos back into that section of the main article. That would at least give a complete article again for readers to enjoy. Then those in favor of the split (such as Bluedogtn) could carefully take the time to write a nice condensed career section for the main article, with 3-4 paragraphs including major career highlights and a selection of photos (perhaps a section 10-15K in size, versus the 60K which was cut in the Federer split). That would be a positive contribution and improvement, and the main Federer article would still retain the necessary degree of completeness. See the Barack Obama article for a good example of how to properly split an article into numerous sub-articles, while still leaving the main article complete. Each section and subsection has some essential info remaining in place, along with a link to the subarticle. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I have started an article containing details of all singles champions in GS, masters & masters cup from start to the present. Please review the same and comment me if you think the same is not suitable.Thanks -- User:Fahidka (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).
Hello, Rambo's Revenge and Armbrust, please have your discussion here on the fact of the tiebreak presentation on these articles List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions and List of French Open Men's Singles champions. We need to get to the bottom of this right now, and not put this off because I am sick and tired of having to adjust to you two, which Rambo's Revenge wants it like 7–6(7–3) and Armbrust wants just 7–6(3). Come up with a solution or a compromise to this now! BLUE DOG TN 14:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Relevent conversation copied straight from
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions/archive1
|
---|
|
Score |
---|
6–4, 7–68–6, 6–74–7, 4–6, 10–8 |
6–4, 7–6(8–6), 6–7(4–7), 4–6, 10–8 |
6–4 7–68–6 6–74–7 4–6 10–8 |
6–4 7–6(8–6) 6–7(4–7) 4–6 10–8 |
I hope you don't mind but I put a wikitable of those options alongside your edit as I think there scores use will be predominantly used in that context. As for my opinions. I don't feel strongly, but I quite like the commas. For that reason I dislike option three as the lack of brackets and comma give no break between set scores. I like either of the first two options. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
These are some more that I could think of! BLUE DOG TN 22:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I can really only agree with these two, but that is just me because the commas look like junk when they are forced over because of the (7-5), which I dislike the sups in the first place. I am willing to go along with it if we take out the commas. And by the way, there's no standard for displaying tennis scores or else everyone would agree and use them across all sources. Here is the two I could go along with:
I know Rambo and them use the Wimbledon one as and example of a Tiebreaker display, but that is because they were doing a Wimbledon FLC at that time. Even the slams don't agree on the matter on how to display scores such as the US Open does not even use dashes and displayes the tiebreaker (3) to Armbrust side of the Argument. On my side of the argument, which is to leave all tiebreakers out of all tennis articles events the brackets and lists is the Australian Open, and by the way the one I suggest is used by the as well in Match Scores AO and US Open Scores. By the way, the French Open agrees with my suggestion of score presentation, which is FO Scores]. So, just by citing wimbledon discussion does not prove consensus or consensus amongst tennis sources in its entirity. BLUE DOG TN 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
{{tennis |sets = 5 |set 1 = 6–3 |set 2 = 4–6 |set 3 = 6–7 |set 3t = 3–7 |set 4 = 6–4 |set 5 = 3–6 }}
I think we need to set three standards for tiebreaks in types of wikipedia articles, on the subject of List articles I hate the sup idea in its entirity. For all List articles it should be 6–7(2–7), 7–6(13–11), 6–7(8–10), 7–6(7–5), 16–14, needs to be the standard! On the subject of player articles, it needs to be listed in prose as 6-7(2), 7-6(11), 6-7(8), 7-6(5), 16-14, which is much easier to write in prose and read in prose. Now onto bracket articles, I think the tiebreak of both should be recorded in sup /sup like it is done on slam sources! That is my proposal, which I could live with! BLUE DOG TN 01:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
For the players that lose the score goes first like 7-6(2), 6-7(11), 7-6(8), 6-7(5), 14-16 in the pose and on player articles. In the charts on player articles as well! BLUE DOG TN 01:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Who wants to put that Template:Tennis in prose, not me at all! BLUE DOG TN 02:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget WP:DEADLINE! Obviously any template, if deemed necessary to make editing easier, will conform to what ever format is chosen. The format will obviously be decided first, then a template can be discussed if it makes the "mark up" simple, as you point out. Obviously the formatting needs to avoid browser and access complications, but as Rambo pointed out, superscript doesn't cause these issues. Yes, all articles need to conform to uniformity, but they don't at the moment, and there is no deadline in changing them. Establish consensus (which obviously didn't exist previously, as we wouldn't be having this discussion now!, then work gradually to make all articles conform. For articles such as the Aus Open you cited above, in "competition grid" layout, for want of a better term, I think we just need to include box winning/losing scores in the tiebreak, as agreed above. The formatting under discussion is mainly for the "inline" version, in prose or tables. Let's get format agreement from all who have participated in this discussion, and others if necessary, then plan on how to proceed.— MDCollins ( talk) 23:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking at all the examples I'm not finding a big deal in whatever way we choose to do it but if we go with 6–7(2–7), 7–6(13–11), 6–7(8–10), 7–6(7–5), 16–14, for charts... the prose should be the same way. It keeps things uniform and easier for editors imho. I'm not with the program that "all" articles have to follow the exact same coding because there might be some charts that simply work better in a different style... maybe because of room to fit on the page for example. We should endeavor to be consistent but making it iron-clad might not be the best way to go. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
That seems a reasonable summary. I've taken the liberty of splitting off this summary so we can see where we are.
— MDCollins ( talk) 18:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment below if I am wrong with these. BLUE DOG TN 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments:
— MDCollins ( talk) 12:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, now we have to decide on the commas, and then go forth and implement the new scoring standards. BLUE DOG TN 02:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's do a Support or Oppose section to see what the majority opinion is on commas: I will refrain from voting, so others vote below but above Agreements.
BLUE
DOG
TN
02:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Support commas:
Oppose commas:
Agreement(s):
BLUE DOG TN 02:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we are ready to start on this endeavor, or if you disagree voice it below. BLUE DOG TN 22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion about commas for scores should be moved to a more appropriate wikispace since it is related to other racquet sports as well ( squash, badminton, ping pong). Users also should be notified about the discussion so that a concrete consensus can be achieved. By the way, I agree with the usage of commas for scores. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 12:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Go for it!— MDCollins ( talk) 11:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
We could also make it like this:
Year [f] | Country | Champion | Country | Runner-up | Score in the final |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1981 | USA | Martina Navrátilová | USA | Chris Evert | User:Armbrust/test |
Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Portal:Tennis need to be updated especially for the selected biography section. It is outdated. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 12:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 6/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
User:Bloom6132 has been changing pages to something that should probably be talked about here. His intentions are surely good but he is removing the sorting, bolding winners, squeezing the ww1/ww2 years down into a single line which can make for some problems in sorting, and making the text smaller. I reverted a couple of these but waited on his last change (wimbledon) to get some input here. The pages in question right now are... List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions, List of US Open Men's Singles champions, List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions and many smaller tourney pages. I worry about several things which i mentioned to him on my talk page. The smaller text will make it harder to see for older screens and older eyeballs, the bolding makes the table less attractive to me, and I use the date sorting a lot in research. Any other viewpoints? Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 20:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I know this issue was discussed somewhat in a section above, but looking at the article for Caroline Wozniacki, the number of match scores in the prose strikes me as over-inclusive. The article is so detailed as to be a running ticker of every result she plays. I suppose I should applaud the energy with which the article is monitored, but does the Tennis project have any standard set for limiting the practice of keeping running tallies of every match played? Townlake ( talk) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. I'm not sure if this tennis coach is notable, but I'm also not sure where to find reliable sources in this area. The article is being heavily edited by a new user who is very unfamiliar with WP policies. I keep fixing issues, but the user re-adds inappropriate links, makes edits contrary to MOS, etc. I don't want to step on the 3RR, so it would be helpful if others editors could take a look at this article. Efforts to communicate with the new user on his/her talk page and the article talk page has not been successful. Regards, PDCook ( talk) 04:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, folk. Would you have a look at this Sebastian Vinatoru, an unsourced biography of a 15 year old Romanian tennis player, please? Some of the claims, as well as being unsourced, seem a bit over the top to me. Cheers, -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Quite elaborate. Edits like this from 89.123.48.93 also appear (PDF) to be hoaxes. The IP seems to belong to that user judging by later linked edits. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.
Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 113 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.
Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope ( talk) 17:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey folks,
Debenture (sport) is in need of some expert attention. Please drop by and help to bring the article up to scratch. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Have created this article (split from the List of sportspeople by nickname article), but it neede aditional citations. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I keep looking at this page and it seems that everything in it is covered in other articles, and covered better in other articles to boot. Why does it exist? I attempted a deletion proposal but it was removed by user:Mike_Cline because he thought I wanted to remove it for lack of proper sourcing. I actually wanted to remove it for uselessness. Any thoughts? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 06:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the way the HOF displayes the url, since they re-did their website, which now it is not a numerical value like 243 it is pete-sampras for the ID in the infoboxes, but I just don't have the time to do it anymore or the will! I did Boris Beckers and Martina Navratiova for examples! Good Luck! 69.137.120.81 ( talk) 01:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Rambo's Revenge recently made a major chart change in List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions (I reverted it) that I thought we should discuss before implimenting. It was done to condense several previous charts and the new single chart is neater, table-ized and sortable. The problem I have is that it is busier, hard to intersect fatcs and, for me at least, more unusable. The old charts which I restored are used in several tennis articles here on wikipedia and at a glance you can find what you want. The new chart takes me 20x longer to dig the information out of it. I don't really like it. Other thoughts? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 20:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I reverted this blokes edits thinking they were vandalism or spam; however, this editor says he did this per this project? Does anyone know anything about this? Though, I may have made a mistake. Cheers, Aaroncrick TALK 07:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do you use the sponsored name for tournaments and such? Christopher Connor ( talk) 00:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I reckon we should name all tournaments by their normal city name as it is much more common and easier. Nobody says or uses Western & Southern Financial Group Masters except for sponsorship purposes. Christopher Connor ( talk) 15:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This user is moving way too many pages, but I did not want to get you involved, which now I have to. I found s/he move the 2010 Wimbledon Women's Singles page, and s/he is decaptailizing the W in Women and S in Singles, which I think we have to stop it before the user goes to far look. BLUE DOG TN 04:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Go to WP:Tennis to talk it out! BLUE DOG TN 04:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, there's a lot of hostility here (and elsewhere by Fyunck(click) and Bluedogtn and his associated IP account (69.137.120.81) - why does he use both?). I won't be spending much time on this page! I didn't know that conforming article titles with WP:Title required advance notice to any person or project. If Fyunck and/or Bluedogtn were concerned, they know how to contact me on my discussion page instead of going around posting negative stuff all over the place about me, without even telling me. Makes one wonder if change is a four-letter-word with these two editors, particulary concerning articles they watch. Anyway, I'm done on this page. Won't be coming back. Thanks for the warm and compassionate welcome, guys. Striving4 ( talk) 18:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I request the opinion of other editors on this topic, which is in regards to the tennis naming conventions, which were made consensus in 2007 here and here. I think striving4 is doing a great job in his or her work, but I think past consensus should reign on this subject, which look at all CBS Sports and Grand Slam History, which one is a general and one is a tennis publications because the capitalize Men's Singles and Women's Singles, and I think this common usage of Men's Singles by the Grand Slam Tournaments and other media outlets favors the readers [[not some WP:Title rule like is cited by Striving4 is constantly citing in his or her edit summaries, which can be overriden by common usages. I just want to get the thoughts of the whole community before this goes any further, so we can achieve consensus. BLUE DOG TN 04:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
After a couple users noted on Talk:Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships that if we have an article on the Isner-Mahut match, we should surely have an article on the Federer- Nadal Wimbledon 2008 final, I have started the article at 2008 Wimbledon Men's Singles final with a fair-sized write-up, focusing on background and significance. Please come help expand it, especially with details of the match itself! — Lowellian ( reply) 18:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know which flag is used to identify Lu Yen-hsun? The page Chinese Taipei flag illustrates several. 76.66.195.196 ( talk) 06:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Be on the lookout for posts by banned editor User:Tennis_expert. Right now he is using the ip's 70.253.75.221 and 97.77.159.243 but there will surely be more. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 00:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It was brought to my attention recently that the flag icon BRI is being used in many wikipedia tennis articles to signify the time period up to 1922 with the term GBR used afterward. GBR links with the proper wiki page but BRI does not. After talking with a few editors I changed the BRI to UKGBI to link with it's proper wikipedia page. I did this in two articles, List_of_Wimbledon_ladies'_singles_champions and after seeing no catcalls List_of_Wimbledon_gentlemen's_singles_champions. Today someone challenged and reverted the change and wanted to debate it here so here we are. Any preliminary show of hands? I thought it a relatively minor change for the better of the article and another editor thought it would help with those who try to change the flag to Ireland, in that they could see/read why that would be incorrect pre-1923. Thoughts? Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 20:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey I created this template yesterday.
I went around and added all of the pages listed in the ATP Challenger Tour and added them into this large template banner of some sort. My question is would someone would help me to see if this list needs to be broken down further or something? I would really appreciate the help on it! I only broke Europe down into subgroups because Italy hosts so many tournaments and then France, Germany, etc...I was thinking maybe I should make a separate one for each continent or country...or I'm not sure. Whatever your suggestions are will be nice. Let me know! :D Tamer_of_Hope talk 21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunatly I have to bring to the attension the appaling number of tennis articles with no references. We'll have to work hard a as a team to change this, and bring it up to standard KnowIG ( talk) 01:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
a talk on this has been started here [14] - please feel free to join in Mayumashu ( talk) 18:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The following Afds about tennis players needs input: Viktorija Rajicic, Anna Wishink, Jade Hopper and Mark Verryth. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The colors for the new tournament types (and some of the old as well) are way too flashy. It's not so bad now with only a few tournaments at most per player, but in a few years when they start racking up titles it's going to look very ugly. I think it will look better if we use more neutral colors like in ATP articles, and don't distinguish between the old and new types. Maybe something like this.
Legend: Before 2009 | Legend: Starting in 2009 |
---|---|
Grand Slam tournaments (0) | |
Olympic Gold (0) | |
Olympic Silver (0) | |
WTA Championships (0) | |
Tier I (0) | Premier Mandatory (0) |
Tier II (0) | Premier 5 (0) |
Tier III (0) | Premier (0) |
Tier IV & V (0) | International (0) |
For reference, this is how it currently looks:
Legend: Before 2009 | Legend: Starting in 2009 |
---|---|
Grand Slam tournaments (0) | |
Olympic Gold (0) | |
Olympic Silver (0) | |
WTA Championships (0) | |
Tier I (0) | Premier Mandatory (0) |
Tier II (0) | Premier 5 (0) |
Tier III (0) | Premier (0) |
Tier IV & V (0) | International (0) |
Olympic medals only appear if they were actually won by the player.
Tbellum99 ( talk) 10:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I've made some drafts with more ATP-like colors. See User:Tbellum99/Draft:New_WTA_colors
Still some problems with it though. Premium tournaments aren't really the same as Tier III, and grouping them together with International does them a disservice. Perhaps we can group Premium 5 / Premium together and then take "Tier III and up" as equivalent of International. Or keep it as is and add another color (like my original idea, but that didn't look as good as I imagined). Tbellum99 ( talk) 02:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the colour scheme needs changing. The current colours are very harsh. How about something like this?
Winner — Legend (pre/post 2009) |
---|
Grand Slam tournaments (0) |
WTA Tour Championships (0) |
Tier I / Premier Mandatory & Premier 5 (0) |
Tier II / Premier (0) |
Tier III, IV & V / International (0) |
I've grouped the Premier 5 and Premier tournaments with Tier II, and grouped Tier III, IV and V with International. I've also used to same layout and colour scheme used on ATP articles. Boddefan2009 ( talk) 18:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
A proposal has been put forward to replace Tennis statistics with User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTennisStats and name it List of non-Grand Slam tennis statistics and records. Thoughts, comments and/or votes are encouraged. SilkTork * YES! 08:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone got any idea what the longest women's match in terms of games is for Longest tennis match records? Francium12 17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed today that editor User:Ksnow or User talk:98.117.96.118 is changing every single infobox on tennis players. Specifically the section left-handed;two-handed back hand to left-handed (two handed backhand). My understanding is that one uses the paranthesis for related info like height 1.8 meters (6ft 2inches) or prize money 7.2 million (4th all-time). Hitting with a two handed backhand is not related to what hand you use to swing the racket so it seems to me it should remain with a semi-colon. Example of edits (of which there are dozens) is [ [15]]. Maybe there is a wiki policy on this I'm not aware of? Thanks Fyunck(click) ( talk) 18:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at the new article Ons Jabeur.
It needs some copyedit, and in particular, I'm confused by the '2010' part; I don't know much about tennis, so it is a bit difficult for me to fix this myself. Thanks, Chzz ► 16:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
How should the Qatar Open articles be named? With or without sponsor, and if with, which and in what years? Can someone knowledgeable please comment at Talk:1996 Qatar Mobil Open#Requested move? Thanks.-- Kotniski ( talk) 16:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
User:P. S. Burton has been removing flags from the info box of several tennis players citing Manuel of Style. Is he right to do this? KnowIG ( talk) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
P. S. Burton ( talk) 19:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Please see my comments at Template talk:Infobox tennis biography regarding grip and weight for further discussion. P. S. Burton ( talk) 19:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
what are mayor tournaments? i will add a money box, but there's a gap called "Mayor Tournaments", wondering what it is, maybe GrandSlams?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
yes thx-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Idly Clicking the 'random article' link I ended up at 1995 TVA Cup – Doubles. No-where on the page does it actually state the sport in question is tennis, though I guessed it might be. Such an omission is only going to be obvious to someone who is not deeply familiar with tennis, like me. But I guess that it's in the interests of your project that someone who knows checks that each page in the project states which sport it refers to. The Yowser ( talk) 15:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
main|1995 TVA Cup}}
which renders:The article Nicolas Coutelot is currently an unsourced BLP. Actually the corresponding article on wp:fr was deleted because it failed to meet the admissibility criteria. I'm not too familiar with the accessibility criteria here. Could somebody have a look and take necessary actions if necessary. Many thanks! -- Anneyh ( talk) 11:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
To help address the many requests for photographs People-photo-bot has moved article talk pages from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of tennis people if it contains the templates {{ WikiProject Tennis}} {{ WP-Tennis}} {{ WPTennis}} {{ WP Tennis}} {{ Tennis}}. Members of this project are invited to address the requests for images listed. Please note that some articles may now have an appropriate photograph and that the need-image flag has simply not been removed, this can also be checked using the Image Existence Checker link on the category page. If a page has been incorrectly moved please inform me on my talk page.-- Traveler100 ( talk) 17:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like clarification from a group member regarding the season ending World Championship of Tennis Finals. I was told they are not significant enough to list. I would like to challenge this assertion and await a response thank you.-- Wales63 ( talk) 19:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
--Wales63 15:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wales63 ( talk • contribs)
I disagree it is historically inaccurate to only represent the ATP (former Grand Prix) Tour finals as the sole tour finals and exclude the other. The corrects facts must be stated. As they both co-existed together. And allows readers to be given a balanced view. -- Wales63 ( talk) 00:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The Outline of tennis is under construction, and needs editors familiar with the subject to add missing subheadings and missing topic links.
For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.
For a relevant discussion see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 40#What do you think about making an Outline of Birds?
Here's the outline they created: Outline of birds.
The Transhumanist 20:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Shadowjams ( talk · contribs) has nominated 2010 Bank Austria-TennisTrophy – Singles for deletion. This AfD could be very important for this project, because the project has hundreds of such (draw) articles, which may be targeted pending on this AfD. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I just removed an uncited Playing Style section from the Caroline Wozniacki article. Such sections seem semi-prevalent on popular players' article pages; the sections seem to consist primarily of observations that someone might make after watching a player on television. Are there guidelines on what these sections should include, or how well they should be sourced? I didn't see anything relevant in the article-specific guidelines, and the only place I could find this topic discussed in the archives was here. Townlake ( talk) 17:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep I'm talking about that match. Yep it has an article but I have a new book, in which Bud Collins refers in dedicating the book to this match as the endless match. Has anyone else heard this as an offical title for this match. And should 'The Endless Match' replace the current title? KnowIG ( talk) 21:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 21:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Outline of tennis is coming along nicely, but still has a ways to go.
Other sports outlines currently under development include:
Can you beat the other Sports WikiProjects to completion?
For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see
Portal:Contents/Outlines.
Here are some examples of developed outlines:
The Transhumanist 23:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I went through and fixed all the "YYYY U.S. Open" disambiguation pages so they're consistent from 1968 to current (similar to the main "U.S. Open" disambiguation page). However, there are several pages that use the redirect from "YYYY US Open" instead of linking directly to the actual article. Because of this, these links now go to the disambiguation page instead of the intended tennis article. I'm in the process of going through and fixing them to directly link to the expected page, but may take awhile. Feel free to fix them as them come up, thanks. Starwrath ( talk) 22:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Tennis articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunatly User:Darius Dhlomo has been a very naughty boy by copying and pasting large amounts of material and not putting the reference in. He has violated copyright rules but as I say he has done this on so many articles that no one quiet knows what he has done. Therefore a bot has been created to blank any article that he has created. This affects the tennis project as several pages have been blanked. They seem to be OK and just standard tennis tournament articles, but if he has done a player article please check that he hasn't copied and pasted from somewhere, if he has please edit what is written. Thanks. List of articles blanked KnowIG ( talk) 11:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
title is correct they can be found here, would be thankful if someone else up loaded, don't trust myself :) Although I may have a go if no one else does it. KnowIG ( talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Rafael Nadal in 2010 and eight "Roger Federer in YYYY" for 2003 to 2010 have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010. PrimeHunter ( talk) 03:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Have added a couple of pages for singles and doubles based on ITF information and indicated as such by external links. There is not much information @ITF other than drawsheets/results. Singles and Doubles have separate main articles in the current design which I have followed. There is a suggestion to merge singles/doubles. Using that suggested style, the later years would perhaps become unmanageable. Thoughts? Loner t ( talk) 22:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a questions for others to respond to. Does Federer have a rivalry with ....
Thanks for your response! BLUE DOG TN 23:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
If you do answer yes to the above questions. Which ones deserve or merit their own page like Federer–Nadal rivalry? BLUE DOG TN 23:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Did you realize that the official Davis Cup page being renewed by ITF thus making ALL of the referring Wikipedia links dead not to mention the templates such as Template:DavisCupteamlink for example? It ruined a bunch of articles and left them uncited! I can only hope the old data got archived somewhere, but the question is what to do with these articles? Their updates would take months if possible...Is there a bot for that? What did other projects do when their main official site got restructured? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This is it! BLUE DOG TN 17:56, 2 December 2010 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I was wondering if this article should only name each player once with their fastest serve, rather than attempting to list all serves? If the men's section was accurate (my searching suggests it isn't, because Taylor Dent [1], Mark Phillipoussis [2] and Greg Rusedski [3] have other serves which could appear in this table but are only listed once), it would repeat the same names several times. This may entail a rename changing serves to servers. Cassandra 73 ( talk) 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
We can work on developing some sort of consenus right now between the two of us, since you are interest in this article, and what about other tennis articles are you interested in joining this project. Thanks, for pointing my attention to this article, since I am an Project Manager here, which in no way applies WP:OWN like I own this forum, and did not even know about this article. So, what do you think? We'll work it out! BLUE DOG TN 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on the format and sourcing, so what would your recommendation be on behalf of this article? I don't know what to do! Thanks.
BLUE
DOG
TN
21:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Articles like 2009 China Open (tennis) have navboxes like {{ 2009 WTA Tour}}. Articles about singles and doubles events like 2009 China Open - Women's Singles have no navboxes. This makes it hard to navigate from there to other Women's Singles articles. I suggest adding a navbox like {{ 2009 WTA Tour - Singles}} which is based on {{ 2009 WTA Tour}} but links to the singles events instead of the main articles. Similar navboxes could be made for doubles and ATP Tour. A downside would be a lot of red links to later tournaments during the year. Alternatively there could be a larger navbox with links to both main article, singles and doubles. PrimeHunter ( talk) 22:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Vitalia Diatchenko stats and wins are all wrong. I've no time to fix them. Can someone help me to do it? Thanks Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 18:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to give people one more chance to weigh in about score in prose; as I am about to start removing them; especially from some of the larger articles. - Just to re-iterate, I am working on recording a number of articles, but reading scores just sounds terrible. They are in the tables, often in the same article, but always behind a link; so they really are redundant. Please bring coherent reasons for the scores to exist within the prose. -- Mjquinn_id ( talk) 04:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Under a lot of articles I see tables for how players are doing in grandslams, ending in "Career win-loss". Sometimes these numbers don't seem to add up to how players have done - e.g. Elena Baltacha, which says she's 3-3 for the Auz Open. Does this only count games in the main draw and not qualifying or something? John Smith's ( talk) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Katie_O'Brien#Inappropriate_levels_of_detail -- Dweller ( talk) 16:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm planning on bringing the article to GA or at least B-class. I think it would be too big to go year-by-year so instead I will do a few years at a time. Like in the mid to late 90's he didn't have very much success at all. What do others think? Because Federer is too big because of the year-by-year info on every tournament he participates in. Aaroncrick ( talk) 02:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know what to call them, but this is what I'm referring to, for example from the 2009 Australian Open:
I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, and appreciate what this is trying to accomplish, but is this really necessary? It's interesting to see when certain people went out in the tournaments, but isn't that what the bracket is for? And not only that, the bracket does a better job in showing who they had beaten and who they lost to. And the Singles Seeds section provides the information of who seeded players lost to directly on the grand slam's page.
Frankly, I believe the table is cluttered and uninformative (at least in the sense that there are multiple places within the article that show the same information). At the very least, the placement before the prose of the article is perplexing. I should think that the title page of the tournament (e.g. 2009 Australian Open) should have the least amount of clutter and be prose in the sense of a tournament summary, plus day summaries, along with details of important events. I don't think it should be a bevy of cluttered charts. The chart in question, honestly, does nothing for me, especially when I can get the information elsewhere in the article. Maybe it's just different strokes for different folks and it really helps some people visualise the tournament :) If so, there's nothing wrong with that, and we could focus on reorganisation.
However, that said, since the information in the chart is easily discerned elsewhere in the article, or the bracket pages, is there really a point in having that, and could those charts just be deleted? Captain Courageous ( talk) 05:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 04:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This just does not make since to put the defending champion before the winner of the slam on the article, and if it is standard usage it needs to be readdressed to put the winner first and the defending in the second sentence! Tennis Authority 21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC
Hello tennis fans & workers. I wonder if anyone can help with the above article. Since the summertime an anon user has blanked a couple of sections of this article over forty times! It looks as though that's all they have done, but that is more persistence than i would expect from a casual vandal. So, what i wonder is, is there any controversy or question about this player that would make this, maybe, the action of him or someone with a relationship to him? I mean, we want to be encyclopaedic, but we want to remember BLP too, don't we? Alternatively, if all the info i'm about to restore is accurate, i'll just keep it on my watchlist.... Cheers, Lindsay Hi 04:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi tennis folks. I'm doing some sleuthing about Lisa Pier, about whom a new article was created today. The article claims she is the world number 31 after playing in the fourth round of the 2008 women's open in France. I can't find any sources to verify this claim (or her existence). I've traced her addition to the 2008 French Open - Women's Singles article to a series of IP edits yesterday that completely transformed the content of the article: diff here. Is this just straight-up vandalism? Does this player exist? Gonzonoir ( talk) 15:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
On the Andy Murray article we currently have, yet again, a tussle about the updating of Grand Slam results on the info box before they are actual results. Can we have something documented here on the project pages that makes guidelines about this concrete? It has always been my understanding of usual practice on tennis players articles that this should not be updated until after the player has exited the tournament, thus ensuring that the info box stays in agreement with the rest of the stats on the article. It is also the case that a 'result' isn't a 'result' until it is final, Wikipedia isn't a running scoreboard. Can we get agreement on this? Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Relatedly, what about "current rankings"? People are madly updating provisional rankings based on current results, before any official change to the ATP listing, regardless of whether they have a source (even for the crystal-ball-gazing, much less the official ranking), and in some cases, outright wrongly. (Such as "demoting" Nadal to #4 before Murray'd beaten Nadal.) I've no objection to noting in the body text what changes to the ranking there will be (with an appropriate source, of course). But surely seeing "current rating (1st February)" in an infobox, in January, is rather silly. Smartiger ( talk) 08:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Same with "current rankings"; until they are published (at least on the ATP or USTA websites) they are only educated guesses. We do not publish those. -- Mjquinn_id ( talk) 03:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The scores for Roland Garros and winners are not reported by the slam website [4], ESPN [5], Grand Slam History [6], and CBS Sports [7]. There is a user who says these are to be included, but cites very obscure sources, which I believe if the slam does not report them and three other source two very credible, they should not be included at all. BLUE DOG TN 01:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Fyunck(click), I know now why you faught so hard to include the 1941-1945 winners in the table, which is because of this [ EX], [ EX2], and I would love to know your original source for putting this information onto wikipedia? I think you need to find a more reputable source such a a slam or a sports source like ESPN or Tennis Magazine in order to add them back. I don't even know if these results are even true? I need an explaination, please? BLUE DOG TN 03:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This is something that has always irked me about tennis biographies--the need to write about every tournament they're in for the year. I know it's important, or whatever, but most of that information is included in their results tables. If one compares Roger Federer's 2009 to comparable articles... like the Chicago Bulls, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods you will notice (one example) the Chicago Bulls article doesn't go into so much detail for their seasons. 2009 was a great year for Federer, but isn't there some way cut back on the information and stick with only the good/interesting stuff? I think a manual of style for tennis biographies in regards to their annual seasons could be beneficial! on camera (t) 02:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I like the idea of creating these career biographies articles to really cut back on the tennis biographies sizes. It's a good solution (and the category); I say go for it with other articles with length issues! on camera (t) 02:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I normally don't comment using such strong words as I'm about to, but I think that this splitting of the Roger Federer article has been very poorly done and as of now, is a complete mess. Why do I think so? Just look at the current version of the main Roger Federer article following the split by Bluedogtn. The only photo remaining in the entire article body (outside the infobox) is one of Rafael Nadal!! And no photos of Federer outside the infobox?!?! Meanwhile, ALL of the photos from the article body are now sitting in Roger Federer career biography, along with a lot of important career information which really MUST be in the main article in order for it to have even a semblance of completeness. The article still has a ton of info about his rivalries, but almost nothing about his career beyond a few meager sentences. The article now gives major undue-weight to minor topics like the rivalries and "Equipment, apparel, endorsements", while omitting a huge amount of essential info. It went from being a good-article candidate to barely C-class because of that split. Not good. Properly splitting an article requires a lot more thought and work than just cutting an entire section and pasting it into a separate new article.
If there is a consensus that the article is too long, then fine, go ahead and create a separate "full career biography" article, while still leaving a nice career summary in that section. But don't simply cut ALL of the career info and ALL of the photos out of the main article. That just ruins the main article, and leaves it as an amputated incomplete wreck. That's what is there now. I do not think that most readers would find that the changes made in the split were an improvement or a positive contribution. Most readers would react as I did, when I happened to revisit the article for the first time since the split (I had previously read it many times over the past few years). My first thought was "WTF happened to the article and all the photos???" The massive amount of deletion almost looks like a vandal hit it. At least now there is a split template informing readers of the situation. But most casual readers don't read our templates, they just use Wikipedia to get useful info. Remember that we are writing an encyclopedia for an audience of readers, and they'd much rather have a long but reasonably complete article, instead of an amputated torso with multiple links to sub-articles which contain the real info and photos.
Sorry if my comments seem harsh, but I really wanted to write them immediately to reflect the reaction of disgust I felt upon seeing the mangled Federer article, with only a single Nadal photo left within it. And then finding out that such a split had been done with almost no prior discussion or consensus-building attempts. I took a quick glance at the Rafael Nadal article, and the problems after the split are almost as bad there (although at least the only remaining photo in the text is of Nadal, instead of someone else like Federer). I assume your other splits have been done the same way and share similar major problems. Please stop splitting any more articles in that way, until you learn the proper way to do it (see below).
So how to fix this? The easiest and best short-term solution is to simply re-insert the entire deleted career info and photos back into that section of the main article. That would at least give a complete article again for readers to enjoy. Then those in favor of the split (such as Bluedogtn) could carefully take the time to write a nice condensed career section for the main article, with 3-4 paragraphs including major career highlights and a selection of photos (perhaps a section 10-15K in size, versus the 60K which was cut in the Federer split). That would be a positive contribution and improvement, and the main Federer article would still retain the necessary degree of completeness. See the Barack Obama article for a good example of how to properly split an article into numerous sub-articles, while still leaving the main article complete. Each section and subsection has some essential info remaining in place, along with a link to the subarticle. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I have started an article containing details of all singles champions in GS, masters & masters cup from start to the present. Please review the same and comment me if you think the same is not suitable.Thanks -- User:Fahidka (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).
Hello, Rambo's Revenge and Armbrust, please have your discussion here on the fact of the tiebreak presentation on these articles List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions and List of French Open Men's Singles champions. We need to get to the bottom of this right now, and not put this off because I am sick and tired of having to adjust to you two, which Rambo's Revenge wants it like 7–6(7–3) and Armbrust wants just 7–6(3). Come up with a solution or a compromise to this now! BLUE DOG TN 14:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Relevent conversation copied straight from
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions/archive1
|
---|
|
Score |
---|
6–4, 7–68–6, 6–74–7, 4–6, 10–8 |
6–4, 7–6(8–6), 6–7(4–7), 4–6, 10–8 |
6–4 7–68–6 6–74–7 4–6 10–8 |
6–4 7–6(8–6) 6–7(4–7) 4–6 10–8 |
I hope you don't mind but I put a wikitable of those options alongside your edit as I think there scores use will be predominantly used in that context. As for my opinions. I don't feel strongly, but I quite like the commas. For that reason I dislike option three as the lack of brackets and comma give no break between set scores. I like either of the first two options. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
These are some more that I could think of! BLUE DOG TN 22:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I can really only agree with these two, but that is just me because the commas look like junk when they are forced over because of the (7-5), which I dislike the sups in the first place. I am willing to go along with it if we take out the commas. And by the way, there's no standard for displaying tennis scores or else everyone would agree and use them across all sources. Here is the two I could go along with:
I know Rambo and them use the Wimbledon one as and example of a Tiebreaker display, but that is because they were doing a Wimbledon FLC at that time. Even the slams don't agree on the matter on how to display scores such as the US Open does not even use dashes and displayes the tiebreaker (3) to Armbrust side of the Argument. On my side of the argument, which is to leave all tiebreakers out of all tennis articles events the brackets and lists is the Australian Open, and by the way the one I suggest is used by the as well in Match Scores AO and US Open Scores. By the way, the French Open agrees with my suggestion of score presentation, which is FO Scores]. So, just by citing wimbledon discussion does not prove consensus or consensus amongst tennis sources in its entirity. BLUE DOG TN 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
{{tennis |sets = 5 |set 1 = 6–3 |set 2 = 4–6 |set 3 = 6–7 |set 3t = 3–7 |set 4 = 6–4 |set 5 = 3–6 }}
I think we need to set three standards for tiebreaks in types of wikipedia articles, on the subject of List articles I hate the sup idea in its entirity. For all List articles it should be 6–7(2–7), 7–6(13–11), 6–7(8–10), 7–6(7–5), 16–14, needs to be the standard! On the subject of player articles, it needs to be listed in prose as 6-7(2), 7-6(11), 6-7(8), 7-6(5), 16-14, which is much easier to write in prose and read in prose. Now onto bracket articles, I think the tiebreak of both should be recorded in sup /sup like it is done on slam sources! That is my proposal, which I could live with! BLUE DOG TN 01:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
For the players that lose the score goes first like 7-6(2), 6-7(11), 7-6(8), 6-7(5), 14-16 in the pose and on player articles. In the charts on player articles as well! BLUE DOG TN 01:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Who wants to put that Template:Tennis in prose, not me at all! BLUE DOG TN 02:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget WP:DEADLINE! Obviously any template, if deemed necessary to make editing easier, will conform to what ever format is chosen. The format will obviously be decided first, then a template can be discussed if it makes the "mark up" simple, as you point out. Obviously the formatting needs to avoid browser and access complications, but as Rambo pointed out, superscript doesn't cause these issues. Yes, all articles need to conform to uniformity, but they don't at the moment, and there is no deadline in changing them. Establish consensus (which obviously didn't exist previously, as we wouldn't be having this discussion now!, then work gradually to make all articles conform. For articles such as the Aus Open you cited above, in "competition grid" layout, for want of a better term, I think we just need to include box winning/losing scores in the tiebreak, as agreed above. The formatting under discussion is mainly for the "inline" version, in prose or tables. Let's get format agreement from all who have participated in this discussion, and others if necessary, then plan on how to proceed.— MDCollins ( talk) 23:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking at all the examples I'm not finding a big deal in whatever way we choose to do it but if we go with 6–7(2–7), 7–6(13–11), 6–7(8–10), 7–6(7–5), 16–14, for charts... the prose should be the same way. It keeps things uniform and easier for editors imho. I'm not with the program that "all" articles have to follow the exact same coding because there might be some charts that simply work better in a different style... maybe because of room to fit on the page for example. We should endeavor to be consistent but making it iron-clad might not be the best way to go. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
That seems a reasonable summary. I've taken the liberty of splitting off this summary so we can see where we are.
— MDCollins ( talk) 18:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment below if I am wrong with these. BLUE DOG TN 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments:
— MDCollins ( talk) 12:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, now we have to decide on the commas, and then go forth and implement the new scoring standards. BLUE DOG TN 02:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's do a Support or Oppose section to see what the majority opinion is on commas: I will refrain from voting, so others vote below but above Agreements.
BLUE
DOG
TN
02:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Support commas:
Oppose commas:
Agreement(s):
BLUE DOG TN 02:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we are ready to start on this endeavor, or if you disagree voice it below. BLUE DOG TN 22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion about commas for scores should be moved to a more appropriate wikispace since it is related to other racquet sports as well ( squash, badminton, ping pong). Users also should be notified about the discussion so that a concrete consensus can be achieved. By the way, I agree with the usage of commas for scores. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 12:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Go for it!— MDCollins ( talk) 11:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
We could also make it like this:
Year [f] | Country | Champion | Country | Runner-up | Score in the final |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1981 | USA | Martina Navrátilová | USA | Chris Evert | User:Armbrust/test |
Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Portal:Tennis need to be updated especially for the selected biography section. It is outdated. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 12:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 6/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
User:Bloom6132 has been changing pages to something that should probably be talked about here. His intentions are surely good but he is removing the sorting, bolding winners, squeezing the ww1/ww2 years down into a single line which can make for some problems in sorting, and making the text smaller. I reverted a couple of these but waited on his last change (wimbledon) to get some input here. The pages in question right now are... List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions, List of US Open Men's Singles champions, List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions and many smaller tourney pages. I worry about several things which i mentioned to him on my talk page. The smaller text will make it harder to see for older screens and older eyeballs, the bolding makes the table less attractive to me, and I use the date sorting a lot in research. Any other viewpoints? Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 20:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I know this issue was discussed somewhat in a section above, but looking at the article for Caroline Wozniacki, the number of match scores in the prose strikes me as over-inclusive. The article is so detailed as to be a running ticker of every result she plays. I suppose I should applaud the energy with which the article is monitored, but does the Tennis project have any standard set for limiting the practice of keeping running tallies of every match played? Townlake ( talk) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. I'm not sure if this tennis coach is notable, but I'm also not sure where to find reliable sources in this area. The article is being heavily edited by a new user who is very unfamiliar with WP policies. I keep fixing issues, but the user re-adds inappropriate links, makes edits contrary to MOS, etc. I don't want to step on the 3RR, so it would be helpful if others editors could take a look at this article. Efforts to communicate with the new user on his/her talk page and the article talk page has not been successful. Regards, PDCook ( talk) 04:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, folk. Would you have a look at this Sebastian Vinatoru, an unsourced biography of a 15 year old Romanian tennis player, please? Some of the claims, as well as being unsourced, seem a bit over the top to me. Cheers, -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Quite elaborate. Edits like this from 89.123.48.93 also appear (PDF) to be hoaxes. The IP seems to belong to that user judging by later linked edits. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.
Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 113 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.
Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope ( talk) 17:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey folks,
Debenture (sport) is in need of some expert attention. Please drop by and help to bring the article up to scratch. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Have created this article (split from the List of sportspeople by nickname article), but it neede aditional citations. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I keep looking at this page and it seems that everything in it is covered in other articles, and covered better in other articles to boot. Why does it exist? I attempted a deletion proposal but it was removed by user:Mike_Cline because he thought I wanted to remove it for lack of proper sourcing. I actually wanted to remove it for uselessness. Any thoughts? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 06:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the way the HOF displayes the url, since they re-did their website, which now it is not a numerical value like 243 it is pete-sampras for the ID in the infoboxes, but I just don't have the time to do it anymore or the will! I did Boris Beckers and Martina Navratiova for examples! Good Luck! 69.137.120.81 ( talk) 01:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Rambo's Revenge recently made a major chart change in List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions (I reverted it) that I thought we should discuss before implimenting. It was done to condense several previous charts and the new single chart is neater, table-ized and sortable. The problem I have is that it is busier, hard to intersect fatcs and, for me at least, more unusable. The old charts which I restored are used in several tennis articles here on wikipedia and at a glance you can find what you want. The new chart takes me 20x longer to dig the information out of it. I don't really like it. Other thoughts? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 20:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I reverted this blokes edits thinking they were vandalism or spam; however, this editor says he did this per this project? Does anyone know anything about this? Though, I may have made a mistake. Cheers, Aaroncrick TALK 07:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do you use the sponsored name for tournaments and such? Christopher Connor ( talk) 00:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I reckon we should name all tournaments by their normal city name as it is much more common and easier. Nobody says or uses Western & Southern Financial Group Masters except for sponsorship purposes. Christopher Connor ( talk) 15:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This user is moving way too many pages, but I did not want to get you involved, which now I have to. I found s/he move the 2010 Wimbledon Women's Singles page, and s/he is decaptailizing the W in Women and S in Singles, which I think we have to stop it before the user goes to far look. BLUE DOG TN 04:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Go to WP:Tennis to talk it out! BLUE DOG TN 04:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, there's a lot of hostility here (and elsewhere by Fyunck(click) and Bluedogtn and his associated IP account (69.137.120.81) - why does he use both?). I won't be spending much time on this page! I didn't know that conforming article titles with WP:Title required advance notice to any person or project. If Fyunck and/or Bluedogtn were concerned, they know how to contact me on my discussion page instead of going around posting negative stuff all over the place about me, without even telling me. Makes one wonder if change is a four-letter-word with these two editors, particulary concerning articles they watch. Anyway, I'm done on this page. Won't be coming back. Thanks for the warm and compassionate welcome, guys. Striving4 ( talk) 18:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I request the opinion of other editors on this topic, which is in regards to the tennis naming conventions, which were made consensus in 2007 here and here. I think striving4 is doing a great job in his or her work, but I think past consensus should reign on this subject, which look at all CBS Sports and Grand Slam History, which one is a general and one is a tennis publications because the capitalize Men's Singles and Women's Singles, and I think this common usage of Men's Singles by the Grand Slam Tournaments and other media outlets favors the readers [[not some WP:Title rule like is cited by Striving4 is constantly citing in his or her edit summaries, which can be overriden by common usages. I just want to get the thoughts of the whole community before this goes any further, so we can achieve consensus. BLUE DOG TN 04:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
After a couple users noted on Talk:Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships that if we have an article on the Isner-Mahut match, we should surely have an article on the Federer- Nadal Wimbledon 2008 final, I have started the article at 2008 Wimbledon Men's Singles final with a fair-sized write-up, focusing on background and significance. Please come help expand it, especially with details of the match itself! — Lowellian ( reply) 18:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know which flag is used to identify Lu Yen-hsun? The page Chinese Taipei flag illustrates several. 76.66.195.196 ( talk) 06:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Be on the lookout for posts by banned editor User:Tennis_expert. Right now he is using the ip's 70.253.75.221 and 97.77.159.243 but there will surely be more. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 00:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It was brought to my attention recently that the flag icon BRI is being used in many wikipedia tennis articles to signify the time period up to 1922 with the term GBR used afterward. GBR links with the proper wiki page but BRI does not. After talking with a few editors I changed the BRI to UKGBI to link with it's proper wikipedia page. I did this in two articles, List_of_Wimbledon_ladies'_singles_champions and after seeing no catcalls List_of_Wimbledon_gentlemen's_singles_champions. Today someone challenged and reverted the change and wanted to debate it here so here we are. Any preliminary show of hands? I thought it a relatively minor change for the better of the article and another editor thought it would help with those who try to change the flag to Ireland, in that they could see/read why that would be incorrect pre-1923. Thoughts? Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 20:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey I created this template yesterday.
I went around and added all of the pages listed in the ATP Challenger Tour and added them into this large template banner of some sort. My question is would someone would help me to see if this list needs to be broken down further or something? I would really appreciate the help on it! I only broke Europe down into subgroups because Italy hosts so many tournaments and then France, Germany, etc...I was thinking maybe I should make a separate one for each continent or country...or I'm not sure. Whatever your suggestions are will be nice. Let me know! :D Tamer_of_Hope talk 21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunatly I have to bring to the attension the appaling number of tennis articles with no references. We'll have to work hard a as a team to change this, and bring it up to standard KnowIG ( talk) 01:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
a talk on this has been started here [14] - please feel free to join in Mayumashu ( talk) 18:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The following Afds about tennis players needs input: Viktorija Rajicic, Anna Wishink, Jade Hopper and Mark Verryth. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The colors for the new tournament types (and some of the old as well) are way too flashy. It's not so bad now with only a few tournaments at most per player, but in a few years when they start racking up titles it's going to look very ugly. I think it will look better if we use more neutral colors like in ATP articles, and don't distinguish between the old and new types. Maybe something like this.
Legend: Before 2009 | Legend: Starting in 2009 |
---|---|
Grand Slam tournaments (0) | |
Olympic Gold (0) | |
Olympic Silver (0) | |
WTA Championships (0) | |
Tier I (0) | Premier Mandatory (0) |
Tier II (0) | Premier 5 (0) |
Tier III (0) | Premier (0) |
Tier IV & V (0) | International (0) |
For reference, this is how it currently looks:
Legend: Before 2009 | Legend: Starting in 2009 |
---|---|
Grand Slam tournaments (0) | |
Olympic Gold (0) | |
Olympic Silver (0) | |
WTA Championships (0) | |
Tier I (0) | Premier Mandatory (0) |
Tier II (0) | Premier 5 (0) |
Tier III (0) | Premier (0) |
Tier IV & V (0) | International (0) |
Olympic medals only appear if they were actually won by the player.
Tbellum99 ( talk) 10:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I've made some drafts with more ATP-like colors. See User:Tbellum99/Draft:New_WTA_colors
Still some problems with it though. Premium tournaments aren't really the same as Tier III, and grouping them together with International does them a disservice. Perhaps we can group Premium 5 / Premium together and then take "Tier III and up" as equivalent of International. Or keep it as is and add another color (like my original idea, but that didn't look as good as I imagined). Tbellum99 ( talk) 02:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the colour scheme needs changing. The current colours are very harsh. How about something like this?
Winner — Legend (pre/post 2009) |
---|
Grand Slam tournaments (0) |
WTA Tour Championships (0) |
Tier I / Premier Mandatory & Premier 5 (0) |
Tier II / Premier (0) |
Tier III, IV & V / International (0) |
I've grouped the Premier 5 and Premier tournaments with Tier II, and grouped Tier III, IV and V with International. I've also used to same layout and colour scheme used on ATP articles. Boddefan2009 ( talk) 18:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
A proposal has been put forward to replace Tennis statistics with User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTennisStats and name it List of non-Grand Slam tennis statistics and records. Thoughts, comments and/or votes are encouraged. SilkTork * YES! 08:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone got any idea what the longest women's match in terms of games is for Longest tennis match records? Francium12 17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed today that editor User:Ksnow or User talk:98.117.96.118 is changing every single infobox on tennis players. Specifically the section left-handed;two-handed back hand to left-handed (two handed backhand). My understanding is that one uses the paranthesis for related info like height 1.8 meters (6ft 2inches) or prize money 7.2 million (4th all-time). Hitting with a two handed backhand is not related to what hand you use to swing the racket so it seems to me it should remain with a semi-colon. Example of edits (of which there are dozens) is [ [15]]. Maybe there is a wiki policy on this I'm not aware of? Thanks Fyunck(click) ( talk) 18:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at the new article Ons Jabeur.
It needs some copyedit, and in particular, I'm confused by the '2010' part; I don't know much about tennis, so it is a bit difficult for me to fix this myself. Thanks, Chzz ► 16:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
How should the Qatar Open articles be named? With or without sponsor, and if with, which and in what years? Can someone knowledgeable please comment at Talk:1996 Qatar Mobil Open#Requested move? Thanks.-- Kotniski ( talk) 16:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
User:P. S. Burton has been removing flags from the info box of several tennis players citing Manuel of Style. Is he right to do this? KnowIG ( talk) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
P. S. Burton ( talk) 19:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Please see my comments at Template talk:Infobox tennis biography regarding grip and weight for further discussion. P. S. Burton ( talk) 19:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
what are mayor tournaments? i will add a money box, but there's a gap called "Mayor Tournaments", wondering what it is, maybe GrandSlams?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
yes thx-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Idly Clicking the 'random article' link I ended up at 1995 TVA Cup – Doubles. No-where on the page does it actually state the sport in question is tennis, though I guessed it might be. Such an omission is only going to be obvious to someone who is not deeply familiar with tennis, like me. But I guess that it's in the interests of your project that someone who knows checks that each page in the project states which sport it refers to. The Yowser ( talk) 15:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
main|1995 TVA Cup}}
which renders:The article Nicolas Coutelot is currently an unsourced BLP. Actually the corresponding article on wp:fr was deleted because it failed to meet the admissibility criteria. I'm not too familiar with the accessibility criteria here. Could somebody have a look and take necessary actions if necessary. Many thanks! -- Anneyh ( talk) 11:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
To help address the many requests for photographs People-photo-bot has moved article talk pages from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of tennis people if it contains the templates {{ WikiProject Tennis}} {{ WP-Tennis}} {{ WPTennis}} {{ WP Tennis}} {{ Tennis}}. Members of this project are invited to address the requests for images listed. Please note that some articles may now have an appropriate photograph and that the need-image flag has simply not been removed, this can also be checked using the Image Existence Checker link on the category page. If a page has been incorrectly moved please inform me on my talk page.-- Traveler100 ( talk) 17:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like clarification from a group member regarding the season ending World Championship of Tennis Finals. I was told they are not significant enough to list. I would like to challenge this assertion and await a response thank you.-- Wales63 ( talk) 19:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
--Wales63 15:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wales63 ( talk • contribs)
I disagree it is historically inaccurate to only represent the ATP (former Grand Prix) Tour finals as the sole tour finals and exclude the other. The corrects facts must be stated. As they both co-existed together. And allows readers to be given a balanced view. -- Wales63 ( talk) 00:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The Outline of tennis is under construction, and needs editors familiar with the subject to add missing subheadings and missing topic links.
For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.
For a relevant discussion see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 40#What do you think about making an Outline of Birds?
Here's the outline they created: Outline of birds.
The Transhumanist 20:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Shadowjams ( talk · contribs) has nominated 2010 Bank Austria-TennisTrophy – Singles for deletion. This AfD could be very important for this project, because the project has hundreds of such (draw) articles, which may be targeted pending on this AfD. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I just removed an uncited Playing Style section from the Caroline Wozniacki article. Such sections seem semi-prevalent on popular players' article pages; the sections seem to consist primarily of observations that someone might make after watching a player on television. Are there guidelines on what these sections should include, or how well they should be sourced? I didn't see anything relevant in the article-specific guidelines, and the only place I could find this topic discussed in the archives was here. Townlake ( talk) 17:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep I'm talking about that match. Yep it has an article but I have a new book, in which Bud Collins refers in dedicating the book to this match as the endless match. Has anyone else heard this as an offical title for this match. And should 'The Endless Match' replace the current title? KnowIG ( talk) 21:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 21:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Outline of tennis is coming along nicely, but still has a ways to go.
Other sports outlines currently under development include:
Can you beat the other Sports WikiProjects to completion?
For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see
Portal:Contents/Outlines.
Here are some examples of developed outlines:
The Transhumanist 23:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I went through and fixed all the "YYYY U.S. Open" disambiguation pages so they're consistent from 1968 to current (similar to the main "U.S. Open" disambiguation page). However, there are several pages that use the redirect from "YYYY US Open" instead of linking directly to the actual article. Because of this, these links now go to the disambiguation page instead of the intended tennis article. I'm in the process of going through and fixing them to directly link to the expected page, but may take awhile. Feel free to fix them as them come up, thanks. Starwrath ( talk) 22:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Tennis articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunatly User:Darius Dhlomo has been a very naughty boy by copying and pasting large amounts of material and not putting the reference in. He has violated copyright rules but as I say he has done this on so many articles that no one quiet knows what he has done. Therefore a bot has been created to blank any article that he has created. This affects the tennis project as several pages have been blanked. They seem to be OK and just standard tennis tournament articles, but if he has done a player article please check that he hasn't copied and pasted from somewhere, if he has please edit what is written. Thanks. List of articles blanked KnowIG ( talk) 11:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
title is correct they can be found here, would be thankful if someone else up loaded, don't trust myself :) Although I may have a go if no one else does it. KnowIG ( talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Rafael Nadal in 2010 and eight "Roger Federer in YYYY" for 2003 to 2010 have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010. PrimeHunter ( talk) 03:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Have added a couple of pages for singles and doubles based on ITF information and indicated as such by external links. There is not much information @ITF other than drawsheets/results. Singles and Doubles have separate main articles in the current design which I have followed. There is a suggestion to merge singles/doubles. Using that suggested style, the later years would perhaps become unmanageable. Thoughts? Loner t ( talk) 22:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a questions for others to respond to. Does Federer have a rivalry with ....
Thanks for your response! BLUE DOG TN 23:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
If you do answer yes to the above questions. Which ones deserve or merit their own page like Federer–Nadal rivalry? BLUE DOG TN 23:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Did you realize that the official Davis Cup page being renewed by ITF thus making ALL of the referring Wikipedia links dead not to mention the templates such as Template:DavisCupteamlink for example? It ruined a bunch of articles and left them uncited! I can only hope the old data got archived somewhere, but the question is what to do with these articles? Their updates would take months if possible...Is there a bot for that? What did other projects do when their main official site got restructured? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This is it! BLUE DOG TN 17:56, 2 December 2010 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |