Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Should ITF titles and matches be counted?

I am confused by the listing of titles that occurs on the WTA Tour page. It conflates ITF titles with WTA Tour titles for Justing Henin, Conchita Martinez and Kim Clijsters. I understand that this was cited, in a link to a WTA PDF, but in various bios and articles it lists the more standard numbers. I use 'standard' here in the sense that this is the number of titles that is cited by articles, television broadcasts and players and fans alike. Before I crossed the line into Edit War I thought I'd present that question here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonsornunez (talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See this thread. Tennis expert (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Having not reached a consensus with you on that thread, I have brought the issue here, for a general consensus.Alonsornunez (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you both agree that only Henin's victories of tournaments at the highest level should be included; the WTA tournaments, Grand Slams and Olympics. And I think you misunderstand each other.

Somewhere in the discussion Alonsornunez wrote: Yes, they are included in a player's biography, but no one, EVER, counts small ITF titles as part as a professional WTA player's career stats, unless specifically talking about ITF tournaments. No one ever says that Justine Henin has 48 career titles.

I think there is the mistake. Those 7 ITF titles are the 7 grand slam titles she won; not "small ITF titles". Grand Slams are organised by the ITF and not WTA and count as IFT-titles. Besides that IFT organises other small tournaments like the Futures.

Henins palmares contains in total: 40 WTA titles, 7 Grand Slam titles (hence ITF titles) and 1 Olympic title. The number of Futures and youth tournaments are not taken into account.

Because the Olympic Games are officially organised by the IFT it would be even more correct to state that she won 40 WTA tournaments and 8 IFT tournaments. Miho (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Miho, thank you for your response to this. Yes, there does seem to be a general consensus that, as professional athletes, only the players' highest results should count. But when you look at Henin's career, she has forty-one titles when you count the Grand Slams and Olympics. Additionally, at the onset of her career (from '97 to '00) she won seven small ITF events. This is where TennisExpert is getting forty-eight from. That number seems, while 'correct' in a sense, skewed because those ITF events never count when we talk about players careers. Perhaps the heading of the section should be changed? I understand what he is saying about it effects the match wins as well, but match wins do fluctuate, as some sources will exclude Davis Cup, some will not, some will include the Grand Slam Cup, some will not; however, there is a general consensus amoung tennis statisticians and experts (not to mention players!) when discussing a player's total titles, and ITF titles are never counted. Again, thanks for your help!Alonsornunez (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I made a mistake in the numbers. I agree that the total amount of titels should be stated as 41. Of those 41 there are 7 grand slams and 1 olympic. Besides that she won 7 minor tournaments, which should be excluded. This 41 titles is the same as WTA states on their bioprofile of Henin; here. Funny they give the number of 41 titles in brackets, but they give a list of those tournaments and they sum up to 48. There is also Henin's own site; there she also states that she won 41 tournaments here. Sorry for my mixing up of the numbers. Miho (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Miho, yeah the numbers should be those not counting the ITF tournaments, shouldn't they? It seemss bizarre to use numbers on this wiki that no one else ever uses except for the WTA, and even in that case they only seem to use them less than half the time. I don't know why TE is so insistence on using numbers which only make the page seem wrong. Alonsornunez (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already told you why, Alonsornunez. The page is not "wrong" if it is sourced. Several editors here are insisting on making edits that are unsourced, in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Tennis expert (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe then that the disclaimer along the bottom should then read "...Tour level events". It seems bizarre that the page lists forty-eight titles for Henin, when all retirement articles state that she retired with forty-one, the same way her bio page does at the official WTA website. I would ask that other editors please help to reach a consensus with this. Alonsornunez (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed strange. I think that the WTA is not really clear/consequent on the presentation of data. On the one hand they state that Justin Henin won 41 titles and within the same sentence they sum up 48 tournaments. On the other hand in their table which gives all the titles and win-loss they are clearly stating 41 WTA Tour titles and 7 ITF Women's Circuit titles. I think that Henin's wikipage is kind of clear. It states everywhere that she won 41 WTA-titles, not just 41 titles. So I think the info on Henin's page is correct. Then the list on Women's_Tennis_Association#Most_titles_won_during_the_open_era. It is the WTA who makes this list. In their opinion it should include both WTA and ITF circuit titles. They are the governing body, so we have to accept and respect their way of calculating. That they combine the WTA and ITF titles must be stated at the bottom or at the top of the wikitable to make this combining clear to our readers. The actual text could be more explicit on this. Maybe you should add there the example of Henin (48 titles of which 41 WTA titles and 7 ITF circuit titles). What is important here at wikipedia is to keep on being clear in what we present to the readers. So with Henin always write that she won 41 WTA titles and not just 41 titles. Miho (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This has long been one of my problems with the WTA, they have two or three different lists of stats for everything! My suggestion would be this: That the table in question be changed to 'Career WTA Titles'. The list of the combined totals, while factually true, seems confusing and unnecessary. Since no one ever sights the stats in questions (though I am not disputing their existence) I think that maybe we should switch the table to a list that is used all exclusively, that of WTA Tour level events only (this counts the Olympics and Grand Slams). For me the deciding factor is that the 'non-ITF list' is the one that is always cited in articles and by statisticians. Anyway this goes thanks for your help and measured response. As a new user here I appreciate the suggestions and openness. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were a new Wikipedia editor.... Anyway, you have not provided any evidence of what is "always" cited by the media and statisticians. Nor have you provided a source for determining a player's career wins and losses exclusive of ITF events. The Women's Tennis Association lumps wins and losses together for both ITF and WTA tour events. Until a source is found for purely WTA tour events, this article needs to be consistent about including ITF events and ITF wins-losses. Tennis expert (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have, though, provided evidence, in the fact of the WTA bio pages, Justine Henin's retirement article (official WTA article) and various outside articles. Miho understood this same evidence to exist as well. I would ask that you please provide me with one article that cites the conflated WTA/ITF numbers for establishing players' standings in regards to career titles. I do not believe there are any outside of that one WTA page. And I am a new Wikipedia editor... I'm confused by that bit, I'm sorry. Might be the hour of the night. Time to put some coffee on. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

How Should I Proceed?

I am new here to Wikipedia, but over the course of the last couple days I have seen any enthusiasm for editing (specifically tennis, a passion of mine) sapped. There seems to be great ownership issues on the part of one user, Tennis Expert, and any changes I make, big or small, have been undone. I am not asking this rhetorically: Where should I edit, where I can expect that any changes will be explored in good faith.

It saddens me that my enthusiasm has been so quickly replaced with disappointment. Alonsornunez (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's normally what most people have happen by hardline so-called experts like that one you mention and others on this site. It is rather sad! I have to admit this website is not in fact an encyclopedia but a glorified information blog that's all! KEEP FIGHTING ON! Bluedogtn (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Further, it does not make sense to me that the colors does not match for the majors on the wikitable for majors, and this is because the australian open is in blue but the navbox and the wikipage for them is yellow on the other hand it is the reverse for the US. Open! This should be made consistant like the golfing articles! Bluedogtn (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Bluedogtn. Yeah, it's sad to me that incorrect information will be allowed to stand and confuse casual fans because of the zealousness of some particular posters. Very sad. Alonsornunez (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Starting with something new is always difficult. Accepting new people within a group is also difficult. Also new people have to get used to the (unwritten) agreements, opinions and standards, and the "old" people have to accept that new people have fresh ideas and can sometimes see inconsequences more easily. Like in real life it's a matter of respecting each other, making moves towards each other and working out things together. Although I don't know Alonsornunez and Tennis Expert I "assume good faith" from both sides and the ambition to make the Tennis section on wikipedia to a succes. I want to add that we must not forget that wikipedia is an encyclopedia which must relay itself on accepted/reliable sources which provide our data. In the above discussion it is WTA who is the one that "decides" that Justin Henin won 48 titles and that at the same time that it is WTA who "decides" that her "CAREER HIGHLIGHTS" states "SINGLES Winner (41)" In this WTA is leading and "our" job is to present this data as clear as possible (if they make mistakes we can of course add a note in which we write that there is a mistake in their data). Miho (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Request For Comment Re: Serena Slam

I am requesting that any interested party please chime in at Talk: Serena Williams. Edits have been made back and forth over the relevancy of the phrase 'Serena Slam' being included in the article. After having gone back and forth and not moving, I asked for and received a Third Point of View. This editor's suggestion seemed fair, and was integrated, but then edited again. I have been threatened with accusations of Edit Warring and ignoring Wiki policy, despite my honest attempt to be respetful and to engage in conversation to reach a consensus or at least a compromise. I am now opening up the discussion to a larger group to try to establish a consensus, either way. Thanks. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is your ignoring both WP:Consensus and WP:BRD repeatedly, despite several notices on your talk page. Unfortunately, your modus operandi is disruption and edit warring. Tennis expert (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I welcome your continued dialogue with me and in the spirit of cooperation I would ask that you please respond to the points I made on the Serena Williams talk page re: The Serena Slam. You can answer here or there, or everywhere. (I love me a Beatles reference. Apologies!) Alonsornunez (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring, I am highly suspicious of people that acquse people of this or violating consensus for the fact they think they are always correct! These policies are now being used as a bludgeoning tool for people to ridicule others of violating some sacred tenant! I believe wikipedia needs less rules not more! Rules only make for strife and divisions of opinion because I am sure I can acquse you so-called Tennis Expert of this very same allegations you have made against Alonsornunez! I say QUIT IT! Bluedogtn (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This proves Alonsornunez's point! Quit giving this user HELL Please Tennisexpert! http://www.tennis.com/features/40greatest/40greatest.aspx?id=700 http://www.tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=80028 http://www.tennis.com/tournaments/2009/australianopen/australianopen.aspx?id=163220 http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/9169730/Williams-sets-sights-on-Serena-Slam- http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/9156700/Serena-routs-Safina-to-claim-Aussie-Open-title http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/9208440/Grand-Slam-for-Serena-Williams http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/9169720/Sport---Australian-Open:-Womens-singles---Serena-sets-her-sights-on-a-Slam- http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/9169768/LAWN-TENNIS:-WILLIAMS-EYES-FOUR http://images.si.com/tennis/2003/australian_open/news/2003/01/24/roundup_friday_ap/ http://m.si.com/news/to/to/detail/1393666/full;jsessionid=C20C7D4361928E423BE960E39E845085.cnnsilive9i http://images.si.com/2008/writers/jon_wertheim/09/16/tennis.mailbag/index.html http://m.si.com/news/wr/wr/detail/1441375;jsessionid=2182DD1DCE5C65DC4E35F1AC1967B947.cnnsilive10i http://videos.espn.com/m/video/21824237/pti_big_finish.htm?seek=1.31 Bluedogtn (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality and length of articles

I've been looking over the tennis articles, and I think that we would all agree that they need some work, especiall to get them to FA status. I've been also looking at the Michael Jordan article (which is FA) and at 87 kilos it clocks in well below a lot of the bloated tennis articles. Any suggestions for how/what to prune? I'd taken out a couple lists and tables which seemed like trivia and a violation of WP:NOT, but they were reinserted. Couple questions then: A) Are these tables/lists to stay in? I think they clog the articles and are trivia; B)Can we work on pulling some of these articles to better status; and C) I'm new, and unsure how to do this! Any general suggestions? Alonsornunez (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to start trimming some articles down by cutting non-encylcopedic info out of sections. Please take a look at the 2009 revision for Serena Wiliams (compare to the previous version) and let me know what you think. Alonsornunez (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For its relevancy I've posted this here from Wikipedia:Notability: News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.Alonsornunez (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the 11:12 version of the Serena Williams page and let me know what you think. I think it works as more of an encyclopedic entry than the earlier version, but there has been little good faith discussion of it on its own talk page. Alonsornunez (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I like your work well done! _BLUEDog^TN 00:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope that consensus continues to build for a more streamlined version of articles. (Doesn't even need to be mine; I've just thought of it as a good jumping-of point) A more encyclopedic and less 'fact list/ everything in' approach I think will move us closer towards GA criteria. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started a Williams Sisters rivalry page. I think maybe this is where the head-to-head list for Venus and Serena found on both their pages should go. Alonsornunez (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I tried some time ago to convince people that articles do not need repetitive information. As of now, most articles on top male tennis players has some information stated up to three times. There is a table for all finals, then tables for GS and Masters finals (repetition), and then a "performance timeline" that repeats things further in a different format. But I was reverted either by a now blocked user (who likes Nadal so much that he would probably not mind having stuff repeated 10 times) or by a user who didn't like it because it was against consensus (to my recollection; sorry if I am misrepresenting and lying for the umptieth time). I must admit that I since that have gave up taking this too seriously.--HJensen, talk 18:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I find your last line especially true. My other big interest is comics, and the environment seems like one I would find enjoyable and productive. Alonsornunez (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions Anyone?

So it seems that Tennis Expert has taken unkindly to my contesting his reversions and my initiative in starting new articles. He's accused me of being a sockpuppet. -sigh- I know that findings will show I am no one but myself. ;-) Is there some where I can file a complaint though, or log some record of this. It seems silly and a tad vindictive. We can't improve tennis articles if new editors are scared away! -sigh- Alonsornunez (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You can file a Wikiquette alert, but one should be rather careful, and think it over whether one should not try to cool down, even though one thinks that the "opponent" does not. In any case, always provide relvant diffs (that is, evidence of the offensive behavior of the editor in questions). Accusations of sockpuppetry are rather strong, imo. But think it over.--HJensen, talk 11:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you're right. A 'cool head' approach is best in this type of circumstance. Thanks for the suggestions. Alonsornunez (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that you were correct in starting the article, and it should by no means be deleted! TennisAuthority 17:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a newly created account whose first substantive contribution to Wikipedia was opposition to the deletion of the Williams Sisters article, whose second substantive contribution was the above, and whose third substantive contribution was the minor correction of a discussion page post from Alonsornunez. Something smells fishy (probably a new sockpuppet of the latter). Tennis expert (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No way, the TennisAuthority is this user no Alonsornunez! I created this account for the sole editing of tennis articles! By they way, I am also this user! I have done the same for golf, film, nascar, and horseracing accounts! The bluedogtn account will be used only for political articles or if you have to be a non-newly registered user! I am no sockpuppet, which is a hard allegation Mr?Mrs?Ms?TennisExpert! I probably know more about tennis than you do, and I would respect if you delete this page this user has took hard time to create that you would reciprocate the same with the Federer-Nadal rivalry! Both are just as legit, but ones taken more time to develop! _BLuE^DOgTn 23:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Grrr, I am not suprised by the allegations by TennisExpert!TennisAuthority 23:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice reply to yourself! By his own admission, Bluedogtn=TennisAuthority. Tennis expert (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking through both Bluedogtn and TennisAuthority, they don't seem to contribute on articles relating to the same subject, eg. Tennis and Golf. As WP:SOCK says,

For a variety of reasons, some Wikipedians also create one or more alternative accounts. An alternative account is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has an account. In such cases, the main account is normally assumed to be the one with the longest history and most edits. ... If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that they provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry (see alternative account notification).

It is perfectly within Wikipedia rules for TennisAuthority to have many accounts, and he has admitted having them, as it says above. DeMoN2009 12:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have an Idea! Hear Me out please!

Why don't we try and cut down on the length of Serena and Venus Williams articles by creating a List of Career Achievements and Awards sections and pages like those for Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal! TennisAuthority 03:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I support this idea. It seems clear to almost all editors that the Venus and Serena articles are too long, and this is one way of making them smaller and easier for readers to browse and scroll through. Alonsornunez (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. DeMoN2009 16:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo Help!

So, I'm getting the hang of this Wikipedia thing. Check out the Williams Sisters rivalry if you get a chance. There's been some great work done over there by editors, and I'm hoping to have it assessed at some point. Along those lines though, I'm clueless has to how to find photos for the article, and more importantly what photos are allowed. If anyone's got a sec and can help explain how that works I'd appreciate it. Alonsornunez (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, have a look at the Williams Sisters rivalry article. So far, Alonsornunez has used edit warring to enforce his sole ownership of the article, resulting in it being tagged for being subpar and reading like a fansite. See this version of Alonsornunez's discussion page (before he sanitized it). While you're there, have a look at the proposed improvement of the article here and the Williams Sisters rivalry discussion page. Tennis expert (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I got an in-between solution to this encyclopedia article! I think it is legit to keep, but it has too much bias in it with the emotion by Alonsornunez, who has done a great job in starting articles on here for a new user in all! I think we have to make this article less subjective and more objective, which Tennis expert is right in bringing that to the forefront in this discussion page! Remove all the quotes like bullfight and subpar and just keep it to the facts of the match about who won and what tournaments and what years not the quotes! Make this like a term paper in college that the english professor says has to be objective is what I am trying to get at! Talk to me you two because you will get no where being in this bitter edit waring rivalary on both of your behalves! I think accurate photos for this rivalry would be to find grand slam trophy presentation photos with them side-by-side! TennisAuthority 20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and help! I welcome suggestions to make the page, and all tennis pages better. Any idea on how I upload photos?Alonsornunez (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You can use photos at commons:Category:Serena Williams and commons:Category:Venus Williams for the article. DeMoN2009 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:45, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Premier Mandatory, Premier 5, and Premier tournaments on the WTA tour

Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 are types of Premier tournaments and do not need to be listed especially. They are sub-categories just to distinguish prize money, ranking points, player particpation and if they are compulsory or not. The whole point of the Premier and International categories was to cut down the categories and make the system easier. By putting Mandatory and 5 in the box, it is just making things more complicated, and this means it would just be like the old Tier system with four categories when Premier and International are the main ones. Monokaea (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What other purpose could possibly be served by distinguishing Premier Mandatory, Premier 5, and Premier tournaments? Prize money, ranking points, player participation, and whether they are compulsory appears to cover the whole gamut. Plus, the rulebook of the Women's Tennis Association frequently distinguishes between these types of tournaments. Finally, Wikipedia consensus distinguishes them, too, as evidenced by, for example, our singles performance timelines and the text of numerous women's tennis biographies. That stuff from the WTA about tour simplification essentially was propaganda when you actually look at the rulebook. Tennis expert (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Legend: Pre 2009 Legend: Post 2009 Grand Slam (0) WTA Championships (0) Tier I (0) Premier Mandatory (1) Tier II (0) Premier 5 (0) Tier III (6) Premier (0) Tier IV & V (1) International (1)

Titles by Surface Hard (6) Grass (1) Clay (2) Carpet (0)

This is the 'legend' I've made for Vera Zvonareva. It looks a lot tidier than a long sprawling table like before. I thought I'd post this here for approval before I edit other articles. Boddefan2009 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Tennis expert (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, a change needs to be made to the "Post 2009" language, which implies "after 2009", not "beginning in 2009". Tennis expert (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Borg-Connors-Lendl-McEnroe Rivalries Page

I am thinking about creating the page with all the match finals these players have played during their careers! What do you all think!TennisAuthority 00:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. But were you thinking one page with all the matches between the four? I think it might be a bit much, and I might advocate something more along the lines of Rivalry pages with two players at a time. AlonsornunezComments 05:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll on date autoformatting and linking

Date autoformatting and linking has been extensively discussed in relation to tennis articles. People may be interested to know that the Poll on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Templates - help needed

Hi guys, I have been working hard on individual year templates for the ATP Tour (e.g. Template:1990 ATP Tour, Grand Prix tennis circuit (e.g. Template:1985 Nabisco Grand Prix and WCT circuit (e.g. Template:1973 World Championship Tennis circuit as well as some WTA templates. The majority of the links on them should be accurate but I was wondering if someone with tennis knowledge check through the completed templates. Some pre-ATP era tournaments are simply recorded as "[Place name] Open" and I have also been unable to find some of the tournament sponsor names, such as the name of the San Francisco tournament known as the SAP Open. They all need to be recorded with the sponsor name if applicable. Thanks. Can people either respond here or on my talkpage. 03md 21:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Williams Sisters rivalry Templates

I just wanted to see if I could get the Tennis community at large to take a look at the Williams Sisters rivalry page. It has a couple of tags on it which seem to me to be overstated and unnecessary. It is of course imperfect and all suggestions are welcome, but the accusations of it needing to a)possibly be completely rewritten and b)focused on intricate detail seem overstated. Thanks. AlonsornunezComments 19:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bio infoboxes

Is it just me or are the biography infoboxes showing up {{{USOpenDoublesresult}}} (e.g. see Justine Henin's page), presumably because she didn't have a single US Open doubles result? Could someone who knows about templates take a look as it needs to be fixed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have altered the infobox template to hide {{{USOpenDoublesresult}}} etc. However the white band saying Grand Slam Doubles results still remains. I can hide that as well, but that would require addition of a separate parameter grandslamsdoublesresults= yes to every infobox which has double results in order to show that band there. Infoboxes in some articles, but not all, already have that parameter. How should we proceed now? ^LeaveSleaves 14:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest we need to remove that banner too, but as you say, it will affect infoboxes without that parameter. Perhaps another task (see table sorting above as well) for a bot? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Even for a bot we'd need a list of articles to which this additional parameter applies. ^LeaveSleaves 14:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, either way, that banner should go if its not relevant, wouldn't you agree? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. What do you suggest we do then? ^LeaveSleaves 15:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's a case of getting someone with AWB to go through every single bio article with an infobox and make the change(s) required on case-by-case basis. Or we just change the template and things disappear until they're manually fixed - either way would be better than leaving it as it stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we do make the change, the only thing that'd disappear would be the white banner. The results would still remain intact, only without the headline. ^LeaveSleaves 15:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We should do the change. Sounds good to me... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Change enacted. ^LeaveSleaves 13:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis

The Tennis article needs a major work over, I did some edits when I found it really needed big attention. Yosef1987 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can mark what is needed and divide the work? Yosef1987 (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. OnHoliday 18:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Resolving Miami/Key Biscayne Dispute

The question here generally relates to the location of tennis tournaments, and whether references by various media sources and tennis' governing bodies (ATP, ITF, WTA) are to be followed are to be followed in regards to the above. The specfic issue here in the Miami Masters and its location in Key Biscayne (a small village in Miami-Dade county and considered part of the Miami metro area) versus the various references to simply 'Miami' (by the above mentioned sources) Questions include a)whether there is suitable reference to use Miami and not Key Biscayne, b) whether such reference is to be respected, and c)how to proceed in a manner honoring both the sources and a reference to Key Biscayne (if such an outcome is possible). Salient points are in this talk section above, starting in January 2009. AlonsornunezComments 17:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't make things so complicated. There are just two questions. What is the name of the tournament (Sony Ericsson Open versus Miami Masters)? And where is the tournament held (Key Biscayne versus Miami)? Tennis expert (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the location issue, let me ask this- is it in the same location every year? And if so, is the address where the tournament takes place officially (i.e., by the local government) said to be in Miami or in Key Biscayne? If it's actually in Key Biscayne, it may be best to say "in Key Biscayne, near Miami", or "near Miami in the village of Key Biscayne".

There was an issue similar to this recently at Natasha Richardson as the location of a funeral parlor was officially (by their address and by news reports) in Millbrook, NY, but the actual location was 5 miles away in Lithgow, NY. My suggestion had been to say "xyz funeral parlor near Lithgow", though the article currently reads "near Millbrook".

Regarding the naming issue, I'm really not sure. If it were the case that the sponsor name changes every year it might be appropriate to pick a general/neutral name for the overall tournament. WP:NC says articles should generally use the most easily recognized name, determined by what it's called by reliable sources. WP:NCON appears to suggest using the current official name of the subject, and to prefer a "self-identifying term"- thus if the tournament calls itself xyz instead of abc, we should probably use xyz. Maybe that helps. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The location has been the same since 1986. The objective, reliable evidence (not the marketing propaganda) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the tournament is held in Key Biscayne, Florida. As for the name of the tournament, it certainly does not change every year. The tournament has had four names in the last 25 years. See the Wikipedia article Sony Ericsson Open for more information about that. Tennis expert (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well I'll ask this; are there a significant number of sources that would pass WP:RS which state the location as being Miami? If so, it would still be appropriate to mention that the tournament is "in Key Biscayne, near Miami" or something similar. In any case, something this simple and straightforward doesn't need to be verified very strongly. It may be worth mentioning that the tournament is frequently billed as being located in Miami, especially if that detail is mentioned in secondary sources.

As to the name of the tournament, I'm starting to believe that per WP:NCON the article on the overall tournament should be titled by its current name, unless there's strong support in the media and tennis community for referring to the historical tournament by a generic title such as "Miami Masters". It may be worth mentioning Miami Masters as an alternative title in the article ("..., sometimes called the Miami Masters,...").

I will say however that I have not fully read up on what's happened here, nor have I done all the background research that should be necessary. I'm just doing a meta-analysis based on the arguments I've seen thus far in the RfC and in my dealings with this at WP:EAR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Mendaliv, thanks for jumping in with this. Part of the issue (I think for the community as a whole, though I'm not sure) is that the tournament is referred to/'nicknamed' "Miami" by the ATP, the WTA and various aticles. (i.e. "So-and-son is defending champion in Miami this week", "So-and-so is six-time Miami champion", etc.) There are absolutely enough sources for "Miami" to pass muster. I have no problem with either location given lead in a joint article reference, but I think that 'Common Usage' would seem to dictate that Miami is used (for example of this, the official ATP Miami page mentions Miami twice and Key Biscayne not at all) In addition, while being a tricky subject, it would help TenEx if you did not infer an attempt to obfuscate on my part by stating that I am "making things so difficult". The questions as you phrased them above are disingenuous and specious. AlonsornunezComments 16:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You really should stop being disruptive. The questions I listed are exactly the two questions being discussed here. And this is not a "tricky subject" at all. As for the location of the tournament (question #2), you keep ignoring the fact that the ATP is mentioning Miami as the tournament location for marketing reasons, not for the sake of accuracy. There are hundreds of reliable sources to support the indisputable geographical fact that the tournament is held in Key Biscayne. Examples from all over the world include, but are not limited to, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ESPN, the Seattle Times, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Boston Globe, the Palm Beach Post, the Daily Mail, the New York Times, the Pakistan Observer, the San Jose Mercury News, the Hindustan Times, the Shanghai Daily, MSN India, SportExpressen (Sweden), the Jerusalem Post, the Dispatch Online (South Africa), Korea, The Age (Australia), the Japan Times, the Times (London), SportsYa (Spain), the New Zealand Herald, and the Miami Herald. Finally, take a look at these Google search results for "Key Biscayne" on the ATP website itself. Tennis expert (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's all just concentrate on the issue at hand here, and leave issues of incivility for later if they need to be pursued. As to the issues at hand, I take it we're near the end of the location issue... as the actual location of the tournament is Key Biscayne (which is simply verified), the article should state the location as Key Biscayne per WP:ASF. Whether it should also say "near Miami" or go into a more elaborate discussion of how a lot of media sources treat the tournament as being in Miami is a matter for later debate, I think.

As to the naming issue, for whatever reason, ATP and others treat the tournament's location as Miami, and thus generally consider it a Miami tournament. Without reliable sources that try to explain why this is the case, or at least discuss what would seem to be an unusual difference between the name and location, I'm not sure what we can do. My understanding of Alonso's argument is that "Miami" should be given preference in the article lead because of common usage. However, I don't think that's a valid point- WP:NC refers to article naming and not to handling source discrepancies. There isn't any limit to the number of synonyms for the tournament we can represent in the article.

If there really are sources out there that support the name "Miami Masters" to refer to the tournament in a historical sense, it may be appropriate to use that term for the article title. However, barring evidence of a dispute over the tournament's official name or disagreement over what it's called in the media, we should probably go with the current name per WP:NCON#Proper nouns. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should say Key Biscayne, near Miami (possibly the Miami part in brackets) - after all, the tennis centre's address is, according to miamidade.gov, 7300 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida, but many of the reliable sources use Miami, which doesn't make sense when I think about it. OnHoliday 07:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that just the competition is held in Key Biscayne, while all the organization, temporary residence, and other support activities take place in Miami? I really think there might be an explanation somewhere, and hopefully we can find a source for it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already provided the explanation. It is a marketing strategy that most of the news media ignores because the strategy is not based on fact. Tennis expert (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv, agreed. Finding some explanation (and reference has been difficult thus far). As with similar tournaments taking place in small villages or towns in metropolitan areas it seems fairly consistent that both tours identify the tournament by the larger city/county name (Miami in this case). I agree that the village/smaller location name needs to be identified, particularly in the tournament article. I think however, and the rough consensus among editors seems to be that the 'recognized' name (Miami, not Key Biscayne in this case) be used on the performance timelines, or similar cases where a tournament is abbreviated by name, not identified by location ('Player X won the Sony Ericsson, which is played in Key Biscayne' as oppposed to 'Player X is the five-time defending Miami champion') So far the most that seems to be able to be established (and this is only numbers) is that Miami is more common when identifying the tournament (as opposed to the tournament location, if that makes sense). Whew! AlonsornunezComments 04:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So say Key Biscayne (near Miami) in the main articles, but in the player biographies say Miami. Please tell me it's that simple. Also, rough consensus can be broken after a long argument, although I think that the 'recognized' name should be used on the performance timelines, as more people would understand it. OnHoliday 08:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert, can you provide independent verification of that?

Alonso, you're right- to an extent that's up to the WP:TENNIS community.

Alistair, I hope it is that simple. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the situation enough to really comment on anything beyond this one article. I suppose that's up to those of you more into tennis to figure it out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not that much to do with tennis actually. If we look at WikiProject Rugby Union, we had a dispute over the location of the Stade de France, because it was in Saint-Denis, but most people thought it was in Paris. It was really confusing because it was in the Paris metro area, but we eventually decided that it was in Saint-Denis. You can see the discussion on the WikiProject Rugby union talk page and on the 2009 Six Nations Championship talk page, although it does say in most of the reliable sources that it is Saint-Denis. Here, reliable sources say Miami and Key Biscayne, but the address says Key Biscayne, so the ideal solution is Key Biscayne (near Miami). OnHoliday 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for re-using solutions from prior problems; save a lot of arguing and promote consistency in article writing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Results tables

I've just noticed that many bio articles now have "sortable" results tables. Not a bad idea, as long as the tables are completed correctly. For instance, dates should be added to the table using the {{dts}} template so the sorting occurs chronologically, rather than alphabetically. Similarly, the {{sortname}} template ought to be used for opponent's names as we should be sorting these columns on surnames, not first names. So, we must either remove the "sortable" from the table class or use these templates. Thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Be bold and fix the tables by adding the templates. Not sure why this technical issue needs a detailed discussion. Tennis expert (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a huge job to add those templates, perhaps you aren't aware of the amount of work required. I was hoping that other people would be interested in helping out, or even getting a bot to do it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could have just said that originally.... Tennis expert (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I've said it now. No harm done, was there? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

And I don't want to change articles against consensus, so that's why I brought it up in the first place, to see if sortable tables were favoured by the community, especially as not all bios have sortable tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like just the sort of tedious edits that I like to torture myself with. To be honest, I've become a little lost since finishing the List of female tennis players "project". Can The Rambling Man be a little more specific with what is needed? I'm not very au fait with tables or templates. Do you know of an example which uses {{dts}} & {{sortname}} appropriately? Maedin\^talk 14:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. To sort, say, Pete Sampras in the table, instead of just having "Pete Sampras", you need {{sortname|Pete|Sampras}}. For names which need disambiguation, you should use {{sortname|Tom|Jones|Tom Jones (tennis player)}}. You will need to add this template for every single name of every player in the table. For use of {{dts}}, there's quite a comprehensive set of instructions at the template doc page which is probably better to check out (including examples of, for instance, parameters to prevent/allow dates to be linked). Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers is a featured list which uses both templates correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! (Though I suppose I could have thought and just looked at the template pages first, right?  :-/) I know it isn't quite what you were going for, but I've started making this change at List of female tennis players, which if it weren't so big and had a better intro, might be suitable for a FL, especially as it recently went from this to this. Adding references would just make the size unmanageable though, unfortunately. Hopefully at the weekend I can start adding the template to results tables, where necessary. Maedin\^talk 16:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. If you had FL in mind, perhaps think about something more manageable like a list of female Wimbledon singles champions? That should be easier to handle, easy to illustrate, easier to reference and be very, very relevant to the project. Perhaps we're talking about the first ever Wikiproject featured list here?! Give me a shout if you want to pursue this - I've gone through a few FLCs so I reckon I could contribute constructively. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am 100% interested! I enjoyed working with the List of female tennis players and think a featured list would be a great benefit to the project. I will scout around a bit and find or start a good candidate and let you know . . . although I do have a question. Is it ok for a featured list to be so narrow in scope, i.e. to be concerned with only the female singles champions of a single tournament? You can just point me in the right direction if this is covered somewhere already, :-) Maedin\^talk 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a perfectly acceptable scope. If it's a reasonable stand-alone list then it qualifies. The subject-matter is highly notable and should make a worthy FL. Check out WP:FL? to see what they expect but feel free to contact me personally if there's anything you wish to have clarified. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

All the detailed results in biographies

Almost all of the major players (by which I mean historically Sampras, Connors, Lendl, Becker etc, Graf, Navratilova, Seles, etc) have a huge swath of tables in intricate detail. While the general "size of articles" criteria exclude tables (which is very odd, and needs review in light of these incredibly detailed and lengthy tables), it's now becoming clear (especially going back through this talk page archive) that we need to deal with the tables in a constructive manner. So, as per a number of association football articles that I've reviewed, worked on, helped promote to featured status, we need to decide on how best to fork this intricate detail to another article. First and foremost we need a useful and generic nomenclature for these results forks (e.g. List of Andy Murray's tournament results or similar - please suggest better...) so we can keep any intricate detail superfluous to a well summarised article.

Secondly we need a consensus between the expert writers that aiming for GA or FA is the right approach. There's no point in editors making an effort to meet the GA or FA criteria only to be boldly reverted for a discussion which will never be concluded as a result of an essay rather than following good Wikipedia guidelines and policies. We should make strident efforts to avoid unconstructive edits and head for good and featured articles. It isn't that difficult as long as we edit as a community. Good luck everyone! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone here interested in getting Wikiproject Tennis' first featured article or featured list?

As regular readers here are aware, this project is bereft of good or featured articles. Some quick research on other Wikiprojects reveals:

• Football (6 featured topics, 50 FAs [including retired and current players], 90 FLs [including national and third division teams], around 200 GAs)
• Cricket (28 FAs, 25 FLs, 59 GAs)

while

• Tennis (2 FAs [both video games], 4 GAs)

I'm proposing that we attempt to take a stable article (probably about a retired player, or a particular tournament [obviously not Key Miami Biscayne Masters...!]), compare it up against the WP:FAC or WP:FLC or WP:GAC, depending on the article and how condfident we're feeling, identify areas of improvement, possibly using peer review and then just go for it. Anyone willing to (1) nominate some candidate articles/lists and (2) join me in this intrepid journey? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea, and I agree about it needing to be a stable player or tournament. I am absolutely willing to help, though be forewarned that I don't have a lot of experience with FA and GA criteria. I'll read up though. I'd like to nominate Pete Sampras, an article which is clearly in need of help but which a) has a good foundation of information and b) is stable. AlonsornunezComments 15:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to have at least one interested member of the project! Read up on FAC and we'll wait to see if we get more interest before committing ourselves. Sampras should, at the very least, be a GA. Such an iconic and significant figure in the history of tennis (in my POV-opinion!) has a low class article right now, with, of course, no offence to anyone who has edited it in the past. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to take part, but I have concerns that I just can't be very active with RL being the way it is at the moment. I was going to suggest Boris Becker, but I really don't mind who! Pete Sampras is fine by me. In any case, I can drop by and help with copy-editing and other such things. We'll get tennis on the main page yet, ;-) Maedin\^talk 18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I couldn't help but make a comment here. I'd love to see a tennis article make GA or FA. I suggest you all take a gander at 2008 Tennis Masters Cup. It is too long (lack of summary style is what doomed its GAN), but I think it's a good model in terms of writing and structure. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently got Federer-Nadal rivalry to GA. Perhaps we could try to get it to FA. My schedule is busy these days so I don't have much time for wikipeida, though, and have no intention of doing so by myself. Also, the Sampras article is a good choice to get to GA. Thing is, I looked at it and no mention of his recent Autobiography! If any of you read the whole book (I lost interest after a couple of chapters) there is a lot of useful info there. --Armchair info guy (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis is B-Class, maybe we could have a go at that? OnHoliday 06:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone wants to join me, but after getting Laura Robson to GA (really easy, but no hope for FA), I'm going to take a stab at Roger Federer. That'll be difficult, though, seeing how bloated it is right now... Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a Collaboration of the Week/Fortnight/Month for this project? OnHoliday 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Serena Williams to be prepared for Featured Article nomination

Several editors believe that this might be the first tennis-related article to be nominated, and even to be promoted. We are keen to attract editors to the article over the next month. The timeline for nomination is vaguely by the end of May. Please join in! Tony (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Julian Myrick

Someone might be interested in wikignomery on this one, I just declined the speedy deletion on this hall-of-famer. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Expanded to include basic information. There's more out there. ^LeaveSleaves 07:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much, excellent work. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox help?

Hi guys, I have just turned Claire Curran into an article from a redirect, but have a problem with my infobox. I don't have any singles grand slam data so deleted the relevant parameters, but I'm still getting the heading and placeholders for the tournaments. Does someone know what I've done wrong? Maedin\^talk 19:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert RfC

This is to notify members of WikiProject Tennis that User:Tennis expert, one of your fellow tennis article editors, is currently up for a user conduct RfC. Please see the RfC here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tennis expert. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis article guidelines

Per a suggestion at the Tennis expert RfC by Ordinary Person, I think it would be a fine idea to write some specific guidelines for writing tennis articles, along the lines of WP:VG/GL or WP:ROADS#Structure of articles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As a standard procedure to create a possible MOS or article guidelines for tennis articles would require first and foremost articles which are seen as the evidence that such profroma is effective. But as you are well aware of the situation, that hasn't been an easy thing for the editors to do in the present scenario. ^LeaveSleaves 13:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And it's always a nice idea to have something to base one's ideas on, hence a collaborative attempt to bring Serena Williams up to the standards of WP:FAC. Once we have a featured article in our armoury, we can use it as a good basis for structure and content of other biographies. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, especially considering that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are intended to be descriptive- thus without an article of the highest quality (i.e., not just a decent FA), what should we describe? But what we can do for the time being is do what I understand TheRamblingMan has been doing- taking cues from related WikiProjects' featured content to at least draft some suggestions. Perhaps working in such a manner, on a theoretical topic or temporary fork of a real article, would permit everyone to discuss and hammer out the content issues in a more mistake-friendly environment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think most tennis bios have a satisfactory structure, just an overwhelming level of intricate detail. And in most cases the referencing for such articles is very poor indeed. This is not intended to denigrate anyone who has ever worked on a tennis bio here, it's a mere statement of fact. Certainly most bios I've read recently need some hard work on citing "facts" and even more work on reducing the excessive intricacy which tends to lead to far-from-engaging prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For me, the citation issue is mainly a problem in sections containing subjective analysis. We don't need a cite tag on every statement about a match result or ranking, since these are matters of objective reality and can easily be looked up and confirmed, but the Playing Style sections are almost always composed of unattributed and statements. I would like to see Playing Style sections contain nothing but specific descriptions by known (lower case) tennis experts, with those quoted being named in the article and a solid reference provided. Ideally backed by statistical analysis: I mean, who says that Federer "tends to hit his groundstrokes early", and how can they prove it? Ordinary Person (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would assume (though I can't say with certainty) that such subjective analysis of a player's game can be found in Tennis magazine (though nothing seems present on the sight) or in books by Bud Collins. Actually, thinking of it now, I think Peter Bodo's website tends to have articles by him that at times go indepth on a player's technical 'ticks' and style (and he's a reputable source to boot). AlonsornunezComments 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

May I have a crack at this to get the ball rolling?

Presumably, the appropriate amount of detail will depend on the notability of a player. We will need a set of criteria for determining a player's level of notability. For instance, a player who has won at least one Major or been ranked no 1 could be considered to be in the highest category of notability. (This would be for people with highly notable singles careers: separate standards should be established for players who are noted mainly for doubles.) Lesser players can have scaled-down guidelines, which we can discuss in detail once we have the Category 1 Player article guidelines nailed down.

So here's an opening suggestion for the structure, length and detail of an article of such a player:

EDIT: previously I had listed my suggestion here, but I now feel that messed up this discussion page, so I have migrated it to a subpage at User:Ordinary Person/Tennis article format. As this discussion progesses, please feel free to update that subpage to reflect new consensus or suggestions. At a number of places, I have placed the word "discuss" in bold, to draw attention to particular points that I think we should find agreement on.Ordinary Person (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Something from your previous post I'd like to comment on. I think it is necessary to provide cites for results of tournaments. And as has now being discussed and pointed out that the excessive details of tournaments should be avoided, on an average one cite per tournament seems to me like a valid expectation. ^LeaveSleaves 01:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I mention that any of these results can be looked up on a player's WTA/ATP/ITF database. It would seem, to me, to be more tidy or efficient to state at the head of the Tennis career section to say "The results mentioned in this section are referenced by the player's Activity page at http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/PlayerActivity.asp?PlayerID=311872", rather than providing dozens of identical refs throughout an article. But maybe I'm just lazy.Ordinary Person (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, OP, for the strawman guideline. I left a number of comments. Good stuff overall, and agree with the vast majority of it.

I do agree with Leave Sleaves that tourney results should be cited within the 'Career' prose sections. Not in the lists, though, unless it's just a brief statement at the beginning with a footnote to the official results DB. (I did this in Federer-Nadal rivalry for example) --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's just a matter of creating a more comprehensive article that would should ideally withstand FAN. I think there you'd almost certainly be asked for citing such results through secondary sources. ^LeaveSleaves 01:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, reference the tournaments. Thanks for your thoughts, Leavesleaves and Armchair info guy. What do you think of my section-wordcount and category-criteria suggestions? About right?Ordinary Person (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) hard to say. I don't know what X or Y amount of words looks like. I've never thought in terms of word-count when making edits here. My general guideline is to be as concise as I can while including any verifiable fact I consider useful. If anything, I err on the side of a little too much info, especially if it makes the article more intersting. I don't like prose that is obviously constrained by word-count or some other length metric. Good prose, even if lengthy, is far better than something that is obviously forced to be brief. I like what you suggested in your straw-man guideline about lengthy "Career" sections being their own article, but perhaps they should just be lengthy if they deserve to be lenghty, like a Federer or Sampras. So what if it's a long article. People will read (and enjoy) well-written prose packed with useful info. --Armchair info guy (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good points. 5000 pieces of verbal gold will be preferable to 2000 words of crap. I guess I just don't know how to codify the excellence of prose and usefulness of info. :-) I would still recommend some kind of lid on the length of those pieces, no matter how well written. For a word count comparison, the current Sampras "Early life and career" section has about 3000 words, and Navratilova's current Playing career section has about 1500 words.Ordinary Person (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like my personal opinion, I won't put the limit on career section in terms of size but rather in terms of detail. The career section is the key section of the player's biography, and I don't think we should discount significant details to conform with size requirement. In fact for any section the size should be restricted not by specifying word size but detail level. Another suggestion, since you are taking an initiative, why not create a subpage in the projectspace itself? Makes it easy to refer and change. Just put a {{brainstorming}} tag on it. ^LeaveSleaves 04:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've never done that before and I was worried about screwing everything up on a shared space. But here goes ...Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis article format. Please help me out if I mess it up. I've redirected from my personal page to the Wproject Tennis page.Ordinary Person (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"In fact for any section the size should be restricted not by specifying word size but detail level. ". I'm certainly open to that idea: can you give an example of how you'd specify that detail level? Ordinary Person (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, its hard to say without an sample article to point out, but I'll try and give a rough idea. A most active professional tennis player plays nearly 10 to 15 tournaments per year. It should be specified that the description of player's performance in each tournament be covered in one or two sentences. Of course in exceptional cases, such as a Grand Slam final/win, this might be extended. Details on initial round matches should be avoided in all cases, even if the player struggled in some of these matches. Editors should be critical in including such details.

Also, now that we separate page created for the intended guideline, why not move this discussion there? ^LeaveSleaves 05:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that mentioning every tournament that a player has appeared in would be way too much detail.

Agree on moving this discussion there, if others want that. Ordinary Person (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Overall organization of tennis articles

I understand, looking at the Talk archives, that the "Tennis" article was once too long, and so it was broken into separate articles that address topics in more depth. This is fine, and I appreciate the effort that's gone into the articles so far. But I think there's a problem with this part of the arrangement:

• "Tennis" has a section on the play of a single point, while also linking to a whole article on the subject, "Point (tennis)". The blurb on the "Tennis" page about points is almost the same size as the "more detailed" text in "Point (tennis)". (Edit: It looks a little longer since my edits to that article, since it now uses bullet points. Anyway, just to clarify, my point here was that the amount of detail on scoring a point did not warrant its own article separate from an article on scoring the overall match, and I still hold that opinion.)
• A second portion of "Point (tennis)" is devoted to explaining the new electronic scoring system, which severely overlaps with another discussion of the same topic in the main article, "Tennis", under the "Officials" section.
• The "Officials" section in "Tennis" links to a more detailed article, "Official (tennis)", which explains the human officials' jobs wonderfully but fails to so much as mention that they can all be overridden by the electronic systems.
• A third portion of "Point (tennis)" is devoted to alternate rules, which are also explained in the "Tennis" article's section "Rules variations", and "Rules variations" links to Types of tennis match, which contains very little material that is not redundant of "Rules variations" and is marked as a stub.
• "Tennis" has a separate section on "Scoring" which links to the "Tennis score" article. This article actually contains a lot of unique information which belongs in a separate article, though it duplicates, for the third time, the alternate scoring rules covered in "Point (tennis)", the main "Tennis" article, and "Types of tennis match". It contains no information on how to win a point, as all that information was segregated into "Point (tennis)".
• "Tennis score" has a section called "Scoring each game" which contains three whole paragraphs on the possible (and highly disputed) origins of tennis terminology. It has another trivial paragraph devoted to explaining how certain terms are equivalent under alternative rules.

All of this separation actually makes the Wikipedia summation of the rules harder to follow than the official rules from the ITF (which only take up 13 pages, and that's with lots of explanations surrounding each rule). May I suggest:

• Merging "Point (tennis)" into "Tennis score", since they are in fact about two levels of the same thing (scoring a point and scoring a match, respectively). The actual meat of "Point (tennis)" is only about five normal-sized paragraphs and could go into "Tennis score"'s section "Scoring each game" without making that section much longer than it is now, if we remove the parts I mentioned above to a more suitable location.
• A more suitable location for the tennis term etymology in "Tennis score" would be a separate section in the main "Tennis" article or even putting that speculation into the "Glossary of tennis" entries for each term; anywhere but right in the middle of how to score a game!
• Merge worthwhile info from the section on electronic scoring systems in "Point (tennis)" with the info in the "Officials" section in "Tennis" (it won't make "Tennis" noticeably longer) and make sure to mention the role that these systems now (can) play on the "Official (tennis)" page.
• The material on alternate scoring rules is not lengthy even if one combines all the unique info from its four locations, so we can merge that info (again, from "Point (tennis)", "Tennis score", the "Tennis" article section "Rules variations", and "Types of tennis match") into either "Tennis score" or "Tennis"'s "Rules variations", with the other article of the two merely linking to that section. The bit of text from "Tennis score" about how "No-Ad" rules affect terminology can go with the actual text that explains what "No-Ad" means.

The above suggestions will cut back on lots of redundant text (which is a pain to maintain), place a number of paragraphs in better locations, and remove two whole unneeded articles from the arrangement. What do you all think? And sorry if it's a lot to take in at once, but it's all interwoven, so I didn't see an advantage to (a) bringing up these things separately or (b) "being bold" and making edits myself without informing others of the overall purpose behind the changes. --Iritscen (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Pre-WTA entrance rankings

Can any of you help out a brother? I would like any info/refs on the methods used to rank players for the purpose of tournament entrance and seeding prior to the development of the WTA rankings.Ordinary Person (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

X Player career history

As an active member of WP:NBA, I can say that there are many FA/GAs of major players (Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Yao Ming, et al.), and none of them have required a separate section for their career history. However, I already see Maria Sharapova career history, and talk of doing the same for others. I would strongly urge that this not take place. It creates an unnecessary fork, and something that will probably not be kept up with very well, in comparison to the main article. Especially considering most tennis players have shorter careers than basketball players, I think that this can and should be avoided at all costs. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 09:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Request For Comment/ Tennis Expert

A Request for Comment was filed in regards to the behavior of Tennis Expert recently. An attempt is now being made to further involve editors seen as further from the center of the disagreement. The request can be found here. Any and all editors are encouraged to leave their input. AlonsornunezComments 15:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Flags for Taiwanese players

I've noticed that in some tennis articles, the Chinese Taipei flag is used. In others, the Republic of China flag is used. e.g. the Chan Yung-jan article has the ROC flag, whereas the CT flag is used against Chan Yung-jan's name in 2007 Wimbledon Championships - Women's Singles. Do we have a standard policy on this? Should we have one? Does it matter? Ordinary Person (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG would probably be the salient guideline. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1rd

Searching for the typo "1rd" turns up a disproportionate number of tennis articles: Teimuraz Gabashvili, Mahesh Bhupathi, Igor Kunitsyn and Dominika Cibulková. Is it just an English-as-a-foreign-language problem, confusing "first" with "third" to get "1RD"? Or is there an arcane tennis term known only to you WikiProject people? That is, does "1RD" mean something like "1 RateD"? Art LaPella (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1rd = 1st round

But yeah, they should be using the notation 1R.

Ordinary Person (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikitables for Grand Slams

The wikitables for the U.S. Open and the Australian Open do not match, and need to be changed to be in line with wikipedia's consistency standards. The navbox and infobox for the Australian are in yellow yet in the wikitables they are blue, and the U.S. Open the navbox and infobox is blue yet in the wikitables it is yellow. This is inconsistent usage of color if color is to be applied on wikipedia it has to be consistent. The new wikitables say on the Serena Williams and Pete Sampras pages do not match the others and need to be reverted back to have wins in the top and the runner's up in the lower. Not all condenced into one wikitable. This can and could be rather confusing to the un-trained eye. Wikipedia is about making content accessible and easily readable to the user and the experienced editors on here. The lack of standards when it comes to the Tennis Project and articles needs to be made mainstreamed like the Golf Project is doing to their articles. Thanks for listening! TennisAuthority 18:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already got the mens done for the grand slams wikitables on each article, and in a couple days I will go to work on the women's unless someone else wants to get started! TennisAuthority 22:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Got the Australian Womens Open done on the wikitables for all of the winners and runners up! TennisAuthority 01:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Now the U.S. Women's wikitables are done to color specs that were already implemented! TennisAuthority 01:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Australian Open Men's Doubles are done with the new color! TennisAuthority 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I got most of them done, if you all find anymore make the USOpen Blue and the Australian Open Yellow! TennisAuthority 23:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 Sony Ericsson Open

The article is peer review over here. Comments are welcome in improving the article. ^LeaveSleaves 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Separate year articles

I just noticed two articles created for a player's performance in a single year: Rafael Nadal in 2009 and Roger Federer in 2008 stating increasing article length as the reason ([1], [2]). I believe this is an increase and not a solution to the overgrowing problem of excessive details in the articles. Creating separate article for statistics for a major player makes sense, but articles for individual years not only creates unnecessary forks but also reduces quality of existing articles (years 2009 in Nadal's article and 2008 in Federer's article now read a single line). The problems with article size needs to be addressed by conforming to more summary style writing and trimming of excessive details as was attempted at Andy Murray. I think year-by-year forking of the articles needs to be stopped. ^LeaveSleaves 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree creating separate article for each year is not a perfect solution. But these player articles are getting frustratingly longer and harder to navigate. Cleaning up the excessive details run risk of reverting by the users who wrote them. But I don't want to contest your reverts and will leave them alone. Abhijit Sathe (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits trimming down the article, particularly decreasing details on player's performance in every round of a competition to only the final result for that competition, are always constructive and can be well argued if reverted. See the Murray article and related discussion on its talk page. Also, since you agree that separate articles are not a solution, would you consider blanking the new articles and templates you created and nominating them for speedy deletion per {{db-g7}}? ^LeaveSleaves 01:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Done... Abhijit Sathe (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Terrible color and centering

Ok I was going through the French Open article today and there has been a mass change for the "worse" in its appearance. It has looked pretty standard for years and now the color changes look poor and unprofessional (they should be white like other encyclopedias), and the centering looks poor on 19 and 21 inch monitors. Why this change for the worse? The French page was almost unreadable in it's new state. There was no discussion on the individual page or I would have spoken up right quick. I changed some back so I could read them but then I noticed ALL of the championship pages have been changed so I though we better talk here before everything gets out of whack. I'm gone for a week starting sunday so I thought I should speak now before the damage goes too far by the time I get back. Thanks Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed these pages because it is done on wikitables on the individual's pages of the champions and runners-up, which I put everything in the center, so it could be easily displayed in the browsers of most users. The Australian Page was in blue and white alternate, which I changed to yellow all the way so it would match the color of the major, which red-French green-Wimbledon blue-US Open. I think this makes since, which if it hurts peoples eyes I think all color should be taken off the indivual pages a well. I think this is making everyting standard, and distiguishes them to be that major list instead of the other majors. By the way I have a 17 inch widescreen laptop, and it makes the tables look better than ever, and makes it displayed better on smaller computers, which means their will be white space for the bigger computers like mine and Fyunch(click). This makes it expand and contract to the browser size. Go and test it out for yourselves! TennisAuthority 22:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions
• List of Australian Open Women's Singles champions
• List of French Open Men's Singles champions
• List of French Open Women's Singles champions
• List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions
• List of Wimbledon Ladies' Singles champions
• List of US Open Men's Singles champions
• List of US Open Women's Singles champions —Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAuthority (talk • contribs) 22:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I switched the mens singles back to normal and in good faith left the womens changed so as to give an easier comparison between style. I didn't do the AO because it was even more hideous before and would have required more rewriting effort than I had time for. I really think it looked better white and left justified. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

tennis_expert keeps doing the same with anonymous IPs

This time, he's using 75.34.102.227

I am tired of the "Key Biscane, Florida" instead of Miami, like it should be, so I'm going to take out the key biscane for all the articles related to the Miami master series. I know they're like a hundred or even more, but they are going to be changed, even with tennisexpert reverting continuously. Korlzor (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As we've discussed about 50 times already, Korlzor/Wikitestor, the tournament is held in Key Biscayne, Florida, not in Miami. That is a verifiable fact. See, for example, this. Aside from the location of the tournament, the women's event has never been a "masters" event. Never. And don't edit war about these issues. Wikitestor has been blocked indefinitely for abuse of editing privileges. Your sockmaster account, Korlzor, could be next if you persist in being disruptive. That account already was blocked for 12 days and then 1 month in October 2008. Tennis expert (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The tournament is called "Miami Masters" on both ATP/WTA and shortly it's called Miami, and it will be on Wikipedia. You both are the only ones defending the KB,F spam. We are taking it out. Btw, weren't you supposed to be retired? Korlzor (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Kolzor/Wikitesor/Numerous anon IPs: Your attitude is very disturbing - your blind and threatening behavior is very damaging for Wikipedia. You have been evading blocks as much as you could, so don't throw around accusaitons. Let it rest, for gods sake.--HJensen, talk 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

haha sure, the one that "because he wanted to" started to delete the grand slam and ms tables, on his own. Not even paying attention. Korlzor (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say "because I wanted to"? Your attitude is exceptionally hostile, and very unhelpful. What do you actually mean by "Not even paying attention"? --HJensen, talk 22:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And for 100th time, the Key Biscayne spam war starts again

Now the 2009 season will start, tables are being changed and Key Biscayne is starting to being spammed replacing Miami again.

So we are going to have the 100th Anti Key Byscaine Spam war. I don't give a shit what are u going to say TE, It's just I dont care where it is hold. It's called Miami. DOT.

Korlzor (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to all involved parties: Korlzor has been blocked for one month for hypocrisy (accusing Tennis expert of using IPs to edit war when he's been proven to have done the same), unnecessary hostility, incivility, and edit warring. Thanks. GlassCobra 17:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call. While Tennis Expert can be difficult to "dance with", he/she never resorts to the direct obscene incivility that Korlzor uses. It highly depreciates the value of his/her input 8 also the repeated use of IPs like this). As for the subject my stand is:

The physical location of the tounament is Key Biscayne, not Miami. However, even the tournament uses Miami as the postal address on its web site. So I guess it is one of these occasions where a suburb hosts a turnament, but one uses the large city (like Copenhagen Open which was held in Frederiksberg). But I was told on Tennis Experts talk page that my source was wrong (see here, which, by the way, is a censored version of the full debate).--HJensen, talk 18:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite his/her incivility, Korlzor has a point (say, half a point). The tournament's name is indeed Miami, since 2000. This can be seen on the ATP calendars (here) or on the ITF website (choose you start/end dates and search for Miami here). But the tournament of course takes place in Key Biscayne, as Tennis expert points out. So, using Miami or Key Biscayne depends on the context. You can say that Davydenko won Miami, or that he won in Key Biscayne, but saying he won Key Biscayne is as wrong as to say he won in Miami. Am I obscure here or is it understandable ? Miami is played in Key Biscayne. So Tennis expert is wrong to write Key Biscayne in the performance timelines, where you have only the tournaments' names (US Open, etc...) and not their locations, but Korlzor is wrong to replace Key Biscayne by Miami in the course of the text (as he/she has done here on Roger Federer), where it's perfectly alright to say Davydenko/Nadal or Federer played in Key Biscayne.
And as HJensen points out, this is true for the many tournaments which bear the name of a nearby city, rather than that of their actual locations : Copenhagen was played in Frederiksberg, Estoril is played in Oeiras, 's-Hertogenbosch is played in Rosmalen, Cincinnati is played in Mason, Monte Carlo is played in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, etc... --Oxford St. (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have expressed this better myself. Excellent summary! --HJensen, talk 12:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was kinda true. My problem is not seeing Key Biscayne on the prose, but the SPONSORED TOURNAMENT NAME. Anyways, the problem is also that if someone new to tennis reads the article, if he does read "He won in Key Biscayne, Florida", he won't have any idea about what tournament are we talking about. If he does read "He won The Miami MS", he will clearly know what tournament is is.62.57.197.191 (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The name of the tournament is the "Sony Ericsson Open", not the "Miami Masters". So, it's not valid to argue that "Miami Masters" is the name of the tournament and the tournament is held in Key Biscayne. This encyclopedia is concerned with verifiable facts, not with marketing strategies. Fact #1 is that the tournament is held in a tennis complex in Key Biscayne, Florida, a separate city from Miami. Fact #2 is that the name of the tournament is the Sony Ericsson Open. As for the Kolzor sockpuppet's argument, Key Biscayne creates no ambiguity for our readers given the links we provide. Tennis expert (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why u ever change Miami for Key Biscayne but never change Cincinnati for Mason. Do you live in Key Biscayne actually? 62.57.212.67 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you partially on a technical level Tennis expert, you have to consider the fact that to a general reader this sort of technicality can cause confusion. And if we decide to follow your example and decide to point out actual locations of the tournaments as shown by Oxford St., this would only increase the confusion of the reader. The whole point of writing an article is that the reader should have an instant understanding of the type and location of the tournament.

And 62.57.212.67, please refrain from making personal attacks. If you are incapable of continuing discussion assuming good faith, please do not contribute to the discussion. ^LeaveSleaves 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that our general readers are important but not so important that this encyclopedia should include factual errors. As for Oxford St.'s list of alleged factual errors, those should be fixed, too, if they really are errors. Tennis expert (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest, 62.57.212.67, that you immediately stop using sockpuppets to evade the 1 month block that was imposed on you lest the block be extended. See this block and this extensive list of Korlzor suspected sockpuppets. Tennis expert (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, now we need a solution that is both technically correct and at the same time understanding. Now Key Biscayne is a village near Miami that very few people have heard of. So I guess what we can do is add both when using it in the prose description. However when using in tables etc., we use only Miami, as this gives a clear idea to the reader of general location of the tournament. I guess this same rule can be applied to other similar cases as well, where the actual town/village of the tournament is not well known. I know that this description may not be geographically precise (e.g. Key Biscayne isn't exactly party of Miami city), but I think that it would be sufficient compromise that would achieve both our goals. ^LeaveSleaves 06:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves, nice attempt but TennisExpert isn't a person that actually reads and makes any peace with anyone, he considers that wikipedia is his duty, some articles like this one are owned by him and such... He NEVER asks to change anything, he comes in, changes it, and then reverts the whole people trying to put it back. He can even continuously break the 3RR rule, that he won't be banned (happened me twice, he reverted me, then I got banned and he just got a warning that he completely ignored..). It's pointless to argue with him, he is going to answer you "Wikipedia must have true information" and "Miami Masters is held on a complex on Key Biscayne,_Florida" (and the fun part is that he actually links to the Key Biscayne city into Key Biscayne (Key Biscayne,_Florida"), not to the Key Biscayne part where the tournament is held Key Biscayne).62.57.239.182 (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop IP hopping and once again, quit making personal attacks. Make a valid contribution if you can. As for me, I have an ability you can't seem to understand. ^LeaveSleaves 06:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your premise, LeaveSleaves. Key Biscayne is a well-known city in Florida, and the tournament itself is often reported in the news media as occurring in Key Biscayne. (See, for example, Bud Collins's 2008 tennis encyclopedia where he says the tournament occurs in Key Biscayne.) And Key Biscayne is not connected with Miami in any way whatsoever. They are entirely different legal entities. As for using a mixture of Miami and Key Biscayne in articles, I believe that would be even more confusing to readers. Tennis expert (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Key Biscayne, Florida, at least as given in the Wikipedia article is a village, not a city, in Miami-Dade County. In fact it is located no farther than 20-30 miles from Miami city. And as I said earlier, I'm not claiming that my suggestion is geographically (or legally for that matter) precise. What I'm trying to do is reach a solution that would satisfy both technical necessities and necessity of an ordinary reader anywhere in the world who has minimum knowledge of US or Florida geography. To such a person Miami is definitely an easy pointer compared to Key Biscayne. To summarize, a description that looks like this: Key Biscayne, Miami.

In the United States, the name of a municipality (city or village or whatever) has no consequence. What is relevant is whether it is an incorporated entity. Key Biscayne is, and it is not "in" Miami. I am opposed to intentional imprecision in an encyclopedia. That's OK, I suppose, for a commercial website like the ATP's or WTA's websites. But not for Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd once again like you to consider that the reader is not necessarily familiar with the geography and municipality system of US. Our focus is not on defining the settlement which holds the tournament but to give the reader a general idea of its location. And I'm not asking for removing mention of Key Biscayne, but to club it with Miami. Or do you also disagree with the fact that Key Biscayne is part of Miami-Dade County? ^LeaveSleaves 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to combine Key Biscayne with Miami, then it must be combined with the official name of the county, which is not "Miami". And I disagree with your assumption about our focus. This is an encyclopedia that needs to focus on facts. Tennis expert (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You may disagree, but the point on such a project is to get a global opinion of the situation (the so called consensus), and we just have to read the giant-discussion above about the sponsored vs non-sponsored articles, and to read this small one, to discover you are the only editor defending that, and thus you're forcing an entire community to be against you on such purposes. Keita24 (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) What about a new approach to listing the Masters tournaments that are factually correct:

• "Current tournament name (XXX Masters)"; which in this particular case would lead to
• "Sony Ericsson Open (Miami Masters)"

This would also avoid wikilinking to a redirect which is discouraged at FACs (as Key Biscayne does). Also, I don't understand the inconsistency of Tennis Expert: this edit uses different names for the Miami Masters. That is rather confusing. Well, I don't expect that any of this will be taken seriously, even it n>>1 support it and one doesn't. --HJensen, talk 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

@Tennis expert- If you carefully notice my links above, I am linking it to Miami-Dade county in my links and only hiding it by piping it with Miami, which I believe is a valid move because Miami-Dade county is very commonly referred to as Miami as well. I fail to understand why you choose to put your personal preferences above understanding of a common reader. ^LeaveSleaves 01:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your premise is incorrect. Why are you personally opposed to "Miami-Dade County"? That's the official, factual, legal name of the county, not "Miami County". Tennis expert (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've zero personal preference on the entire matter. I'm trying to reach a solution that is conducive on two levels as I have mentioned above. And please check the links carefully: Key Biscayne, Miami. I'm linking to Miami-Dade County in the second term. I'm only piping it with Miami, once again because Miami-Dade County is not a commonly known entity. I'm imploring you to show some level of compromise here and meet me halfway. The linking is factually and geographically correct. Only the appearance is slightly altered, and which is politically correct (no pun intended) by the way, to meet the second requirement. ^LeaveSleaves 12:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have zero personal preference, then you shouldn't mind using the correct "Miami-Dade County" and not the incorrect "Miami County". I don't know why I have to continue saying this, but Wikipedia should reflect the true facts. Key Biscayne is in "Miami-Dade County". There is no such thing as "Miami County". Therefore, piping to "Miami County" should not be done. Tennis expert (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite my lack of preference, I have some sensitivity towards the common reader. And I'm not referring it to as "Miami County" but simply as "Miami", which is completely common way of referring to Miami-Dade County. And don't forget that this achieves the goal of pinpointing the location of the obscure Key Biscayne. What I don't understand is why you have excessive and compulsive insistence on geographical accuracy at this place where it is perfectly feasible to convey the information in the simplest way possible that satisfies our major concerns. ^LeaveSleaves 20:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about, HJensen? Tennis expert (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was rather clear. But I will try again:

a) A new suggestion (to be used for all Masters Tournaments). OFFICIAL TOURNAMET NAME followed by its ATP MASTER SERIES NAME

b) Expressing a concern that in your edit you let "Miami Masters" be the name at some places, not at others (where you use Key Biscayne which is not the name).

c) Referring to a wikilinking issue. Using a link like Key Biscayne, as you have used in the Nadal article, is effectively a hidden link to a redirect, as "Sony Ericsson Open" is redirected to "Miami Masters". That is confusing the reader (and is not recommended by the MOS, see WP:EGG—and yes, I know it is a guideline not a policy; but I think guidelines should be ignored for very good reasons).

d) I end by anticipating that my input will not be taken seriously. --HJensen, talk 13:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I know I should probably wait for Tennis expert's response, but I can't help but say this. While you (Tennis expert) are continually asking me to remain factual and legal, I am appalled to notice that you are circumventing clear cut guidelines to suit your personal judgments and whims. ^LeaveSleaves 14:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should have waited, LeaveSleaves. I still have no idea what you are talking about, HJensen. Post a diff of an edit I've made to make yourself clear to me. If you don't like Key Biscayne, Florida, then I suggest tournament in Key Biscayne, Florida. That should solve your easter egg guideline concern. By the way, none of the following is an "ATP MASTERS SERIES NAME" of a tournament: Miami, Miami-Dade County, Miami County. So, again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Tennis expert (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I partially retract my comments. But I'd like to point out that your solution does not fit EGG. You are using redirect as a the main link, a usage which is discouraged. ^LeaveSleaves 20:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Retract further. Looks like I misread things. ^LeaveSleaves 20:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I did provide a link to your edit I commented on. If you don't understand this and the rest I have stated twice, I am sorry. I don't want to repeat myself again. If anybody else wants to comment on my suggestion they are more than welcome. (Why "tournament in Key Biscayne, Florida" should solve an Easter egg concern is beyond me - the reader is led to the "Miami Masters" article - but you need not respond.) --HJensen, talk 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You provided a link to a previous version of the article, not to the diff of an edit I made. I can't see what edit of mine you're objecting to without seeing the exact diff of that edit. But if you don't want to clarify your objection, you of course don't have to. As for the easter egg problem, the "tournament in Key Biscayne, Florida" is the tournament described in the "Miami Masters" article; therefore, problem solved. Tennis expert (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not. It is still an easter egg. And do you seriously suggest to introduce "tournament in Key Biscayne, Florida" in the performance timeline tables? If so, I would object (not that I think my opinion matters).--HJensen, talk 07:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

At least could we stop making such changes while we are discussing this? I mean, suddently, Tennis expert changed the tournaments name on Novak Djokovic to sponsored style again (this edit)). We are not reaching anything this way. Keita24 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It "is" Miami...ATP says so

Just joined you guys, the tournament is in Key Biscane, okay, but it is called Miami 1000/Masters, this is what the ATP calls it and this is what the TV shows, and the commentators say (official ATP English audio), someone please fill me in with the update and the summary of the discussion, from what I understand from the Wikipedia rules, the following is needed, a reference, and consensus, and of course no socket-puppets. From the ATP tournament profile, "Sony Ericsson Open | ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A. | March 25 - April 5, 2009"

Key Biscayne is an island located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, United States, may be that's the reason behind the ATP calling it Miami, that could be a reason, but we need to stick to sources, stick to the ATP please. (The county seat is the City of Miami.)

Also from the ATP website: Rafael Nadal, who is coming off his 13th ATP World Tour Masters 1000 title at the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, looks to win his first title at the Sony Ericsson Open. The two-time Miami finalist is looking to become the sixth different player (since 1991) to accomplish the Indian Wells-Miami title sweep.

The bold to show my point, no shouting here what so ever, make Wikipedia better and please stop the wars.

And lastly, from here: ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A. | Sony Ericsson Open | ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Yosef1987 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Having watched tennis for about a year now and getting familiar with all the tournament names I have noticed that the official tournament name and the masters series event names differ. The name that should be used is Miami since it is the Masters event name and that is what should be listed in players' statistical table under the heading of Tournament. For the 5th day now i have watched the Miami Masters on tv here in Africa and never once have i heard them mention Key Biscayne as the tournament name.

Therefore i think all players profiles should list Miami instead of Key Biscayne as i have noticed this error in Nadal, Federer and Sampras' pages just to name a few I have checked for. Saviour73 12:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. I do think this should apply only to the men's events and not the womens though. It seems to me to a common usgae issue, and the ATP has successfully pushed the idea of the 'Masters' series of events, whereas there is no such equivalent (i.e. no one talks about the 'prestigous Tier I series'). The Masters Series (ATP) events should be referred to by their common usage name (the name that the ATP uses and that the general public knows them by) and the WTA should use the general, current sponsor name (as no overriding 'Series' identity exists).

I do think though that commo usage applies to the women's events in terms of location, i.e. Miami, not Key Biscayne. This reflects both common usage, and a consistency with the men's events which seems generally preferable. AlonsornunezComments 15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who believes that this tournament is being held in Miami instead of Key Biscayne is just plain wrong. We have discussed this several times before, and it is a fact that the tournament is located in Key Biscayne. As for what the news media is reporting, do a Google search and you will find that much of the media is reporting the correct location. See, e.g. this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be factual, not reflect some marketing gurus who want to mislead people into thinking that the tournament is in downtown Miami or something. Tennis expert (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear TE, I agree with the correct location, but there is a tournament name we need to stick with, that's all, mention the location in the tournament page, that would be stating a fact, but not forcing a new tournament name (we need to contact the ATP for that). Would you rename this article's name: Miami Masters? Yosef1987 (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is specious. The tournament name is Sony Ericsson Open, and if we had any common sense, the name of the Wikipedia article would be that, too. Tennis expert (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, because sponsors change, now BNP Paribas has what? 2 tournaments in 2009? Irrelevant here. It is not a matter of common sense sir. Official non-sponsor names, wasn't a hard find. Yosef1987 (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Yosef1987 here, and it seems clear to me that Key Biscayne is, in common usage, considered a part of Miami; if I'm not mistaken it is considered a part of the 'Miami metropolitan area'. Additionally, we need to go with references and sources and those clearly favor Miami. Just look around. AlonsornunezComments 03:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy doesn't help anyone, Yosef1987. There is the BNP Paribas Masters in Paris and the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, California. Tennis expert (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wherever KB is located, it is not the point, we have an official name (besides the ever changing sponsor name) that we need to stick to, cannot be a simpler option, if I may say something, with all my respect to all the wonderful editors here, those edits made without consensus and by a mere personal opinion, I consider it a destructive editing. To change a tournament name we'd need to contact the ATP for that. Again I mean the best for Wiki. And I hope we reach somewhere soon, because this really cannot be serious, for a second I thought maybe it was an April's fool joke. Yosef1987 (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the note below the table on this page, and I am sure there are more examples, it has nothing to do with a location, they don't hate KB, but they've chosen an official name for it, and that is a verifiable reference, as well as it IS played in KB, but we are talking about the tournament and not the place, a player wins Miami Masters and not KB Masters. I really didn't add anything new here, just confirming my point of just pointing out the real location only in the tournament's article itself. Yosef1987 (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents please

Having just watched the QF between Fed and Rod, on the back of the court, where it says 2 big "Sony Ericsson", below it near the ground it says Miami all over the place

If there is a tournament in Cairo, Egypt and ATP decided to call it New York City Masters, for the encyclopedic entry, it would be named NYC masters, but it'd mention in the tournament's article that it is played in Cairo. I don't see Key Biscayne mentioned in the Miami Masters article (would you rename the article?); what I am saying is, mention it in the article's page, and that's it. And for what it's worth, Key Biscayne's county seat is the city of Miami. Stick to the official tournament names for an encyclopedia's sake. Now whoever is making those edits, would you please let me know in a clear fashion where I went wrong? And those who support/would like to add something, please do. Thank you! Yosef1987 (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Added bolds, is not shouting, sticking out the points only. Yosef1987 (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to do it right please

Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages. There are several available options to request opinions from editors outside the dispute. Other dispute resolution mechanisms include mediation or, after all other methods have been tried, arbitration.

From what I know, stick with references, from governing bodies, official names exist besides the sponsors, as mentioned a bit above. Yosef1987 (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding a link to another Miami reference, this one from noted journalist Peter Bodo. AlonsornunezComments 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Now what?

If this is going no where for now, I'd suggest reverting the edits made, because clearly a consensus has been reached(???), and I doubt(???) we'd need a poll for such a thing.

• The case is not only with Miami Masters, but as demonstrated, with others
• There is an official tournament name (other than the ever changing sponsor name) that we need to stick to, as demonstrated
• The correct location must be added to the tournaments' articles, that's for sure, and TE helped point out that
• From now on, as the rules say, we should discuss first before starting an edit-war
• Let's get to somewhere please quickly Yosef1987 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't ask any questions, which is apparently why you received no responses. In any event, the official name of the tournament according to the Association of Tennis Professionals is the "Sony Ericsson Open". You linked to a webpage that merely provides a series of links based on tournament location, not based on tournament name. No where does that page say "Miami Masters". Also, the official ATP tournament calendar says "Sony Ericsson Open", not "Miami Masters". Tennis expert (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for your input in the "Alone" section, anyway, the "calender", C&P: ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, the bold to show what was click-able, before FL, USA. Let's please not argue that there is only sponsors' names. Also where is Key Biscayne and Roquebrune-Cap-Martin (Monte-Carlo :)) and all the others. Also there is a drop down menu for the tournaments on the ATP website, check the naming.

To sum up, it IS played in KB, okay, but the ATP chose to call it Miami Masters (de facto) and (who ever sponsors) 2009, same for most of the tournaments, in the singles performance time-line tables, the column reads Tournament and not Location, and we cannot use a sponsor's name because by common sense they change every other year. What we would and should do, is mention Key Biscayne and Roquebrune-Cap-Martin and all the others in the tournament's articles, waiting for your feedback. Yosef1987 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

""Edit: The section is called "Now What?", and I got no response; until a consensus is met, all edits should be reverted, and if I am wrong, please let me know, because we cannot war and talk, and I, myself, don't war nor play games. Yosef1987 (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) Encouraging others to edit war is disruptive and could get you blocked. Don't go down that path. (2) I have already demonstrated that the ATP did not choose to call this tournament the "Miami Masters". Why do you not understand what's specifically written on the ATP website? (3) The fact that the tournament sponsors change periodically is inconvenient but irrelevant. (4) I have no objection to your changing any tennis tournament article to reflect the true location of the tournament. In fact, I encourage you to do so because the change would reflect the factual basis of this encyclopedia. Tennis expert (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Encouraging others to edit war??????? Me?!!!! Yosef1987 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Alone

Am I the only one on this? I have changed it on Nadal's page, TE changed it back, without saying anything here. Please TE when you get here, the simple 4 points above, I need a direct reply to each one, thank you. Yosef1987 (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not alone in this. It seems to me that Mr. Expert is unwilling to budge on this, and that we should proceed with a rough consensus (dating back to January as seen above). I think that this is easily solved by modifying all Key Biscayne references to Miami, is as commmon usage among most tennis articles and the tours themselves, and include a note on the article page (which is already called 'Miami Masters'!) stating something along the lines of '...is played in Key Biscayne, a small village so-and-so miles off the coast of Miami'

This solution is also easily applied to the various tournaments at which it is applicable. AlonsornunezComments 13:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just checked the articles of the top 20 players in the world and all have been nicely changed to Miami Masters with all other masters series events using the word "Masters". This is the way it should stay. I have also become involved in the mediation for the Miami Masters. Saviour73 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ATTENTION

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Miami_Masters, feel free to add yourself and sign. Yosef1987 (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that didn't work out, as Mr. Expert seems unwilling to mediate on this issue. Any more experienced users out there know what the next step should be? We should really address this issue with finality and then move on. AlonsornunezComments 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If he has refused mediation and all the other things that sane people do, is it bad to request a block? He is disrupting our work, disregarding consensus and anything else we can do. Block? OnHoliday 16:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we have some sanity and resolution on this?

I just wish to note two things;

Tennis expert, your refusal to accept mediation on this long running dispute is both unhelpful and disruptive. You are not doing yourself or Wikipedia any favours in continuing this series of reverts against others wishes. Wikipedia can only work by consensus. Personal crusades, no matter how right you believe you are, ultimately get you nowhere. If you genuinely care about the content of these articles, then please accept mediation.

IP editor; I don't care who you are or if you have been previously blocked or not. Your jumping between IPs to edit war is a clear breach and evasion of Wikipedia rules and policies. That alone makes your contributions unwelcome and disruptive. If you genuinely care about the content of these articles, then please register an account and contribute to the discussion in an upfront manner without this edit warring. I would also urge other editors to refuse to engage this editor in discussion until they register. If, once they register, they prove to be a banned user, then so be it. If you disregard Wikipedia policy you lose the privilege of contributing to it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition I would urge fellow editor to look at the articles for the year-specific Miami Masters (here, here, and here) where TE is clearly acting in bad faith and disrespecting the opinions and processes of the community by making changes (Miami to Key Biscayne, of course) at a time when the community is trying to come to a consensus on the issue. Very bad form. AlonsornunezComments 12:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

TE (or someone else, the history is not clear to me) did the harm again, on Nadal's page AFAIK, which part I don't get, don't we need consensus first?!!!! Please someone take an action. Yosef1987 (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, EO, but I'm under no obligation to accept formal mediation on this issue. Therefore, it's bad faith for you to claim disruption for exercising a right that Wikipedia plainly allows. The people who won't accept the fact that the tournament is held in Key Biscayne and the fact that the official name is the "Sony Ericsson Open" and the fact that "Miami Masters" is not the name of any tournament anywhere are just being irrational. This encyclopedia is about verifiable facts, not personal opinions. Tennis expert (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So all these newspapers are clearly wrong then.. Perhaps you should write to them and put them right. Please go and read Wikipedia naming policy. Specifically where it says "Use the most easily recognized name" and "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another." Your edits on this page are plainly disruptive as it results in a page being named one thing, and the article, with no explanation at all, calling it another. The reader is therefore left mystified. The name you prefer has only been in use since 2007 and common usage is still Miami Masters. The title "Sony Ericsson Open" is important, and should be mentioned in the lead. It should even be a redirect. But your actions are simply causing a confused mess.

On the subject of mediation. If you refuse mediation what exactly do believe will bring about resolution? Do you think resolution will come about when everyone gives in and simply does what you want? Do you honestly believe this is likely? Do you think resolution will occur after six months of tiresome edit warring and everyone else gets sick of it? What do you believe is best, not for you, but for Wikipedia?

And if you are so convinced that you are right, why do you believe mediation will not bring about a resolution on your terms? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when is a Google hit count conclusive? But if you want to play that game, "Sony Ericsson Open" has about 700,000 hits while "Miami Masters" has about 370,000 hits. Maybe you should consider sending corrective e-mails to the persons responsible for the roughly 700,000 hits. I'm certainly willing to go through WP:RM to change the name of the article to "Sony Ericsson Open". Perhaps that would alleviate your "mystification" concerns - let me know, please. As for mediation, I've already said what the next course should be: article-by-article consensus building, given that there is no consensus here. Tennis expert (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you show me where you have sought consensus for your changes on articles? Apologies if you've being doing this, but I am having difficulty finding any amongst the hundreds of reverts in your edit history.

Please do not get diverted by some irrelevant Google hits count. My point was not to demonstrate that "Sony Ericsson Open" is wrong, or that "Miami Masters" is right. I'm saying that "Miami Masters" is the "most easily recognized name" as per policy. It also has been the name of the article for some time, and should not be changed without good reason, as per policy. Could address these points of policy, and explain why it does not apply here?

If you are willing to go through WP:RM to change article titles, would it not make much more sense to leave your changes until this has happened?--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Google counts is never a reference (nor newspapers), I guess I don't have to explain how search engines work, secondly, you cannot use WP:RM because the name would change every other year, and we are not playing games here, if something affects all the tennis bio articles, it should be discussed here, not article-by-article, that would be just time consuming, and destructive, and please, all edits should be reverted to the original until a resolution is met anyhow. Yosef1987 (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) When we talked about this before (see the archives), the conclusion was to use the name of the tournament as it existed at the time the tournament was held. In fact, most Wikipedia tournament articles use the sponsored names. The Sony Ericsson Open is among a handful of exceptions. (2) As far as WP:RM is concerned, of course that's the right method for making a controversial change to an article name. You're not liking that procedure is irrelevant. And aside from that, I'm surprised that you would oppose WP:RM while being in favor of mediation. Care to explain? (3) Your not liking article-by-article consensus building is irrelevant and conflicts with the way Wikipedia works. Aside from that, a consensus for a particular article prevails over a consensus that purports to cover all articles. If you have any questions about that concept, let me know. Tennis expert (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You have presented no evidence whatsoever (except your personal opinion based on who-knows-what) that "Miami Masters" is the "most easily recognized name". You used Google to find a few newspaper articles to support your claim. When that was refuted, you said essentially to ignore Google. Well, you can't have it both ways. Try again. Tennis expert (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Miami Masters" is the name with the longest history. Are you suggesting that a sponsored name in use only since 2007 is better known? But really, that's irrelevant. It's the current name of the article and so is the name that should be in use in the article. If you want to change it you need to show that "Sony Ericsson Open" is the most easily recognised. The burden of proof is on you.

My use of the Google link, as I tried to explain before, had nothing to do with attempting to count hits. It was just a quick way of demonstrating that a great number of reliable sources disagree with your assertion that ""Miami Masters" is not the name of any tournament anywhere". Personally I have no strong preference, but claiming that it is a simple case of "I'm right, everyone else if wrong", is clearly not conducive to achieving consensus and flies in the face of the evidence.

Now can we be rid of that red herring and address the questions I put, please?

• What satisfactory resolution do you expect to get without mediation?
• What is the good reason for changing the name of this article, as as policy would require?
• If you are willing to go through WP:RM to change article titles, would it not make much more sense to leave your changes until this has happened? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis_expert, to make things short and clear:

• I am not sure what are you telling me, honest
• Monte-Carlo/Roquebrune-Cap-Martin example, and many others as some editors has shown us
• Despite of the correct location, ATP uses another famous name
• Would be great if all is kept as before till we resolve this
• Did Andy Murray win Key Biscayne Masters? Did Nadal win Roquebrune-Cap-Martin Masters last year?
• All that for the performance time tables
• Mentioning the correct location, as it is done for Monte-Carlo, must be made, for Miami and others, but to change its name, we'd need to contact ATP personnel
• The Miami, as I said before, not only on the website, but on court, and the official TV coverage stats etc
• As for the renaming, Miami Masters is the name for all the past/current tournaments, Sony Ericsson is the current sponsor ($$$)
• BNP has now 2 Masters in 2009, one called BNP Paribas Open and the other BNP Paribas Masters!!!!

I am not being sarcastic, trying to prove a point, that's all

• As for the in-article namings, we are not discussing that now. Yosef1987 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I have an inquiry now to TE, please discard what I stroke out, I'll get back to this soon. Yosef1987 (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism/Warring

If this is considered vandalism, we can do it the right way, first warn him/her/they on their talk pages, and then, if they don't respond, this will definitely help. Yosef1987 (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He has been warned, do not add another warning. Yosef1987 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He has undone my warning, and he is still not talking here. Yosef1987 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No matter how many warnings we give him, he will ignore it. I don't usually call for this, but I think a ban is the right choice. Sorry. OnHoliday 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already talked here and in many other places about this issue. No consensus has ever been reached here, as the preceding discussions clearly show. So, that leaves article-by-article editing and discussion. I invite you to take up this issue in those places. And Yosef1987, stop plastering warnings that have no basis in fact. That's disruptive. Tennis expert (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would second (third?) Alistairjh and Yosef, though (being relatively new) I don't know the procedure. He is being extremely disruptive and does not seem to be acting in good faith, IMO. AlonsornunezComments 20:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis Expert, I am not being disruptive, I have the best intentions for this website, as for the warning, clearly there is an edit war, and you are not cooperating enough, the least I've asked is a direct answer to simple 4 points, you might very well explain yourself to everyone here by answering them, and I, would very much appreciate that, and if we still don't agree, we'd need a third-person's opinion, but not go ahead and start editing, if a consensus is not reached, I suppose you know Wikipedia more than I do, then take the right steps to convince all of us that you are right. Please do Wikipedia a favor, thank you very much and best regards, and your time is much appreciated. Yosef1987 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis Expert, you recieved a warning about your edits to Rafael Nadal (history). The warning seems to be perfectly valid, so you cannot accuse Yosef1987 of "plastering warnings that have no basis in fact" (see above). OnHoliday 07:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about, which perhaps is due to your extreme youth. Just because a warning is given does not mean that it has any validity. If you have any questions about that concept, let me know. Tennis expert (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, procedure for solving this can be found here. Apparantly arbitration is the last step, and hopefully something we won't have to consider. OnHoliday 09:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Keeping everything above board, just letting everyone know that I have (again) reverted TenEx's changes to the various Miami Masters year-specific pages regarding this very issue. I am not engaging in a edit war, just keeping things 'as is' until a consensus is reached. TenEx, please act in good faith and stop reverting until this issue is concluded (As an aside, you said that you are going for consensus instead on individual pages, but after I reverted you ignored BRD and instead changed again instead of taking the issue to the talk page. I read that as rather disingenuous.) AlonsornunezComments 14:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what a blind reversion is? If not, I suggest you read up on it because your reversions are blind and constitute vandalism and disruption. This is but the latest example of your problematic behavior. When will it change? Tennis expert (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what he did exactly, but shouldn't we settle this before we make changes? And by settle I mean the way it was? I could be wrong? Yosef1987 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

TenEx, please stop changing/editing these until we solve this issue. And again, you said that you are going for consensus instead on individual pages, but after I reverted you ignored BRD and instead changed/edited again instead of taking the issue to the talk page. I read that as rather disingenuous if you are trying to start a dialogue. You are acting rather disruptively here and clearly against the betterment of the articles and the respect of the community. Funny also that you speak of me being disruptive in this! Kettle, teapot? AlonsornunezComments 03:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's "Tennis expert", OK? You still don't know what a "blind revert" is, do you? It's when you throw the baby out with the bath water by mindlessly and lazily reverting a series of edits because you disagree with just one of them. That's what you've been doing. That's vandalism and disruption. And it's just the latest example of your unconstructive editing on Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Again TE you are being disingenuous. My reversions (on pages (here, here and here) were not of a "baby/bathwater" nature. They were reversions of edits by you dealing specifically and singularly with the Key Biscyane/Miami location issue, which we have been discussing here. Your edits seem to me very disruptive and against community good faith in light of this ongoing discussion. AlonsornunezComments 04:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that, well, we might have a chance to stop editing all these pages to discuss the matter here? I suppose, the way things are going, we are not going to reach a consensus, but if we do your edits and your revertions may have been for nothing, so can we just discuss here and instead of making the pages look the way you want them to. (If you have any GA or FA reviews, this is probably going to stop them promoting the article) OnHoliday Why, after a long time, has this war not been resolved? Why? 07:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My Inquiry to Tennis_expert

I now understand your urge behind KB, but I have got few questions which would clarify things to me.

• KB is the location, but not the tournament name, right?
• If Miami Masters is not a tournament name, how come it is shown on the ATP official TV coverage, news articles etc? Of course besides Sony Ericsson
• For the factual accuracy of an encyclopedia, I am supporting you, as I have said before, to mention the correct locations in each tournament's individual article, why isn't that good enough? And for the enough part, the following point:
• We cannot put Sony Ericsson of course in the Performance Timelines, but we also cannot put Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, the column if for the tournament not the location, and the tournaments are not named after the exact correct location, where did I go wrong here? (I am asking)
• They are named after the closest most famous city, do I have proof? No, but a pattern is clear no doubt. Tell me where I went wrong also here.

I would very much appreciate your answers. Thanks. Yosef1987 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: as for the "encouragement to war", it was never meant to be like that, and I hope you find my good faith in my edits, what I meant is to keep things as it was till we resolve the matter, and by that I wanted your confirmation as well on this, am not asking for anything wrong. Yosef1987 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) This is what I was writing for WP:Tennis right before you struck your comments: "The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) says that the name of the tournament in Monte Carlo is the 'Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters', not the 'Monte Carlo Masters', the 'Roquebrune-Cap-Martin Masters', or anything else. You are confusing two different issues: (a) the official name of a tournament; and (b) where the tournament is held. I am in favor of always using the official name of the tournament, e.g. 'Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters', and saying where that tournament actually is held, e.g., 'Roquebrune-Cap-Martin'. I am not in favor of 'changing the name of the tournament'. For example, in a Wikipedia article, I always say, 'Andy Murray won the Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida.' ".

(2) I am not aware that the term "Miami Masters" is used on television or by the ATP or the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) in any official capacity. The ATP and the WTA are businesses and want to keep their sponsors happy; therefore, they are highly unlikely to use anything other than "Sony Ericsson Open".

(3) Wikipedia editors have gone wrong about tournament locations. The site of a tennis tournament is a geographical fact and can be verified independently of the ATP or WTA. For example, the Grand Canyon is clearly in the United States and it would therefore be erroneous to rely on a source claiming that the canyon is in Canada, regardless of how often the source said that. However, the name of a tournament is a commercial or business decision made by tournament organizers and secondarily by the news media. We (Wikipedia editors) have to rely on verifiable reliable sources to determine tournament names.

(4) We may put whatever information we want in performance timelines, subject to Wikipedia policy about verifiability. Therefore, we could put "Sony Ericsson Open" in a timeline, just like we could put "Roquebrune-Cap-Martin" there.

(5) The decision by the ATP and tournament organizers to say (erroneously) that the Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters is in Monte-Carlo merely reflects their marketing objectives. Whenever a marketing campaign misstates independently verifiable facts, Wikipedia must ignore the campaign and instead rely on the actual facts. And the actual fact is that the Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters is in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin even though the official name of the tournament uses "Monte-Carlo". Tennis expert (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion

Tennis_expert, is right about these answers, TE has talked sense about the issue into me, give it time to read it, you'd feel the same, and as for the Wikipedia rules, TE is dead on. My suggestion to keep everything right, that is to name the tournaments in the performance time-lines by the real location, (e.g. Key Biscayne and Roquebrune-Cap-Martin etc) and having after it between parenthesis () the widely known misled name, (e.g. Miami, Monte Carlo etc), on the other hand, we'd go for the sponsors names, which follows this very well. Keep it cool, because we are moving in a circle now. Yosef1987 (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: And please, for the meanwhile, no further edits to be made until this is resolved in a good manner. All suggestions and comments are welcome, keep them direct to the point and cool please. Yosef1987 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is actually in Key Biscayne, after looking at Google Maps showing that it is very close to Key Biscayne and miamidade.gov giving the address of the centre as 7300 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida. Really the only confusing thing was that ATP said Miami. OnHoliday 17:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

An additional option: many older fans refer to this tournament as "Key Biscayne" (or even as "the Lipton"). A parenthesis near the top of the article--as for other sports events and venues whose official name has changed--could clarify that this tournament was for many years sponsored by Lipton and for many years referred to commonly as alternatively "the Lipton" or "Key Biscayne". Of course, considering what goes before on this page, I don't dare change a word on the main page! C. Cerf (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Men's Grand Slam Championships

This page does not have to be in chronogical order because even the Wikipedia:GOLF articles are not in reverse or chronogical order, which means it's up to the editor that creates the content to decide. If you want to change it do so without deleting it because that is not correct under the good faith system on wikipedia. TennisAuthority 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Fact check request on Anne Minter

Can an interested editor please fact check the Anne Minter article for me? I ran into any editor, subsequently blocked, who really expanded the article, but also had a fixation at adding in an unsourced WP:BLP issue. While everything remaining looks okay to me, I really do not know the subject very well. Can some interested editors please stop by the article to take a look? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to reduce the POV at some places, otherwise the prose looks problem free. It does lacks references though and I have tagged it so. ^LeaveSleaves 05:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tables

Shouldn't we restore all the tables with the grand slam, ATP Masters series etc results to the way they were before? Like put them under the "Wins" and "runner-up" titles instead of having the "outcome" column. It would be easier to see how many times a player has won or come second in a tournament. JayJ47 (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I also don't like the new color schemes (e.g. here). One color per line, else it gets visually distracting. --Armchair info guy (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree: I think they give a better flow, and side-by-side comparison rather than having them split-up, which does not allow for that to be done in a sortable wikitable. I like it, and please don't change it! I think you can do what you all want to do if it is done on the main page not on the career and statistics pages because it has been made uniform, which if their is not one of those pages it needs to be created for all grand slam champions.TennisAuthority 00:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Need a rating

Hi. I don't know if this is the place to ask, but Oliver Golding needs an initial starter rating at the article talk page. Thanks. 86.112.188.247 (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

He is not a professional tennis player yet and thus WP:Tennis does not really apply here. I've removed the Wikiproject template from the talk page. Should he become a professional, it can be added again. And if you'd like my advice, I'd say details of his performance at minor tennis events and exhibitions should be removed from the article. They are not notable enough. ^LeaveSleaves 15:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WTA site

Looks like the WTA is restructuring their website.

Looks like their player profiles are going to have new URLs, and they aren't going to redirect the old ones.

Looks like I'm going to cry...Ordinary Person (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The new site isn't up and running yet. Once that happens, we can make the relevant change in the template. ^LeaveSleaves 08:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well we are in deep trouble. The new site does not redirect to old links to new one, leaving all the links currently present on Wikipedia redirecting to the central Players page. The URL structure has changed, as well as player IDs. There are nearly 700 female tennis bio articles on Wikipedia. Plus we need to take care of all the other links to the site, including those to news, head-to-head, tournament draws, etc. For all these cases there is at first the need to find the alternate new link and then replace. In total, I'd say there are more than 1500 links (in fact there are 1911 links, but some of these are in non-article namespaces making them no-priority links). ^LeaveSleaves 16:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. How inconsiderate of the WTA! :-) There's a lot of tedious manual labour ahead of us. Maedin\^talk 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

On the plus side, it appears the player search facility on the WTA site is now reliable, whereas previously it had some blind-spots. Also allows wild-character searches etc.

I guess we'll just have to start with Abramovic and work through to Zvonareva...Ordinary Person (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've updated {{Wta}} and provided instructions on how to use the new syntax. This change in template may cause some erratic results presently where links in some of the players' articles point to someone else on the WTA site. But I think that is something we'll have to face for a while. I'm planning on making changes in 700 odd articles within next 24-48 hrs by going through List of female tennis players alphabetically. Anyone interested can join me. Just let me know how you are approaching the list. ^LeaveSleaves 03:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to help out with this. I can work backwards from Zvonareva and meet you somewhere in between? Best wishes! GreenGourd (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that the links to PDFs on earnings (such as appear in the WTA career earnings tables of some prominent players) are now dead, and I have not yet found the new locations.Ordinary Person (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop the presses: http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Rankings_Stats/prize_money_2008.pdf is an example of a new URL for those pages. Ordinary Person (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Using Advanced Search on e.g. "Prize Money 2007" works, but for years earlier than 2006, selecting the suggested result brings up a resource not found message (with a note to contact the webmaster to notify them, but the webmaster's mailto address is blank).Ordinary Person (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks as though you splendid people did everyone on the List of female tennis players except for those from Maes to Namigata, which I have now done. Ordinary Person (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of titles policy

Hi, I was wondering what the policy was for stating the number of titles won by a player on tournament articles. Some statistics incorporate both singles and doubles into the statistic e.g. this article but others only include the figure for the relevant competition e.g. this article. 03md 16:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that unless it states otherwise it's only the singles titles that are counted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To me it makes most sense to be specific in each case. If you mean WTA Tour singles titles, say WTA Tour singles titles, and never just say "titles".Ordinary Person (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Major win-loss counts

There seems to be some inconsistency about the place in the win-loss counts for the Majors: for some players only the main draw matches are included, and for others the qualifiers are also included. Do we have a standard on this?Ordinary Person (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tennis article at PR

List of ATP number 1 ranked players is now at Peer review. Feel free to make comments and keep adding references and information to the list. Hopefully we will get the first tennis FL. Cheers. 03md 13:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sharapova GAR

I have nominated Maria Sharapova for Good Article Reassessment. Please feel free to add comments here ‎or, better still, improve the article. Also, you can review my comments and concerns here

Any other GA possibles? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say that I do agree with you this article needs to be raised to good article or Class A at the least! TennisAuthority 23:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Career Stats Pages!

I just created two more Margaret Court career statistics, Evonne Goolagong career statistics, and John Newcombe career statistics, which I would appreciate it if someone fixed those to be like all the others'! Thanks TennisAuthority 22:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Borg-Connors rivalry

Made this page, look at it and edit away!TennisAuthority 02:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Start Boxes Templates for Tennis Player?

I have created these for implementation, but do not have time to do all tennis players, which means that I need your all's help in this matter. The main one to use as an example is Template:Roger Federer start boxes TennisAuthority 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy moly..... there's a job and a half to add for every player. I can see why you asked for help. On first scan it looks nice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, we are only going to do those with extensive start boxes and not only for one or two of them!TennisAuthority 22:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Already got the major players done, go and look at it in the category section!TennisAuthority 01:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see the benefit for the effort. It seems the only purpose is to shorten the physical size of the page, but not the visual size. And it is a fairly large effort... Can you explain what the impetous was? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already got it done for all the tennis articles that it should be done for up until the present moment, which took no time. Plus, it makes it easier to edit the start boxes alone rather than the whole external links section. Plus, it provides a way of linking them together into a category, which the impetus behind this was to get the external links into what they are EXTERNAL links NOT a whole laundry list of navboxes, start boxes, and other misc. details that are of little use to be displayed in HTML on the main page because they are INTERNAL links. TennisAuthority 03:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I might add this is done on other projects articles like Tiger Woods, Barack Obama, Cesc Fàbregas, which are all of these groups wrong to do this to their articles. I think NOT! PEACE, I am OUT!TennisAuthority 03:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, it helps protect against the vandalism of these start boxes by having them on a separte independent template, which is much easier to revert if it does occur! TennisAuthority 18:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

EFFORT: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!All Here Category:Tennis preceded and succeeded boxesTennisAuthority 20:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that compacting the navboxes is good thing in a visual sense, I object to the naming of these compacted templates. See my comments at Talk:Roger Federer#External Links. I find the titles are confusing and perhaps misleading. I suggested a more neutral heading with only one or two compacted templates. ^LeaveSleaves 05:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the Martina Navratilova page and my observation is that the Awards and Achievement box works well and looks good... it keeps everything together for easy access. The Slam box and Career Statistics box are things that would normally go under "see also." The slam box is miss marked as it simply goes to the standard slam pages not some special Martina slam page. It does save on space. The career statistics box has a nice link in the title but then also two unnecessary boxes about the WTA. Those could have been incorporated into the Martina slam box and retitle that box something like "associated links." Just my two cents. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Very Nice! I like the visual appeal and efficiency of drop down boxes.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to give my opinion, so here it is. Good. :-D The thing is, I'm one of those folks that tends to find overuse of succession boxes very annoying. I love the idea of making them hideable. I actually hope the idea spreads. Succession boxes are wonderful but with accomplished athletes, they can get insane. There are other examples of something like this. Tennis Authority is right...it is on the Tiger Woods article as well. I don't think it's useful if someone only has 1 or 2 succession boxes on their page but I think it is beyond 2. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it too. Should be standard feature. ROxBo (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Womens Rivalry Pages!

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/HeadToHeadIntro/0,,12781,00.html

This is where to go to look them up, and have at it editors!TennisAuthority 03:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Already done:Evert-Navratilova, Graf-Seles, Graf-Sabatini, Williams Sisters, and Davenport-Hingis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Rivalry

Graf-Sanchez-Vicario

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/HeadToHead/0,,12781~2718~7184,00.html

Sanchez-Vicario-Seles

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/HeadToHead/0,,12781~7184~7354,00.html

Evert-Navratilova

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/HeadToHead/0,,12781~2188~5744,00.html

Graf-Navratilova

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/HeadToHead/0,,12781~2718~5744,00.html

Evert-Goolagong

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/HeadToHead/0,,12781~2188~2794,00.html

Graf-Seles

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/HeadToHead/0,,12781~2718~7354,00.html

Evert-Court

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/HeadToHead/0,,12781~2188~1285,00.html

Court-King

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/HeadToHead/0,,12781~1285~4011,00.html

Court-Goolagong

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/HeadToHead/0,,12781~1285~2794,00.html

Goolagong-King

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/HeadToHead/0,,12781~2794~4011,00.html

Henin-Serena

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/HeadToHead/0,,12781~3541~9044,00.html

Henin-Venus

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/HeadToHead/0,,12781~3541~9027,00.html

Done for now!TennisAuthority 03:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Major problems with article on the Orange bowl

The article on the Orange Bowl conflates two COMPLETELY DISTINCT junior tournaments, leading to major inaccuracies. I've left a more detailed explanation on the talk page of the article. Innocent76 (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Go Here to make rivalry pages!

From:TennisAuthority! I have lost my passion for wikipedia and will not be comming back! Have a good day and good life GOD BLESS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC) First, Go Here Before You Make A Page: Category:Tennis rivalries Category:Tennis rivalries

Caution:Be Sure to tag the one you are working on while you are doing it so others' will not do it and cause duplication of content!TennisAuthority 19:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a site to make the EXCEL File into an WIKITABLE Easier [[3]], which you have to import the webpage into excel by going to data tab and from web, which look how I did mine!TennisAuthority 08:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Process:
Step One: Open Excel
Step Two: Click Data Tab and From WEB
Step Three: Paste URL
Step Four: Take and Copy necessary part!
Step Five: Take that part into Word and Use the Replace Feature to take out Stats, and take the Reversed names and put them in correct order
Step Five: Delete Country while you are in Word
Step Six: Imput it back into Excel again
Step Seven: Create new section with Score at the top next to winner and copy that whole column also
Step Eight: Copy that into the URL above
Step Nine: Take that code and put it into word and delete the useless rows like Step Five but with alot of ||||||| and Space||
Step Ten: Input the code into page on wikipedia
Step Eleven:Take out unnecessary |- and bring score upto main rows
Step Twelve:Save the page and start writing later or whenever!
Step Thirteen:You've accomplished one try two!
By the way:This process will only work for the mens not womens!

Make to your hearts content! Think of the possibilities Connors-McEnroe, McEnroe-Lendl, Lendl-Wilander, Becker-Edberg, Agassi-Sampras, Federer-Roddick, Federer-Djokovic, Laver-Newcombe, Laver-Emerson, and much much more!TennisAuthority 02:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC) http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Player-Landing.aspx

Individual Links

Becker-Edberg

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=B028&oId=E004
Created By: TennisAuthority 08:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Page Name: Becker-Edberg Rivalry

Agassi-Sampras

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=A092&oId=S402
Created by: TennisAuthority 08:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Page Name: Agassi-Sampras Rivalry Created long before at Sampras–Agassi rivalry

Connors-McEnroe

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=C044&oId=M047
Created by:TennisAuthority 13:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Page Name: Connors-McEnroe rivalry

Lendl-McEnroe

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=L018&oId=M047
Create By:TennisAuthority 13:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Page Name:Lendl-McEnroe rivalry

Connors-Lendl

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=C044&oId=L018 TAG:TennisAuthority 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Created By:TennisAuthority 19:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Page name: Connors-Lendl rivalry

Lendl-Wilander

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=L018&oId=W023 TAG:TennisAuthority 19:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Created By:TennisAuthority 19:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Page name: Lendl-Wilander rivalry

Edberg-Lendl

Already created by:Nwill Page name: Edberg–Lendl rivalry

Federer-Roddick

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=R485

Djokovic-Federer

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=D643

Federer-Murray

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=MC10

Djokovic-Nadal

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=D643&oId=N409

Murray-Nadal

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=MC10&oId=N409

Djokovic-Murray

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=D643&oId=MC10

Djokovic-Roddick

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=D643&oId=R485

Nadal-Roddick

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=R485

Becker-Wilander

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=B028&oId=W023 TAG:TennisAuthority 20:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Created by:TennisAuthority 20:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Page Name: Becker-Wilander rivalry

Edberg-Wilander

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=E004&oId=W023 TAG:TennisAuthority 20:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Created by:TennisAuthority 20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Page Name: Edberg-Wilander rivalry

Laver-Newcombe

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=L058&oId=E030

Laver-Rosewall

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=L058&oId=R075

Laver-Newcombe

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=L058&oId=N044

Borg-Vilas

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=B058&oId=V028 TAG:TennisAuthority 02:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Created By:TennisAuthority 02:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Page Name:Borg-Vilas rivalry

McEnroe-Vilas

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=M047&oId=V028

McEnroe-Nastase

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=M047&oId=N008

This is all that I can come up with right now! TennisAuthority 03:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we need rivalry pages?

I'm not sure if most of these things could simply be linked to the tour page to look up yourself for fun as opposed to a separate wiki article for each one. Sure, there are some famous rivalries but most of these listed are simply standard bookkeeping records aren't they? I mean does anyone care enough about a McEnroe-Nastase rivalry to warrant an encyclopedic entry? And many of these players played before that tour chart was made so their rivalries matches are woefully incomplete. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Create the ones you want to create, but just think about it for a second we have recent rivalries which makes them more relevant to an encyclopedia like Nadal Federer and the Williams Sisters. I think not, and these records are pretty complete to me! By the way, I saw Borg-McEnroe and that was what spurred me onto look, and I came across this treasure trove of information on these! I just have not had the time to do the write-up on these yet, which will come in due time Fyunch! TennisAuthority 09:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Great find TennisAuthority! I think rivalry pages are a good idea as long as they are relegated to presenting substantive content and not a prose-like melodrama about the "competitive dynamic" and "legacy" of the rivalry.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to help create these wikitables, which I did provide directions to get this accomplished quick and easy!TennisAuthority 20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like everyone likes them.... I'll work on a few.... I just have to figure out which ones. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotta agree. Having a page with just the breakdown of two players' matches is kinda useless. Rivalry articles like Federer-Nadal's are great, but Federer-Hewitt's article is just useless.

In addition, some of these rivalries are minor, and I doubt they 'deserve' an article of their own. If others agree, I'll go on and open a deletion discussion for all articles containing only breakdown of the matches, without any additional info. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 23:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I got to say if you make an exception for say two Williams' Sisters and Federer-Nadal yor are being a recentionist, which this is an encyclopedia not a blog about recent events. This means each and every rivalry page is useful, and needed to be done, which it is not me that is working on it Nwill is working hard on them, too. I have got to say it if we delete the older one's or the irrelevant ones by your words then we have to delete the Federer-Nadal one and integrate that information into there main respective entries on wikipedia. This is the reason your argument does not hold water is because it is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, and I am tryting to get people to finally treating it like that!TennisAuthority 00:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask this. Federer has also played and crushed Alejandro Falla. I would vote that out to be deleted as trivial if a rivalry page was created for them. What will we use as the definition of a tennis "rivalry" so we stay encyclopedic instead of being a bathroom book of lists type thing? Borg-McEnroe, Kramer-Gonzales, Sampras-Agassi, Federer-Nadal, Evert-Navratilova, King-Court... those are all great rivalries that should be here. I would think Federer-Hewitt would be trivia. Where is the best point to draw the line? Simply a case by case basis or do we talk about what pages should be made before the effort is put forth into a page that really shouldn't be here? I'm pretty open about this, I simply want to get it right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So, Beyond that exclusively narrow and amateurish list, what other rivalries could you name that were significant, which some might say the Federer-Nadal rivalry is insignificant because it is so recent that history hasn't had the chance to judge it yet! So, whose to say which rivalry is of merit some two or three editors, which means there will be not end of the debate. I am just trying to do the ones that are significant, which most of them have met in the slams and I am not doing the Craybas-Dulko rivalry page because that is of no merit right now. I love how you all don't think Hewitt-Federer is not an important one because they have met in many majors and other major events, which is of merit to all users to know and be able to research on wikipedia. Go look at that rivalry page, and see they met six times in the slams, which that is not of significants to have a wikitable about them. I think we might be able to come to some sort of an agreement on this subject. The solution could be a page with all the wikitables of all the rivalries with no other rivalry pages independant of the main one with just the table alone and no fluff like is on the Federer-Nadal, which is less signifant than Evert-Navratilova, which has virtually nothing on here in comparison. I think we are be recentionist on here, which is never a good thing because an ENCYCLOPEDIA is suppose to be about history not a blog about modern events like could be said of Federer-Nadal! So, we could create a Mens and Womens rivalries page! But don't delete just because it is not recent or so-called not in vogue enough to have a table about! PEACE, even though we disagree!TennisAuthority 01:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

TennisAuthority, I think you misunderstood me. The list I gave is not amateurish and narrow... it is incomplete on purpose. There are certainly more rivalries than the ones I listed. I gave extremes; an extreme bad one and many extreme great ones. My question is what is a rivalry and where do we draw the line? The press has tried to create one with Federer and Roddick but I don't see it. I don't think just because someone plays someone else multiple times it does not a rivalty make... there needs to be plenty of wins on both sides. I also think you are using recension incorrectly here which simply means text established by critical revision. I am very aware of history and that one should never assume ceib (current era is best) when writing these articles. I guess what I would look at is does the press or people in general consider two players to have a so called rivalry? I have never heard anyone describe Federer and Hewitt having one. I have heard plenty of people say McEnroe and Lendl had a rivalry. Maybe it would be different it was put as "Best tennis players of their generation head to heads." Is that more the direction how you are thinking of a rivalry? Rivalry sounds to me, and I think most people, as something rather special. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Rivalry pages should not be created based and giving only head-to-head performance but based on the so called rivalries' reception by critics and spectators. This would require significant coverage where these rivalries, and not just matches, are talked about through the reliable sources. Most of the newly created articles listed above merely consist of statistics with no prose whatsoever. Remember, Wikipedia is not collection of indiscriminate information or merely statistics. Please shape up those of the newly created articles, otherwise they might be listed for deletion. ^LeaveSleaves 11:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to link the articles to the appropriate wiki-projects once a new page is created, also reference it properly otherwise the page may get deleted. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 00:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Some sources you all might want to check out!
http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/tennis/gallery/08_25_06_greats/
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/68894-seven-famous-tennis-rivalries
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/ten-great-tennis-rivalries-1429447.html
http://tv.sky.com/top-tennis-rivalries
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/27/nyregion/old-tennis-rivalries-resume.html
Go Look! TennisAuthority 17:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me. Add them in the pages. Add prose to those pages. Consider working on articles in your userspace and developing them instead of just putting tables that readers can find anywhere online. There is no rush in creating these articles. Take one article and expand it enough that the reader can gain something out of it. ^LeaveSleaves 17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I got all of them into wiki-alignment except for the Borg-Vilas one, which will be done tommorrow! I don't think any of these articles needs prose to prove their importance like TennisGrandSlam said. Prose is fluff, and does not need to be on these pages. The links that I listed are to show these in fact are rivalries that do not need to be deleted. I will go about creating more because this is what I like to do, and if you all don't want to join in so be it, which I will get them done on my own! PEACE OUT! TennisAuthority 21:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated the Federer-Hewitt rivalry page for deletion. Ciao! Chidel (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to nominate every rivalry article for deletion under the wikipedia criteria of WP:SBST, WP:N#TEMP, WP:NTEMP. Even the Federer-Nadal and the Williams' Sisters' rivalry pages because they are useless news articles not for encyclopedic consumption! I wish you all were not so tennis novices, and actually researched your histories!TennisAuthority 01:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should merge all details to a central page on rivalries or put it on each tennis players career statistics pages! Even for those two that I mentioned above! TennisAuthority 01:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, I think all of these articles are of merit, and none should be deleted because they are all central to telling the story of tennis thru the ages like Federer-Nadal is today's time! TennisAuthority 02:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to make up your mind where you stand on this rivalry issue. And I'm baffled by your attitude towards article development. "Prose is fluff"? You need to understand what encyclopedia writing is. It isn't just creating statistics page page and nickname templates. And looking at the deletion discussion of Federer-Hewitt article, I can confidently say that other such articles will be nominated soon and would almost certainly face deletion. This could be your last chance to get those articles in shape. And before citing policies such as WP:NTEMP, understand what they stand for. ^LeaveSleaves 03:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am all for them, but I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy here with a little sarcasm that's why I sited those policies to get a rouse out of someone! You evidently took my bait and now I am switching it off! I am LOL!TennisAuthority 05:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't joking. Unless you do something, expect deletion notices soon enough. ^LeaveSleaves 05:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit split on this, but I have a proposal. If the players have played each other at least ten (10) times (Maybe some higher number?)...AND had an "even" win-loss ratio? If not, then a "rivalry" section could be added to their pages, but not a whole page?

• We also need to NOT increase the size of players with long careers (like Martina) who could be reputed to have rivalries with quite a number of players. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "rivalry" needs to be explicitly defined for encyclopedic usage. Nobody is questioning the rivalry between (let's say) the Williams, Nadal-Federer, or Agassi-Sampras. The women's side can be harder to identify rivals, if only because there is such huge turnover on a regular basis in the top 5 ranked players. The mens' side is much more stable, and we can more easily see trends between those rankings. Especially as there is very little room to switch things up on the mens' side, we're going to see those top-ranked players play each other extremely often, as is the nature of the standard tournament structure where we see specific matchups over and over again. But just because Joe plays Bill 100 times, that doesn't mean that Joe and Bill have established a rivalry, as Joe also played both Sam and Dave 100 times each as well. For here, the explicit definition of rivalry should probably take into account their ranking at the time, or only those pairings that took place only at the champion match. If Nadal-Federer matches were always in the first round, it wouldn't be as big a deal as it is that they've taken place in the finals. SpikeJones (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

ATP Site

With the redesign of the ATP's site, it looks like our links to player profiles are all now broken. Has anyone thought about, er, a plan? I'll be happy to help out. GreenGourd (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I had noticed it too. As if the WTA restructure wasn't enough. What's worse is that ATP now does not have any ID system. Which means that the template {{ATP}} can't be used now and we'd have manually add each link to all the articles. ^LeaveSleaves 19:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess the first thing to do is to request a bot removes all current ATP links. And if it's the only link, adds a {{noref}} to the page as many, many bios rely on just the ATP link alone (which is insufficient in my mind but better than nothing). We can't have hundreds of dead links. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

{{ATP}} is now fixed. Luckily there is still a way to use the "old" IDs. However, we have a new problem: how to find out what is the ID for a given player if we don't have it already? GregorB (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is great work, thanks! GreenGourd (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's possible, but it's a bit complicated:

1. Go to the player's ATP profile page
2. Invoke "View source" in your browser
3. Search for "initPlayerLiveScoreParam" in the HTML source
4. You'll find something like initPlayerLiveScoreParams('X123');, and in that case "X123" is what you're looking for

Hopefully there is a simpler way... GregorB (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is:

1. Go to the player's ATP profile page
2. In the "Head to head" edit box on the right enter any player and submit
3. You'll see their head to head record, and pId in the URL is the ID in question

Is there an even simpler way? GregorB (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

All RIvalry Pages must be deleted or kept!

Category:Tennis rivalries Even the Federer-Nadal and Williams' Sisters because they are current and history has not had the time to judge them yet! Plus, the old ones have not many internet sources to add, which does not make them unnotable!

• Keep: This is what I believe is should happen, but if some say delete: delete the hole darn bunch!TennisAuthority 22:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

TennisAuthority has lost passion for all of wikipedia and is done and never coming back, so GOD BLESS and have a good day and good life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That would suck as I think he does a lot of great work here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted Becker–Wilander rivalry at the request of User:TennisAuthority but let me know if anyone wants it back again. Does anyone support the deletions? or should I ignore the User:TennisAuthority's request? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignore any bad faith and POINTed nominations by TennisAuthority. Unless TennisAuthority is the primary contributor to the pages, please do not delete the articles. ^LeaveSleaves 04:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Players' Twitters

Hm, I've been noticing a few players have been using the Twitter service. Would it be a good idea to include this on their Twitter pages as part of the external link sections? Some of the players who have one are Serena Williams, Andy Roddick, Andy Murray, Sam Querrey... Yea? Nay? oncamera^(t) 02:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:NOT a phone directory (or, in this case, a twitter directory). There are plenty of celeb-oriented websites with twitter/email/street/phone info available for celeb-hungry interested folks. SpikeJones (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Twitter lists among links normally to be avoided in our external links policy. They really don't provide any significant information about the person that, say, his/her official website. I wouldn't recommend adding them. ^LeaveSleaves 03:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Add HOF to Infobox?

Golf does this to the infobox, and I don't understand why tennis doesn't do this, too? This needs to be linked to the hall-of-fame page of the player!98.240.44.215 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Source of Images

I have organised some free images that relate to cricket on Flickr. There is the set [4] of freely usable images. I can upload them to Wikipedia/WikiCommons and avaliable for use, on request. Please alert me on my talk page as I will most likely not return here, thanks,  The Windler talk  11:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Update?

Hello, Just posting here to let the WikiProject know that 2009 ITF Women's Circuit needs to be updated. I would do it myself but I just don't have the time. Thanks. - Nick C (t·c) 23:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Current Rankings

Can we introduce a current ranking section in the infobox that normally exists on a player's page? It shows their career high but one often has to dig through the article to find their actual ranking so I propose that the current ranking would go underneath the career high. The ranking is very easily available on the ATP website and as such it would be easy to update and would make it easier for people to gauge a player's current level without having to search the article. Jom (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is good. If anything it makes more sense to have a current ranking than a highest ranking. For example, if you looked at Juan Carlos Ferrero's highest ranking and compared it to Andy Murray's highest you might have thought Ferrero was going to be in the semi-finals of Wimbledon this week - that didn't turn out to be the case. One of the key things in judging players is there rankings. It wouldn't be much work to change it. Rankings are update what, every week? Once a week, a group of editors doing 10 or so each? Easily done. If there is a consensus amongst members then I think it should be done. It is an essential piece of info. From tomorrow I'll be on vacation for a fortnight, so sadly I wont be able to answer any questions until then. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

2003 & 2005 US Women's Open Draw Sheet to make bracket!

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/2005/905.pdf 2005 US Open - Women's Singles
http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/2003/905.pdf 2003 US Open - Women's SinglesDONE
I did the 2001, which somebody else can do the 2003 & 2005! These two are the only two that are need and can be done with sources right now left to do!TW-RF (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Changing Pages?

Hello, I found a User:Officially Mr X changing the wimbledon page to be different from the other slams, which I reverted back twice now! These are the artilcles to monitor!TW-RF (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• List of Australian Open champions
• List of French Open champions
• List of Wimbledon champions
• List of US Open champions

Grunting article

There needs to be an article on grunting (or whatever you want to call it) I think. It's gained so much press coverage and former players are calling for it to be banned etc. What are your thoughts? Spiderone (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started an article here Spiderone (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If anyone's interested it got 12700 DYK views Spiderone (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

GA

How about in the next year we aim to get, Tennis, History of tennis, Wimbledon, Australian Open, French Open, US Open to GA status? Anyone here willing to give one a go? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We need some GA players as well. I'm sure Andy Murray and Roger Federer just need cleaning up to match Leander Paes standard. Spiderone (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Tennis Infobox HOF!

I would really appreciate it if some other editors will go and implement this after career prize money! The one below is for Pete Sampras, but I have done Steffi Graf, so you all could have two examples to go off of!

| tennishofyear = 2007 | tennishofid = 243

Happy Editing Away!98.240.44.215 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the link you have to go to in order to get the info for those two things! http://www.tennisfame.com/famer.aspx?pgID=867 98.240.44.215 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, again! Please, we need to get this done in a timely fashion to bring all infoboxes up to code, which we will split this up by letter of last name, and if you take one to do please mark it here! Sign it with the four Tildes when completed section in full! Thanks! 98.240.44.215 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A:98.240.44.215 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Done all that had infoboxes!
B:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Done all that had tennis player infoboxes for this one and all below!
C:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
D:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
E:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
F:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
G:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
H:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
J:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
K:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
L:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
M:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
N:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
O:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
P:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Q:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
R:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
S:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
T:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
V:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
W:TW-RF (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to fansites

Your opinions about whether and under what circumstances tennis biographies should include links to fansites would be welcome on the Andy Murray discussion page. Chidel (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

NO NO NO! [[5]] Rule 11!TW-RF (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Rule 11 does not forbid fansites. The word "normally" means something. If you wish to actually read the discussion on the talk page you'd have a better understanding of the issues. Before you start editing the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Roger Federer does have a fansite that has been in existance since 2003, which was long before Murray, and is not included? Go Look [[6]]!TW-RF (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's quite simple, actually. Either come to consensus (which hasn't been done, apparently), or request an RFC discussion on the topic to force consensus to occur. Personally, fan sites do not typically belong here, as there are plenty of other places for fan sites to be listed (DMOZ, for example). There are exceptions, of course (The One Ring, for example, as a fan site for LotR, became notable). One key for inclusion is notability; one thing against adding a fan site is possible WP:COI from the site's creator in continually trying to add it to WP. SpikeJones (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For me, a key part of the problem here is the use of the word "fansite". Typically, fansites are poorly designed and constructed, woefully short on content, low on facts and high on opinion. I'm sure we've all seen those kind of sites and clicked away immediately. However, there is another kind of site, one that I believe is better described as a "factsite". These sites take a subject and attempt to be authoritative, objective, comprehensive and professional. In this respect they are poles apart from regular fansites.

Tennis "factsites" - such as murraysworld and goroger - have a wealth of content that is large enough to be considered as encyclopedic. Where Wikipedia is a finely tuned summary of all salient points, these sites have chapter and verse on these same points. Where Wikipedia will give you a quote, these sites have the whole interview. When Wikipedia can't tell you what you what to know, these sites very often can.

Irrespective of the subject, any site that can provide a depth of information beyond that provided by Wikipedia is an obvious target for linking. If there is a consensus that the site also meets standards for objectivity and professionalism it would be a disservice to Wiki users if a link to the site was not provided.

Although I have a natural dislike of advertising, I have no problem with the standards being set at murraysworld and I think that links to the site should be maintained, and periodically reviewed. I'm currently taking a deeper look at goroger. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If the "factsite" did the complete interview that the article is quoting, then the factsite would be listed under references. No need to be listed under external sources as well. If the factsite is duplicating the interview that was done by someone else, then the reference would point to the original content source, and the factsite would be bypassed as not being relevant (as potentially stealing another source's content and/or failing being unbiased). SpikeJones (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you it should not be listed under external links it should be used only as refernces if needed, which should be rare because it should have a more reputable souce. Personally, I think http://www.murraysworld.com is a site that is not authoratative because it is not apart of a reputable paper or magazine. This must be avoided at all costs because wikipedia is not a random assortment of links! The external links should be streamlined with the ATP or WTA and the ITF profiles and the official website of the tennis player such as http://www.andymurray.com/ not a fansite like the aforementioned above!TW-RF (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is there a reason, a prior consensus, which accounts for the fact draw pages and several other articles on the tennis project use capitalization like "Men's Singles", "Women's Singles", etc... As the list of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions is currently being reviewed to eventually become a Featured List, the question of whether the article should stay at this title or moved at "List of Wimbledon gentlemen's singles champions" has been raised. I'm not asking for the thousands of draw pages to be moved to non-capitalized versions, but if there is no good consensus about that perhaps we should, per MoS, move the lists of this template :

--Don Lope (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Navratilova Flag

There is some new person insisting that Navratilova's flag needs to be the Czech flag before she was a US citizen. I was always under the impression that the flag was for the country you intended to represent. Was there a ruling around here I missed? In 1975, upon defection, she lost her Czech citizenship so if not US does she get no flag at all? Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

She was stateless, so no flag appears to be the most accurate. Chidel (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

She was not stateless. The US granted her asylum in 1975 and she worked hard to eventually gain US citizenship. Everything she did at the time was United States based. People have gone to war fighting for the US without being citizens so why are you making a big deal of a tennis player who sacrificed everything she knew to be in the USA and yet you won't allow her a US flag here on her tennis page? It doesn't seem fair to Martina. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not an emotional issue and has nothing to do with fairness or my "allowing her" anything. All that matters are the facts. She was in fact stateless and had to declare this status on various official documents during this time period. You are invited to do a Google search to verify this for yourself. Chidel (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Navratilova Flags?

Not Stateless, CRAZY ASUMPTION!

I question your premise and understanding of asylum to begin with because as soon as she left czechslovakia, she was made an ad hoc American. She competed therefore as an American! I want you to go and even look at her two Wimbledon's in 1978 and 1979 to verify that fact because those are the ones in question. I am the user that has made this adjustment upon my research, wbich is what wikipedian editors are suppose to do, which they don't like yourself! I will put a link here for you to look to stop this junk http://aeltc2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/rolls/ladiesroll.html. This makes it official, which I did cite on the appropriate pages, and it needs to stay that way because this is their record and needs to be ours on wikipedia as well. So, all 18 and 9 wimbledon's were won as a sole american. She competed as an american from the end of the 1975 US Open onwards, which was based on the tennis channel documentary! That's all! 98.240.44.215 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Refer to these examples, TennisAuthority: A 1978 report from the Associated Press about Navratilova winning her first Wimbledon singles title: "Stateless Martina Navratilova, who left her Communist homeland to play tennis in the West, fulfilled her highest ambition Friday by defeating Chris Evert...." A 1976 newspaper boxscore concerning the Eastbourne tennis tournament: "Martina Navratilova, Stateless, def. Betsy Nagelsen...." 19 September 1994 Sports Illustrated article entitled 14 Martina Navratilova: "Soon thereafter, no longer stateless ... Navratilova would finish the searching." Chidel (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

However it's words like "stateless" that sell magazines and papers. There is no doubt she was a citizen of no country in her early tourney wins. The question is whether she should have a US Flag beside her name since she was living in the US, representing the US in everything she could, and trying to become a US citizen. The Czech flag should be gone but I feel the US flag is warranted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea that "stateless" sells magazines and papers? And where are you getting the idea that she "represented" the USA in "everything she could"? A professional tennis player does not "represent" her country of residence in anything except Fed Cup and the Olympic Games. She did not play Fed Cup for the USA until after she gained American citizenship, and tennis was not an Olympic sport during her stateless period. You apparently are putting emotional considerations ("she deserves a USA flag") ahead of encyclopedic considerations. Chidel (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea she was not a US tennis player? Those flags we put up are not proof of citizenship. They are a simple mechanism for showing what country was represented by a player. By your meaning ALL the flags should be removed and the fans at Wimbledon should stop their ecstasy that Murray is doing so well. The flags here simply show the country that player was living in or had citizenship in or promoted, etc... something that attaches them to a certain country. With Martina it was the US at that time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You just don't get it Chidel, we have to replicate the Wimbledon record here because if we don't we say Wimbledon is wrong. With respect to nationality it is a matter that The Championships says she competed as an American go look, which if you contradict the record it would be false and erroreonous. I like that you bring it to the attention of the connumity, so we can discuss, which allows us to monitor the appropriate pages!
Wimbledon Record = Wikipedia Record!98.240.44.215 (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

An observation. Yes this is independent research but I just wanted perspective from non-biased people. I went to the local mall today and asked 5 random people (3 girls and 2 guys). I'd say their ages were 20, 30, 30, 40 and 45ish. I told them I work on an encyclopedia and what we use flag icons for. I Then told them Martina's situation. I asked what they would do if they were writing the article and gave them the 3 choices. I figured going in it would be 3 or 4 US and 1 or 2 blanks. I was wrong. All 5 said they would leave it blank... no flag from the time period of defection to citizenship. I have to say it was not what I expected. I did ask them why and they pretty much said that they eliminated Czech right off the bat but they didn't feel she should really have a US flag either till she was a citizen. Bottom line is while I do feel she should have a US flag I would not be obverse to having no flag at all as a compromise for her "stateless" years. Again just an observation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The current WTA media guide lists "TCH" beside Navratilova's name re: 1978 and 1979 Wimbledon. Bud Collins - ditto. Chidel (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Chidel do we need to go into this any further? I will to show you the error of this argument! First, the only two slams in question are the 1978 and 1979 Wimbledon, which means we must go by their slam record, which I provided above. This clearly states she competed as an American in those with no questmark or no non-nationality or TCH. This means Navratilova won all her slams as an American, which she competed as an American ad hoc in the interim between asylum and citizenship! This is because the countries squad was in charge of the players such as the TCH tennis federation like the US Tennis Federation was when Navratilova saught asylum, which meant she had to compete as an American because the slams would not accept her without a national federation giving her support and backing. The TCH would not from then on out, so the US one did, simple as that!98.240.44.215 (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The following statement is simply not true: "This is because the countries squad was in charge of the players such as the TCH tennis federation like the US Tennis Federation was when Navratilova saught asylum, which meant she had to compete as an American because the slams would not accept her without a national federation giving her support and backing." 190.146.244.52 (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet again you are wrong, which here it is from Wimbledon on another similar case and point "1973 was a sad year for Wimbledon as 81 members of the Association of Tennis Professionals boycotted the meeting following the suspension earlier in the year of Nikki Pilic by the Yugoslavian Lawn Tennis Association. Despite the absence of so many players, attendance reached over 300,000. Jan Kodes of Czechoslovakia and Billie Jean King won the Singles Championships for the sixth time." http://aeltc2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/museum/museum_history.html 98.240.44.215 (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

More: "Frustrated by the Czechoslovakian Tennis Federation's interference with her career, Navratilova defected to the United States in 1975. The same year she became a leading player on the women's professional tennis tour, as she and Evert won the French Open doubles championship, Navratilova’s first major title. The next year the pair won the Wimbledon doubles championship." http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576078/martina_navratilova.html98.240.44.215 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Again MMOORREE! 'As a teenager, Navratilova's tennis skills allowed her to tour foreign countries, including the United States. She felt stifled in Czechoslovakia and defected at the U.S. Open in 1975, shortly before her 19th birthday. At the time, she said it was strictly a matter of tennis. "Politics had nothing to do with my decision," she said in an Associated Press story. "It was strictly a tennis matter." In Prague, a reporter told her grandfather, who was quoted as replying, "Oh, the little idiot, why did she do that?" The defection was prompted in part, she said, by an incident early in 1975 when she was playing in a tournament at Amelia Island off the coast of Florida. She received a telegram from the officials of the Czech Sports Federation demanding that she return home. "I was in the middle of the tournament," she said. "I had to call upon the U.S. Tennis Association to help get me permission to play. That was when I really decided that I should leave Czechoslovakia."' http://www.answers.com/topic/martina-navratilova 98.240.44.215 (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking Found MMMOOORRREEE 10th and 11th paragraph go look she had to get permission, which that means control! I have to ask you exactly how much do you know about the history of tennis! This was rather easy for me! http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7BUOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=W30DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7238,1608590&dq=martina+navratilova 98.240.44.215 (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

My Search! Go Look! http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=martina+navratilova&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&sa=N&cid=8483616971554852 98.240.44.215 (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

After political asylum, Navratilova had to compete as an American because it was forced and should could not be nationless because then she could not compete because they had to get permission from a national tennis federation or club in order to play in the slams and other events sanctioned under the ITF! I love educating other editors and people at large!98.240.44.215 (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I GOT EVIDENCE YES I DO, AND I LOVE IT!98.240.44.215 (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wimbledon Tournament Titles

The official website refers to the tournaments played there as the "Gentlemen's Singles" and "Ladies' Singles", so why do the pages at Wimbledon refer to them as the "Men's Singles" and "Women's Singles"? The same is true of the other events, I'm just using Men and Women as an example. Surely pages such as 2009 Wimbledon Championships - Men's Singles should reflect this?

Apologies if this was raised elsewhere, or if I'm putting it in the wrong place.

Alex Holowczak (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Particularly if you have a page which is then titled List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions. It seems to be a contradiction. Alex Holowczak (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll make the change to the 2009 events (WP:BOLD) citing this point as the reason, leaving behind the redirects so that the template still works that links each tournament together. It'll probably get a much quicker answer to my question. Alex Holowczak (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the tournaments for the seniors are still titled 2009 Wimbledon Championships - Gentlemen's Invitation Doubles. I shall make no further edits on this issue until I get a reply here. Alex Holowczak (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Open Era

Hey, tennis folk. I'm not at all sure why this bothers me, but it does. (Go figure.) Our articles are not consistent when it comes to the capitalization of this ubiquitous phrase. The three contenders are: Open Era, Open era, and open era. Embarrassingly enough, examples of all three can be found in Open Era. I would advocate capitalization of both terms (i.e., Open Era) to conform to the journalistic norm and to the capitalization of other kinds of eras (Mesozoic Era, anyone?). But each of the three contenders could be justified, and I'm more interested in consistency than anything else. Is it possible to achieve a consensus? GreenGourd (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to the conventions of standard English, it should be capitalised if it's a proper noun. Is it a proper noun? There's only one of it, so I would say Yes. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I didn't think it was quite as straightforward as you do, which is, in part, why I asked. Whether this is a proper noun depends, in my view, on some social negotiation (i.e., is it a socially recognized yet as a time period). Plus, each of the three contenders is plausible, connoting—to my ear, anyway—something slightly different. "Open era" tends to place the emphasis on the "Open" Grand Slams (i.e., the introduction of non-amateurs into the four Slams), while "open era" places the focus on the fact that professionals were introduced into events of all kinds (Slams and non-Slams). (Another reason I asked this question is that a recently departed editor preferred "open era.") "Open Era," which—like you—I prefer, suggests a socially recognized time period. I tend to think tennis fans, anyway, would agree that such a time period has been formally recognized (i.e., from 1968 onward). Unless others chime in, I'll begin standardizing our references to "Open Era." GreenGourd (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nationalities

There are inconsistencies in regards to what country flag to put on a player. Two players in particular. Martina Navratilova and Molla Mallory. I'm not convinced which way it should be but the two (to me at least) are in total opposition to each other and we should make some sort of ruling for the article's sake. Martina Navratilova lost her Czech citizenship in 1975 when she came to the US but didn't become a US citizen till 1981 yet many of her listings show a Czech flag in the 1975-1981 years. However Molla Mallory came to the US in 1915 from Norway (I believe she retained her Norwegian citizenship), played and won the US Championships yet instantly gets a US flag? I have no idea if she ever became a citizen. What determines a country flag status on wiki so that we can be consistent here? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting a flag is making a binary decision on a complicated issue of nationality. They oversimplify a situation which can only be explained properly by text, as you have done above.

Always choose saying nothing over saying something potentially misleading - just leave out the flags. They're only decoration after all, and it's far better to remain silent than oversimplify in the name of decoration. Knepflerle (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the first decision is whether the flag refers to the nationality of the person, or the game of tennis. In the List of female tennis players, the flags applied refer to the nationality or the country under which play was carried out, ie referring to the game, and not the person. This means that players of one nationality could have a flag of another. However, if you are referring to the player biographies, then it is my opinion that flags should refer only to their specific nationality and citizenship, even if the country under which they play the game is different. Maedin\^talk 11:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And our readers are supposed to second-guess which of those interpretations we've used at each article? No, this is not acceptable - if the readers don't realise the hidden criteria (and why would they?), they will assume that this player's nationality is simply that of the flag, and this will be an incorrect oversimplification.

No the "first decision" is as to why we need these decorations anyway. The player's birth nationality/adopted citizenship/sporting nationality are explained in the text - far more precisely than a single little rectangle, colourful as it may be. Knepflerle (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I do think they are important because the public in general thinks they are important. The news will say something like "and an English player hasn't won Wimbledon since Fred Perry" or ""German players have won 35 slams" or other such thing and people will look that up, and they will look it up here. Martina has always been particularly troubling since she had no citizenship at all from 75-81, but now I see Mallory listed as US instantly when she still had Norwegian citizenship (unless she got fast-tracked back in 1915). The article on wiki flag usage says it indicates citizenship, nationality etc... It even mentions case by case determination. And under nationality it says that the person need not be a citizen for it to apply. Further it mentions to take into consideration a person's "sporting nationality," whatever that means, and that flags should "never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense." I just wanted consistency to keep the articles nice and tight. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say nationality should not be mentioned. All I said is that in ambiguous or complicated cases, a single flag graphic is not precise enough to explain the situation. In these ambiguous or complicated cases, flags should be omitted and it should be left to the article text to explain the nationality issue in more detail.

Consistency is no justification for misleading readers by oversimplifying complicated matters. Keeping articles "nice and tight" is secondary to having them contain precise and accurate information. Knepflerle (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So are you advocating eradication of Navratilova flags between 1975 and 1981? What about Mallory? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything which misleading or ambiguous should be removed. That's a general principle for an encyclopaedia. Knepflerle (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

<CR>I'm not saying consistency over all of wikipedia. Martina and Molla have different flags for those years depending on what article you read. I would have had US flags for both of them for consistency but if consensus says otherwise that's fine too. Just so they aren't different everywhere I look. If that means no flags then so be it, however since Molla doesn't say when (or if) she gained US citizenship she would never get a flag of any kind through the rest of her years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually go and do you research because according to the only slam records that matters for this period of time in the late 1970's she competed as an American, period end of story Wimbledon 78-79! Here is further sources for you all to look atTW-RF (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If we deny that she competed as an American then we will rewrite the wimbledon record on an authoratative encyclopedia, which is not what we should ever do! I went to the source that matters and made our records match!TW-RF (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet if you look at List_of_Wimbledon_Ladies'_Singles_champions Martina keeps getting switched to a Czech flag, so there is at least one person who disagrees with you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The idiots on here won't go an do their research will they? This site makes it clear from the source of the tounament http://aeltc.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/rolls/ladiesroll.html and http://aeltc2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/rolls/ladiesroll.htmlTW-RF (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of the Terminology ATP Titles

On some player pages, such as that of Michael Russell (tennis), the total number of ATP titles includes Challenger and Future level titles. In official ATP statistics, contained both on their website and in other sources, the term ATP Titles is reserved for titles won at the ATP World Tour 250, 500, 1000, and Grand Slam levels and excludes Challengers and Futures. So, the incorrect heading of ATP Titles could be changed to "professional titles" to make the tally correct. Or, there could be a new heading made for ATP level and one for lower-level events. Notice how on pages of more accomplished players, such as Andy Roddick, the lower-level titles are not listed. This issue should be standardized. Yesitsnot (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

top tennis players template up for deletion

Template:Top ten tennis players is up for deletion. Figured I'd put this here because it's been relisted with a currently 3-2 vote. I think it's a pretty useful template, especially considering there isn't a page (that I can find) that lists who is in the top ten for either men's or women's doubles. Morhange (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 24#Template:Top ten tennis players was closed as no consensus. There are doubles rankings at 2009 ATP World Tour#ATP Rankings and Women's Tennis Association#Current WTA Rankings. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Daniela_Hantuchová

Please see Talk:Daniela_Hantuchová#Ridiculously_overblown_article - I'm looking for people to help make this article more like an encyclopedia one and less like it belongs in a specialist tennis publication or fanzine. --Dweller (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think biographies should have lists of head-to-head records against other players, for example

Daniela Hantuchová#Head-to-head records

Daniela Hantuchová#Head-to-head record against top players

Agnieszka Radwańska#Head-to-head record against other players

Jelena Janković#Head-to-head record against other players

PrimeHunter (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. They make an encyclopedia article look like a geeky statfest fanzine. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with all you all, because to a tennis encyclopedic article to be historic it must have head-to-head wins and losses between the players. This is to provide a historical perspective not some fanzine, which is sited to much with these tennis players bio's. It must be done for all players, which means even for the fair players like Hantuchova. This has become consensus to put in head-to-head, and if you don't agree go look at Federer, Graf, Evert, SWilliams, VWilliams, Navratilova, Nadal, and more I could name. This article is in line with the developmental standards for content. Thanks!98.240.44.215 (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Historic perspective is given by including a readable account of the player's career in prose, not by including vast reams of statistics. Why stop at head to head records? Why not include % 1st serves, 2nd serve winners, or any of the other plethora of tennis stats? Why include head to head records against a POV selection of other players, why not them all? If you looked up a player in an encyclopedia, you'd want to know about their life and career and their notable wins, not the bottomless detail best provided by fanzines or WTP/ATP websites. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Primehunter and Dweller. We need to use WP:SUMMARY style. If this level of detail is so very important then consider making a content fork for career statistics. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

98, you say there's consensus for these stats being in articles. I wouldn't want to edit against consensus. Can you point me to the discussions? I take consensus very seriously. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree - the year-by-year sections in these biography articles are ridiculously overblown. These should be an encyclopaedic summary of the important events written in "engaging prose", but they read more like a child's first story: "X started playing in February at Yville and got to the nth round where they lost 2-6 4-6. Then in March they went to Ztown and got to the (n-1)th round where they lost 3-6 1-6. Then in April..." on repeat for up to a decade of career. It's wooden, repetitive and practically unreadable as prose - who would sit down and read 40k of that end-to-end? Anything which is truly significant is hard to discern, drowned amid a bland porridge of homogeneous fact-slop.

Wikipedia:Proseline seems to have identified a similar problem in articles on slow-developing long-term news events; these quasi-timeline sections give the illusion of "comprehensiveness" by avoiding the writing of good summary-style text derived from secondary sources.

The numerical data for the tournament progression is contained in the tables and important data on the match scores and seedings are contained in the tournament articles. It doesn't need regurgitating as if by witless macro all over the player articles as well. If it is required, it should be split out to subarticles, as recommended at WP:DETAIL.

In the Hantuchová article, I would suggest separating everything after the "Overall" section to a separate "career progression and statistics" article. Knepflerle (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Table of contents limit

Is there any reason for the contents to be so limited? I changed the Andy Murray one to show one more section of the tree but was quickly reverted. However, it is very difficult to navigate, particularly to the career sections, which are quite long. (On my screen each year takes up about one screen). Going to his record for this year is a bit cumbersome without the ability to link directly to it. Changing the TOC limit doesn't appear to show up anything that look particularly untoward (except maybe 'Masters Series singles finals: 5 finals (4 titles, 1 runner-up)' which should probably just be trimmed down to 'Masters Series singles finals'). I've brought this here as the person undoing my edit said this was the standard for tennis players. Quantpole (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to make everything clear, by saying it was the standard I meant that on the high traffic players articles (Roger Federer & Rafael Nadal & Andy Murray) the TOC has been limited for as long as I can remember. My opinion is that having the detailed results tables as another thing on the TOC is unnecessary and makes the TOC too long. And although it may be slightly harder to find the career years, I think the limited TOC makes the page look neater, rather than a sprawling TOC. I don't think it is all that important though, so if people think change is better then fire away. Alan16 (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

To expand on my reasoning slightly. The Career section of Andy Murray is 39kb long, out of a total of 85kb. To have nearly half of the article without any links from the contents doesn't seem right. I see what you mean about the TOC being a bit neater, but it's not that bad (imo) and the better navigation is worth it. Quantpole (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If we could have the Career bit expanded without the rest that would be an amiable solution. Alan16 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeh that would be good. Not sure how to do it tho. Quantpole (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, have just tried it out, by manually altering the font size rather than using a header. Diff: [7]. What do ye reckon? Quantpole (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Cryan Tennis Tournament

Is the Cryan Tennis Tournament a notable tournament? It was an orphan from the time it was created in October, until today. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not notable. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I would say it's not notable either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I've listed it at AfD. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

FL Drive

Appears to be FL drive gathering momentum by User:Don Lope to get: List of US Open Men's Singles champions, List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions, and List of French Open Men's Singles champions to FLC soon. Any help would be great Aaroncrick (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait until the US Open finishes before doing an FLC? Spiderone 15:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessary. The FLC process takes, on average, three weeks to complete. The US Open will be finished within the next 48 hours or so. Please continue to nominate tennis lists at FLC!! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Height

I'm working on the Del Potro article and I was wondering how to write his height in prose. Would "6 ft 6 in" do or should I just leave it as it is? Also why isn't the US Open final on the main page news? Spiderone 15:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead with it! It is listed on the main wikipedia page in the news section though. Have a nice day...TW-RF (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'm going to make him my next GA target. There is a serious lack of tennis articles in the GA/FA range. Spiderone 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

APB: Doubles Navbox Implementation!

I created these today, and need some other users to help with the implementing of them into each players articles! All your help will be well apreciated...Thanks in Advance.98.240.44.215 (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Template:Australian Open men's doubles champions Done TW-RF
• Template:Australian Open women's doubles champions Done Armbrust
• Template:French Open men's doubles champions Done TW-RF
• Template:French Open women's doubles champions Done Armbrust
• Template:Wimbledon men's doubles champions Done TW-RF
• Template:Wimbledon women's doubles champions Done Armbrust
• Template:US Open men's doubles champions Done TW-RF
• Template:US Open women's doubles champions Done Armbrust
• Template:Year-End Championships winners doubles Done TW-RF
• Template:WTA Year-End Championships winners doubles Done Armbrust

"Too Much Detail" Template; Andy Roddick

I just want to bring to the attention of the community that an editor has input the template on the Andy Roddick article page that says: "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Please relocate any relevant information, and remove excessive trivia, praise, criticism, lists and collections of links. (April 2009)".

It is very detailed. But as a tennis fan, I think that's great. Others may differ.

In any event, I thought it worthwhile to bring up for discussion here. Is the template innapropriate, for a tennis player page such as Roddick's? Or is it correct, and should something be done? How much detail is appropriate? This is relevant, as I believe this banner has been input on some other (less detailed) tennis player pages as well. Tx.--Ethelh (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are illustrating the very point why that template is being used. While it might interest a tennis follower, an ordinary reader would find it very long, dreary and uninteresting to read due to the excessive amount of detail added (such as scores of each and every match played in a tournament). The aim is to reduce this detail to a more tolerable level so as to make it pleasant for a non tennis following reader. ^LeaveSleaves 19:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LeaveSleaves that the scores embedded in the prose make the article difficult to read, especially as the tables later in the piece should suffice in showing the scores for the relevant matches. If the match is mentioned in the prose but isn't important enough to be listed in one of the later tables, then perhaps that match shouldn't be included in the prose portion at all? Summarize, tighten. Break some of the dreariness into more distinct paragraphs/subheads for easier reading.~ And for gosh sake, delink the multiple appearances of player names. Just link the first time McEnroe or Hewitt appear in the article, not every single time they're listed. That in itself might be half the problem in making the page look busier than it actually is. SpikeJones (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

An example of what's wrong with the article: "In the 2008 Wimbledon, Roddick suffered a 2nd round defeat to Serbia's Janko Tipsarević 6–7 (5), 7–5, 6–4, 7–6 (4)." Who cares how many points Roddick won in the fourth set tiebreak of a Wimbledon match he lost in 2008? Why is this important? The article reports results of more than 120 individual sets, and that's without 2008 and 2009, because I got bored counting. GregorB (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ethelh! Maybe someone should create an Andy Roddick career statistics article to hold the detailed information? Chidel (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to flesh this out a bit, I took a glance at the articles of some of our more recent # 1 tennis players, and most seem to have one or more banners, usually at the top of the page. In addition to Roddick, for example, the excessive detail banner is the first thing you see on the Henin, Jancovic, Ivanovic, Sarafina, and Agassi bios. A "needs cites" banner adorns the Muster, Sampras, Ferrero, Courier, Henin, Sarafina, and Davenport bios. Neutrality is questioned in the Lendl and Emerson bios. And the suggestion is made that the Laver article be cleaned up. Just a short sampling, but it's not a very pretty look.--Ethelh (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's strange that the only 2 FAs for tennis are video games. It says a lot. Spiderone 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fansites on External Links in Tennis Articles?

Should we allow this for all tennis players or expressidly forbid it according to the rules! Andy Murray has it, and Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal do not, and they are trying to get consensus for one lone tennis player to have this at the sake for the entire community of tennis player articles as a whole!TW-RF (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fansites on External Links are not forbidden "according to the rules", Policy suggests that fansites are to be "avoided". And no one is trying to get consensus "for the entire community of tennis player articles as a whole". The discussion at Talk:Andy Murray is establishing consensus on one link for that one article. Every article should treat addition of any External Link on its own merits and according to policy. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This project should be able to establish its own standards about "avoiding" fansite links in tennis articles. That's what the project is for! Chidel (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to work out the difference between this topic and the previous one. Can someone please point it out? Thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fansites created by recognized authorities are fine.... even if someone makes more than one discussion section about them. 2005 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are authorities, when they are not affiliate with anything other than the fansite they created like Mark is? Authority-NO!TW-RF (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of like http://www.goroger.com is an authority on Roger Federer? NOT! I think just because you are arround for a while and some station mentions you if that is even true at some point means your an authority! This is no more an authority than a random blog about a sportsperson, which means it is subjected to this criteria of a living person Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources, which go look at self publishing. This is the only article on wikipedia that has a fansite link that I have ever saw, which clealy should be viewed as being out of the norm! Murraysworld violates pretty much all of these rules and criteria!TW-RF (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies TW-RF, but that's completely wrong. There isn't a single rule or criteria that Murraysworld "violates". The rules aren't the issue here; they very clearly allow for Murraysworld to be referenced as a link. The question is whether people think it's appropriate to include links to fansites within tennis articles, or not. It's that simple. David T Tokyo (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect and sincerity, I think you misunderstood the rules David T Tokyo because a biography about a living person is not suppose to have a blog(fansite) on the page anywhere. I think fansites should be banned in perpetuity on wikipedia because whose to say which ones should and should not be included. Then, you get yourselves into an argument over authorities and whatnot.TW-RF (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"whose to say" There are many tools for rating websites including fansites, as well as ranking various degrees and types of authority. It's not merely a matter of opinion, though that can be accounted for also.

There's no WP:BLP rule against an External link fansite – see that explained in the next section. Milo 09:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's Start a For or Against Section

Against: This is because it violates the sources doctorine of the BLP (Biography of a Living Person), and this means for all tennis and all wikipedia articles all fansites must be removed no matter their subject matter or player!TW-RF (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Polls are good, but this one is premised on a misconception. TW-RF incorrectly describes as relevant WP:BLP in which "sources" are discussed. Sources are used for numbered references in the article body. This poll concerns fansites in External links. External links are not sources or references, so WP:BLP doesn't apply. Milo 09:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And it hasn't been made absolutely clear what question is being polled. It may seem as pedantry, but half of the disagreement here is on how exactly to define things.

Could I suggest the question should be along the lines of; Should articles within the Tennis Project be permitted to have external links to sites other than recognised Tennis organisations or established professional publications? Or should they be removed as undesirable as consensus within the project? Please indicate Remove or Allow.

This side-steps arguments of what is, or isn't, a fan-site and makes the basis of the either decision consensus, rather than disputed interpretation of other guidelines. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Against: It would be virtually impossible to get "Joe Editor" to consistently implement a very fine (thin) distinction between an "authoritative" "Fact" site versus a hyped up "Fan" site. These links would be disallowed to be used as references (per BLP); therefore, I would wonder what they really offer? WP:FANSITE is directly for "External Links", and then there is WP:NOTLINK. Also, the introduction of these links would lead the IP editors to add THEIR favorite fan site; and then potentially cite "previous consensus". Sorry, but "No", we should not allow these. Does ANY project? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

List of US Open Men's Singles champions at FLC

Reviews are appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of US Open Men's Singles champions/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Grandslam Final appearances

I think that US Open Final appearances, Wimbledon Final appearances, French Open Final appearances, Australian Open Final appearances are redundant. The List of Australian Open Women's Singles champions set of lists, i.e. 4 slams, singles/doubles, men/womens have the finalists in them and basically I cannot see what additional use these "final appearances" list are. Can anyone think of a reason for keeping them? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This should not be delete in its entirity, but should be merged with the main articles because it shows W-L record and it matters to tennis and an encyclopedia to have this. This is similar to the listing of multiple champions because you can use the same rational to delete that content as well if it were on a separate page to be merged. I will work on this tomorrow to merge this into the statistics sections!_BLuE^DOgTn 00:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Standardization of scores in prose

Basically I'd like to try and standardise the way scores are written. This started, when I was discussion the ambiguity of the scores we use at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions/archive1. Below is the relevent passage of conversation:

Relevant conversation from the FLC for List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions

This is just observation, and probably doesn't have the backing of WP:TENNIS but I'm interested in some discussion. To me 6–7(10) is completely ambiguous, unless you know the convention. I think the confusion is added because in 7–6(9) the bracket refers to the opposition score (i.e. won 11–9) and in 6–7(10) it refers to overall winner's score (i.e. lost 10–12) yet the bracket is in the same place. This is confusing to a newcomer: Wouldn't 610–7 7–69 be clearer. I notice this is what this years tournament bracket does. This is what the bracket does, but we would not use the "sup" thing in prose, and we wouldn't have the tie-break score after the "6", as in your "610–7" example. 6–7(10), 7–6(9) would be the format used in all articles, and, as far as I can tell, in every reliable source. I don't think wikipedia should come up with a way of writing score different from everything readers could see in sources, so the best I can propose would be to link the "Score in the final" column to the Tennis score article. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Actually the Wimbledon RS uses the whole tie break score in parenthesis following the set score. My point is someone could easily think that in AvB, 6–7(10) would mean B got 7 sets and 10 points in the tie-break. But it doesn't, the parenthesis following players B score is actually player A's score. This is quite unnatural so would be confusing for those unfamiliar with the system. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC) You're right, the Wimbledon article writes things differently. So let's say most sources would use 6–7(10), 7–6(9). I completely agree with your point, this system can be confusing if you're unfamiliar with the convention - but that is true of many, if not all types of sport scoring systems. Using 6–7(10), 7–6(9) is still the most common form of writing TB scores in sources and on wikipedia so I believe we should keep that. I saw that the List of The Open Championship champions FL had a link to par so that's why I proposed having the "Score in the final" header linked to Tennis score to help readers. What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Um, a link to Tennis score#Scoring a set might help, however if you adopt the Wimbledon source method, and give the complete tie break score that would eliminate any ambiguity. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I prefer to keep the current score system. Doing otherwise would probably create inconsistency within the tennis project. I've linked the column header to Tennis score#Scoring a set. --Don Lope (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC) No offense, but I think being unambiguous is more important than what the Tennis WP uses, as lets face it, WP:TENNIS doesn't have any existing featured content to set a precedent. Again if consensus is against this I'll back down. TRM do you have a view on this, because I know you review featured content and are active at WP:TENNIS? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC) No offense taken. I thought we should follow the tennis project's most common practice, but if we can go against it then I guess wimbledon.org's option is the best. I was looking at a USTA document about US Open champions yesterday and saw that the early 70s tie-breaks were not stopped at 7 w/ a two-points diff, but at 5 w/ a two-points diff, and I realised that the List of US Open Men's Singles champions had "2–6, 6–4, 7–6(2), 6–3" for the 1970 final score, which could lead a reader to think the 3rd set TB was won (7–2), when it was actually won (5–2). So perhaps full TB scores is the best option. --Don Lope (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I think that would be best. I've asked The Rambling Man to comment, but in the light of your revalation about tie-breaks previously going to 5 that makes me more against the existing format and in favour of full tiebreak scores. Also, as the first (potentially) featured tennis content I think we should set a precendent for these things. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Let's set a precedent then. I've written all TB scores the way it's done on the Wimbly website. What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I've always been concerned by the assumptions tennis articles make with non-expert readers when it comes to tie-breaks. I think the current solution is by far the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC) That's what I hoped you'd say. Striking this and, to Don, keep going because there is some really good progress being made despite the mass of comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we try and agree on a standardisation for tie-breaks and then try and put it in a visible place in the Project. Additionally can we try to agree on a format for match tiebreaks (see Tennis_score#Alternative_game_scoring). In Bob and Mike Bryan they use "[10–3]" but I'm not sure how commonplace this notation is) and we might as well attempt to standardise as many scoring things at once. Thanks in advance for your input on this, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't you know how hellacious this would be to implement...? I love the concept, but if we go back and have to correct all the scores it will be a massively time consuming task. Further, I think this methodology will not work in brackets at all. Really, all scoring is relative to the editor or even the slam doing the scoring, which I don't think their needs to be one set standard. I think it is best to do that scoring on lists articles not on the individual pages like Roger Federer. It serves its purpose on the four articles Don Lope created and the other slam lists articles that has yet to be done.TennisAuthority 23:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Without being rude I don't really care about "how hellacious this is to implement". The point should be to have an unambiguous score. If a standard is set if can be followed but if none is set we will end up with a mixture and confusion at good/feautred content reviews. For example, the majority of tennis articles (e.g Federer) use hyphens in the scores (7-6) but this is against the MoS which requires ndashes (7–6). Hyphens would never get through a good/featured content candidacy and I think we should set an unambiguous standard for scores too. Let's face it we don't have much recognised good/featured content to compare it to, so why not make the ones we do get a standard that should be followed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you don't care about it being hellacious because you will not be the one that has to go back and do all the changing of the prose, so I get you don't care which is rather pathetic argument! I just believe before we rule by fiat it should have to go thru a six month or so trial period before we implement it on all articles because it will take a couple of years to correct!98.240.44.215 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For anyone interested I'm planning to take Juan Martin del Potro to GA or FA tomorrow to try and set a standard for tennis articles. Spiderone 17:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that the tie-break scoring is ambiguous and worth changing because I would probably question that at a content review (as I have for tennis FLs). Just thought I'd give you a heads up in case you wanted to discuss it first. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's very difficult to understand, even for me. I'm going to leave it as it is for now though until something else becomes more acceptable. I think I need to switch a lot of the scores around as they appear to be double negatives. Also in the Bryan brothers they seem to use all 3 variations. Spiderone 17:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's champions scores because it violates how they are scored with the other three slams and in every day written publications. I would say I prefer scores such as 7-6(2), 6-3, 6-7(4), 2-6, 7-5 to be the standard because with all due respect to the Wimbledon people US Open Scoring, Other US Open Australian Open Scoring Roland Garros Scoring —Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAuthority (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a vote (that's not how consensus works). I'm sorry but if there is a choice of two, the unambiguous should prevail (the people at FLC seemed to agree). As do Wimbledon, The Telegraph, The Washington Post. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There is not an unambiguous one, unless your opinion of it based on a few sources! I have sources to back up the other as more unambiguous one! So, I prefer to leave out tiebreak ultimately! The match tiebreak is different it is most always listed [11–9]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

For my money, I'd write the tie-break scores out in full 7-6(7-3). Maybe it is because I'm from the UK, and used to that sub-consciously through Wimbledon, but anything else looks odd to me, and it isn't a form I have seen before (because in the UK, the form 7-6(2) isn't seen in print for any of the slams as far as I know. As for the section below (still regarding standardization), I would go with the subject first form, (especially for non-straight set results: Berk lost to Bloggs 6-4, 3-6, 7-6(7-4), 2-6, 4-6. Ultimately, you can always work out the order of the set wins, but extending that previous example, consistency would suggest Berk lost to Bloggs 4-6, 3-6, 6-7(4-7).—MDCollins (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And here's a recent example from the BBC that confirms both points (from a UK perspective, anyway).example.—MDCollins (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say those are sources but I found others to my pov like Score Tennis Magazine and Mens USOpen final SI, and CBC. I prefer we leave out all tiebreaks in prose and in scoring on individual articles like the List articles and Roger Federer and all tennis players because 7-6 indicates and signifies already it was won in a tiebreak. So, just leave the reporting of tiebreaks to the bracket articles and away from all prose all together! Furthermore, if this tiebreak is kept then look at Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Justine Henin articles for past concensus and I agree (-) is unacceptable and we need to go with ndash. I went and looked at these best articles, and their is only one example of your tiebreak listing and the rest are of my example, so past history is past consensus. 98.240.44.215 (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand because you are arguing against it here, but were quite happy to implement it when I suggested it at the current FL. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because I like to avoid the arguing and debate in that forum, but since this will be implement whole tennis project wide that is why I am voicing it here! I thank for the most part it has been written until recently as (5) tiebreak, and it will be like 7-6 is equal which is a set to a tiebreak which is just a special game, but just in fact a game at the end of a set instead of a whole set! 7-6(7-4) makes it look like their is two sets played instead of just one. I will implement this if it does become the new standard, but we need to quit putting scores in prose unless it is the final of a tournament or a slam tournament. I think we can link to the bracket articles instead of writting out those other marginal scores of matches. Furthermore, we need to develop a template like is done for height and weight for the scores in the prose to make it standard throughout. Have a nice day...!98.240.44.215 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think that in the case of losing a tiebreak 7-2, the only tiebreaks that should deviate from the simplified (2) would be the ones in the 60s and 70s that used 12 point, 9 point, 5 point... or whatever special tiebreaks might get used in senior events today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't think the actual score of the tie-break matters. I have played tennis for twenty years. I know for a fact after losing 7-6, 6-7, 7-6; the actual score is utterly irrelevant. Certainly not in text. In a results table, maybe. So, my vote would be to eliminate scores from text period; leave them for the results tables. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Mjquin_id on this matter, which I think is correct._BLuE^DOgTn 16:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Which way do the scores go?

Would it be:

• Berk lost to Bloggs 4–6, 2–6

or

• Berk lost to Bloggs 6–4, 6–2?

I've seen both before and there aren't really any featured articles for me to look at to compare. Spiderone 15:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with the former (see above for reasoning).—MDCollins (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tennis is kind of tricky on how to score, but it would be on Berk's page Berk lost to Bloggs 4–6, 2–6 and on Bloggs page Bloggs beat Berk 6–4, 6–2. 98.240.44.215 (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally false. It would be 6–4, 6–2 on both pages. 196.46.111.254 (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, depends on the page and the history of the page what goes? No mandatory scoring procedures on wikipedia nor should their ever be!_BLuE^DOgTn 02:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's where the problem is. People have different opinions and since each page is written by different people then the scoring will be different. Spiderone 13:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, look how the official website on the ATP tour puts it here ATP Federerhere ITF Federerhere ITF Nadal and here ATP NadalI believe they are the ultimate authority on this matter of how to score when a player wins or loses a match. They did make a typo in the first set in 6-3 should be 3-6 following their own logic, but the Australian Open final is absolutely correct. It is written in papers to the benefit of the tennis player that won, and it is not correct to use that scoring on the losers page at all! Tennis has two ways to write scores that are mandatory if you lose or win. These are the governing body and the men's tour on tennis, and I believe that should be the scoring all over wikipedia._BLuE^DOgTn 00:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The WTA has opposing scoring for a set with respect to winners and loser than the governing body, but they do score the tiebreaks the same way. I believe Tennis governing body go look, should be the ultimate and definative source for scoring on wikipedia to avoid debate over newspapers and magazines. Governing body is suppose to mean something!_BLuE^DOgTn 01:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles that have been on here and editing the most have the tiebreak (2) not (7-2), which those are Roger Federer (15), Pete Sampras (14), Andre Agassi (8), and Rafael Nadal (6) all with just the (2), yet someone with one slam Juan Martin del Potro can have it (7-2) after it has been on here for a shorter time span than those four._BLuE^DOgTn 02:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am actually on the side of no mandatory or standardization of scoring because I agree with Spiderone._BLuE^DOgTn 02:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The rule given to chair umpires (as I am one) is that the score is written from the perspective of the person. "Winner" 6-0, 6-0; "Runner-up" 0-6, 0-6 = It eliminates discussion or ambiguity. Formal entry into the USTA site as ALWAYS done from the perspective of the winner. But, again, as one who reads these articles aloud...scores within text are a real problem. Try it sometime; then take the scores out of text and put them into a results table. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this concept completely because golf does not report the score in prose only the significance of the win or loss. I think you might want to go look at federer in the slams on one of his subpages for an excellent example of this._BLuE^DOgTn 16:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Question -- I've noticed (and expect all of you have as well) that when there is a tiebreaker in a score while most editors put a space in before the open paren --e.g., 7-6 (5)-- quite a number do not. Is that something that someone with bot experience can have fixed on a bot basis? As it is, there is a great deal of lack of conformity in this respect in tennis articles, and that would help I would think. Any thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We are still debating the usage of scores in prose all together, let alone the tiebreak. I am on the side of mjquinid!^BLUE_DOGTN 23:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Roger Federer GA drive

Anyone interested. I suppose I could help with referencing and expanding sections? Aaroncrick (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes when I'm finished with Del Potro Spiderone 07:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I could help out, but if I do I want to take this article beyond GA, which is a noble persuit to a FA article.BLUE_DOG^TN 18:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Just tell me where you want me to start, and I am all at it.BLUE_DOG^TN 19:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Some paragraphs probably need merging in 2008. Also sources are needed for a lot of statements in the earlier career sections. Spiderone 21:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to make the article featured while his career is still going. Solid GA though. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I could do early career bits and pieces. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not be nervous about taking it beyond GA if it is kept semi-locked because it would make the material stay more constant. I have combined the paragraphs in 2003, 2008, and 2009 Sections, which makes it look better to read. I will see if anymore sections need to have this done.BLUE_DOG^TN 21:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Good work. Books used a refs should be under References, and in the Notes section should be a summary of the book in use, not the ISBN and all that jargon. Also I moved all the stats to the bottom of the article as where it was, the prose get broken up. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

ATP website profile of Roger Federer is the same ref used on three different occasions. Need to merge ref 4 and 5 into ref 3. Also not a fan of the coloured table in tennis article. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I will have to disagree on the last point because it must be colored to break-up the slams, and it is president with the colors of the navboxes and the slam pages.BLUE_DOG^TN 01:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No big deal. Although it is probably too early for a Peer review. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Expanded Junior ranks. 06:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Good JOB.BLUE_DOG^TN 03:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ATP Masters Series/Super 9 tournaments

Template:ATP Masters Series/Super 9 tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --RL0919 (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of tennis?

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: See Wikipedia's collection of outlines at WP:OOK.

Yes, Duh!98.240.44.215 (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

After a good deal of thought; I think no. See the top of the Category:Tennis tree. I think the outline would boil down to: The Game, Derivitives, Organizations, Players, Tournaments, Terminology. Can people add more base groupings? -- Mjquinn_id (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10