This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Well think of it this way. The article states "Wimbeldon is one of the four Grand Slam tennis tournaments, the others being ....". Nowhere is there context provided that during the period as above it was one of three Major tournaments recognised by the ITLF. In this article it states: "Until 1922 the reigning champion had to play only in the final, against whomever had won through to challenge him/her. As with the other three Major or Grand Slam events, Wimbeldon was contested by top ranked amatuer players ....". These sentences flow directly and it appears we are talking about similar periods so even when the era being discussed is directly relevant to the period in which the World Championships were the recognised Majors they don't get mentioned, indeed rather subsumed into a future state yet to be made official. Also there is no discussion, for example, as to how this formal status was recognised by The Championships. Further there is no notation in subsidiary lists of champions that notes the period in which The Championships were also recognised as the WGCC. Antipodenz (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not like anything changed. Wimbledon was already looked at that way... in fact it was the defacto tennis World Championships through at least the 1980s. Tennis tournament names change quite a bit through the years but they are still the same event. But since the ILTF actually formed in 1913, they could not recognize the "World Grass Court Championships" in 1912... that's a bit of an article error. And those were the three world championships (really two) by the ILTF. The ILTF wasn't the only game in town. The US Championships were every bit as important but the US didn't want any world championships at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm talking about the World Championships in relation to The Championships so while your comment regarding the formation and recognition (e.g. 1913) is pertinent, the other comments do not add value. However if the US was so reluctant to have any World Championships at all why do they have a need to appropriate the term, e.g. "World Series" (1903) for anything but? Antipodenz (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The US LTA demanded no world championships. I should have been clearer about that. The words World Championships didn't do much at all to Wimbledon. It was simply a wording change to an event that was already world-class. It helped the World Hard Court Championships held in France. That event was created in 1912 by the French LTA with the World Championships term slapped on to give it more prestige. It only got the added prestige when the newly formed ILTF decided to make it a bigger deal in 1913. That event was a success as opposed to the World Covered Court Championship, which each year went into further demise as a World Championship. US tennis wanted no part of any event being a world championship, and their demands were finally agreed to as the ILTF was going bankrupt. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Not everything that happens in this world is the result of what the US demands. And who are you talking about when speaking on behalf of "US tennis"; clearly not the players who played in various World Championship events. The nature of the period being early days of ITLF and the impacts of WWI (clearly less of an issue there for the USA) are all relevant when discussing the impact and evolution of the world game but this is an article about The Championships and the period in which it was recognised by the ITLF as one of the three World Championship events - it is part of the history of that period and I have recommended some information/discussion to better highlight that. Antipodenz (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok... not everything does. I am talking about what happened and what is sourced. If you don't like it, then tough toenails. You have mentioned many errors on many articles in the last few weeks. That's great because we want them accurate. But you can fix them too. A string of what's wrong with no seeming effort to fix them does get a bit old after awhile. This article does mention the fact about the name change in the history section. "From 1912 to 1924, the tournament was recognized by the International Lawn Tennis Federation as the World Grass Court Championships." Obviously the 1912 version was retroactively recognized since the ILTF officially formed in 1913. Sort of like today where the ATP recognizes records from before the ATP was founded. In 1913 women's doubles and mixed doubles were added, so that was a change that happened after the formation of the ILTF. The WHCC always had mixed doubles, but women's doubles came in 1914. WCCC also had mixed at the start, with the women's doubles being added in 1919. But nothing changed with the popularity of Wimbledon just because of a name change as far as I can find. It was looked at that way already. And when the World Championship title was dropped, nothing changed for the worse either. Wimbledon was always top tier. And if you look at press clippings in 1914 I see reports split between Wimbledon champion and World Grass Court champion. By 1921 they were pretty much back to using Wimbledon champion. And from it's earliest days till at least the 1950s it was often called The British Tennis Championships. The Wimbledon we know today has had many names, but it was always the most prestigious event in tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Nothing you have commented on has impacted on the relevance and interest I retain in my request. The comments about the importance of Wimbeldon etc. are fine, I agree, but they have nothing specific to do with what I was talking about (nor does US Open etc.). It's a fair point that I could make changes directly. I'm happy to do that but know that others may like to review the proposals I have made and check them and also because there are key authors for these articles who (like yourself in the past) have got pretty annoyed by others changing stuff in formats etc. you don't like. But it's not about a lack of effort; determining errors and gaps and trying to get a representative view of the past etc. takes just that. Antipodenz (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
There's a big difference between formatting changes, and correcting sourced errors. Like Mabel Cahill's article where it was shown by you that one championships was not official. Or where a sentence in Rosewall's article didn't make sense. If you change those with an adequate reason, all is well. If you make a change that someone dislikes, sure, they'll revert you and you'll be forced to add it to the talk page to explain and convince. But that's the way wikipedia works. Here's one problem with the way you are doing it. You have made dozens and dozens of legitimate talk page requests. Most editors don't have those articles on their watch-list and don't usually read the talk pages. So those requests by you may remain for years before someone actually notices. That's why it's sometimes better to make the fix yourself. You can always try and see what happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
