Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Fumiteru Nakano

Since Kei Nishikori hit the headlines with his achievement today, that is being the first Japanese to reach the fourth round of th RG after 75 years, I think it would be nice to have his predecessor's page created here. I think a lot of people wanted to check it already. Anyone interested? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, he played Davis cup so he's notable regardless of anything else. He does have a page at the French wiki so at least a stub copy would be helpful. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Its a good idea to try and benefit from the attention of a news event so I created an article. There's lots of room for expansion but at least its a start.--Wolbo (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
And five minutes later it's already indexed by Google and on the first page of the search results. Amazing.--Wolbo (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Nice job. Anyone up to DYK it in connection with the Kei Nishikori trivia? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 15:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
600 more characters is needed for that, currently it's a stub. I will add some info soon. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 16:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Nominated it for DYK. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 15:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Well done.--Wolbo (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox clutter - pro and jr results in the same infobox

I deleted some infobox information at Laura Robson just now because those old jr results look very cluttered to me. The infobox just gets bigger and bigger and harder to read. It's supposed to be a quick summary of career highlights and Jr results aren't highlights once a player makes an inroad at one of the Majors. Sure they can be mentioned in an early years section of a bio (we wouldn't want to completely censor sourced info), but not the infobox. If all they have played is juniors, that's a different story, but as things get more important these things naturally get moved down the list and are given the proper weight at wikipedia. Maybe others disagree but before this gets added to many articles I thought maybe a few of our esteemed editors might have an opinion? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There is an existing discussion on Talk:Laura Robson#Grand_Slam_results_.232_-_Jr_results_in_infobox please see there as it is already developed.Sport and politics (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
As this affects all of Tennis project articles it should really be moved here so everyone can find it easily. At the very least the results need to be placed here for future archive reference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree what you said. I don't like either the style, where junior results are listed like here: Tennys Sandgren. Best way is in my opinion mention junior results like they are now on Laura Robson's article, so just normal text. --Stryn (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Fully agree with Fyunck(click). Adding Jr Grand Slam results to the infobox for a player who is already a senior and as a senior has a track record at the Grand Slam tournaments is over the top and leads to an overly lengthy and cluttered infobox. Additionally it gives undue weight to Jr. GS results vs. GS results. An infobox is meant to provide a quick overview of key biographical data and career results. It does not need to show ALL significant achievements, i.e. results at individual Masters / Premier tournaments are not listed in an infobox (only the Tour Finals). In this particular case less is more.--Wolbo (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
All the arguments for removal boil down to are; dislike of the aesthetics, that she is no longer a junior, and its not on other articles (already shown to be absurd as a reasoning). All are substance free and based in no policy. When credible points based on genuine substance and not wishy washy aesthetics or that she has grown a little older, the points being put forward for removal may be taken seriously, at the moment they are not serious points to base removal on. The information is relevant, sensible, proportionate, notable and noteworthy in the article and the infobox. What next we remove titles won by a player when changes in their nationality occur as they are "no longer playing for that country" or we remove other parameters because users potentially don't like the way it looks. Where is the line drawn? Where does potential removal on looks stop?. The informations' inclusion is notable, proportionate and sensible. The points forwarded for removal are nonsensical and free from any basis in content. Sport and politics (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • An rfc has been started at Talk:Laura Robson. It looks like only one person is against moving the results out of the infobox and into a different section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Slow burn edit warring counter WP:OPENPARA again

Sorry to bring this up again but at least 1 other WP tennis editor is enabling this. In between slow-burn edit warring on (a) flags, (b) colours, (c) junior results, I'd like to post a reminder of (d) the continuing (and expanding) addition of double-barelled "Björn Borg (1956) shown on rankings websites as Bjorn Borg.." type ASCII names leads counter WP:MOSBIO (counter WP:OPENPARA example) and contrary to 100% of non-tennis BLPs on en.wp.

None of this is the way Wikipedia works. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Big Four

You all have to be kidding me! I am a greatly inventive person, and even I could not come up with this bunch of un-encyclopedic malarkey. This needs to be deleted do we have one for Agassi-Sampras-Courier-Chang, which is exactly what we are doing with the article in question about the made-up "Big Four", similar to Trivalry. This article's conceptualization is even worse, and rather mythical in nature if I can say so myself!HotHat (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about it either. The trouble is it can be massively sourced over multiple years by multiple major newspapers and magazines. They specifically use the term "Big Four." If Federer falls much further this may be it's last year of editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I concur with the above comments if it stays you could argue there should also be one for Borg-Connors-Lendl-McEnroe.--Navops47 (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Or...The Big Four in Tennis.--Wolbo (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Idea

Since we have individual tennis players having season articles, why not start having them for doubles players with the same rule of thumb about grand slam wins to qualify? So, I am suggesting to have a 2013 Bob and Mike Bryan tennis season article created, which is because they have already won two grand slams and three Masters Series 1000 events this year. What do you all think about that idea?HotHat (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much all our guidelines apply to doubles as well as singles. I see no problem at all for someone who wants to do the work in creating the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I am working on the article, which here is the link to it, and if anybody wants to try to figure out the rankings and points stuff like 2013 Novak Djokovic tennis season has you can be my guest and do so. I will try to get the prize money table together tomorrow at the earliest if I can. Also, someone can work on the prose and introduction if that suits your fancy and the infobox. I got all the matches done atleast someone can help on something.HotHat (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I have created the article for all to edit now at 2013 Bob and Mike Bryan tennis season. All it needs is the year in detal section written with some prose and the prize money.HotHat (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

1877 Wimbledon Championship

A while ago the 1877 Wimbledon Championship article was submitted for a Good Article (GA) review. This week this article about the inaugural Wimbledon tournament passed the review making it only the 10th GA article of the WikiProject Tennis. Onwards and upwards. --Wolbo (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks for your good job done on 1877 Wimbledon Championship article. Keep up the good spirit.
Enjoy! Cheers!! - Ninney (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I've watchlisted it at the time of the first review, I saw your hard work day-by-day. Congrats to that. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 07:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hoorah. Nice job. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gene Mako's death

Gene Mako passed away three days ago, almost reaching 100 years. Anyone interested in a fivefold expansion of his start-article to bring it to the main page? Currently there are a few sentences only, so not that much of a work is needed. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 07:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Twofold expansion is already reached. Altough there's plenty of room to edit, since I haven't even touched his tennis career, only personal details. Three days left for nomination. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Stockholm Open

I'm not sure most of the match articles in Category:Stockholm Open could really be called "encyclopedia articles". Most of them are raw tabular data with almost no prose. If nothing can be said about a match other than the participants and the results, I'd venture to say that match is not really notable, no matter if it was at a high level of the sport. Gigs (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you specify your problem? Because if you have an issue with almanach-styled sport articles, then you'll questioning the basis of most tennis and other multi-participant tournament based sports here. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Template instead of code for career finals

Hi, I've made following (draft) template: User:Stryn/Tennis finals, which I think would replace current system what is used for career finals of tennis player. What do you think, would this be useful or not? At least updating will be easier, and if we some day will change the colours of tournament series, it's easier to update just one template than edit every tennis player articles. --Stryn (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Current system (look at the code)
Legend
Grand Slam (12–5)
Year-End Championships (0–1)
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 (24–11)
Olympics (1–0)
ATP World Tour 500 Series (14–2)
ATP World Tour 250 Series (6–4)
Titles by surface
Hard (12–14)
Clay (42–6)
Grass (3–3)
Carpet (0–0)
Proposed system (look at the code)
Legend
Grand Slam (12–5)
Olympics (1–0)
Year-End Championships (0–0)
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 (24–11)
ATP World Tour 500 Series (14–2)
ATP World Tour 250 Series (6–4)
Titles by surface
Hard (12–14)
Clay (42–6)
Grass (3–3)
Carpet (0–0)
i = indoor
Approved. Very rational idea indeed. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 16:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI, the colors shown are not the standard project colors (see Article guidelines). --Wolbo (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I changed the colours, thanks. --Stryn (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I support the proposal. Looks like it will make any future updates of tournament colors a little bit easier and will also help to make/keep the project colors standardized. I gather the colors of the tournament tables themselves still have to be updated manually? Also, will this same template be used for the tennis season overviews, i.e. 2006 ATP Tour?--Wolbo (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, yeah, it's the problem that it's not possible to update the colors to tournament tables themselves. About tennis season overviews, not possible for now, should change something in the code, or add some new code to the template which would include also tennis season articles, not only tennis player articles. --Stryn (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It would be a massive maintenance advantage if the colors of tournament tables themselves could be updated via a template. I guess this will only ever be feasible if some way is found to identify the category of each tournament in a table (beyond the color itself). Does your template only cover the current tournament category setup (since 2009) or can it also be used for previous categorizations such as e.g. Ivan Lendl or Boris Becker?--Wolbo (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Janine Tremelling

Hiya. I've just made the above article (apparently the most linked-to red-link for tennis players, or among the most). I've not made a tennis player article before, so am not familiar with the proper wikilinks and categories. Anyone able to take a look and correct for me? Ta, --S.G.(GH) ping! 19:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine. No problem, don't worry. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Cross-Posting from Helpdesk - Rafael Nadal Edit Request

Resolved

Hi guys - please see [1] from the help desk. The IP has asked a couple of times for some assistance and has also posted on the article talk page with, at the current time, no reply. Cheers. CaptRik (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have worked on this, so go to Talk:Rafael Nadal to tell me what you all think of the introduction that I sandboxed.HotHat (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I have responded at the Nadal talk page and showed my suggested changes in the sandbox, below your version. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Done, if you want to edit see Rafael Nadal page directly.HotHat (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
HH, I appreciate your great help in resolving this matter! Thanks a lot. Here is the final archived version of our discussion at the Nadal talk page. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions on seeded players in Grand-Slam Draws

Most know that seeded players in grand-slam events are drawn such that certain seeds don't meet until later rounds. For argument's sake, my discussion will assume that there are NO upsets. The one and two seeds would only meet in the final. Seeds three and four are drawn to meet the one and two seeds in the semifinals, but it is random as to whether the match-up will be 1-3 and 2-4, or 1-4 and 2-3. Same thing with the quarter-finals. Seeds five through eight are distributed randomly to meet seeds one through four. I don't know if everyone is aware of the draw restrictions for the round of 16 and the round of 32. For the round of 16, seeds 1 through 4 are only allowed to be drawn against seeds 13 through 16, leaving seeds 5 through 8 to be drawn against seeds 9 through 12, ie. Seed 1 would never play a 9th seed in the round of 16. For the round of 32 the draw restriction is as follows: seeds 1 through 8 are only allowed to be drawn against seeds 25 through 32, leaving seeds 9 through 16 to be drawn against seeds 17 through 24. I don't know if these facts are written anywhere in the Grand Slam page, the individual Grand Slam events (French Open, US Open etc) OR the annual pages (2013 French Open for example), but I stand to be corrected. I appreciated your suggestions on how to incorporate this information.Juve2000 (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC) '

Steve Darcis discussion

Hi everyone, could some of you share their thoughts at Talk:Steve_Darcis#Victory_against_Nadal in order to reach a consensus? People disagree on the fact of mentioning Darcis' win over Nadal in the lead. Thanks, Sofffie7 (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Bowling3 template used

Hey, the user Bestbaggiesfan changes the draw from the "16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3" template to "16TeamBracket-Bowling3". I mean, why do we have the tennis templates then, it looks way better than the other ones. See here or here. Looks horrible in my opinion. Any other input? Kante4 (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, but remember that we have different brackets for different tournaments where e.g. seeds receive byes, GS, pre-open era brackets etc. One is similar to bowling but we don't have to worry about that. If it looks better than anyone can use it freely. I also used Women's Professional Soccer Playoffs template for Davis Cup articles such as this. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 16:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I know but this is the same draw size that is used for every other tournament (16D). So i don't get the switch. And i do not think that it looks better than the other one(s)... Kante4 (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
If it is not much of a confusion we can use both simultanously. I don't want to decide which one looks better until both serves the purpose well. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 07:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
According to the assessment table we have almost 1,000 (!) tennis templates in all shapes and sizes so it is hard to imagine that a basic tournament draw template is missing or lacking to such an extent that we need to switch to using a bowling template. If there is a valid need and consensus for a template change I´m sure one of the existing tennis templates can be updated.--Wolbo (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Here are revision links for comparison: 16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3 versus 16TeamBracket-Bowling3. I don't have a favorite. {{16TeamBracket-Bowling3}} has been a redirect to {{16TeamBracket-Tennis3}} since 2011 so it's already designated a tennis template. The only difference is whether it's compact. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 Wimbledon Championships#Black Wednesday

I'm curious what you all think but I found the term Black Wednesday a somewhat hyped word - where Wikipedia is used as an engine for the hype. Only one player used the word "black", Cilic, and no media coverage picked that up yet. Only one of the three refs in the section named "Black_Wednesday" uses these very words. Notable events is fine but I found this separate subtitle within it a bit trivial and TMZ-ish. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I see plenty of sources now calling this Black Wednesday. My google for "black wednesday wimbledon" returned "about 41,100,100 results". JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
And what about the second part of my argument above (last sentence)? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a statistically interesting day, which has inevitably drawn a moniker from the media. If that moniker was based in part on the statement of one of the players affected then I don't have an issue with Wikipedia's use of that term, in regard to reporting that event. I don't find it TMZ'ish. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to leave much room for a distinction between Wiki's encyclopedic tone-of-voice and the daily hyperbole of online and print media trying to sell the latest story. Must say though I'm impressed by the work ethic of our journalists. The day has only just gone by and apparently we already have over 41 million articles on Wimbledon's Black Wednesday? Or is this perhaps an illustrative example of the perils of (ab)using Google search results in support of one's argument?--Wolbo (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Ha, point. Let me rephrase to "There seem to be plenty of credible sources reporting this as Black Wednesday". JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Great War name is too hyped, let's remove it! --186.52.30.208 (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Also I must add the title is somewhat biased (while the Great War isn't). It is certainly a black wednesday for those who lost but it's a glorious day for those who won or got a walkover. But because of the underestimated news value and negligibility of lower ranked players it doesn't count. Then let's say if they'd have asked Gulbis (w/o vs. Tsonga) about his opinion ... but no, it doesn't matter because the media are excited to pick up negative toned catchphrases more likely. So that's where Wikipedia must come into picture and fix that with a more neutral title. Can't we do that? Still the article could claim that Cilic refer to it as black but the title don't have to copy it. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 08:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Wacky wednesday, crazy day, but not black wednesday. That's the first time i've heard that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.199.218 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately colorful terms do get bandied about by the press. They may disappear in the blink of an eye and then get a life of their own here at wikipedia. Just a quick tennis check finds Black Tuesday, Black Thursday, and Black Sunday... and I think Agassi's loss in the 2000 French was also a Black Thursday. As a quote by Cilic it makes some sense but we don't want recent-ism to overshadow our entries. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-related banter section

User:Wolbo - what exactly is "encyclopedic info" about an ASCII name? here. You're the only editor supporting Fyunck's WP:TENNISNAMES. So how do you explain how a name appearing in ASCII sources is "encyclopedic info." In ictu oculi (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi...stop LYING about "Fyunck's tennisnames". That is not my article, it is more your article. I didn't even support it. We are discussing your own suggestion here as an alternative to alternate spellings in prose, so stop edit warring on it. We have editor Lajbi thinking this is a reasonable compromise also. Goodness gracious. Fyunck(click) (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Fyunck, when I say Fyunck's WP:TENNISNAMES obviously that that relates to your edits in line with the proposal rejected at RfC. If not Fyunck then show a link of any other editor who has made edits of the sort rejected by the Tennisnames RfC? Not Wolbo pushing through your edits, but someone else actually making the edits you make? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
It is NOT obvious when you keep trying to link me to an article that you edited. That article says nothing about censoring info or even your own proposal of adding the name to the infobox. We are trying to work through this here with solutions, and your lies don't belong here and certainly don't help. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Fyunck, you are the one accusing others of "lies". But there is no lie here, this is all about and has always been about one editors edits, yours. If not, then Fyunck please show a link of any other editor who has made edits of the sort rejected by the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names RfC? Not Wolbo pushing through your edits, but someone else actually making the "tennis names" edits you make?
Now, please answer yes or no - was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names as you refer to it a WikiProject Tennis RfC, yes or no? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a discussion on a suggestion of yours, not on your lies or references to a person's essay. Stay on topic please. These switchings from a valid topic to your silly q&a inquisitions grow tiresome and tedious. You actually have people here congratulating you on your suggestion of moving the spelling to the infobox, so why you'd want to stomp on them for discussing it is beyond me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Fyunck, Asking you questions is not "stomping" on discussion, questions are discussion.

  1. This is a discussion on a suggestion of yours, - please provide diff to where I suggested "ITF names" - Did I say "ITF names" or "ASCII names"?
And that is mentioned in the opening discussion. What, you expect everything to stay 100% exactly what you demand when we have multiple editors trying to put something together? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. not on your lies - please provide diff to where any other editor than yourself has added a "tennis name" to a BLP?
  2. or references to a person's essay. - was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names a WikiProject Tennis RfC? yes or no?
  3. Does ITF now sometimes use French accents in website, yes or no?

Please answer the questions In ictu oculi (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The rest is the same old tired attempt to change the subject from something constructive. I never did see you remove the attacks and lies against me from last time, as I had asked. At least try to be part of the solution here. I brought your suggestion here to see what others thought about it. I wasn't crazy about it but at least it was a compromise that I had never seen before. If any proposal has to be 100% your way then it makes it tough for multiple editors to come to an agreement. Hopefully someone will simply edit out this entire back and forth of you and me and your "tennisnames" as non-constructive and unnecessary. 23:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Fyunck(click) (talk)
Fyunck
Please answer the questions above. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, Please remove your lies and attacks previously talked about in past conversations. Otherwise, forget it. Boy this is productive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Fyunck, I cannot remove "lies and attacks" which don't exist. All that has been said about you is that you continue to make edits counter Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names. Which is not a "lie" it is the fact of the case. Where else is the disruption of the last years edits coming from except your own keyboard? You describe the RfC as "an essay" but is not, it was an RfC "Is it appropriate [..] to insist on no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English-language press?" ... In which you participated with 6x comments. The close was No - but you are still doing the exact thing which was asked "insist on no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English-language press?" How is the RfC not relevant to you, the one editor who is doing this? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
And again this is either a reading comprehension problem for you or more outright lying. I've grown weary of your ridiculous statements and queries. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
These are straight questions: I will repeat the main one. Was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names a WikiProject Tennis RfC? yes or no? The question arises because you have referred to it as "an essay." In ictu oculi (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup update

The cleanup list of tennis articles has been updated to the latest status (25 June 2013). The table below compares the number of articles in the cleanup categories (filter: > 200 entries) per the previous list of June 2012 and now. The number of tennis articles has increased by more than 2,000 yet the number of articles listed for cleanup has gone down significantly, both in absolute numbers as well as in percentage. The same goes for the number of cleanup issues. That is nice progress during the last 12 months, but the table does show that a very significant part of that progress is down to fixing the missing persondata issue. The project goal is to "Ensure that no more than 5% of all articles are marked for cleanup." so there is still some way to go. It would be particularly helpful if we can completely cleanup the articles lacking sources. --Wolbo (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Category June 2012 June 2013
Articles 16067 18389
Marked for cleanup 2632 1979
Marked for cleanup 16.4 % 10.8 %
Issues 3636 2709
Articles lacking sources 474 399
Articles needing additional references 301 333
Articles with dead external links 359 372
Articles with unsourced statements 342 362
BLP articles lacking sources 286 308
Persondata templates without short description parameter 1098 1

Tournaments sponsored by AEGON

I may sound like a strange user here but I see there are a number of tennis tournaments sponsored by AEGON. when I see article titles called AEGON championships or AEGON international or AEGON classic I have no idea what tournament is actually being talked about. I know these tournaments as their unbranded names far more easily such as Queens or Eastbourne. AEGON being used just confused me as to what tournament was being talked about I had the same problem with the BNP Paribas open or BNP Paribas Masters being used over and over in titles as I know the tournaments as things like Indian Wells or the Paris master. I have had some page moves recently reverted on the AEGON articles which makes them highly confusing to me now and no doubt countless others. Can this please be sorted so the unbranded and commonly known name is used so people actually know what on earth is being talked about in the articles from the title and not use some obscure titles which tells nothing of the tournament. Sport and politics (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

All the main pages of tournaments should be located at their non-sponsored names (if there is a common term used), per tennis guidelines. The yearly page is usually located at the full sponsored name. The non-sponsored name should be visible somewhere close to the sponsored name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
All sponsor names are highly confusing in lists of tournaments and in the title especially in this case when tournaments have very very similar names eg AEGON Classic AEGON International AEGON Championships AEGON Open. The titles are very confusing as which tournament is being talked of in the year specific article space. It should go to the unsponsored name with "known for sponsorship reasons as ..." ten the confusion would vanish. The other way round is bafflingly confusing. It also reduces article access as it requires prior tennis insight to understand the title of the article which is bad in an encyclopaedia and frowned up in naming guides. The way association football articles are done is the best way in my opinion such as 2012-13 Football League Cup not 2012-13 Capital One Cup. Think on it which do you more easily understand? I am more than happy to go through and move every article if consensus changes so "the way it is" is not a barrier here. Sport and politics (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the real tournament names need to be used not the sponsor ones in articles, for instance I was looking at Laura Robson's article to see what she did at Eastbourne but there was no mention of Eastbourne only "2013 Aegon International". following that link, the article in question only elliptically indicates its true identity by mentioning that it takes place in Eastbourne. Admittedly tournaments have brought this upon themselves by letting sponsors rename the tournaments but Wikipedia should aim for clarity in its articles, but the tennis tournament references are frankly as clear as mud! Samatarou (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wimbledon.com draws and players coverage now complete

I don't know if it's a recent thing but the Wimbledon site has all the draws men/women including even the mixed way back to the first championships. I don't remember it existing when I created some my tennis bios some months ago. It is as up-to-date as the Australian open site. Now as I see the current ITF links at the bottom of almost every pre-open era wimbledon draws are all dead e.g. such as this in the 1931 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles. So my questions are:

  • Shall we request a bot to change all dead links to the corresponding wimbledon.com draw link?
  • Shall we create player profile templates in a similar way that we already have for DC/ITF/ATP/WTA? ITF seems to be obsolete when it comes to doubles results but Wimbledon has them all per player. (same question for the AO)
  • Shall we set up a taskforce to create all draws now that we have the sources? (same question for the AO)

Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 20:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, noticed this as well and already added a couple of references using this info. Long overdue but nevertheless a great step forwards and a valuable source for our project. I'm not sure when exactly this info was added but believe it's pretty recent, it certainly wasn't available when the new Wimbledon.com site was launched last year. The draws are available as both PDF and HTML. They also added player bios (example: John Newcombe) which are easy to find when you google "<player name> + wimbledon". The PDFs probably come from the new edition of John Barret's great Wimbledon book which now has a separate book with the singles draws.--Wolbo (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I dug deeper into the possibility of the bot and since there's no common mathematical sequence in the URLs, which could be transscripted, then the links could only be fixed manually. Can you give me a link o the PDF-s, because I only found the HTML draws? I mean how can you search for it starting from the www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/draws/archive main?
I propose to compose a list of all Wimbledon tournament wikidraws and one who wish to participate in fixing them could cross them out one-by-one after he/she finished. Our project's sandbox will be perfect to store the list.
I decided to create the template anyway, it'll come handy at the draws also, and will save bytespace as well. 100+ draws can eat up plenty of room altogether.
I think at the end of the day the Articles with dead external links will go down significantly from 372. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 08:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you can search for the PDF files directly from the archive page but the PDFs are available from the HTML page of the draw. Example: 1972 Ladies Singles page and the PDF file. The naming of the PDF file has a fixed structure starting with the year, followed by the abbreviation of the event (LS = Ladies singles) so you can easily adjust it.--Wolbo (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This is pretty cool. For a long time we've had draws from the grand slam tennis archive but the event itself is always better plus no doubles at the archive. Amazing they can fit a whole pdf draw on one piece of paper. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with flags in infoboxes

Don't be afraid I don't want to relaunch a wikiwide wave on the issue here nor do I want to get in edit wars just to express my concerns on the favorized use of flags in the Biography Infoboxes. I tried to issue a non-flagged version to the articles I came to edit someway but they always ended up being restored. I'm not all against flags in every infobox; my problem here is the widespread and unreasoned popularity of Template:Country data, which renders itself to the current country name and the current flag. Let me put it this way:
Let's take Spanish tennis palyer Enrique Maier as an example. HE NEVER COMPETED under/for that flag in his infobox (Spain), but competed for Spain under the Restoration (Spain), the Second Spanish Republic (Spain) and the Francoist Spain (Spain, Spain). He did die when the current flag was introduced but this is a mere coincidence (I'm 100% sure the editors involved didn't take that into consideration). It's a real insult for a Spaniard to confuse the Franco-era with the democratic regime. So there are two choices:

  • Either be extremely accurate when choosing the flags for the infobox and indicate the transitions between one another... but keep in mind that they could grow wearisome in some cases. Different era flags don't even resemble to the current ones, not even in its colors, so they could be misleading as well.
  • ...Or leave out the flag from the infobox

Can I get a feedback on this please because it really starts bugging me. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

These issues are always tough calls. First let me say that Flags in infoboxes is 50/50 with me but the project as a whole has always embraced them so I follow that consensus. If there is a controversial entity it's always been policy to leave it out. As for the Spain issue... it's not like we are talking about different Countries here. Whether Spanish Republic (Republic), Kingdom of Spain (Monarchy) or Spanish State (Dictatorship) it was still the country of "Spain." When we give totals of events won in our tennis articles these all lump together as Spain under today's Spanish flag. We wouldn't list all the variations of Spain's names in the infobox. Since Tennis in 1877 the USA has had 12 different flags but I certainly wouldn't expect that if a guy competed from 1890 to 1908 that we would show all 5 different US flags in his infobox. However it would be nice to use the flag version he competed under the longest or finished his career under. Unless the country itself changes/breaks apart I would use one flag, and it shouldn't be confusing since it should conatin the country name also (at least on mouseover). Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay but if flag has a purpose, which I suppose it's the same as of the infobox, that is to show relevant information. What's the logic for using an unrelevant flag? That's why the country in text is sufficient. Spain has never changed in its entity but its flag did. The US flag also changed for a reason. Stars on it represent member states so it means territorial/political boundary change. Same as the Soviet Union although we do distinguish in the infobox when a player played for the SU and then for Russia. It's kinda double standard, isn't it? It would be the easiest to leave it out so no such controversies could be addressed. In the current status of article infoboxes we do no better than what Australia did in the 2003 Davis Cup final against Spain. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 19:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Also note that Nazi Germany is also Germany but we always differentiate it with its proper flag. What's the difference between that and the Francoist Spain then? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 08:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Not always. If it's in a chart like Grand Slam tournament champions through the years, then each winner has the flag they won under... including the USA. If it's a particular player whose career overlapped Nazis then it should probably just be The last Flag he played under. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Marion Bartoli career statistics

Is there a reason Marion Bartoli needs an entire article for career statistics? Shouldn't these articles for career statistics be saved for more successful tennis players? I'm just curious. I feel the entire page can be easily be shortened and just added to the original page. GeoJoe1000 19:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think 13 years as pro, two Wimbledon finals, 18 WTA finals, and career high number 7 is OK for the highest profile women's sport. Heather Watson career statistics is another matter. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the general rule of thumb at the project is anyone can have a career stats page, BUT... that's assuming it won't fit nicely on their main page. With 60-100k limit in readable prose many players should have it all inclusive. Bartoli does have 49k in prose which isn't small so I would find the stats page accepible. However... Bartoli's main page needs a complete editing job since it's way over the top in trivial info, and scores are not allowed in prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'm glad I brought some attention to other issues. GeoJoe1000 02:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Wimbledon draws dead link replace project

I've changed my mind and by supposing that we will finish this task quickly I've listed the Wimbledon men's singles draws here. It's just the first step, I guess the men's category what is 100% created in wikipedia. Anyone who is interested may review one of more draws, put the new wimbledon draw PDF as a source, and checkY it in this list:

Sources needing fix part1
Sources needing fix part 2

I will create a template for it today so the external link would become easier to add. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 14:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Wimbledondraws is ready for you to spread it through the draw pages. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 15:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Nice idea to use a template but I think the formatting needs a tweak to make it more compatible with the standard formatting of the external links / references section. Would prefer using the 'Sources' header instead of 'External links' and have added an example at the 1878 Wimbledon article. Can the template be adjusted to display it like that?--Wolbo (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
A bit tricky since the article title is "1878 Wimbledon Championship – Singles" and the URL link text display is "The Championships 1878 Gentleman's All Comers' Singles". Now there is no similarity between the two nor a common feature that a synthax could follow. It's almost impossible for a link to render itself to the appropriate term like Gentlemen All Comers'/Men's Singles depending on the era. There must be a general nomenclature. And also the template has to be simple for non-tennis editors to use it easily. Adding a parameter like |All Comers=yes/no would result in people outside this project having difficulties to adjust it. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 15:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
FYI Template:Australianopendraws Template:Rolandgarrosdraws are also been created. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Recentism in tennis bio articles

I've noticed a few times when perusing articles about tennis players, that the season by season write ups seem to get longer and longer as they progress towards the present, which would appear to be a violation of WP:RECENT. Particularly striking examples are:

  • Martina Hingis - the sections "Return to the game" and "Retirement" are subdivided into yearly subsections, with the total length of prose in those sections being significantly longer than the section "Grand Slam success and period of dominance", detailing her period of success in the late 1990s, which you'd imagine should be the most important part of the article.
  • Lleyton Hewitt - his most successful years were 2001 and 2002, when he rose to world no. 1 and claimed his two slam victories. However, those two years just have one paragraph, plus a single-sentence second paragraph. 2009, by contrast, when Hewitt achieved little of note, has a full 11 paragraphs of text. And each year since then also has at least five paragraphs.

Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that the reason for these discrepancies is that the recent data, for years since Wikipedia has been in the mainstream (2005 onwards) gets added to the Wiki as it happens, whereas older stuff had to be added as a separate block long after the fact.

I guess we have a few options for how to fix these issues:

  1. Flesh out the text of previous years so that it is in proportion to later years - good, but might lead to overly long articles
  2. Cut material from the later years
  3. A combination of (1) and (2) - perhaps the ideal
  4. Do nothing and just accept that Wikipedia content is the sum of what people happen to contribute

Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  • IMO there is a major problem with the way many tennis players' biographies are handled in Wikipedia. They seem to be added to sentence by sentence, as a kind of running commentary, almost every time a player so much as walks on court, the end result after a number of years being an almost impenetrable mass of match-by-match detail that only the most detail-obsessed reader would care to read. Many articles need a massive prune so that readers can get a decent overview of the important events of a player's career without losing the will to live. 86.146.104.65 (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC) (PS: I would like to say, though, a big thanks to the people who keep the tournament articles so up to date and detailed as they are progressing. It is an impressive work.)
    True. But that's what tennis players do. They play tennis. Since the professional open era they don't have time from their teenhood to their 40s to do anything else notable or worth mentioning. Amateur era (-1967) tennis was a kinda hobby for the players and as you can see those articles include a longer "Personal life" section since they did possess a tennis-free privat life. But nowadays what's the most you can tell about Roger Federer apart from his tennis achievements (,which is a Good article I must add)? If you deprive it from the matches and leave just a Grand Slam summary it'll become embarrassingly short. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 08:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    Well I do agree that there are far too many details in many/most player articles... almost blow by blow, but when you look at Professional golf career of Tiger Woods it also gets longer and longer and blow by blow. It's sort of the nature of the beast at times. In team sports like American football you have 16 games done in detail, for the whole season. Possibly 3-5 playoff games too. In tennis you have 7 games just for the Wimbledon champ...up to 28 just for the Majors. Add 9-15 other tournaments and you might have 50 more games. And since it's not usually a team sport this info is multiplied by many many players. They play a lot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    The prose career/biography sections for sports players do not need to mention every match/game that the player is involved in. Indeed, they definitely should not; it is far too much detail and makes for dull and difficult reading. If that information needs to be recorded on Wikipedia then it should be put in a separate section or article in a straight list format where it would be far easier to digest. Filling a player's career/biography with result after result after result is, no offence, the easy and lazy option. Writing a good and interesting-to-read career summary is much harder, but is what Wikipedia should aspire to. 86.160.209.134 (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    Currently the top players' articles only feature matches from the semifinal stage and there are also sub-articles to relieve the main articles of its match-heavy content (e.g. 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season). What are your ideas/suggestions, how to improve these articles (apart from deleting information)? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    You say "apart from deleting information" but I think that precisely is the solution, or at least hiving it off into specialised sub articles. Wikipedia is definitely not an indiscriminate vault of any information under the sun, and all articles should be of an appropriate length (neither too long nor too short) and properly proportioned between the sections.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    I have not read (or tried to read) every tennis player's article, so obviously some will be better than others. Some, such as Li Na and Venus Williams, are virtually unreadable. Generally speaking, these sections are currently at ground level examining blades of grass, and need to be lifted several hundred feet higher. Imagine you were writing about a player's career for an obituary article in a newspaper, that's the kind of level they need to be at. I'm not saying it's easy, mind you. 86.179.117.20 (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    Li Na is particularly bad... Venus is a little better. But they should really look much more like Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert's articles as far as length goes. Both Evert and Navratilova have 19k of readable prose (3000 words)... both Na and Williams have 60k of readable prose (over 10,000 words). Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

GAR

Good article reassessment for Laura Robson

Laura Robson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Grand Slam men's singles champions - does most = 2?

Two of us have a big difference of opinion for the List of Grand Slam men's singles champions article as far as the section on "Most Grand Slam singles titles (5 or more)" goes. You can see the discussion at the article's talk page. Long standing is 5 or more but an editor would like it to be 2 or more for one chart. I'm opposed to this but maybe some here feel differently. We've discussed top 20 for both charts too. Check out and weigh in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 HOF Championships

Currently 2 pages of everything one under 2013 HOF Champs the other under 2013 Campbells HOF Champs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.28.42 (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Two days ago without seeing your post I redirected 2013 Hall of Fame Tennis Championships to 2013 Campbell's Hall of Fame Tennis Championships. Another time, please give full precise titles when you refer to pages. Then somebody else might have fixed it earlier. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Duplicated entry?!

I just came across that the article of River Oaks International Tennis Tournament claims it is the same tournament as the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships. Some of the former's links even redirect to the latter's draws. Although not all of the final results match, but most of them do. The external link in the former is the offical ATP page for the latter. Both of them is located in Houston, but is it enough? Can someone clear this up and if it turns out to be true than merge the two? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

From the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships article:"The event was held at the Houston Westside Tennis Club from 2001-07. On May 8, 2007, the U.S. Tennis Association announced that the River Oaks Country Club in the River Oaks neighborhood would host the tournament starting in 2008". Does this make River Oaks the official successor of the US Clay Court? DO we need to update both articles simoultanously with the same scores year-by-year? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Noticed this also a while ago and wondered how best to handle the duplication. The issue is that you can't simply merge the articles as they were completely separate tournaments prior to 2008.--Wolbo (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
And they are completely the same today? Can't we just switch River Oaks to defunct tournament and have the US Clay as official from now onwards? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 15:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, since 2008 it is one and the same tournament, in effect the existing U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships has relocated to River Oaks. Your proposal to make the ROITT a defunct tournament is probably the most sensible solution and is also supported on the tournament website which lists the former champions of both tournaments (players - former champions) but the ROITT list stops in 2007 while the USMCCC list continues to the current 2013 champion.--Wolbo (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Or we can have two lists within one article over a redirect like I did with the Hungarian Tennis Championships where I merged the international and national championships into one article. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 07:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The Hungarian Tennis Championships article looks good but I'm not sure if that approach would work in this case. Still think that making ROITT a defunct tournament is the best solution if we want to prevent duplicating the tournament results from 2008 onwards. Would be good to get some more views on this.--Wolbo (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I agree with you on the defunct option. Let's wait some more feedback than I'll happily edit it the way proposed. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 18:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems there is no further feedback so let's update this as discussed.--Wolbo (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox press spellings

An editor, with whom I almost always disagree, has expressed a compromise idea I hadn't thought of before... to include alternate player spellings found in the press and every tennis event (Grand Slam tournament or otherwise) in the infobox with a separate heading. This would be "in place of" these widely used and sourced spellings being placed in prose or the lead. I can say I'm not crazy about this idea, but I nonetheless tried it out on the article Mirza Basic. I placed it under the fullname= section figuring the full name, if used, was more important in the infobox. I gave it "ITF name" but it could just as easily be "English spelling", "Common Spelling", "Tennis name", "English press", etc... I had thought of WTA or ATP name but they weren't generic for men and women. He had suggested "ASCII name." ITF name seemed easiest to me though it really encompasses the entire English press, tennis regulating bodies and all the events themselves, not just the ITF. I see another editor, Wolbo, reworded the document box to better suit the ITF heading and that's fine if we kept the "ITF name." I certainly like it much better in prose with a small footnote, but as a compromise at least it's not banning or censorship so I'm willing to accept it, and move onward. Any thoughts on whether "ITF name" is good enough or suggestions on how to word it better? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A good resolution to put an end to a permanent agrument on the matter. I tend to accept it and congrats to those who came up/improved the idea. In my opinion ITF is the best proposition yet since it existed WAY earlier than any other governing bodies and doesn't blow up the spelling-grammar-common interpretation bomb either. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Lajbi. I thought it was a good idea to present his compromise here so it could be looked at and/or tweaked. Looking at the edits below (mine included) it hasn't helped. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw the "snowball-effect" rolled on and flooded this discussion. No problem. But the married names is a good point by Wolbo and needs to be sorted out someway. Because if we judge it case-by-case then the "ITF name" parameter titling would fall short to be the perfect name. E.g.if a female player's article runs by the married name and the ITF doesn't then it's not her "ITF name". Moreover it could be a totally different name from first letter to last. Maybe a synthax within the infobox that appears differently for women and men? So we can hve ITF and married name the same time? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 07:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if the married/maiden name is better put under full name or possibly the multiple names at the top of the article? Otherwise we could either simply add another category of "maiden/married name" to the template or change the "ITF name" to "AKA name." Lot's of options. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I proposed using "ITF name" because the way a tennis player's name is registered by the tennis world governing body is in itself clearly an encyclopedic piece of information that can, and in my view should, be added to a player's article. That is uncontroversial and appears to be supported by all project members so far. The infobox is a logical place to display that info although there are other options. We can choose to add this information to each of the thousands of player articles but for reasons of both practicality and usefulness it seems sensible to limit it to only those player articles where the player name, as displayed in the article title, differs in any way from the ITF registration. The main benefit I see is that it is a simple approach with one clearly defined criterion. It also makes no value judgement regarding the reason(s) of any difference between the article name and the ITF registration and is neutral in that regard. Compared to other approaches that could save a lot of unnecessary discussion. --Wolbo (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The idea of using the ITF name in the infobox also occurred to me a while ago after seeing the 'discussions' on using the lede or the footnote to display alternative spellings of player names (i.e. different than the article title). Hadn't come around to proposing it, in part because the 'discussion' on the use of footnotes was still pending and partly because of reluctance on my part to (re)join a 'discussion' that is predominantly driven on one side by mind-numbingly tiresome zealotry. Nevertheless I think this proposal has merit and the potential to largely close this chapter allow us to move on with more productive wiki efforts. As such I welcome and support it but would advocate limiting it strictly to the ITF name instead of a broader interpretation (hence my rewording).--Wolbo (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
It could also have been "ITF spelling" but it looked like the infobox already had "name" or "full name" and with the suggestion of "ascii name" I simply kept the "name" part. It would close the debate for most players which has grown tiring, even for me. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
'ITF name' sounds appropriate to me and preferable to 'ITF spelling'. I see no benefit or merit in the suggestion of using 'ASCII name'. It is a misleading misnomer. The debate has never been about providing an ASCII version of a person's name so why would we want to add such a field to an infobox? It would have no significance or informational value. This in contrast to 'ITF name' which has the added benefit that it can be used in all situations where the wiki article name differs from the official ITF name as shown on the player profile, e.g. married names (Karen Hantze Susman vs. Karen Susman). --Wolbo (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about the married names and the fact it could help there too. I'm guessing the press would use both married and unmarried names, depending on what is current, but historically it may be tough to nail down what the common usage is for a particular player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Basic ASCII name is the only neutral title, since that is what we're talking about. ITF and WTA occasionally use accents. It would be misleading to suggest there is such a thing as a "Tennis name," there isn't. All there is are ASCII names. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • NOTE - for everyone's information I noticed that IIO has put up an "request for comment" to try and banish all blp spellings not conforming to diacritics...attempting to bypass all said here. This would likely be a guideline not a policy but it was not posted here so I'm informing you now. I added a counter to the biased question so that editors not familiar with tennis inner workings would understand the complexities of the issue at Tennis project. I guess I'm not surprised at this attempt to bypass tennis project and I'm not sure ts power over a wikiproject's objections of 100% blanket banishment. I just though all here should know and that all responders there would understand this does not apply to every project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Fyunck, the purpose of the RfC Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Duplicate name in basic ASCII character set is not to have "wikiproject's objections of 100% blanket banishment" it is to get the views of a broader consensus of editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Results as templates

So I thought that maybe, we can put the calendar in just a single template. Matt294069 (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this initiation is that the calendar is an ever-changing combination of tournaments. 95% remains the same but a tiny bit is always varies. Not counting the Olympics, which is added to it every fourth year. Take this year as an example. If we'd tried to use last year's template for it, we'd noticed that the Serbia Open is gone and the Bogota tournament is in. To create a tournament templete for every year...well that don't match the idealogy of the general template usage and you can imagine the immense work it'd take to fill in all the brackets after the season is over. So it wouldn't be as useful as this idea might look for the first glimpse. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 07:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What about putting down only yearly calendars into templates so for example, I have done 2011 and 2012 already but they were both reverted. Matt294069 (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay what's the purpose of template here? This is the thing I wrote about "general template usage", which it fails. What I am speaking of are:
  • It couldn't be used elsewhere since it is to specific. It can only applied for one and only one article.
  • I doesn't save place just redirects the data but creates unnecessary article elsewhere, which is a waste of space. Since it is made for one tennis season it cannot be recurring in other articles neither and save space that way.
  • It cannot be easily updated, which is essential for sport event articles. One must find the template and e.g. fix a score there.
  • Also it's not a "real" template. It contains exactly the same text that that very article does and just pastes it there. You don't need a template for that.

Anything I missed and you think it should be useful? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you had a look at the biggest pages for wikipedia Matt294069 (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you give me your thoughts in a wider explanation here? What did you mean by your answer? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 08:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the templates that were added by Matt294069 to the 2011 and 2012 WTA Tour articles because they are significant structural changes to the setup of these articles (and potentially all other 'tennis season' articles) and therefore they should be discussed first at the project level. It seems the templates were added to reduce the size of the articles, which are both indeed quite large, but I have my reservations about the approach of using templates for that purpose and see several drawbacks which are pretty much the ones listed above by Lajbi. Let's try and get these issues clarified. --Wolbo (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I oppose to adding results as templates. I don't see any advantages, but only worse things. --Stryn (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Andy Murray fansite fiasco

Please drop by for a second with an In! or Out!. Much obliged. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, here's the link: Talk:Andy Murray#Have your say

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

FL criteria: career statistics

According to this FL review on the Mikhail Youzhny career statistics article/list, all(or the close majority of) current career statistics would fail FL criteria... The Mikhail Youzhny career statistics is different, but do we need one, universal way of structuring career statistics articles here on Wiki, and if so, what changes do we have to make?? --TIAYN (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait if it passes FL, then we can adjust our guidelines some way to it. Until then it's just one reviewing editor's advices that shouldn't affect all of our articles. I've already watchlisted the process a couple of days back since I'm curious also of the FL criteria and how people interpret it and of course its outcome. Because apart from the career stats pages, (and obviously the player bios) every other tennis article here is basicly a list (draws, year in tennis, player seasons, world tours...etc). So let's wait for further feedback. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
That may be, but they've already said that the current, normal layout is not acceptable... Something has to change.. But I get you're point. --TIAYN (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
"If" the object is to get every single article to featured list status... I don't think that should be the object. There are restrictions on FL articles that trim info or add "cookie-cutter" formatting, or exclude vital lists. Many of these lists help our readers a great deal by providing hard to find information, even though they don't fit the perfect mold. They don't qualify for FL but they certainly qualify for wikipedia and our readers. Not everything should be a FL candidate. Player main articles should strive for it, but secondary offshoot articles, not necessarily. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, they have some very good points, read the review page... One example is readers who are colour blind, with our current layout, they would not be able to know what tournament is a 250 or a 1000 masters series, which of course is a big problem.. And while its true that not all career statistics need to be FLs, but since all career statistics are modeled the very same way, it would wiser to model them so they could FL requirements... There are not that many problems, first and foremost its the use of colours without proper explanations and the career final tables. Everything else (so far, according to the FL review, seems to be fine, of course, that can change)... but i get it .--TIAYN (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
That's true about the colors. A matching symbol should easily fix that, at least in the first use. However that gigantic key section on Youzhny's article is an absolute eyesore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that key section remark by Fyunck(click). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 20:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I moved the performance key down to where it usually belongs. The rest of that key was not needed as to be self explainable to a 2 year old. I do like the neatness of the reference section though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I reverted that.. The FL reviewers disagree, discuss it with them (I thought the template was okay, but they don't, end of discussion)... --TIAYN (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Bold text formatting

  • Some editors delete the trailing markup in the bold text formatting [2]. But Help:Wiki markup#Text formatting says: put apostrophes on each side. Jared Preston (talk · contribs) told me: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 99% of all tennis articles don't add the trailing markup. I don't see reasons why tennis only articles must be without trailing markup. I think all tennis articles must be with correct markup as others. Our discussion: [3] What do you think? NickSt (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
MediaWiki automatically generates the same html for all the tennis cases I examined so I don't know what you referred to with "Some browsers (1–5%) can show wrong the articles with such incorrect wiki-markup." I personally prefer to have closed bold and italics in wiki source but if they are automatically closed by MediaWiki in the given situation then I don't think it's important enough to change either way. I suppose open tags in wiki source could theoretically cause problems if MediaWiki is changed later, or if the wiki source is copy-pasted to a place where MediaWiki doesn't automatically close them. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
No good reason to delete correct markups. Of course those should be closed (well, I've done a lot (x)html code, so these are important things to me). But because texts looks still correctly without closing the tags, it's not so big problem. --Stryn (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Weight field in infobox?

I see there is talk at our infobox template about removing the weight category. While I do like the category in principle, those questioning it are correct in assessing that the numbers are rarely correct on any official source (where they tend to use weights from a player's jr days for years and years). Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Field has now been removed. Perhaps somewhat hastily but I agree that the field has little relevance and it's reliability is unclear.--Wolbo (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion of 2nd WP:TENNISNAMES RfC

As advised above #Infobox press spellings an RfC has been going on at Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Duplicate name in basic ASCII character set to discuss the "ITF name" duplicate basic-ASCII names that Fyunck(click) had been inserting into over 100 BLPs, both of the "Andrej Kračman, known professionally as Andrej Kracman" type, and the ITF name infobox variant. The result is a WP:SNOW result against Fyunck(click)'s edits. The only other WikiProject Tennis editors who participated agreed with non-WikiProject Tennis editors against Fyunck(click)'s ITF names. For convenience a redirect has been created WP:TENNISNAMES2 following the style of the WP:TENNISNAMES redirect to the original RfC. However the scope is wider than WP:TENNISNAMES confirming the existing WP:OPENPARA example for all bios, not just tennis.

Now, are we going to need WP:TENNISNAMES3? Fyunck is now systematically removing all trace of Ana Ivanović's ć from en.wp. The edits are marked in Fyunck(click)'s contribution history with "(-1) article title (direct link), where (-1) indicates one removal of ć from Ana Ivanović's name, (-2) two removals, (-3) three removals and so on. The conclusion of Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Duplicate name in basic ASCII character set means that Ana Ivanovic's lead should now read Ana Ivanović (Serbian Cyrillic: Ана Ивановић)..., but that single mention in the first words of her only article will be the only trace of her name on en.wp.

Is that what WikiProject Tennis wants? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually that spelling in her lead must be removed as the rfc considers it identical to any similar spelling. It isn't just a one way street here. No, it's not what Tennis project wants... it's what you demanded. Tennis project seemed fine with showing all facets of a player's name in prose as a service to our readers. And some in the rfc specifically said that the infobox is the domain of tennis project. So while ifc infobox names can stand, we could also make sure that we can plop in Latin letters in the infobox if they don't exist elsewhere to keep things on an even keel. We have several editors making sure all links go directly to the titles and I am simply doing the same with the direct links. Nice of you not to mention that fact (even though it's been told to you over and over) but it's really no surprise that you wouldn't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Your keep saying "the tennis project wants", so far I have not seen a consensus to support your stance on this page. Show of hands here please who thinks that the tennisproject demands removal of diacritics? Agathoclea (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Did you read that correctly? I didn't say that. I don't support the removal of diacritics. In fact a couple years ago I started adding them because they were missing from articles. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes I get your points In ictu oculi, but I cannot for the life of me understand why Ivanović, Tipsarević, Janković, and Zimonjić has the diacritic and Djokovic and Raonic do not. We have dueling Wikipedia's going on here, now don't we. We have no set standards, so we must develop them. I think it is either all commonnames spellings should be alike so either all diacritic or none at all for the same usages. I know why it is because Djokovic has become well known in the English-language reliable sources lexicon that it is without them, oh what about Milos Raonic, should he not have diacritic on the c rather ć because it is a native name to Eastern Europe such as Serbia, Croatia or Yugoslavia? Just asking. So, I come down on the side of if a name like Djokovic and Raonic has set the precedent in the English-language sources then all names likewise should end up following suit.HotHat (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
HotHat, good questions, 2 good examples. Okay:
1. Milos Raonic is a Canadian citizen, compare Martina Navratilova, or a non-tennis example the composer Arnold Schoenberg - en.wp normally reflects that these people lost their native names when emigrating to USA.
2. Novak Djokovic is not a case of a simple diacritic c / ć, but a consonant change Dj / Đ. See the closing points of the admin in WP:TENNISNAMES2, en.wp does not have a standard way of dealing with this kind of change. Also search engines easily correct for c / ć, but cannot correct for Dj / Đ, since Đ will be misread as D, same problem with German Strauss / Strauß being misread as B. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
HotHat, I answered your two questions. Do you see the difference between giving an "English name" to a Canadian is different to giving an English name to a Serbian citizen? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, did you claim Strauß would be mistaken for a B in search engines? Maybe Google "Strauß" and see how many B's you get? Also, the Djokovic claim is all very well, until you realise that he's probably the only Djokovic in Wikipedia, as opposed to the hundreds of other articles which do use Đ. Shouldn't you be consistent here? By the way, Google seems quite content with Đ as well, have you tried what you're claiming? It appears you are absolutely incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The Rambling Man - please familiarize yourself with previous discussion and sources:

John Grasso Historical Dictionary of Tennis - Page 225- 2011 "Niki Pilić .... Among his students have been Ernests Gulbis, Novak Djoković, and Ana Ivanović."

Sorry, what is the signifiance of this one source (which has yet another alternative spelling of Djokovic)? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Tap, tap. Is this thing on? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Tap, tap, is this thing still functioning? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
HELLLOOOOO?!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
And also please familiarize yourself with OCR recognition problems with Google searches. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so it's just OCR searches then, not regular searches. Thanks for clearing that up, it was somewhat obfuscated by your bold claim! Also, please explain why you're happy with Đedović and Djokovic together in the same encyclopedia. Double standards? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The Rambling Man. You may not be able to tell the register of your comments, but you are constantly insulting, facetious and snide in your Talk page posts. It is not my fault that you have not read previous discussions and were "obfuscated" by a simple statement of a basic common problem with Google searches. And instead of saying, "Thank you, I didn't know" - you instead attack attack attack again calling what you have just admitted to be correct "a bold claim". Why are you in full-on attack mode again with this "double standards" rhetoric? What is your problem?
As for "Đedović", I do not know whom you mean; a Serbian footballer? a Bosnian basketball player? But if you have a problem with these living people I suggest you take your posting style and content to WikiProject Football and WikiProject Basketball and start arguing against the names of these people, and attacking editors there. I have answered fairly more than enough of your questions and you appear to be only interested in fighting. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I let the first tirade slide (the double standards "rhetoric, I'll come back to). However, the question regarding Đedović, if you're content with Djokovic, why wouldn't you be moving the former to Djedovic? Is there any consistency here? How are editors who are not appraised of your volumes of posts, supposed to see why one is perfectly legit without diacritics while the other is perfectly legit with diacritics. I'm just thinking of the readers, and indeed some editors who can't quite follow the logic. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The Rambling Man you are still doing it, you are still making ad-hominem comments. You're doing it again in the above post. You demand answers to your questions and when you get them complain about "volumes of posts"? Can you not see that I am trying to reduce the volume by saying again, if you want to object to how en.wp's Serbian bios are titled, then go and take it up with WikiProject Football, WP Basketball, WP Olympics, etc.; your problem is with all these projects, I don't have to speak for them. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, noted, but you're not really helping here. Unless you're just leading to the conclusion that you only want consistency within one sport on Wikipedia, is that the case? If so that's quite bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
That's another ad hominem. And as for what is "bizarre" would be the statement the conclusion that you only want consistency within one sport on Wikipedia, is that the case? - the rest of wikipedia is consistent, as you just pointed out with the footballer and basketball player. Maybe the answer to your question is in the mirror, maybe the reason why Tennis is not consistent with the rest of wikipedia is because it is only WikiProject Tennis that has The Rambling Man and Fyunck(click). In any case I have already explained the issue with Đ, if you have a problem, take it up with the WP Football and WP Basketball. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid your answers speak quite clearly for themselves. And that's why no-one's taken up the continual offers to move Ivanovic. And quite why there's a crusade for tennis players but not footballers or handball players etc, I know not. There's a clear case of double standards here, and sadly that's why some editors will not get their way, despite acres and acres of text. A terrible waste of energy, and an insulting waste of the community's time. The horse is dead. Now time to move on, well and truly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Re: And quite why there's a crusade for tennis players but not footballers or handball players etc, I know not.
Simple. Because Fyunck(click) has not been crusading for footballers or handball players. Because The Rambling Man has not been crusading for footballers or handball players. In any case we've had two RfCs on this and your views have been roundly rejected by the community. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
But Serbian footballers have full-on diacritics, while Novak Djokovic appears completely acceptable. My views have been "roundly rejected"? Cool. I didn't see that. All I see is double standards from you all over the place (no, that's not a "personal attack", it's an observation that somehow some sportspeople must have diacritics and some other sportspeople don't need diacritics. Truth). For what it's worth, I'm interested in a recent initiative to move Manchester United F.C. to Manchester United. This is exciting, as it's what 99.9% of people will be searching for, just as they would search for Ana Ivanovic or Novak Djokovic or Jelena Jankovic. After all, this is English language Wikipedia. Can't wait! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
You asked Re: And quite why there's a crusade for tennis players but not footballers or handball players etc, I know not. and I replied: Because Fyunck(click) has not been crusading for footballers or handball players. Because The Rambling Man has not been crusading for footballers or handball players.
The RfC is at WP:TENNISNAMES. It is binding on The Rambling Man. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, with it now. The double standards apply. Thanks for the notification. "It is binding on The Rambling Man"... que? Perhaps this is why this sort of discussion never really works out for you IIO? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
You, The Rambling Man, are bound by RfC results. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
No, not at all, if anything I'm bound by local community consensus, as demonstrated by the multiple failed RMs you've attempted. And perhaps, just perhaps, the community are now sick and tired but wide-eyed and alert at the double standards being applied by certain editors with regard to diacritics. The sooner you're over it, the better, for you, for the encyclopedia, for the community. Now we can move on and try to improve all the inadequate tennis bios. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
No, you are bound by the RfC. You can continue your crusade (as you put it) against this woman's name, but in doing so you are going against the RfC. The reason we have RfCs is to establish consensus. You are bound by it. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
How curious. As well as the double standards, you are the one who insists on moving the article to an uncommon and non-reliably sourced English-language name. You are bound by the results of the various RMs. If not, and if you believe users are bound by RfCs, then you should go ahead, be bold and move the page. I'll count the seconds..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Any second now User:In ictu oculi will move the article based on the "clear" results of the RfCs above-mentioned, or maybe not? If not, I suggest the aforementioned editor stops quoting them as binding. After all, to state a page move to be binding to one editor but not complying with it themselves, that would be hypocritical, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The Rambling Man
You have been warned before about personal attacks. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear. So you want me to move the page per "binding RfCs" but you're not going to do it yourself per "binding RfCs"? Say no more. Your claim of NPA is pure obfuscation. So please, after you.... the page move per the binding requirements of the RfCs. When you are ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
You have a point - the RM should have mentioned the RfCs in the proposal. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The other point, which is essential here, is that if Wikipedia is "bound" by the RfCs, then you should move the article right now, and stop demanding that others do it on your behalf. Time to step up to the mark. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
HotHat, can you also see the difference between -ć / -c and a consonant change D / Dj? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I can see the difference in the two. At the same time, I am conflicted and confounded on the matter, so do we on the English version of Wikipedia go by the nationalized spellings, which means the local language, or do we seek to go by the name used in converting their names over to English or the Anglicized usage and version. See COMMONNAME and ENGLISH do not always jive with each other.HotHat (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • On another note, why are other language-Wikipedia's able to translate say Serena Williams over to say Serena Williamsová, yet we are not able to convert them over to our language such as Ivanović would be Ivanovic? I am just curious on this hodgepodge encyclopedia we have in comparison to other language-Wikipedia's.HotHat (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Cause certain people think that this is International Wikipedia opposed to what it should be English Wikipedia, with arguments over whether we are using American, Australian or British English etc. 92.18.8.122 (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
There's no "International Wikipedia." This is the English-language one if they want one they need to take that up with Jimbo Wales. We should use only the name used in a significant majority of English-language-based reliable sources.HotHat (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ranking-Based Notability?

I was just checking-out the project notability guidelines to see if I could create an article for Neal Skupski, who has recently won two Chalennger doubles tournaments. While I was able to create in this instance, it did strike me as odd that there was no ranking-based notability. It is plausible that through winning Futures tournaments and recording strong performances at Challenger level, a player could reach the top 200 without passing any of our current notability criteria. While such a player would likely soon become notable, either through General Notability or by entering an ATP World Tour tournament, I was wondering if nonetheless we would benefit form having ranking based notability criteria, perhaps based on reaching the top 200? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought the same thing too when I read this AfD for Anne Schäfer, seeing that she almost made the top-150 in 2009 and was recently back in the top-200 again! Jared Preston (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent mass edits/removals by an editor

I'd simply just raise this with Ohconfucius but there's a message on his talk page saying he's on a wikibreak.

I'm a little concerned over his recent script assisted mass changes to articles on tennis players. See here for an example, which seems to be consistent with the other changes.

The first is the removal of their national flag from infoboxes. WP:MOSFLAG seems to discourage the use of flags in infoboxes, so this perhaps isn't a big deal, but all major player articles appear to have flags in the infobox (for the country they represent) so I presume that is the project's preference? The one I can't get my head around though is, as can be seen in the Marcos Górriz example above (and hundreds of others), the wikilink for tennis has been removed from the lead. I read through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking and can't find any justification for this. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems odd that an article about a tennis player not link to tennis? Jevansen (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Both those are a bit troubling, especially since the summaries don't include the fact flags are being removed... just saying date formats are being fixed. You might want to tell him on his talk page to take those two items out of his script when he gets back from break. Note, I see that editors Wolbo, Asmazif, Jared Preston, have already reverted some of the changes that the script has affected (especially flag removal). I shall also take some time and do my part to fix some. *added note. I didn't realize how many hundreds of players he's done this too. They are complaining in the golf bios also. wow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I added a note to Ohconfucius' script page to remove those two problems before they do anymore damage (In case anyone else wants to comment there). Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It looks like August 14 all the golf pages were changed and then reverted by project golf. I fixed all the tennis removals of those two items from Aug 13. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for making those fixes and adding a note on his page. I've fixed a few others from August 13 (they were newish articles so probably weren't on your watchlist). Hopefully that's all of them. Can't say I understand how scripts work ... the changes were more inconsistent than I thought, only half I fixed this morning had the flag removed, the rest I just needed to relink to tennis. Seems the cricket project are having problems as as well. Anyway thanks again. Jevansen (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The script made some sensible and welcome updates to date formats and removal of spaces from tables but as mentioned above also resulted in some odd updates. The removal of flags from infoboxes is counter to the current practice at the tennis project and was inconsistently applied, the delinking of the word 'tennis' from the lede is both unlogical and unwanted, and the term 'French Open' was delinked in the lede while similar links to the US Open and Wimbledon were left unchanged. I reverted a number of these updates and hopefully together we've covered the necessary reverts.--Wolbo (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually there are 100's left. Aug 12 20:19 (PT) is when he made the adjustment to remove all flags and tennis links, so almost all the players near the bottom HERE still need to be fixed. I'll get to some of them when I can. Most of the script is great... but correcting these two items is a royal pain in the .... Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok I've just fixed his edits from 08:41 August 12 - 08:50 August 12. Based on how long that took, this is going to take forever. Will try do some more tommorow. Jevansen (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we're on different time zones. Fixed Caitríona Ruane to Ichiya Kumagae Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Ha would you believe I've had an account since 2006 and didn't ever think to change my timezone, I've been using the wiki default. Anyway, it's Stanley Matthews to Lewis Burton. Jevansen (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Done Ladislav Legenstein to Rex Hartwig.--Wolbo (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Kyle Edmund to Jason Goodall done. Jevansen (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Jürgen Fassbender to Peter Lundgren...and later, another 100+ done back in time to 19:46(PT) August 12. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Per his script talk page it appears he's leaving it all in. I'm not gonna keep doing this piecemeal as it takes too long so in the future I'm just gonna roll it back. Not my first choice as it's far easier for him to remove the offending items from the script. We may need some solidarity on this if it continues... I hope not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


  1. They're pretty postage stamps in fields of constrained space: they appear to be merely decorative.
  2. The information they provide is at best redundant, since the country name is adjacent.
  3. Worse, they are in some cases misleading: could someone tell me what the difference is between the Australian and NZ flags? I defy anyone to distinguish them at postage-stamp size.
  4. It could be argued that they push sport-as-nationalism, which is POV.

I fully support the removal of these icons. Tony (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

For this sport. Player nationality is very important. No national representative then no play at the Majors. These are international events and flags are on many of the websites showing importance. When scrolling through lists it is far easier to see clumpings of country winners than to see it by actually reading the text. Maybe you aren't as familiar with tennis and it's nationalism (as with the Olympics) but it's not pov-pushing. There is also Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup, Wrightman Cup, etc...Consensus at Tennis project has been to use them, so we use them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure it's important: that's why we list their country. The postage-stamp flag icons not only provide no additional information—sometimes they're misleading. And they're space-hungry. Tony (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Then Tony1, why does the Olympics use flags in the first place? I can tell you because it is an international sporting event like Tennis and Golf are with respect to individual athletes competing in International sanctioned competition on the ITF, ATP and WTA circuts.HotHat (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, Lord Almighty help us! I cannot believe editors now a bot is going thru and removing the flags. #NOTVERYSPORTING.HotHat (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It actually is very sporting if you care about individual sportspeople. "Then Tony1, why does the Olympics use flags in the first place?"—when I last looked, the Olympic games don't print the country-names next to the flags, do they? Tony (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I just had to fix Rafael Nadal from the broken script. Keep an eye out everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

James Cluskey

I was planning on creating an article for James Cluskey. I've got all the information I need but there's one slight issue. His ATP profile gives his record as 0-5 but his Davis Cup profile clearly shows he's played 6 rubbers and so his record should surely be 0-6? Even though 0-6 seems correct, should his official ATP statistics take priority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username of a generic kind (talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have sent this to ATP at http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Contact/Contact-Form.aspx:

"The ATP playing activity is missing all matches of all players in Davis Cup Ireland-Ukraine 18 Jul - 20 Jul 2008, shown here: http://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie/details.aspx?tieId=100010198 For example, James Cluskey's doubles match with Eoin Heavey is not listed at http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Cl/J/James-Cluskey.aspx?t=pa&y=2008&m=d&e=0# It shows his 1st round match "IRL v. MAR EAG II 1st Round, Ireland; 11.04.2008; DC;", so the 2nd round Ukraine match should also be there."

You could say 0-6 and explain the issue in a note or wait to see if ATP fixes it. I haven't contacted them before and don't know how responsive they are to feedback. I have poor experiences with sending corrections to tournaments showing wrong results on their website. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I think I'll just go ahead and put his record as 0-6 then seeing as it's pretty blatant where the ATP have made the mistake. Username of a generic kind (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually I have pointed out a spelling mistake on a player who was spelled differently at the ITF and WTA websites. I contacted both organizations and both got back to me... one saying "we are correct" and the other saying "it has been fixed." So they at least sometimes respond. Last I saw the ATP was missing entire rounds of the French Open from the 1970's in their totaling, so nothing there is etched in stone. Make sure when putting this info in that you source it well, so other editors won't come by and remove it by mistake. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

comments needed on Liu Fangzhou notability

Liu Fangzhou has been relisted twice for deletion so I though maybe a few more could chime in. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Chris Evert and Jimmy Connors articles - edit problem with abortion issue

We have an editor insisting on a lengthy section on the alleged abortion Chris Evert may have had. Jimmy Connors has told as much in his autobiography. With WP:UNDUE weight problems I certainly wouldn't include it at all under Chris's article and probably wouldn't under Jimmy's either. We aren't a gossip sheet. However, I didn't remove the paragraph, I simply shortened it to one sentence to avoid an edit war since. But the talk page conversation didn't seem all that friendly to me. The editor has now re-added the Roman Catholic line to Evert's article even though the fact she is a Roman Catholic is already in the article two paragraphs above. Could someone else please have a look at this and either remove everything or dump the doubling up? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WTA 125s

Whilst I appreciate that the WTA 125s are a series of challenger tournaments, the WTA considers these as WTA tournaments in their player profiles. They are WTA tournaments, certainly not ITF. So my question is, how should they be covered in articles? Where do the statistics go? And what about the infobox? The women generally have a tournament win record format of "x WTA, y ITF". The 125s certainly don't belong to the latter. So shouldn't their tournament final appearances be categorised as WTA appearances, which is what they are? Simply a new level of WTA tournaments below the Internationals. One IP seems to disagree at the biography of Tímea Babos, but some consensus needs to be reached. Jared Preston (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

We should probably treat them as the Men's Challenger events. Above the ITF level, but barely. Ads the article says "Players who succeed in the WTA 125s earn sufficient ranking points to become eligible for the main draw or qualifying draw entry of WTA Tour tournaments." If you look at the official WTA website calendar the 125's are not listed. The WTA site they are:
  • a new stream of events that will not only provide an opportunity for emerging markets currently unable to host a Premier or International event to showcase a women's tennis product, but will also offer the WTA's lower-ranked and up-and-coming players a chance to play extra tournaments and earn more ranking points. With total prize money of $125,000 and 160 ranking points for the champion, WTA 125K Series events are a level above top-tier ITF Women's Circuit events, which offer $100,000 prize money and 150 points for the champion.
So these are not part of the main draw, nor part of the ITF... they are pretty much like the top men's challenger events. Top Men's challengers pay out up to $150,000 as opposed to the 125s which of course are $125,000. Both have hospitality. Both give ranking points far below the main draws. This is the way I see these but others might feel differently. These also would not grant instant tennis notability just for being in the draw. You would have to win the event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for posting. I had read that too. At the moment, I'd have to agree about the notability, but I'm still wondering about how to display the statistics. Taking Babos as an example, I wrote "5 WTA, 1 WTA-125, 9 ITF" in her infobox, but as far as WTA's profile is concerned, she has won 6 WTA doubles titles. And to me, that logic shows that this tournament win should go along with International tournament results in the WTA finals section. It certainly doesn't make any sense to lump them in the ITF finals section, but whatever is done, we'll need to find a way somehow since there's another 125 event next week, a couple more in 2013, and soon it will affect lots of our player bios. Jared Preston (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, the WTA page is already all screwed up for us. When we look at an infobox like Steffi Graf it says her career record is 902-115. That is supposed to be her WTA career record, not including ITF tournaments. It used to be the WTA website only showed WTA wins, not ITF wins. Then they showed both, then they simply combined the two. The infobox used to be only WTA or ATP records. So when someone asks what's Tímea Babos WTA win/loss record our answer is... I don't know. We'd actually have to go to her WTA website and count and not include the non-wta itf events. Crazy. With the men's challengers don't we have a separate chart between the ITF and ATP charts. We should do the same for these ladies' 125s. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Asian tennis players

  • NOTE - Brought over from my talk page since this concerns all of Tennis Project. How do we determine Asian tennis players? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, I just followed the pattern. Don't recall how long those list weren't updated. Does the ITF consider Russia part of Europe or Asia? I think the previous editors (and myself) thought that since Russia participates in European group in the Davis Cup and Fed Cup we assumed that Russian players were European players. No big deal, because I will not update the rankings much any more. Again thanks for your help!!! Raul17 (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well since I tagged those twp templates I looked a little closer at the titles. I see one is labeled "Top ten female tennis players of countries in the Asian Tennis Federation." The Asian Tennis Federation does not include Russia. That title should not confuse readers though it's not the title I would have chosen. The other template is called "Top ten Asian female doubles tennis players." ITF or not, by using simply the term Asian without Asian Tennis Federation being attached WILL confuse readers. The world says Russia is mostly in Asia. I personally would use the titles as simply Asia, as we do with all the other templates. But maybe other will disagree and I'll bring it up with tennis editors better equipped to answer that. I see that Russian players at wikipedia are listed under Template:Top ten European female tennis players. That seems very strange to me and all my learning in geography. I'm not sure what the ITF thinks about it, and I will search it out, but it may not matter if readers could be confused. That we don't want. Off to do some research. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
First problem I see is with Maria Sharapova. She was born in Western Siberia... absolutely part of Asia. Do we use the Ural mtns as an absolute boundary, and if so do we consider Maria Asian? I can understand multiple points of view here where someone might say a player is born in Sochi or Moscow and they are European. I could also understand someone saying they are Asian since most of Russia is in Asia and the east-Europe boundaries are ill-defined. But certainly a city like Vladivostok and places like Lake Baikal are in Asia. What will we do with templates such as Template:Top ten Asian female doubles tennis players? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Just looking at the templates, Sharapova is in the Template:Top ten European female tennis players and three players from Russia in the Template:Top ten European female doubles tennis players! How will WK editors respond? Raul17 (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Rankings

I am a little confused about how ranking points affect rankings. I have become the main biographical editor for Jarmere Jenkins. When he earned 16 points following the 2013 US Open, he jumped from 620 to 539. When he earned 10 points last weekend, his ranking was unchanged. This does not make sense to me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Also his rankings point breakdown does not seem to include last weekend's points for some reason.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to players after the top 400, the ATP has a habit of being a bit slow on updating its lists.. Secondly, if its not that, he must have earned 10 points last year, in the same week, and if he won 10 points this year (on the same week), he protected his points, but did not earn new points. --TIAYN (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it is the former. I guess it will be included in next weeks ranking then.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to add for future reference, points won in futures events are always added to the rankings two weeks after the event rather than the week after. This will be why it hasn't added yet and so the points will come on next Monday. (i.e. points won in tournaments ending 6th October are added for 14th October rankings, not 7th October)Username of a generic kind (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, see http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-FAQ.aspx#rank. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

NDash instead of hyphens (score notation)

I was looking through some articles and saw that a lot of times there are hyphens instead of the Ndashes. I am going to try fixing this. Also, I will try editing the 2013 China Open page to update the details but if someone could do that before me as I am trying to fix notation, it would be really good. I look forward to working on this project. Also, under the nadal 2013 Asian season section, I don't know what order to write his score in the final. 3–6, 4–6 or the other way around? The writer34 (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If he loses 3-6, 4-6, if he wins 6-3, 6-4.--TIAYN (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI if you didn't know, a handy tool for changing hyphens to Ndashes: User:GregU/dashes.js. --Stryn (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I have a question. For example infobox of this article. What's mean of 32S / 24Q / 16D  ? It s mean of 32seeds / 24Qualification /16 ? . Sorry for my bad english. Somebody can help me? Beyazmavi (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

32 players in the singles draw / 24 players in the qualifying draw / 16 teams in the doubles draw. Jared Preston (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :) Beyazmavi (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Career statistics lists have to change

First, the Mikhail Youzhny career statistics list is reaching FL status (it has two supports, which is enough), so the argument that career statistics can't reach FL status is wrong.. Secondly, we should stop duplicating information.. For instance, in the Roger Federer career statistics its listed twice that he reached the finals, or won the masters 1000, Summer Olympics and Grand Slam titles. Why is that? Thirdly, a Grand Slam and the Summer Olympics are not even organized by the ATP World Tour, so why are they listed "ATP Career Finals" section? It's shoddy work. Fourth, the head-to-head section is inherently illogical, for instance the "Head–to–head vs. top-3 ranked players" section is wrong. Lleyton Hewitt did not earn a "18–8" loss-win record against Federer as only a top 3 player.. The section is superfluous since we have a section titled "Top 10 wins per season" (which needs to be reorganized)

The "Finals" and "ATP Career finals" section should be merged into a "Career finals" section, and it should be listed accordingly

  • Grand Slam (or listed the other, from bottom up, ITF Junior's Circuit etc...)
  • Summer Olympics (or alternatively, list the Summer Olympics as they have been done at the Mikhail Youzhny page or the Novak Djokovic page, in a specific subsection in the "National Participation" section)
  • ATP World Tour (id prefer having them in one table, but you guys seem to like splitting them up, even so, having different sections for them would make it easier for users to navigate through)
    • Masters 1000
    • ATP 500
    • ATP 250
  • ATP Challenger Tour
  • ITF Men's Circuit
  • ITF Junior's Circuit
  • Others (exhibitions and team finals)
You don't have to agree with me, but the WP:Tennis should get lists such as this one to WP:FL status. Secondly, the duplication of info has to go, I've never seen anything like it. --TIAYN (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
FL is nice but it is far more important to get an article like "Roger Federer" to FL status than it is to get his career statistics page to FL. I'd rather have most every player's main bio article get to FL status than any players stats page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I certainly agree with you about the duplication issue and fully support the idea of a creation of "Career finals" like you suggest. However, I disagree with the point about "Head-to-head vs. top-3 ranked players". I think the meaning is pretty clear and it gives a good indication of how a player has performed against the top players of their time, all you maybe need is a short preamble explaining that it is a head-to-head record against players that have been ranked in the top 3. Also, I much prefer the look of the "Top 10 wins per season" in the Federer article than the Youzhny article. Just my thoughts though, would be good to see others add their opinion.Username of a generic kind (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that the top 10 format looks better in the Roger Federer career statistics article, tables such as those have to use table sortability, in the format which currently exists at the RF career statistics sortability cannot be used, and therefore the MY career statistics is the better, and logical alternative.. OK, you may have a point, but my issue with the Head-to-head section is that Federer's winning record is listed in the top 10 section, its seems like duplication to me (it may work however, to add the win-loss record) in the top 10 wins table.. While its true that's its not one uniform way to model FLs, there are some key rules, and it would be good for both WP Tennis and WP as a whole, that WP:Tennis began modelling the career statistics after FL criteria (they don't need to copy the MY career statistics, but it should work as a model). --TIAYN (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair point about the sortability, I'm still fairly new to wikipedia so don't know too much about these things. I'm still not convinced it's duplication to have the head-to-head table though, as that gives a breakdown of results per surface and a % win record which isn't exactly obvious to calculate from the top 10 wins table. Like I've said though, I'm still fairly new here so it would be good to see some more informed people adding their opinions as well.Username of a generic kind (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Tightening up and removing doubled entries is always a good thing. As long as we follow consensus and guidelines it should be good and I'm usually for it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Necessary?

Is 2013 WTA Upsets (tennis) really necessary? Dencod16 (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Very strange indeed. That is trivial imho and should be removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Robert Perez

A relative of Robert Perez (mentioned in Arnold Saul and winner of the NCAA doubles title in 1948 and 1949) wondered (at OTRS) why Perez isn't in Category:USC Trojans tennis players. The answer, of course, is that there isn't an article about Perez.

The relative has asked if I can help create an article. I cannot, but thought I would ask here. The relative would be willing to provide scans of articles. If someone is interested in working on such an article, let me know and I will put you in touch with the requester.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Per tennis guidelines he is not notable enough to warrant an article. Did he play in any Major tournaments? College only doesn't qualify. The category of USC Trojan players isn't for players who played at USC... it's for players who played on the main tour or won main tour tournaments, but also happened to go to USC. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
There's a Robert Perez (tennis) that played in the 1946 and 1959 US National Championships.[4] Presume it's the same guy? Jevansen (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Now that would be a different story. If that is the same Perez he would certainly qualify. However it seems a bit strange that he would play doubles at USC in 1949 but played in the US Championships back in 1946. The Robert Perez in 1946 was Robert H Perez, but the 1959 Perez wasn't Robert...it was Oscar Perez. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that it is not the Perez who played in the US Championships. He was the national doubles champion, but that was college level. He apparently has done well as a senior. I;m guessing he is the same one in this article. BTW playing on the main tour is not a requirement for an article. It may be a useful rule of thumb, but as always, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is the gold standard. I don't know if he qualifies. If someone is willing to look into it, and can share an email address, I can arrange to have scanned versions of articles delivered, so you can determine whether he passes the notability threshold.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Nantclwyd Hall

Hello. I have just created Nantclwyd Hall, home to lawn tennis in England. I would be happy to see some of you expand this page, perhaps by adding a lengthy section about its historical significance with regards to tennis. Do let me know on my talkpage if you are interested (I won't watch this talkpage).Zigzig20s (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/3245678.stm was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Archive_12&oldid=1142517861"