Talk:French Open

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, which collaborates on Tennis-related subjects on Wikipedia, such as players, tournaments and rules. To participate, help improve this page or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading:

	France Portal French Open is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

The list of winners makes the page too long. A separate page called French Open Champions can be created. This has been done for the Wimbledon page.
Jay 18:47, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Why has it been changed back from 'Officially the "Tournoi de Roland-Garros" ' to 'officially the Roland Garros Tennis Tournament'?? The tournamnet is held in france and it's official language is French - so that's just nto right! (ricjl 00:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Contents 1 Page Name 2 Agree about name change to Roland Garros 3 Attendance history 4 Name 5 Fair use rationale for Image:FrenchOpenLogo.jpg 6 Surface characteristics 7 Champions

[edit] Page Name

Why do we call it the French Open instead of Roland Garros? Both names are accepted in the English language as the event's title and the event's website is rolandgarros.com, not frenchopen.com. I think the location of this page should be debated. I personally never call it the French Open. Bsd987 05:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I expect most people looking up "Roland Garros" are looking for the tennis tournament, not the aviator. I suggest that we make Roland Garros a disambiguation page, with the aviator at Roland Garros (aviator), and the tournament at Roland Garros (tennis). Pruneau 20:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Roland Garros (tennis) is fine.--HJ 18:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Then let's re-direct or disabimbug to distingush between other soprts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bona Fides (talk • contribs) 09:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 07:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, vote on this more than a year after I bring it up and nobody messages me that the vote takes place so I don't get a chance to argue my case. I would like this brought up for a vote again. The official name of the event is Roland Garros, not French Open. It is referred to as the French Open, just like the Open Championships in golf is referred to as the British Open. The page should be moved to the actual name of the event. There is no backing for this to be at French Open (tennis). It should be at Roland Garros. Please reopen for discussion and message me when you do instead of waiting a year until I forget about it. Bsd987 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I missed it as well, and I am all in favor of calling it Roland Garros (see above, or see the logo of the article :-) ). I mean that is the name of the tournament. Probably only Americans call it exclusively French Open. In my country we use both (like we also have local names for all other Slams except Wimbledon). I can't understand the argument that the article should keep its name because it was started like that. Then why do "redirects" exits? Can we not change mistakes? --HJensen, talk 22:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a talk in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis about the correct term of the Grand Slam tournaments. If you guys are interested, head over there. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 03:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have added my opinion there, although I think it belongs here.--HJensen, talk 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement that "Roland Garros" is the common name in the UK is simply untrue, for example the BBC calls it the French Open. I knew what the French Open was for years before I discovered that there was an alternative name. Postlebury 17:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And encyclopaedias are supposed to educate, therefore calling it Roland Garros tournament would be a good idea Yohan euan o4 01:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a long discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis about the correct term of the Grand Slam tournaments. There, French Open was agreed upon mainly as this is an English encyclopedia.--HJensen, talk 06:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agree about name change to Roland Garros

I agree about changing the name to Roland Garros. I believe the French requested that it be called this, wanting to emulate the classiness of the 'Wimbledon' name. Plus, just look at the logo that is on the page; it says 'Roland Garros', not 'French Open'. Not to mention that it sounds much prettier... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.239.60.69 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 March 2006.

---

Please, someone add some pictures. 67.80.122.91 13:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attendance history

Some information on total attendance would be great. --Rulesfan 03:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

So what was its common English-language name before the Open Era? (For instance, in 1968 it was the Australian Championships) --Xyzzyva 01:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:FrenchOpenLogo.jpg

Image:FrenchOpenLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surface characteristics

"Clay courts slow down the ball and produce a high bounce when compared to grass courts or hard courts. Just as grass courts have players whose skills are suited to its surface, clay court specialists have evolved who often succeed here while many higher ranked players struggle. Pete Sampras, who won fourteen Grand Slam singles titles, Roger Federer, the current World No. 1, and Jimmy Connors have won every other Grand Slam singles tournament but never the French Open. On the other hand, certain clay court specialists like Rafael Nadal, Gustavo Kuerten, and Juan Carlos Ferrero have never won a Grand Slam tournament other than the French Open, although Nadal has twice reached the Wimbledon final.

As of 2007, the last eight French Open men's singles championships were won by men who did not win any other Grand Slam tournament, as were the last 13 of 15.[8] The French Open is the title that has also prevented female players like Lindsay Davenport, Maria Sharapova, and Martina Hingis from achieving a career Grand Slam."

This is simply ridiculous. AND WRONG!!!!! Ferrero has won FO AND US Open! Connors has won Grand Slam on clay, at US Open 1976.

Furthermore those "statistics" mentioned are very cherry picked and it's very easy to choose statistics that will represent tournament on questionable light if one wants to. For Example Björn Borg won FO, and he clearly was an all surface player. In fact the term "clay specialist" is opinionated, outdated and misleading.

One can't be a fanboy and against clay court tournaments in a dictionary, that's federer and sampras fanboy material. Should US Open wikipedia entry read any big serving hack as Roddick can win this Grand Slam? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmarble (talk • contribs) 20:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) Quit vandalizing the article. (2) Juan Carlos Ferrero has never won the US Open. (3) Green "clay" in the U.S. is not the same as the red clay used at the French Open. Therefore, the reference to Jimmy Connors is completely valid. (4) No one is trying to portray the French Open in a "questionable light." (5) Calling certain players "clay court specialists" is completely justified by the facts. It is not "opinionated, outdated and misleading." (6) No editor here is against clay court tournaments. Saying that Roger Federer and Pete Sampras have not (yet) won the French Open is more a criticism of their abilities than this tournament. (7) Add whatever you want to the US Open article and we'll see if other editors agree with you. Tennis expert (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

---

1. You're not being fair here.

2. a) Yes, my bad. Ferrero did make US Open final though, and thus tag "clay specialist" is not valid for him at all. He also has been in the final at Tennis Masters Cup on fast HC surface. b) furthermore it's not logical to mention Ferrero as an example for a player who hasn't won any other slams than FO: Ferrero has won only one slam in his career, namely French Open. c)All 3 "clay court specialists" mentioned are active players, so making a point that they never won other than FO is weak. Rafael Nadal for example is currently 21 years old and already a two time Wimbledon finalist...So conclusion of them not winning other than French Open is premature at least. Gustavo Kuerten has also won Tennis Masters Cup.

3. The way this article is written one gives the impression that Connors never won a slam on clay.

4. a) This article is very much biased, one gets the feeling that no great champions win the tournament which is completely wrong, Borg, Lendl, Laver etc have won the French: It makes no sense to concentrate on who did not win on the surface an conveniently forget those great champions that did win at French Open. For example the sentence "As of 2007, the last eight French Open men's singles championships were won by men who did not win any other Grand Slam tournament, as were the last 13 of 15." -This is very much nonsense. "Last 13 of 15"...This makes no sense looking at the bigger picture because before these 15 last years there were champions who won multiple slams on other surfaces than clay too...Courier, Wilander, Lendl, Borg etc. List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions So making a point that last 13 of 15 is lacking historical perspective...and also perspective on current situation, Rafael Nadal is still very much active at the age of 21. It's always possible to make statistics look in favour for one's opinion if you include only one small part of the whole series of events.

b) "The French Open is the title that has also prevented female players like Lindsay Davenport, Maria Sharapova, and Martina Hingis from achieving a career Grand Slam." Maria Sharapova is still very much active, being ranked 1 currently and it's possible she might win the tournament some day. There are examples of other female players that have been denied their glory of achieving career Grand Slam due other slams than French Open. Justine Henin for example(who is no longer active player btw) has been denied career GS because of Wimbledon. So even this sentence does not make sense and is not a valid point.

5) "Clay court specialist" is often used as a negative term, the purpose being that there are players who can win only on clay. The whole "surface characteristics" -section concentrates on that, trying to argue that most of French Open champions are players who can only win on clay and nowhere else...which I hopefully proved wrong above. Actually, the deal is quite opposite. Since clay slows down the serve, big serving players can find success on slams played on faster courts...but find it difficult to dominate on serve on clay.

6) Saying that Roger Federer has not won FO is somewhat flawed since he's still an active player. Although I'm guilty of same error in my version of the section myself.

Currently as it is, this section is pretty much fanboy, or rather anti-fanboy speak. Something that's more suitable to tennis forums than in a dictionary. We must find a solution to this, I suggest we drop the older version and use mine as it's not that biased and full of wrong/questionable information...and begin editing it little by little, to actually make it a worthwhile and informative part of the article. Or perhaps "surface characteristics" should be dropped completely...since it talks very little about what the title would suggest. Mrmarble (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Champions

Mentioning Max Décugis is not useful, since this page is about French Open...and he played in French Nationals not the actual French Open(or not Roland Garros either, there really didn't even exist the stadium called Roland Garros at the time of Décugis). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmarble (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the tournament now known as the French Open, both before the open era began in 1968 and during that era. This article is not about the stadium. Therefore, the references to Max Decugis are completely valid and useful. Quit vandalizing this article. Tennis expert (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Expert, please read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:VAND. I think Mrmarble's edit on the "surface char." points out that the tone of the questioned section (not facts) is peculiar. Why focus so much on who did not win the tournament? Why not focus on those who did? That would seem more suitable for the subject at hand.--HJensen, talk 21:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) Focusing on who did not win the tournament was not my idea to start with. But many commentators have noted the difficulty that otherwise-very successful players have had with winning this tournament. And many commentators have noted the fact that the winners of the French Open in relatively recent history have not won other Grand Slam tournaments. These aren't original ideas of myself or any other editor of this article. (2) Mrmarble is changing the article in radical ways without getting consensus first. (3) Mrmarble is reading negativity into language that is not objectively negative. (4) Mrmarble has vandalized this article in the past, and you even reverted his vandalism once. Have a look at the history. Tennis expert (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My memory can't keep track of all the vandalism I revert, and who did it. But it is also irrelevant here, as I think (you may know the official policy) that an editor is not permanently considered a vandal. So, I tend to take things one edit at the time, and I found it inappropriate to label Mrmarble's recent edit "vandalism." It was, as I see it, an honest attempt of improvement. And for a short article as this, any improvement would look radical. So waiting for consensus is a bit over the top here; should he have asked for permission on the talk page? Sometimes I think it is fine to go ahead with an edit (with appropriate summary of course) and wait for a reaction. There were indeed some improvements in it, so why not try to edit in his edit, instead of just reverting back to something that is, imo, subject to improvement? That's would have been the way, I think. Also, it would be great if you have some refs for the commentators (re. your point (1). That could help verify the claims in the article. --HJensen, talk 06:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Max Decugis played at the time when tournament was national championship for French players, so when one wants to compare statistics for players who have succeeded an French Open it's purposeful to only include time when the tournament actually was open for international competition. List of French Men's Singles champions and finalists "Tennis Expert": If you do want to undo my change, do not include "surface characteristics" with your undoing. Thanks. Mrmarble (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You do not (yet, if ever) have the necessary consensus for such a radical change in the scope of this article. Tennis expert (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)