Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tennis
Tennis
 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.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


Contents

[edit] Top importance Tennis Articles

We need to revise around 50 articles that are to be classified as top importance tennis articles, so that in the future, there will be minimal arguments about it. I am sure that players which are notable throughout the world for playing tennis should be in the category such as, Federer, as well as the obvious stuff, (Tennis obviously... the Grand Slams etc.) Bear in mind that we couldn't go wild and add every player who has won a tennis match... or even a grand slam. --Dark Falls talk 11:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of records in tennis

While watching Andy Roddick play at Wimbledon, I went to Wikipedia to look for the fastest serves in the men's game and the women's game. I couldn't find any information, which leads me to propose/suggest a List of records in tennis. It would contain not just fastest serves, but also most victories, most weeks at #1, most consecutive weeks at #1, most Grand Slam titles, most titles per Grand Slam, most titles (ATP, Masters and Grand Slam), longest winning streaks, etcetera. It would be similar to the List of Formula One records. Any thoughts/suggestions? AecisBrievenbus 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Aecis, there are several existing articles that contain the information you mention. Many of the men's records can for instance be found at Association of Tennis Professionals. Wolbo 11:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separating Amateur/Open-Era tournament lists

Totalinarian (talk · contribs) recently started to merge Template:Wimbledon tournaments and Template:Wimbledon Championships, then requested that the former be deleted and began changing the templates included on all Wimbledon pages. I disagree with this change, but think it's worth discussing. Are the Amateur and Open eras different enough that they should have different template? This is the norm right now, see for example Template:French Championships (tennis) and Template:French Open tournaments or Template:U.S. National Championships (tennis) and Template:US Open tournaments. I think this break is quite reasonable. Nearly every statement about tennis history is qualified with "in the open era", so there really is a meaningful break. The open-era templates represent the current tournaments, whereas the amateur-era templates are entirely of historical interest. Separating them also avoids an unwieldy info box at the bottom of each slam article. --dantheox 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be kept separate. —MC 00:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a related idea... with various bits of template magic, we should be able to have one, unified Grand Slam template that displays the right thing based on the page title. That way we won't have to go through the pain of changing every slam if we reorganize things... --dantheox

[edit] Masters/ATP Tour/WTA Tour info

I think that for individual tournaments, such as 2007 Tennis Masters Cup, or 2007 Queen's Club Championships, there should be a box stating the champions of each event, just like the GrandSlamInfo Template, If anyone would like to whip one up, that would be most appreciated. Maybe there could be differnt ones for the ATP Tour and Tennis Masters Cup. - Allied45 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've created the NEW ATP Infobox! And will be making a WTA Tour infobox also! The New Infobox:

{{{1}}} {{{2}}}
Date:  
Edition:  
Defending champions
Men's singles
{{{defchampms}}}
Men's doubles
{{{defchampmd}}}
Champions
Men's singles
{{{champms}}}
Men's doubles
{{{champmd}}}

Allied45 04:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order for list of tournament winners

There doesn't seem to be a consistent order for listing tournament winners in the few Wikipedia pages I've seen for WTA Tournaments. Some lists start with the most recent winner(s) (e.g. Indian Wells) and others start with the first/earliest winner (e.g. San Diego). Is there a general consensus on what order needs to be followed?

Also I would like to update the Wimbledon womens doubles winners lists with finalists and scores. Could anyone tell me how to separate the mens champions list from the women's like the entries for the other Grand Slam events? Thanks! IsidoreR 22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consolidation of Davis Cup and Fed Cup team templates

I'm not a regular member of this WikiProject, but I'd like to make some changes to how Davis Cup and Fed Cup articles are written. I've been doing a lot of work for Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template over the past few months, improving the way flag icons are generated. Some of you may have noticed some work I just completed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, where I replaced over 900 country-specific flag templates with 7 parameterized templates. The new templates are built upon the identical internal mechanism as the familiar {{flag}} and {{flagicon}} templates, so usage is quite straightforward.

I'd like to do the same thing here. Currently, there are 200 templates in Category:Davis Cup team templates and another 142 templates in Category:Fed Cup team templates. I can replace all of them with two templates! I have already created {{davis}} and {{fed}}, and they work for almost every team.

Usage is very simple: instead of {{USAdc}}, you would use {{davis|USA}} to produce Flag of the United States United States. The new templates can work with nation names (not just country codes) if you prefer when editing: {{fed|Russia}} produces Flag of Russia Russia. Historical flag variants are handled by using the same template arguments as with {{flagicon}}, so you don't have to learn a new system. Just as {{flagicon|RSA|1928}} produces Flag of South Africa, {{fed|RSA|1928}} produces Flag of South Africa South Africa. The 1928 parameter has the same effect.

I hope you can see the obvious benefits to this proposal:

  • Editors don't have to learn multiple different systems for flag templates.
  • Maintenance is simplified because a flag image is stored in one spot. When a new SVG version is available for a .jpg, for example, a single edit can make the change for all instances that use that flag. Individual sports WikiProjects don't have to make parallel updates to their specific set of templates.

I am not suggesting that I impose a lot of work on the editors of this project. I am prepared to make all the substitutions and template deletions myself. I'd just like your approval and feedback before I proceed.

One related question: Are the flags used in {{CARdc}}, {{ECAdc}} and {{POCdc}} really the correct ones for those multi-national teams, or just place-holders because they seemed like the best fit? I'd like to know how to best substitute for those templates.

Thanks, Andrwsc 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if the CARdc, POCdc etc. flags are correct, but it definitely seems to be a good idea. I spent ages trying to remember them and tag all those templates with the project banner, so it'll definitely make life easier. As for the substitution of the "irregular" images, creating a perimeter, with the name of the alternate image will probably solve that. --Dark Falls talk 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think those flags are correct either; I just put them there because they fit… —MC 15:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see that the Davis Cup and Fed Cup websites also use little flag icons for team results, and notably, have no flags for these teams. Perhaps we should follow suit. If so, then there are two alternatives. We can simply wikilink the name of the team, or we can use a template that inserts an appropriate size blank space, so that team names line up when in a list. I've done this before. What do you think? Andrwsc 22:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been two weeks with no more discussion on my proposal, so I'm going to be WP:BOLD and go ahead with the changes! Andrwsc 04:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Call for article guidelines/best practices

I've added links to a new Article Guidelines subproject on the main page. This was motivated by seeing the 2007 Wimbledon Championships article, which is a complete mess. We should have guidelines and links to exemplary articles for each type of tennis page. This will help to channel the enthusiasm some pages get during grand slams, and provide a forum for reaching consensus on stylistic issues. I've started the discussion on the subproject page for everyone to chime in.

I think a good start would be the 2007 Wimbledon Championships article I mentioned before. If we can make it into something respectable, we could point to it as a guide when the 2007 US Open rolls around. --dantheox 20:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left some comments at Talk:2007 Wimbledon Championships. Feel free to chime in with ideas there or on the subproject talk page. --dantheox 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess we couldn't get it done before the US Open… :-) —MC 18:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and we're paying the price, too: 2007 U.S. Open (tennis) is following the same incoherent format as this year's Wimbledon article. Fortunately, there's a lot more of a break before the next Slam =) --dantheox 19:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is :P —MC 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French Open Slam Status

We are having a problem in what constitutes a slam over in the wiki article "Grand Slam Women's Singles Champions." The original framers of the article greyed out pre-1925 French winners on the basis that the event was open only to French Club members until 1925. Obviously the Wiki "French Open Winners" article would include everyone... no problem there. But when it come to totaling slams we run into a problem. Most books I've come across include the other big 3 events from their inception but they were supposed to be open to all countries, even if very few other countries sent players way back then. But now we have an editor of the page who insists that the French be included from it's inception in totaling all slams. His claim is that since no country sent players to the US Championships it was pretty much the same as the French Championships. It's gotten heated and we are at an impass because most of the posters their don't seem to care enough about this particular item to express a viewpoint. I posted this in the articles' talk page:

Thoughts on the French Championships. I'm asking here what the active members on this article think about changing the pre-1925 French Championships to make it count as a slam. I could show you stacks of evidence from books that would show why it should not be included and Mr Ryoung will say the same in his opposing view, so that won't help you at all. I'm asking for people to go to a book store or library or your own book shelf and see what it says under "Slam Titles." The individual Tourny names won't help here since of course someplace like the Australian Open would list everyone who has ever won their tourney, as would a book when you look up Australian Open. But those are taken care of here in the wikipedia under the individual tourney names. The French Open wiki site lists all past winners as it should. But this article is "Grand Slam Women's Singles Champions" , a different beast altogether. Look up total slam titles in whatever sources you would like and make an informed decision and post it here so we can see some sort of consensus on what everyone is thinking. 5 or 6 posts won't really help but if we can get a couple dozen thoughts it might help for making a better article and a way to solve this logjam. I hesitate to go to mediated arbritation because a non-tennis person will make a decision on a teniis related article but if we must we must.

1. I would vote for keeping the status quo for the pre-1925 French Open; Grayed out names, no slam numbering or counting until it was open to International players in 1925. Fyunck(click) 05:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

I believe that articles listing past history should be do just that. The facts of the matter are, that all four of the currently-recognized 'Grand Slam' tennis singles championships evolved over the years. The Australian Open even went through a patch in the 1970's where top stars, such as Borg, Connors, and McEnroe, often didn't bother to show up...resulting in slam 'champions' like Brian Teacher. This is hardly comparable to today, when all four titles are vigorously contested by the likes of Roger Federer and Serena Williams. Other major changes throughout the years have included the 'opening' of the tournaments to professionals in 1968 (beginning at, of all places...Roland Garros!), the elimination of the 'challenge round' in 1922, etc. To not count the French championships prior to 1925 would be akin to not counting Babe Ruth's home runs, because of the exclusion of 'black' players from 1880 to 1947 in baseball. It also misses the historicity of the years. 'Greying out' is an inhospitable snub, especially when one considers that the game of 'tennis' or 'tenez' originated in the chateau of France.

Let's not forget what the NAME of the article is: "Grand Slam Women's Singles Champions." Since the term 'Grand Slam' wasn't even coined until 1933. Strictly speaking, there was no such thing as a 'grand slam' until some 56 years after the first Wimbledon tournament in 1877. Further, doing a little digging we find this about the early U.S. 'Open':

Only clubs that were members of the United States National Lawn Tennis Association were permitted to enter.

Also, the first 29 mens singles winners at Wimbledon were from the U.K. Early fields for both men and women tended to be limited to not just people from the same nation, but also the upper-class elite (hence the idea of an 'amateur' championship, to discourage the common people, who needed to be paid to survive, from competing). Note the lists on these articles recognize this, and count the titles two ways: Open-era and 'All-time.' I think 'All-time' means all-time, not just 'what Fyunckclick feels like.' I note the World Almanac lists Suzanne Lenglen with 12 titles. I note the Encyclopedia Britannica lists the French champions since 1891. I note that most of the competitors most-affected (Henri Cochet, Jean Borotra, Suzanne Lenglen) demonstrated their top-notch ability. Even Max Decugis won some Olympic medals.

Perhaps the biggest argument against Fyunclick, however, is that the 'French only' rule wasn't really enforced:

the first French Championship, the pre-curser to the French Open, was staged in Paris in 1891 and won by a certain H. Briggs - an Englishman.

So, it appears the first-ever title, in 1891, was won by...an Englishman? Clearly, Mr. Fyunclick's 'anti-French' crusade should come to an end. For 20+ years I have followed tennis, and though some sources tend to list only the winners since 1968 or whatever, most, when listing 'all-time' lists, do just that. Clearly, a learned tennis person knows that Roy Emerson's 12 'slams' are worth less, because Rod Laver and Pancho Gonzales were restricted entry during Emerson's years of winning titles, and Emerson never won a title once the championships were 'open' to professionals. Yet the same cannot be said for Suzanne Lenglen, Henri Cochet, and Jean Borotra...the 1920's-early 1930's were the 'golden age' of French tennis, and their success then has never been repeated.Ryoung122 08:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Doing a little more research, we find that the 1892 and 1897 French (mens) finalists were also Englishmen:

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-french-men-s-singles-champions-and-finalists

And, further, in 1925 the French was 'promoted' as an 'international' tournament to enchance its prestige and get foreign visitors. To now turn around and punish the French for inviting foreigners to compete is simply wrong. T(Remember, the French were aslo the first to open their tournament to professionals in 1968.) A search of the historical record finds that, contrary to oft-repeated commentary, the French championships did not actually 'exclude' foreigners. Thus, the rationale for 'greying out' is moot.

Now, no one would argue that the 1891 tournament in any way resembled the level of competition today. But the same can and should be said for Wimbledon in 1877 (Spencer Gore never won again) or the U.S. Open in 1881.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 08:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I could refute most everyone of RYoungs statements but why bother... everyone in this discussion is probably a tennis fan (I have been for almost 40 years now) so I don't feel a need to preach to the choir. Check out the facts for yourselves from places other than answers.com which just takes it's info from wikipedia anyways. Thanks. Fyunck(click) 09:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How could answers.com take that from Wikipedia, if it's not on Wikipedia? And if it is, that just goes to show you that you are not considering the larger picture. You are focused on merely 'winning' an argument rather than respecting history.Ryoung122 09:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Numerous sources, from the World Almanac to the Encylopedia Britannica to ESPN list the French winners since 1891. Here's another one, from CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/05/24/singles.wnners/

Also, the argument that the pre-1925 champions should be exluded because foreigners 'weren't allowed' has been shown to be false.

However, perhaps the best argument to be made is that Wikipedia, unlike a published work, is an edited entry that anyone can edit. To achieve 'consensus' requires respecting multiple points of view. A notation has already been made for the year '1925'. To simply act like pre-1925 titleholders didn't exist smacks of one-dimensional, dictatorial, and parochial meddling. I find it hard to believe that just one individual, going by an alias, has deemed himself more important than international media sources like CNN.Ryoung122 09:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

USA Today also lists since 1891, no 'exlusionary' rule:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/majors-women.htm

Note these are English and American sources, not French sources. The best thing anyone can do here is to treat the French Open with the same respect as the other three: list the titleists since tournament inception. Even if the "Australian Open" was once the "Australiasian championships."Ryoung122 09:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122 09:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? —MC 00:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Davis Cup articles - lists of teams

Currently, many Davis Cup (and Fed Cup) articles have sections that show this list of participating teams in each group & region. They are shown like:

Participating Teams
Template:BRAdc Template:CANdc Template:COLdc
Template:MEXdc Template:PERdc Template:VENdc

Is there any specific reason why this tabular format is desired, instead of just a simpler bulleted list, such as:

Thanks, Andrwsc 10:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The question of putting links in tennis performance timelines

Recently, editors User:Wolbo and User:Tennis expert have engaged in continuous reversions on each other's edits on the Roger Federer page. The disagreement is over the issue of wikilinks to tournaments in the performance timelines. E.g., Wolbo favors a layout where one can click on, say a W in a table to be directed to, say, the Wimbledon 2003 draw. Tennis expert is against on grounds of making editing of the tables more difficult. The issue has been discusse somewhat scattered around the Wiki, so let us all settle the issue at this place. I made a post on Tennis expert's talk page, when he labelled one of Wolbo's reversion vandalism, I repeat this post here, as a start to the discussion:

"== Your edit war with Wolbo on wikilinks in tennis performance timelines ==
Re: your edit war with Wolbo on the Federer page, you note that no consensus has been reached; see here. That is technically correct as far as I see. But all the discussion I was able to track down, was about you opposing it. See here, and here. I could find no other editors opposing wikilinks in tables. And one voice trying to compromise, was deleted from you talk page; see last deleted entry here. I can't really see that the discussion is over in the sense that you can call Wolbo's edits vandalism; see here. From what I can dig up, one could conclude that around four editors (Wolbo, dantheox, Autodidactyl, to some extent Supertigerman) have supported the idea of wikilinks in performace timelines. That suggests that it was worth discussing more thoroughly. Please let me know of any discussion I have missed. Thanks. --HJensen, talk 07:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)"

My opinion is that the idea of links to draws is nice, as it highlights these main draw articles. Also, we do not need to make it a mandatory thing on all players' article. Since, the Federer article is going for GA and eventually FA, it would be a very nice touch to the article. And for retired greats, there would be no problem of making updating of tables more difficult. An argument I don't think is that good in any case. Please put your opinions here. Thanks.--HJensen, talk 16:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with HJensen, largely for the reasons he laid out above. I've often looked at a performance timeline and wondered "who did he lose to in the quarterfinals that year?" Links to the draw can immediately settle that question. I also agree with the point that it highlights our draw articles. Many readers might not be aware that, through the Grand Slam Project, we have draws for almost ever grand slam ever contested. More exposure is a good thing.
I think an argument could be made that these links look bad, especially on the colored backgrounds for SF and W cells. Blue underlined text on neon green or yellow is almost nauseating. Would it be possible to change the color of these links? Black looks better than blue. On the other hand, this would further increase the difficulty of making the edits. How are these edits typically performed? I picked a few random players from the Wimbledon draw, and their performance timelines had all been updated by different users, both registered and anonymous. This appears to be a distributed effort, so I don't think the increased pain will affect anyone too much.
Another option would be to have a bot that goes around fixing these links. There would be a pretty high one-time cost to set this up, but it might be worth it in the long run. --dantheox 20:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Very few editors other than myself go around checking the edits made by others to ensure that the timelines remain correct. This is already a very time consuming process. Making the timelines even more difficult to edit because we keep adding complicated "enhancements" to tables that, in edit mode, are very user unfriendly just doesn't make sense, as does not having a standardized way of presenting the timelines (e.g., requiring certain players to have links to the draws while saying, oh well, it's not required for others). Perhaps HJensen and Wolbo would volunteer to conform all the hundreds of timelines that currently exist to this proposed way of doing things. Maybe I have missed it, but I haven't noticed either of them making the effort so far. Tennis expert 05:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we first keep the discussion to the issue at hand, and then afterwards pass out honors to those having done most edits. In a general discussion, I would think that any editor's argument carries the same weight irrespective of number of edits. Your comments exclusively point to the added complications, while you deliberately put "enhancements" in quotation marks. Do you really not think it is an improvement? As to your stand that this is an "either or" thing, in the sense that every timeline should then feature it, I don't agree. Extending Wikipedia is an ongoing process and any change will necessarily have to be incremental. I see nothing against the idea that the links are put into those players where editors will do the effort, and those where there are not willing editors will not get the addition. You don't see the same performance timeline in all tennis bios on Wikipedia in any case. You wouldn't, I guess, argue that we should delete the singles performance timeline featured now in, e.g., Lleyton Hewitt because there is no equivalent timeline in the Carlos Moyà article?--HJensen, talk 14:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Top ten North American male tennis players

Template:Top ten North American male tennis players has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —MC 22:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis tournament names

Can anyone here read Dutch? There was a proposal on the Dutch Wikipedia (now implemented) to, I assume from looking at that chart, drop the sponsors' names. Should we do this here? (cf. WP:COMMONNAME?) —MC 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read the discussion there and would summarize it as follows: because sponsors change and people often don't even know the official name of a tennis tournament, the article names will be changed to "ATP-tournament of Cityname" and "WTA-tournament of Cityname". Where both men and women play in the tournament, the way it is implemented is to redirect the official name to the men's article and have a text in the lead linking to the women's article, or to redirect the official name to a disambiguation page with two links. Where existing articles contain both ATP and WTA information, they need to be split.
The original discussion I have missed and I'm sorry to say that I don't agree, for what it is worth. I don't think consistency of article names is an higher principle than calling things what they're called (WP:COMMONNAME). Also the split between men and women causes more problems then it solves, e.g. redirecting to disambiguation pages or ATP pages, splitting articles that don't merrit splitting, etc. Dropping the sponsor name (while keeping redirects from the official name) I do agree with. I would prefer something like "Wimbledon (tennis)" and "Rome (tennis)". A problem is the Ordina Open: do you call this "Rosmalen (tennis)" or "'s-Hertogenbosch (tennis)"? The first is what it is referred to locally, the second internationally... Gidi70 11:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Anybody have anything to say about this? —MC 01:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forehand

Someone has been messing with Forehand, but I'm heading off for the night and don't have the time to untangle it. Maybe one of you can take a look? --Falcorian (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The article contains a long subjective and unsourced list, inappropriate for an encyclopedia, so it clearly invites opinionated attacks.--HJensen, talk 11:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The list does seem fairly arbitrary, and also a bit tilted towards present players. And it doesn't include Aaron Krickstein :) But it might help to divide the list into current and past players. ShabbatSam 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the list, I question some of the points of the article. The opening sentence to me is true only of a cross-court shot, and just as true a description to me of a backhand cross-court shot. And the description of 'inside-out' is not my understanding of the shot. 'Inside-out' forehand means hitting the ball cross-court from the backhand side of the court, regardless of whether you had to "run around the backhand" shot first to do it. And from that position, you can also hit the shot down the line, which would NOT be an inside-out forehand.ShabbatSam 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Connors nominated for Article Improvement Drive

Jimmy Connors has been nominated for the Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. Any editors who would be interested in collaborating to improve this article should indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 17:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slam vs Grand Slam

Just because many use a term doesn't make it correct. When I grew up in the 60's, 70's and 80's the only term I heard to describe the Aussie, French, Wimbledon and US Opens were "Majors." Somewhere, probably during Navratilova's dominance, the term "Slam" was used for the individul tournies. This made sense as winning all 4 in a calendar year was a "Grand Slam", a term used since the 30's. But people got lazy, sportscasters included, and started calling the individual tournies "Grand Slams" incorrectly. In conversation you let that slide, but this is an encyclopedia! Can't we at least get it right here? Do not call them "Grand Slams", call them Majors or Slams. The headings in all the wiki Tennis articles should reflect this. Maybe if enough people see it printed the correct way the debasement of the term will change. Fyunck(click) 18:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right. When I was a boy (30 years ago) a "Grand Slam" was a thing Rod Laver had won among the men. But time changes, and I don't think we can fight this change of common usage. I mean, when the official web site of the 2007 US Open goes on about "The Grandeur of Grand Slams - 2007", referring to the four tournaments of the year, it is a sign of a lost battle.--HJensen, talk 21:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably too true. I still believe it is incorrect usage and poor english, but as with many words these days it may be too late to save :-( Fyunck(click) 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Set nomination

I have created a tennis set nomination for Version 0.7, please take a look and leave comments. What we need to know are: (a) Is this a suitable list of the top tennis players (13 male + 13 female), plus other key articles? (b) Are the articles of a reasonable quality? I realise that such lists are subjective, but I made up the lists based on details posted on the list pages, as well as my own (small) personal knowledge. I realise that the older players will typically get less coverage, but we do want to make sure the selection covers the truly major players from all time periods. Please give feedback. Thanks, Walkerma 03:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing Pancho Gonzales Wolbo 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Great list. How about Jack Kramer and all 13 players from this list. Also may I suggest ATP Tour, WTA Tour, Davis cup, Fed cup and History of tennis. Thanks! RC 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most wanted articles

The list of most wanted articles was recently updated, and I've created a section for the many tennis biographies on there. If anyone gets bored, here's a good place to find something to do ;). --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I found three redirect pages from here: Nicole Provis, Nany Basuki and Asa Carlsson. (maiden names, nicknames) --Hhst (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Addition: The most "wanted article" from other Wikipedia versions: Marcel Bernard and Roderich Menzel (both 6 languages.) <Bernard: de, es, fr, ja, pl, sv // Menzel: de, es, fr, pl, sk, sv>. (Sorry, I haven't written Menzel myself, I'm ashamed of it.) --Hhst (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Tennis award

  • I'm still new to this project, but I've noticed that WP:Tennis doesn't have an ward for best contributors. Though it might be a good idea to create one, especially since many smaller projects have one. What do you think? BanRay 13:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Something random...

image:Tennisbarnstar.png Any thoughts? Should I add it to the WP barnstars page? BanRay 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other sports WikiProjects with their own barnstars? There's always the Running Man's Barnstar. --dantheox (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I know that Wp:Football has two, not sure about others BanRay 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt we need a barnstar page. We only have around 30 contributors, and half of them aren't even active... --DarkFalls talk 00:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right then! BanRay 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Leach

I want to give a heads up to those who edit tennis-related articles. When referring to the tennis player, Mike Leach, please use "Mike Leach (tennis)" instead of "Mike Leach", since the latter links to the football coach. Thanks! → Wordbuilder (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Open (tennis)

When are you guys going to reach a consensus on whether to use "US Open" or "U.S. Open"?
I'm currently in a discussion with Tennis expert on which one to use and he keeps saying a consensus was not reached on this issue. But then in his edit summary he says changes were made against consensus. So is he right that a consensus was not made here in April 2007 or is he right a consensus was made elsewhere?
I'm also writing here, because I think we need someone else to either mediate or join the conversation on either this talk page or on the US Open (tennis) talk page. --203.220.170.192 (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed here. I think it is clear that the consensus was that in the Open Era it should be US Open rather than U. S. Open. I guess tennisexpert just want his opinions to stand. Drop the punctuation by all means.--HJensen, talk 08:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
hjensen, no one was advocating "U. S. Open." Thanks for misrepresenting my position (yet again). Tennis expert (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please hold back the sarcasm. I honestly read that old discussion as you being the only one that kept insisting on not using the term US Open. Sorry if I misunderstood you position. US Open it is then. --HJensen, talk 10:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
When you stop being sarcastic and incivil in your edit summaries and posts aroud Wikipedia about yours truly, I'll go more than the extra mile (or kilometer) to accommodate you. Sorry you can't see the difference between U.S. Open and U. S. Open. I advocate the former, never the latter. Tennis expert (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from calling me incivil. Unless you can show an example, I would very much like you to strike that comment. You are, on the other hand, accusing me of "misrepresenting my position (yet again)"! Thereafter I apologize if I misunderstood your position. I really think I am trying my best here.--HJensen, talk 20:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
An example of your sarcasm: "Can 'experts' avoid edit summaries?" (posted by you twice in reference to me even though you yourself do not always post edit summaries). Tennis expert (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That was not meant as sarcastic. I am truly sorry if it came off like that. I had hoped that the quotation marks around the word "expert" signalled that I was just making a harmless joke with your user name, which - as you must admit - does invite to such humorous remarks every once in a while (and all I wanted was some dialogue - I felt it was a minor thing not needed to go to the talk page - but I have done that now). On a more serious note, I am still not satisfied that you have labelled me as being incivil. That is uncalled for, and I would very much like you to strike that remark. Thanks.--HJensen, talk 23:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't invited anything of the kind, just as you do not invite jokes about Denmark by admitting that you're Danish. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but that "expert" sarcasm happens all the time to me, almost always by vandals. I don't appreciate it. I chose my name on the spur of the moment several years ago. Why you and others think it's clever to joke about it (when the real issue is disagreeing with my edits) is beyond my imagination. It's a juvenile passive aggressive activity. Tennis expert (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry. This is an unfortunate clash of personalities and perhaps cultures. I am truly sorry that you take such harmlessly intended comments as "passive aggessive activity". I have never had any such intentions, and shall refrain from making any implicit or explicit remarks about your user name from now on. I really meant it as just humorous to get things working a bit smoother. I was also sure your remark about kilometers instead of miles was just a reference to my origin. I did not take that as an aggressive remark. But I still think there is a long way from such a minor misunderstandings over a few wordings and then accusations of incivility. Please don't lump your understanding of my good faith writings into the intentional malicious behavior of vandals. Thanks again. --HJensen, talk 06:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature

Could you add details of all abbreviations used - both the literal expansion and what that actually means to the articles of tennis players. (I suggest a template for easy inclusion into lots of players.) For example, in Tim Henman the table at the end is full of many coloured "R1, RR, QF, W". I guess, but do NOT know that this means "The player got as far as Round 1, RR??? no idea, Quarter finals, Won the event." But if that is the case then the totals don't add up. There are 11 wins listed with the total being 12 and yet there is only one "W". It makes no sense to the non-expert. Also remember that there will be readers whose first language is not English. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laura DuPont

I created article Laura DuPont, perhaps someone could mosey over there, check it out, and rate it (stub class, methinks). Thank you. Guldenat (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Importance scale

I've replaced the importance scale, the general one was confusing and unsuitable for this project. Any thoughts are welcome. BanRay 11:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Capriati

Please can someone look at this article, it needs a rewrite as it doesn't seem to flow too well. I'm trying to do this for several other female tennis-player articles as well. If you see the talk page, you'll see what I mean. Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 11:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of national flags in tennis articles

I could not find this issue discussed elsewhere, so permit me to raise it here. Why, exactly, are we identifying players with national flags in contexts where the players are not representing countries? I understand the exception of IO games, Fed Cup and Davis Cup, but what about WTA/ITF/ATP tournaments? The players playing there are competing as individuals; in some cases, the issue of nationality is not straightforward, and the player actually possesses several passports. Players train and live in various places. National anthems are not played before tournament matches or at the moment of awarding winners, national representation win totals or orther statistics are not maintained by ITF (except in the national team competition case), WTA or ATP. Please explain, exactly what justifies branding players with national flags in international tennis, other than in the national team competition contexts? --Mareklug talk 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot address the flag versus spelling-out-the-name-of-the-country decision, but it is longstanding tradition in tennis reporting to specify both the name of the player and his or her nationality, even in events other than the Olympics, Davis Cup, and Fed Cup. Tennis expert (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I debated this issue briefly with someone at Talk:Delray Beach International Tennis Championships. I'll repeat what I said there: I think the issue of whether or not a player is representing their country is subjective. You assert that they aren't but do you have anything to back this up? Patriotism is a common feature amongst players and supporters, and the media have made a huge fuss, for example, over the rise of Serbian tennis, with no objections raised by the players in question. I assume the ITF/ATP/WTA doesn't play the national anthem because it's impractical to assemble a band in the stadia, and it's anyone's guess who will actually win the event at such short notice. However, player nationality is acknowledged and celebrated at times: for example, the singles champions at the French Open have their national anthems played. So whether or not they represent their countries is debatable; what is irrefutable is the perceived importance of nationality by the governing bodies[1], media outlets[2] and fans. The majority feel that nationality is notable. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

As I've been watching the Australian Open I've been reading a few tennis-related articles and am pretty surprised by the poor quality of them in general. Most are not written in an encyclopedic tone, and read as if they are articles in a magazine or similar publication. There are a lot of weasel words that need dealing with, puffers, and NPOV policy needs to be applied. I don't have the time, inclination or expertise to fix the vast number of articles that needs fixing, but its something the Wikiproject needs to look at. The articles I read were (but from what I've seen this is the tip of the iceberg) Maria Sharapova, Steffi Graf (and a lot of other bios) & 2008 Australian Open. It's definitely good writing, but just not suitable for an encyclopedia. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of editors are continuously updating the bios as a tournament proceeds. This creates lots of news-style sections, which usually all are deleted after the completion of the tournament by more experienced editors. It is such a waste of time. If people would just wait until a tournament is over!--HJensen, talk 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New article on Sasson Khakshouri

Some help would be appreciated with this new article. Many of the google hits turn up foreign language sites, so hopefully somebody associated with this project will have better resources. Pairadox (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of French Men's Singles champions and finalists

Is it just me or does that page title make no sense? I understand why the 'Open' was taken out but as it stands the name is really ambiguous. Would it be an option to change 'French Men's' to 'Roland-Garros'? Crickettragic (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis Wikibook up for Deletion

I don't know how much interest that participants with this Wikiproject may want to get involved with a related Wikibook, but I'm leaving this note here to inform those who may be interested that the Tennis Wikibook is currently nominated for deletion on Wikibooks.

This book is certainly in sad shape in terms of offering any realistic information about how to play the game or go into depth about the topic, and it would be appreciated if somebody interested in the topic could help add content to those pages. The primary rationale for deletion is due to the fact that the information in this book is of such poor quality that it doesn't merit even being on Wikibooks any more. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incentive

The Florida Gators Barnstar
For good and thorough work pertaining to articles about the Florida Gators.

[edit] Help request: GA backlog

Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while, and some articles wait up to 50 days for a review. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject Tennis is to try to find time to review Ogre (game) and Nashville Sounds. If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of tennis biographies

Since this is something that is going to involve a number of articles, and something that is likely to cause a little bit of commotion, I thought it would be wise to have a discussion before doing it, even though it is ultimately pretty much unavoidable. This seemed to be the most appropriate forum, since people here are more specifically devoted to tennis-related articles. I will try to post notices about this discussion on the talk pages of as many articles as I can remember that are to be affected.
So the thing is: there is a significant number of tennis biographies that are, right now, violating the naming conventions of the English-language Wikipedia, namely Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). The situation concerns biographies of tennis players of Slav and South American countries (that I have noticed so far). As it is stated in our Naming Convention, which I linked above, in the case of spelling of a person's name, on the English-language Wikipedia (thus not applicable to other Wikipedias necessarily, subject to local policies), the name of the article is to be the preferred spelling in the English-speaking world, if it exists. If not, then we use the original spelling in the native language. In the case of tennis players, the preferred spelling in English is easily verifiable by how those names are spelled by the ATP and the WTA respectively — which is used normally by the media and any other means of divulgation in English-speaking countries.
What that means for practical purposes is: no diacritics, romanization of any non-Latin letters or symbols, as done not by Wikipedia, but by the sources (in this case, the ATP and the WTA). Currently, many biographies are not observing this, such as Fernando González, Ana Ivanović, Ivan Ljubičić and Radek Štěpánek. In addition, there is the peculiar case of Novak Djokovic (spelled as is): while the article has been moved to the appropriate naming on this Wikipedia, the player's name continues to be listed on other tennis-related articles routinely as Novak Đoković, the original spelling in Serbian. All of those will need to be fixed.
Obviously, there are many people, especially people who contribute only sporadically to Wikipedia, and possibly concentrated on tennis alone, or maybe limited to a small number of biographies or tennis-related articles, and thus will be unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, who might tend to call upon "national issues" and claim that the original spelling needs to be kept out of "respect for the countries" from which the player comes. Unfortunately, this argument cannot prosper ultimately, for the reasons I've explained above. But I've seen this argument time and again, especially concerning Slav players (and especially on Djokovic's entry). Therefore, if there is anything anyone would like to point out about this, it would be preferrable that we get any problems out of the way now.
But again, ultimately the naming conventions are clear: this is the English-language Wikipedia, and in here we use the preferred spelling in the English-speaking world if it exists. In the case of tennis players, it clearly exists and it is easily verified. Redux (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. But I predict that what you're proposing is going to precipitate massive edit warring and all the unpleasantries that result from that. Tennis expert (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That is precisely why I thought it best to discuss first, before implementing a broad move of articles. The goal is to bring this situation to the attention of sensible people beforehand, since it seems that it is clear enough what needs to be done. Once anyone who wants to has had an opportunity to voice any concerns, we will proceed to the renames deemed necessary. There will be no edit warring, because anyone trying to "force" the articles to stay at a naming that they might think is right for whatever personal reason ("national pride" or something else) will be incurring in several policy violations, since such actions can be construed as Vandalism, POV pushing and/or a violation of WP:POINT. Any and all of which can and, if necessary, will be addressed with the appropriate administrative measures.
The point of what I've just said is not to make omenous threats. Far from it. In fact the whole point of even having this discussion is to attempt to make this as transparent and smooth as it possibly can be. But I do feel the need to reassure all that contribute constructively and reasonably that the discussion will yield results that will ultimately benefit the project. Redux (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I support this. Don't let the people who created the problem in the first place, by ignoring Wikipedia policy, make you jump through any further hoops. Unfortunatly because Wikipedia:Three-revert rule is so time consuming I wouldn't bother using it - simply revert, warn, ban and seek page move protection - Wikipedia:Protect#Move_protection. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I also completely agree with you. I have stated my opinions in relationship with the discussion concerning Novak Djokovic. In particular, it is important to note that there usually has never been an established consensus for naming the articles with their native spelling in the first place. Hence, any arguments against a move to English spelling due to "lack of consensus" is not viable in my opinion. (In the case of "Djokovic vs. Đoković", a move to English spelling was indeed blocked for a while by use of that argument until some neutral Admins stepped in.) --HJensen, talk 18:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree cause I do not agree with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) to begin with. I think it's arrogant to sugest that the English alphabet is the only alphabet that should be used on English Wikipedia. With redirection pages the name Ana Ivanović can be "saved" and a lot of time can be saved too. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not what WP:UE says. One extreme view is indeed that diacritics should never be used; another is that they should always be used. WP:UE supports neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This does not really refer to us placing an alphabet before any other. This is about a methodology and the established fact that on the English-language Wikipedia content is written in English. That applies to the spelling of people's names as well: if there is a preferred spelling used in the English-speaking world, that is what is going to be used on this Wikipedia as the article's title. We are not making this up as we go along, this is an established methodology of work — and a logical one, obviously, since this is the English-language Wikipedia. You should notice that this is about the naming of articles. This is not about excluding or hiding the native-language spelling of anyone's name. As a matter of fact, we are required to give it in the opening paragraph. Not to mention that it is good practice to have the original spelling exist as a redirect to the correctly-placed article.
Now, even though this is not a discussion about deletion, regarding this kind of personal sentiment towards how the English-language Wikipedia is written, there is a page that completely applies here (mutatis mutandi): Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically the third section, #Personal point of view, and in it, the subsections "I like it" and "I don't like it".
In order to oppose the concerned moves validly, you need to indicate either that there is no preferred spelling in the English-speaking world, which causes the article title to default to the native-language spelling, or that the English-speaking world happens to spell it exactly like the native spelling, which means that the article would already be at the correct location. In the case of tennis players, that is evidently difficult to conceive, since this needs to be backed by verifiable sources, and since both the ATP and the WTA use English as their working languages and they themselves list the players excluding diacritics and so on, the players' profiles on the official website of the concerned governing entity becomes a quasi-indisputable proof of the preferred spelling in English. Redux (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


It would be strange to apply this to tennis players only. So you need a larger debate related to all names with diacritic. Anyway, see this.--Svetovid (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That was a straw poll. And it seems to have been made complicated by the fact that it was stemming from a then-live debate over the naming of the article on Zurich, which means that opinions were already polarized going into it. And obviously, in spite of its existence, our methodology was not changed. Also because Wikipedia is not a democracy.
In the general situation at hand, there will be clearly established spellings in English, which are used widely in the English-speaking world (given the media coverage of a very popular sport, etc.) and which are easily verifiable (ATP and WTA, as mentioned). There is also the fact that we are applying a homogenizing rule, because in some cases it's just a diacritical mark (so see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Personal point of view#It doesn't do any harm) and in others, there are significant differences (as in the case of Djokovic). Otherwise, then we really would be making the rules up as we go along.
This is concerning the tennis-related biographies. It is not possible to work on an all-inclusive discussion on this, because conditions may and do vary wildly regarding whether or not there is an established spelling in English, how well-established or used it is in the English-speaking world, etc. In the case of tennis, the circumstances are made easier because of the ATP/WTA spelling and the popularity of the sport throughout the Englihs-speaking world. This makes the situation far more solvable in this instance. And obviously, we are not going to avoid addressing it where it can be addressed because it may be wrong elsewhere as well, under [possibly] completely different situations. Redux (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've come to agree with this idea. I used to vehemently oppose it, actively implemented the usage of discritics, and wanted Wikipedia to present the "most factual" version, so that people could be informed. Now I'm trying to look at it from an objective viewpoint, and all I can see is that it creates too much tension, and the arguments in favour of retaining diacritics are usually a result of linguistic partisanship. This encyclopaedia is for everybody, it isn't for seasoned tennis fans or people familiar with the nuances of diacritics. One argument could be that they're necessary to prevent mispronunciation i.e. Lubikick, but does the average English reader really know what the "č" sounds like? The extent of the problem is widespread but that's no obstacle. The one stipulation I would make is that the original form should be in parenthesis after the English version. I also disagree that a decision needs to be made Wikipedia-wide, this should be initiated at grass-roots level so that the change is gradual and the discussion doesn't become too convoluted. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. As I mentioned before, we are already required to provide the native-language spelling in the opening paragraph, so that is already solved. In addition, although not mandatory, it is already an established good practice to have a pronunciation key for the native spelling (using the IPA) also in the opening paragraph. So it would appear that all bases are covered in that regard. Redux (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Man, I am SO happy to see this discussion. It bothers me quite often to see these non-English spellings for tennis on the wikipedia player bios. And it bothers me as an editor as well, because I don't HAVE those keys on my keyboard, and it makes me feel like I am being delinquent when I use English spellings for these player names when editing articles. So by all means, let's get this policy implemented. Hopefully there is a bot you can create to make these changes, that would also leave a nice, explicit note to future editors explaining why? OK, enough happy talk for now, time to get on with what I came here for: MoS for Scores. ShabbatSam (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Just an addendum to this comment. Actually, you DO have the letters available when using the editor in wikipedia. It is just rather cumbersome to use. But it is there. Sp this it not a strong argument (although I fully agree).--HJensen, talk 07:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ťĥáņķš fòŗ ťḥě ţĭþ!ShabbatSam (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This thread is now over a week old. In addition to the naming conventions that need to be followed, there was no sustainable opposition made here, aside the "I like it"/"I don't like it" remarks that, as I mentioned before, cannot prosper (see my previous comments). On the contrary, consensus is overwhelmingly clear in support of the already-existing naming conventions that, on the English-language Wikipedia, we will use the preferred spelling used in the English-speaking world — in the case of tennis, verified by the spelling used for each player on the official websites of the ATP and the WTA.
That being the case, barring the presentation of something new and relevant, we will commence the implementation of the outcome tomorrow, May 19. This will consist of 2 lines of action: the main one will be the moving of all biographies concerned to the ATP/WTA-used spelling; the second action will be the correcting of the players' names' spelling in all instances where it was spelled using the native-language spelling, both in results articles, such as in 2008 Hamburg Masters - Singles and in all biographies with career statistics boards, such as Rafael Nadal#All finals (41), where the article's title is unaffected by this and it will not be moved, but the opponents' names on that board will be changed to match the spelling used in the English-speaking world.
Needless to say that the second part, although technically easier, represents a massive effort. So we will be counting on the help of all of those willing to. And this brings up an important point: once the spellings are corrected, if people, be it anons or other registered users, start reverting it back to the native-spellings, please do not engage them in revert wars. Revert once, inform them of the naming conventions and of this discussion. If they either ignore you or reply with answers such as "Wikipedia is disrespecting X country/culture/langugage" and go on to re-revert it again, report it immediately to the administrators at their noticeboard. As I mentioned, anyone trying to "force" articles or spellings to stay how they personally think those should be will be incurring in several policy violations and will be subject to administrative measures. Redux (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the "real names", will stay in the article I don't mind the changes anymore. Good luck but I don't expect a 100% succes rate............ Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the best way to include the native spelling? For the Serb players I've just been putting Serb Latin; what about the rest of the Slavonic players, and the Hispanic ones? I really don't how to format this. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally, just go with your common sense. One way to do it would be something like this, in the very first sentence of the article: "Radek Stepanek (spelled Radek Štěpánek in Czech) is a..." The important thing is that the information be conveyed in as clear a fashion as possible. Redux (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Serbia seems to use two alphabets: Cyrillic alphabet & Serb Latin. I think it is the most respectfull to but both in tha article (in the Ana Ivanovic article this already happend). Most countrys use only one alphabet. In the countrys who use only Cyrillic nothing has to be changed cause Alyona Bondarenko article was never named Альона Бондаренко. The same probabley for Chinese etc. The only 'problem' is forms of Latin alphabet, but I thought that

only Central European countrys use a different versions of the Latin alphabet then English people. The country's language article should say what alpabeth they use. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If I might just add something at this late stage. The fact that the Serbian language is written in either of two scripts is not as big an issue as many of its exponents actually believe. Cyrillic is the primary script, the Latinic is a standard transliteration effectively no different to the Roman script forms of any other language: it is a fact that all main languages of sovereign states have a Romanised counterpart to their initial script. Although I favour the preservation of diacritics, I accept that this is slowly diminishing. As such, the new Serbian variations (Jelena Jankovic, Novak Djokovic etc.) serve as English exonyms which means that the Serbian names will be displayed in the style of a translation. The conventional practice for such presentation as can be checked by selecting the thousands of Serbian-related pages across English Wikipedia is: Good Morning (Serbian: Добро јутро, Dobro jutro). A simple click on the language link will explain everything about the importance of the alphabets so there is no need to provide links for the articles regarding the alphabets themselves, as indeed a page exists for every language's conventional scripts, Romanisations included. It would also be in harmony with all other language presentations across Wikipedia. English title > followed by primary script > followed by Romanised form. Here is an example containing Greek and Bulgarian. However the presentation is finalised, I must ask that Cyrillic maintain first position. Evlekis (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor problem is that all their trainers, friends and family members are not listed at ATP/WTA. So right now we have a strange mix of Anglicised and original names. Squash Racket (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What is special about tennis players that they deserve special treatment on Wikipedia? Why not to apply this rule to all articles? Why it is OK to have José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Gerhard Schröder, Agim Çeku, Kimi Räikkönen, Nicklas Bäckström and not Tomáš Berdych?--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. You are welcome to make efforts in implementing English naming conventions in other areas of the English wikipedia.--HJensen, talk 13:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Suggest that those proposing the multiple move at WP:RM#19 May 2008 consult WP:RM#Moving several pages at once for the recommended procedure. Andrewa (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A delicate issue as "no diacritics" argument certainly cannot be done without a RM. A RM should be held, and not for multiple pages but for each individual page. If there is consensus on them that they can be moved, they will. Otherwise, they should not be moved. This is a controversial move (and for the record, one which I strongly oppose).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are completely misunderstanding the purpose of the page WP:RM. That page is primarily for requesting moves when the user proposing the move, for some reason, cannot do it himself of herself (eg. anonymous users who believes a page should be moved). You should read the second paragraph at the very top of the page. This fits exactly: the proposal to move a large number of pages was bound to stir some controversy, so a discussion was started before anything was done. Notes with links to the discussion were placed on the talk page of numerous articles that were to be affected. The discussion went on for 8 days-and-change without any move actually being performed. At the end of this very reasonable period of time, consensus was rather clear, and I'm proud to say that all involved were quite reasonable and understanding, and that includes users who are regularly involved with tennis-related material and who resisted the moves at first.
There was discussion and consensus reached prior to any moves being performed. Clearly a discussion was necessary in this case, but WP:RM is a forum where such a discussion can take place, but it does not have to take place there, as it is being explained on that page itself. All the steps were taken appropriately, and we have moved to the implementation phase — but please, do refer to my above comments regarding arguments to avoid in discussions, which is completely applicable here; "I don't Like It" is one of them. As for the points you brought up on my talk page, I have explained the situation in yours — anyone else, obviously feel free to check it out. Redux (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standardization of Tennis Match Scores

This something I just noticed tonight, and it made it somewhat difficult and confusing to visually assimilate the match scores I was reading.

Apparently on March 23, someone or somebot (or some combo of the two, since there were multiple edits per minute being made by the same IP address) decided to change the presentation format of the tennis scores in hundreds of articles. See [3].

The changes all have the edit comment of: "MoS: Hyphens are often wrongly used for disjunction in Wikipedia; this is especially common in sports scores."

This is just a HORRIBLE change to have made, and I would like to see the scores changed back and no edit war ensue.

Tennis (and similarly volleyball, table tennis, etc.) scores are quite different from scores in many other sports (such as baseball, football, basketball, soccer, etc.) in that the scores follow a predictable format and that a match score contains a multiple of the component set scores.

So in tennis, you could conceivably report the scores of a match as 64 61 with no punctuation aside from the space and still be understood. You could even report a tiebreak set as 763 and still be understood.

On the other hand, a basketball score of 131-2, however unlikely, needs some punctuation (or to use the above editors terminology, some visual disjunction) to distinguish it from a score of 13-12.

And in basketball and similar sports, there is just ONE score to report upon for each match. So there is no need to concern yourself with horizontal spacing of the scores visually, and its effect on the ability of the reader to assimilate the meaning of the scores.

In tennis, however, you have a series of scores for each match, so you need to concern yourself with each piece of a set score as well as the visual presentation of a match score.

Consider the following presentations of the same match score:

64 16 763 6711 75

6-4, 1-6, 7-6(3), 6-7(11), 7-5

6–4, 1–6, 7–6 (3), 6–7 (11), 7–5

Hmmm ... I am not even sure if that is going to show up as intended.

But anyway, the point is that while all three versions of the scores can be read and understood, the first version is difficult to visually assimilate, the 2nd version (which was used before the edits were made) is the easiest to assimilate, and the 3rd version, the current version, is more difficult to assimilate.

(Please note that I also have changed the tiebreak display here to what I have always seen used in websites and news reports, no SPACE between the set score and the parenthesis with the tiebreak score).

The elongated hyphen (pardon me for not knowing the technical term) has the visual effect of pushing the end of one set score closer visually to the start of the next set score than to the start of its own set score. That is, a score of 5-7, 6-1, 6-2 looks more like 5 7 6 1 6 2.

And the additional space before the tiebreak score serves only to further turn what should be a visually clean match score into a giant blob of hyphens, numbers, and parentheses.

Of course, if the 3rd example above does not contain the elongated hyphens, you may not be seeing what I am talking about.

If you have seen what I am talking about, what are your thoughts? ShabbatSam (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the em-dashes make it very hard on editors. But as far as I can determine, the only way to go back to simple hyphens is to change Wikipedia policy. We can't do that just for tennis. Good luck with changing the policy. It's been tried before without success. By the way, there should not be a space before tiebreak scores. That is our tennis consensus. Tennis expert (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The bot's edit refers to the manual of style which says that en dashes, the correct term for the "elongated dashes" (not em dashes, as the above reply states), are the correct way to separate sport scores (which includes tennis scores). I disagree that this makes it any harder to understand than using hyphens, as the dash clearly shows which numbers relate to each other and the commas make it even easier to understand. However, it can be annoying for editors to use en dashes, especially as some editors insist on using the HTML entity "&ndash;" instead of using the en dash in the raw code (there was a recent discussion about that on the (association) football WikiProject). - MTC (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the way to go back is to find which bot did it, and request that the function of the bot be disapproved as disruptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention

Could someone point out where in wiki is the naming convention for female players? As far as last names being listed in charts as the married name or the name by which the player played under whilst competing. I don't know whether she changed it or not but if she did would we put down Steffi Graf Agassi or simply Steffi Graf? Chris Evert Norman or Chris Evert? Maureen Connolly Brinker or Maureen Connolly? Just a query so I don't mess things up and I couldn't find it listed anywhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As you know, we've discussed this many times before. Chris Evert doesn't go by "Chris Evert Norman." Maureen Connolly did go by "Maureen Connolly Brinker." Steffi Graf does not go by "Steffi Graf Agassi." That's the difference. Also, in results tables, it's very confusing for new tennis fans to see a player's maiden name in the early years and her married name in later years, with no obvious connection between them. To avoid this confusion, our consensus is to include the full name, e.g., Margaret Osborne duPont, assuming that the player in question actually used her married name at some point. Tennis expert (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't discuss this "many" times. I just wanted a wiki resource where it was pointed out. And how do you know that Chris won't go by Chris Evert Norman? She might. I just wanted to know where the consensus was located since I couldn't find it. When going to Wimbledon and looking at records on the walls you see players' tennis playing names, not their married names from 10 years after retirement. It's confusing to see the married names listed here. But again I just want to see where in wiki the consensus or protocol is located. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The consensus is evidenced in hundreds of articles all over the English Wikipedia. For example, the article about Chris Evert is entitled Chris Evert and the article about Margaret Osborne duPont is entitled Margaret Osborne duPont. Married names didn't just happen "10 years after retirement," either. Many (if not most) of these players married in the middle of their careers, such as Beverly Baker Fleitz and Patricia Canning Todd. Have a look at this thread at tennisforum.com. It would be far more confusing to see both "Gail Sheriff" and "Gail Lovera" in a table without any connection between the two. Unless you followed tennis closely, you would have no idea that those two names refer to the same player. "Gail Sheriff Lovera" or "Gail Sheriff Chanfreau Lovera" (she married several times) in both places in the table, which is our usual practice, eliminates the possibility of this confusion. Tennis expert (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There are hundreds of articles with non-english name spellings that are incorrect by wiki standards so one can't just go by 100s of articles. And I have no problem if someone is married while playing and we use their married name... I mean you have to pick one of them. But are we gonna use Chris Evert Lloyd Mill Norman if she chooses to go by Norman? It seems strange by tennis standards and if we don't then it's not consistent with Connolly Brinker. Maybe I should have asked if there is an unbiased authority figure here who could point me to wiki protocol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Editorial consensus is evidenced on Wikipedia by what editors do. Sorry that's apparently not good enough for you. As for my alleged bias, I am biased only to the extent I disagree with you. You apparently want to hear only what you want to hear, and everyone who disagrees with you apparently is biased. Authority figure? Who exactly would that be? Tennis expert (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
"Editorial consensus is evidenced on Wikipedia by what editors do". I didn't know that. Tennis expert, you mention in your first friendly response that it has been discussed "many times before". Why not lead Fyunck towards just a few of these discussions? That would be helpful.--HJensen, talk 05:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Also since TE does far more editing than the average tennis editor he makes his own consensus by bulk changes... is that really fair? In the past most tennis wikiites have been wallflowers and can't (or won't) match TE's amount of editing. That shouldn't make a consensus. Shouldn't we at wikipedia strive to make an article better rather than making sure we don't upset the consensus? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You asked what the consensus, i.e., naming convention, was. And I told you what it is. I then told you why I believe that the current consensus is the best way to go. Quit muddying the waters by mixing up the two discussions. As for why other people don't edit tennis articles as much as me: (1) I'm not convinced that's true anyway, as I limit myself to certain retired players, certain current female players, and only a few current male players. For example, I rarely touch the Andy Roddick or Roger Federer articles. (2) Everyone is free to edit as much as he or she wants. That's what makes Wikipedia "fair." Or maybe you believe I (and only I) should have a quota.... Finally, re-read the portion of WP:CON, which states that silence is consent, and WP:SILENCE. Tennis expert (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I asked where in wiki is the naming convention listed. Where was the consensus vote or series of arguments, pro and con. I wanted to be directed to those points. I did not want an opinion on what one person thinks it should be. You're being silly on the quota thing. You should edit as much as you like but don't go saying it's a consensus if you write most of an article yourself. 6 months down the line someone reads the article for the first time and sees a way it could be done better and you then tell them no, it's a consensus. That's more like a bludgeon instead of diplomatic dialog. Silence isn't always consensus... sometimes it's better than an edit war to pick battles even though one knows the article is in error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

HJensen, see WP:CON. Tennis expert (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. See also WP:CCC. In any case, are you implying that it is better for Fyunck just to start editing, and then wait for your reversals? Will that be a challenge of your old consensus, of a sign to the fact that there never was an cnnsensus in the first place? (In a nutshell: For how long should an edit stay undone before it becomes consensus?). BTW, I thought it was quite civil of him to take up the issue here, instead of just jumping to action.--HJensen, talk 10:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that Fyunck brought up this issue because of my edits here, which fixed an internally inconsistent, consensus violating, ambiguous, and un-user-friendly table. By the way, it's not "my" old consensus. Jeez ... I'm repeating myself, and you guys apparently aren't understanding (or aren't willing to understand). Tennis expert (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Tennis Expert, see WP:AGF (and for the parenthesis you might consult WP:CIVIL). And just for productivity's sake, you may want to address the questions I posed, serously and in good faith, namely for how long a thing should stand unchallenged before it can be considered a consensus, and where this was discussed "many times before"? Thanks --HJensen, talk 20:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC) (Edited by --HJensen, talk 22:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC) )

[edit] Mikhail Youzhny

Does anyone else think that the Mikhail Youzhny page needs a cleanup aswell as more references being added?

In my opinion it's a mess. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As are around 75 percent of tennis articles.... Be bold. Tennis expert (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)