Jump to content

Talk:2011 French Open

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Day by day and that other template

[edit]

Should not be in the article and have been removed as they are not encyclopedic and if the article is done properly does not have room for a silly template showing what round people went out in the singles as it defeats the point of a separate draw page. Day by day's are not done properly and showing who played where is very insignificant in the grand picture of things. People don't care they want what happended and in what round not so and so played some qualifier or lucky loser on PC on Sunday the 22nd of May 2011. Tells them nothing and is not encyclopedic 400 not out (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having an opinion is one thing and removing the content without consensus is another...Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's called being BOLD 400 not out (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what you mean by "what happened" if "who played" is insignificant. It's a tennis tournament. Those mathces played those are the events! What are your ideas how to make it proper? (or the only solution is removing and not caring about improving it instead?). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See 2011 Australian Open for the idea 400 not out (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose to anything that makes the article better. It is a bit superfluous indeed towards the scores and results, but I won't say that it doesn't attract people though. Earlier this year I brought up the problem of tennis articles being list-heavy and lacking texts, so if it does the balance than it's fine but in its current form it's still "empty" (and with every deleted material it gets emptier). I also launched a project sandbox to reconstruct the current sport almanach-style 2011 ATP World Tour. One thing is sure : now it isn't better just because that template has been removed. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The matches on the main courts are for sure "significant" as the top players play there and the people reading having a better overview what happened, so i don´t know why you removed it. Kante4 (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as usual not a single valid point as to why, just a load of I LIKE IT from you Kante4. Come on come up with a reason 400 not out (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point was "People don´t care about", how do you know that? Why it isn´t encyclopedic? So, a valid reason from you should be done... Kante4 (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kante4 how about you state why it is useful in an encyclopedic sense instead of turing it on me. I have stated that it is unencyclopedic as it is an insignificant list plus do you really come on here to see who played on what day. Don't be daft you come on here to see the results and who won the flipping thing and not who played when. Up to you not me. 400 not out (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must understand that when discussing important things like this, you really must work in a collaborative manner. This aggressive attitude really does not help things get done, and it is rather shameful to find this sort of behavior here on Wikipedia. The day-by-day summaries are valuable to Grand Slam articles by highlighting key matches in the day. You pointed out the use of the format presented in the 2011 AO page. While this is a good idea, you must discuss this with fellow editors, especially editors involved with WP:TENNIS. I see no record of discussion on the talk page regarding t, and I see on this discussion page nothing that would give me confidence that a constructive discussion is taking place. I personally think that the day-by-day summaries are still useful to include on the main page, following the format of slams of previous years. Even if it is decided to ditch this format and go with the 2011 AO format, we should still make room for the day-by-day summaries on another page and link it to the main page, just like the 2011 AO article did. Either way, it must be discussed. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow what a patronising load of balloney with absoultly no constructive reason, apart from I want which is not constructive either try harder. And don't go around reverting when you don't even bother sourcing it and deliberatly adding stuff which hasn't been in for 4/5 months just to suit your point. Consensus was clearly made on that article. 400 not out (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you the person who made the change, he is now a blocked user, just saying Dencod16 (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Says you who is the most abusive person on wikipedia but because you steer clear of everyone and blank your talkpage and do not engage in any sort of conversation you think your behaviour is alright. I think not. Don't comment on other users when your behaviour is hardly a shining example. 400 not out (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent revert edits were claimed with "unsourced". There were links given and nothing more to source so this reason to revert is not legit. Also please see: the day by day summaries will remain until a consensus has been made. Kante4 (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No they shouldn't be there I reverted Dencord you reverted instead of coming here then Pray comes on here and demands they stay. Wiki policy says that no one should have reverted me and that it was upto you to come here. So I think you'll find they will be gone for now. 400 not out (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, your hilarious, its like you against everyone else, it's like your opinion is greater than everyone else. And as far as abusive, I was just stating what is right, that is not abusive. You should also be able to complement what the other wants, which has evryone else trying to do with you by placing the day by day summaries to another page and just linking it. And FYI I was the one who added the points distribution, prize money and the new way to place seeds, which is with concensus with the other editors. Dencod16 (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, you want to change something so you have to wait before removing it until a consensus has been made but you are the only one against it. Kante4 (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was being bold you should not have removed it but I see your set in your ways, but neither of you complained when the day by day and the stupid round table thing went missing in AO. So I think I am totally in the right here400 not out (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of us complained because it was done behind ours backs it was done after the article should have been finished by a person who is suspended because of many violations. And FYI information there are many things i find unnecessary for my standards in this page like putting the prize money and points of juniors and wheelchair as not a lot of people cares about them, however it is a consensus by most of the editor that it should stay so I respected that Dencod16 (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment So I take it you take umbridge with the user's more informative/encylopedic style of writing a page rather than completing a list with no sources which when nothing is added is the only thing that is informative on the page. If the page was done properly day by day and the other thing I'm complaining about wouldn't be needed. Now are you with me or what 400 not out (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just don´t remove it until a decicion has been made. Kante4 (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is shameless. Your noncompliant behavior shocks me. I have reverted your edits once more. If you do not desist, I will report you, as your actions do constitute edit warring. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not before I report you for not following wikipolicy and activly engaging an edit war when you had been reverted and should have come here but activly carried warring and bullying and not coming up with any constructive or rational reason why it should remain. If you can't it will ultimatly be deleted. 400 not out (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someones put back in the day by day and still it is not done properly as it consists of primary sources and seems to be a massive copy of what is on the French Open website. Mindless how many ways do you want users to be able to remove it.400 not out (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The day by day summaries will remain until there is a consensus on how the article should be written. There is no evidence of that. Since you are the person to initiate this discussion with this bold edit, I would expect you to argue for your side here after your edit was reverted, and then we would have a discussion on your idea. Then, we would work out a reasonable compromise that would satisfy both parties. Continually reverting without having a complete discussion here is not constructive. I only reverted your edits again because we must discuss this before we act. Now, I've let my opinion be known that I am in favor of using the day-by-day summaries of text and table (much like the Day 1 section of the current version of the page at post time), but I know that there are other opinions present. We must think this through before we make any more changes, otherwise all of this mess is for nothing at all. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow the cocky guy is banned and he wrote this

23:46, 23 May 2011 400 not out (talk | contribs) (33,445 bytes) (Undid revision 430593545 by Kante4 (talk) My way or no page at all) (undo), even when i am annoyed i will never dare to say those words.Dencod16 (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KnowlG at ts best, but he is blocked now so we can move on. Kante4 (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive numbers of articles

[edit]

I was looking at making the ITN for the womens title and it seems like there are an excessive number of articles here that contain very little actual content beyond tables. I'm going to make the ITN update on this page.

Even the mens singles doesn't have enough content to justify its own article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huge Copyvio on this page needs addressing. Good twins (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on 2011 French Open. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on 2011 French Open. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_French_Open&oldid=1196590955"