Jump to content

Talk:French Open/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Large list

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)

Tournoi de Roland-Garros change

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))

Stats differences

Is it 1967 when it become professional tennis player allowed to play? Anyways it think the destinction with "Before 1968" is wrong shouldn´t it be "Before 1967"? RGDS Alexmcfire

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)

Attendance history

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

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)

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)

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)
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


  • I disagree with the references to WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME. "Roland Garros" is English, and it is the common name in the UK. However, the "BE vs AME solution" would indicate that we should leave it as "French Open". It's clear that in the US, "French Open" is the only term used to refer to this tournament. In the UK, it's mixed. I don't know about elsewhere. -FJM 09:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. --KzTalk• 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)

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)

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)

Ball boys and girls

Could someone please add some information about who the ball boys and girls are? One of them I saw looked really young. Is this use of child labour controversial in France? Luwilt (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sand?

I see someone has changed the surface entry to sand every other year before 1908. Sand? on top of rubble? How did the darned ball bounce at all? And no source was given for this change either here or at the List_of_French_Open_men's_singles_champions page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Broadcasting/Audience

"it has the widest worldwide broadcasting and audience of all regular events in this sport." - Really? Problems with the citation for this: a) They are from 2007 b) One link isn't available anymore c) The one which is available doesn't confirm this. All it says is that it is "the most watched French event in the world", not that it is the most watched or broadcasted in tennis. Can anyone confirm this statement and if so find a better citation? 92.236.20.232 (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed for lack of valid citation. After a couple of months, it does not appear that any will be forthcoming. 214.4.238.180 (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, you could have looked yourself before deleting the whole section. It took me a couple minutes to find the archived copies and a couple more to insert them. It is now corrected. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I actually did look for myself. The "citation" sites do not, in fact say what the wiki article claims. The RG website says "All this makes Roland-Garros the most watched French event in the world". Is there a reliable source which says the French open tournament at RG "has the widest worldwide broadcasting and audience of all regular events in this sport"  ? If no reliable source says so, it does not belong in the article---even if it is true...214.4.238.180 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes. It also says "among the four Grand Slam tournaments, this is the one which benefits from the widest international broadcasting." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, I still think a more reliable citation is needed, particularly since this is from 2007 and contains few details. For example, I would point out that "widest international broadcasting" does not mean "widest worldwide broadcasting and audience", particularly since the citation seems to be referring to the number of countries in which it is broadcast rather than audience figures. Also, it only mentions that it has the widest broadcasting of the Grand Slam events. It seems unlikely that there will be another event with wider broadcasting, obviously. But you get my point, it isn't a good citation. 92.236.20.232 (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed statement for this reason previously, replacing the statement with "[it is the] most watched French event in the world." This change was reversed, the reason given that the Tour de France is the most watched French event in the world. This may or may not be the case, but the fact remains that the citation given for the event stated this fact. As previously argued, however, the citation given was very out of date (2007) and the broadcasting figures may well have changed since then, therefore any statement made in the article about viewership figures is not (currently) sufficiently cited and has been removed. 86.182.210.88 (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


Page Name 2.0

Already 6 or 7 years ago, WP users attempted to change the name of the page from "French Open" (term used within the US) to "Roland Garros" (only term known for this tournament in France). The ones in favour to keep the name of the page as "french open" were mostly americans who watch ESPN, channel which uses the term of "French Open". And the ones in favour to change the name to "Roland Garros" were english or french, both country where "Roland Garros" is used (knowing that the English people use "French Open" too). Unfortunately there was no consensus about the question, so it stay still as it appears today on WP.en But i personally thinks, that this solution doesn't completely respects the main purposes of WP : an encyclopedic content available for the largest number of people because "French Open" is only a name used by americans journalists or english spoken peoples just for comfort ! But in any case, the "French Open" is an official name ! As a french (sorry for the possibles mistakes ;) i know that absolutely nobody (in France) uses the term "French Open" but instead "Roland Garros" for this tournament. The "French Open" (Open de France in french) is only used for the Golf competition. -"Roland Garros" isn't even the official name, which is "les Internationaux de France de Tennis" (referred to the WPfrench page !), Roland Garros being only the place where the tournament takes place. But everybody uses "Roland Garros", the official website is even http://www.rolandgarros.com, and the official app is RolandGarros.

So i hope that all the persons (who had the courage to read this post) have the chance to live in a democratie (a french word guys, which come from ancient greek ;). And as we usually do in a democratie, we talk, debate, etc. and finally make (good) decisions (ours politics are particularly good for the first thing !), as what we're going to do now :

  • the denomination of "french Open" seems too restrictive and based only on usuals practices.
  • "Roland Garros" is used in France, where the tournament takes place (hey hey !) and by the organizers, proofs are the website and the app.

Let's take the goals of WP : "French Open" isn't encyclopedic at all and "Roland Garros" refers to anything known for the most of the english spoken peoples (i don't know the situation for the rest of the world ^^). And yet, the diplomats have invented a really useful thing : the compromise (thing that the US-congress seems to have forgotten nowadays ;)

Finally (yes, the French are very talkative but not as musch as the Italian !) my proposition is : Why don't we named the Page like "Roland garros (French Open)" or "French Open, a.k.a. Roland Garros" or any other things like that ?

Let's talk about it and i'm really confident that we're going to find a solution which would improve the knowledge of the people all over the world (who are going to read this article ;) about a sport that we all love : Tennis (i love rowing too !) Xavieris (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavieris (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, consensus was reached; see the long discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis RE: naming of Grand Slam tournament articles. French Open was agreed upon for the English-language encyclopedia. If a reader types "Roland Garros Tournament" into the search box, it redirects to the French Open article. The first sentence of the article says "French Open, often referred to as 'Les Internationaux de France de Roland-Garros' ... etc, etc." I don't know how we could be any clearer about it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead bloat

I believe this has been discussed many times, but when you have too many variant names in an article lead it is distracting for the reader. All variant name must be listed in the article, but not in the lead. In fact Wikipedia recommends that "If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended." This article has all these names discussed right at the top of the history section. Four really lengthy names is way over the top for the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I largely agree. The only concern I have is wether or not the lead complies with the section of WP:MOSLEAD that states:

Relevant foreign-language names, such as in an article on a person who does not themselves write their name in English, are encouraged. Separate languages should be divided by semicolons, and romanizations of non-Latin scripts by commas.

It may not be a person, but being that this is a French tournament, it's name in French should probably be at the beginning of the article. That was my concern. oknazevad (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point. My reply would be that if you go to the actual official webpage (in French) the only thing that is at the top of the page is "Roland-Garros". That's it other than "Paris". Everything else the official page sees fit to bury on pages I can't even find. And Roland Garros we do have right in the first sentence. Perhaps the wording could be changed from "often referred to as Roland Garros" to "in French, referred to as Roland-Garros". Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on French Open. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:French Open/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I think that the French Open article is qualified to move up to a C-class article because it is more than a start class article, which it is presently listed as of right now. This article needs so references and content to build the quality of this article.TennisAuthority 23:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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) 21:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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) 07:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"French Open" vs "Roland Garros"

Since the French prefer, in fact they insist on, "Roland Garros" as the title of this tournament, shouldn't the Wikipedia article appear under that heading?? "French Open" should then point to a disambiguation page, based on the multiple caveats at the top of this page. How would one go about making these changes? Olef641 (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No. See WP:COMMONNAME as opposed to WP:OFFICIALNAME. We follow what is most commonly used in reliable sources, not the dictates of the French Tennis Federation. oknazevad (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Plus we have the formal French name of the event, "Les Internationaux de France de Tennis." See also a Puzzler in Paris article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's listen to the actual ITF players, who all speak English and give interviews in English. They call it Rolland Garros. "We had some incredible matches at Roland Garros, Wimbledon and also in Australia"(Roger Federer, https://www.tennisnet.com/en/news/roger-federer-on-rafael-nadal-perhaps-the-greatest-of-all-times). Nadal: "The semifinals of Roland Garros is not just another match" (https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Rafael_Nadal/72013/rafael-nadal-roger-federer-is-probably-the-best-player-ever/),
I don't understand this argument. It is a french tournament and should be referred to in the preferred way stated by the organiser. Roland Garros should be the title. It is also hardly a "dictates of the French Tennis federation", this sentence alone seems to convey an underlining anti-french tense. The name of the tournament is ROLAND GARROS, that is it. With all due repsect, the name has to be changed. StephaneLegrand1999 (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
No. We don't follow any country's demands, we follow English usage. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
We refer to the "British Open" as the Open Championship despite the former being colloquial and common (although the organisers have really been pushing people to call it The Open as intended). ViperSnake151  Talk  18:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
This is true. We have two English entities calling it two different things. But the English term for the major in France has always been the French Open, with Roland Garros being the venue it's played in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
By that token, Wimbledon is also only the venue. The same way we say Wimbledon, we say Rolland Garros.
Tennis Channel in the U.S. actually does call the event Roland Garros. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I recall reading that they are required to use the emblem and the written term during the broadcast to maintain the contract with the French Open. They of course are not consistent at all looking right here, and right here, and right here. And remember that they are often talking about the venue as opposed to the event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Question About Content Toward Beginning of Page

What does "minor Challengers" mean when describing the tournament? Should this description be removed? Thanks!

24.38.222.148 (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It was vandalism. It has been reverted. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

2020 event postponed due to Pandemic

The article should include this info

Mar 18, 2020 - The French Open has been postponed until September 20 - October 4, organisers said on March 17. The clay-court major was originally scheduled to be played from May 24-June 7. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/coronavirus-sporting-events-affected-outbreak-200310084205890.html

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Change of article name

I object to the changing of the name of this article without discussion and I find it particularly reprehensible that the name Roland has been misspelt. LynwoodF (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It has been moved back. The standard English usage is French Open and we don't use the French usage unless consensus really demands it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't say French Open is "standard usage" of English, because both terms "French Open" and "Roland-Garros" are widely used in English, it's not like the term "Roland-Garros" is not used in English. But a search on Google English gives more results of French Open than Roland-Garros, suggesting that French Open is indeed a more common term in English-speaking countries.James343e (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The official name of the event is Roland-Garros, according to the official website

Someone is deleting that the official name of the event, according to its offical webpage, is Roland-Garros. No other source can be more authoritative for the name than the event than the Roland-Garros webpage itself. If the RG webpage says the event is named Roland-Garros, then its official name is Roland-Garros. "Championnats Internationaux de France" is not used anywhere in the official webpage of Roland-Garros and so it is no longer its official name. Even the ATP officially calls it Roland Garros, not "Championnats Internationaux de France".

Roland Garros webpage: https://www.rolandgarros.com/en-us/ ATP webpage: https://www.atptour.com/en/tournaments/roland-garros/520/overview

I am not changing the name of the article, I let it be French Open. I even specified that "French Open" is more used in English-speaking countries than Roland-Garros. But it doesn't change the fact that the offical name of the event is Roland-Garros and it cannot be deleted. James343e (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You are removing independent sources (see WP:PS) verifying the information and replacing it with a general link that doesn't actually support your claims (so fails WP:V. Your edits have become disruptive edit warring. Your next stop is the notice board. Drop it. oknazevad (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
"You are removing independent sources" So are you doing. I included the references of the official page of Roland-Garros and the ATP, which are way more authoritative than a British encyclopedia when it comes to the official Roland-Garros name. The links totally support my claim as both name Roland-Garros "Roland-Garros", not "Championnats Internationaux de France". In no single part of the offical Roland-Garros page or the ATP page is there any mention to "Championnats Internationaux de France", clearly indciating that its official name is Roland-Garros as per the official sources.James343e (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
No, that's not how it works. First-party sources are less valuable than third-party sources (that's what I mean by independent). We have one of the world's most respected encyclopedias and one of the world's most respected newspapers verifying the info you keep trying to remove. Your dismissing of Britannica because of its origin also tells me that this is a nationalistic thing.
Finally, once you were reverted 'your stop making the edits and you to the talk page! oknazevad (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
"We have one of the world's most respected encyclopedias" a generic encyclopaedia that is not even specifically dedicated to tennis is not a more reliable source than the official Roland-Garros page or the ATP page. How on earth can you discuss that the Roland-Garros OFFICIAL webpage is the most authoritative source when it comes to the official name of the event? Also, the ATP is a third-party source (because it is not the official page of the event) and it is more reliable than the Encyclopedia Britannica because the ATP is the official body of tennis, while the latter is just a generic encyclopaedia.
"Your dismissing of Britannica because of its origin also tells me that this is a nationalistic thing." No, it is not a national thing because I am not French and I have nothing against the British. The Britannica is just a generic encyclopaedia not specific of tennis, and so it is less reliable than the ATP which is dedicated to tennis exclusively. Also, you made a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argumentum ad hominem by critizicing my motivations instead of my arguments. You have to criticize my arguments, not my motivations, because my arguments can be correct despite my motivations.James343e (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
A few sources to help you out: [1] [2] [3].
It's worth noting that while tournament organisers are usually an authoritative source for the official name of the tournament (the ATP are not), they have been pushing "Roland-Garros" for many years and certainly before any official name change (per sources), and as far as I can tell there is no explicit statement on the website as to the official name or confirmation of a change – could be "Roland-Garros" or "Tournoi de Roland-Garros", who can tell. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I know that even the U.S. rightsholder has actually used Roland-Garros when referring to the tournament on-air. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:French_Open/Archive_1&oldid=1142761493"