User talk:Navops47/sandbox16

Eastbourne

Not 100% sold on this event merged into the "South of England" tournament. It was a paltry little event for 40 years for the men until 1967. Then it ended for 34 years. 34 years a long time. Are we sure we want to merge the events? Does the Eastbourne site even recognize the past champions of the South of England event? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Chairman of Devonshire Park LTC confirms that the two tournaments are connected in an interview with the BBC and on the club own website news in 2014 I have cited both in this draft my issue is that there are too many articles here where the connections between the tournament as it is now and where their history goes back to is not being properly researched and presented in the respective pages there is a disconnect another example the Birmingham Classic clearly was the Midland Counties Championships for decades Edgbaston Priory club history itself acknowledges the connection here: http://www.edgbastonpriory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Edgbaston-Priory-History.pdf. when your read the article for the Birmingham Classic you assume there was no women's or for that case men's 's tennis tournament before 1982 hosted by the priory club (wrong) there was successive tournaments just with different names going back years if the club has hosted e.g. the Midland Counties Championships, followed by the Edgbaston Cup, followed by the Birmingham Classic we don't need 3 separate articles for clearly connected events at the same venue IMO in the same way the Cincinnati Masters previously names 1899-1990: Cincinnati Open 1900-1968: the Tri-State Tournament 1969-1978: the Western Championships 2002- : Western & Southern Open should that be split into 5 separate pages no that's all I'm trying to do with this article Off record Hope your well? .--Navops47 (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But "clearly connected" doesn't tell us much. I saw the sources but I'm not convinced after a 34 year absence. If a particular location holds a tournament at the same professional level, unending except for name changes, I would agree. A lot would have to do with the tournament itself listing a past history of champions that includes all the other tournament names. Cincinnati acknowledges the past events... does this one? That 34 year gap is a big problem it seems. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the club doesn't list its past champions on its website does not mean there is not a roll of honour wall at the club itself which is usually a common practice with most tennis clubs in the UK & Ireland and am sure elsewhere regardless of level an example I was researching into the South of Ireland Championships Limerick LTC acknowledges they host that tournament on its website but doesnt list all previous winners I emailed the club and they sent me the full roll of honour from 1878 up to this year the same event is still going. The fact many former Grand Slam champions have won at Eastbourne both men and women is no reason for them to be excluded because of an arbitrary 1973 cut off point either now the women's tournament clearly has had strong fields through most of its existence and as I have cited was the largest tournament in the world circa late 1890's early 1900's do we dismiss this information? as far as the men's is concerned clearly an important event up to world war one an explanation in the men's history section outlining depth of field observation should suffice and can be added there but if we go down that route clearly there were lots tournaments from 1877 up-to the WW1 that were not considered important either by tennis historians or by top players attracted to play them do we start adding those facts to tournament articles which are clearly not there also? after reading Mazak's and Gillmeisters books they list what they considered the most important pre-open era events and in some cases doesn't necessarily include some of the Grand Slams till later dates the article has to be cohesive completely in my view and fragmenting information in separate pages is not useful .--Navops47 (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said "South of Ireland Championships", did you mean "South of England Championships"? Certainly if a tournament has a roll of honor at their facility but not at their website that is quite powerful. But I have also seen tournaments end and then 10 years later start up in the same place under different ownership that do show their "Roll of Honor"... with no mention of the prior events held there. Or where we have a challenger type event that later becomes a full fledged Tour event, where the lesser event does not belong in the same chart as the new Tour event. All I'm saying is I'm hesitant about this one for the men after a 34 year absence. I'm not saying I can't be convinced... I just need more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looked into this a bit further and have come to the conclusion that there should be two separate articles, a South of England Championships article which covers the period from 1881 until 1974 and the current Eastbourne International article covering the period from 1975 until now. The main source for this is an 80 page booklet on the history of Devonshire Park and the tournament titled "Roller Skates and Rackets". In chapter 8, dealing with the open tennis era, it mentions on p50: "The first John Player tournament in 1974, with nearly £12,000 in prize money at stake, was combined with the eighty second – and last – South of England Championships." This is confirmed by the list of Eastbourne champions on p77 which starts with Virginia Wade in 1975.--Wolbo (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An yet this source still makes it blurry, and this source indicates it started in 1974. Confusing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone emailed Eastbourne and asked them if their roll of honor includes both the men and women the South of England event? And could they send a photo if it does? note... I just emailed them for an official stance or roll of honor photo. addition... the email bounced. I'll have try a different contact. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an email address on the clubs own website for requesting information and form you can fill in on the contact page itself what I meant by the reference to the South of Ireland Championship was that a lot of sources I was looking at gave incomplete rolls when I emailed the club directly they gave me the full roll from 1878 to 2016 let me know how you get on if no response I will call them and ask for an accurate email address.--Navops47 (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The club itself wasn't very helpful in its email response. "in 1971 the South of England Championships became the Grand Prix of Lawn Tennis so that looks like the official hand over. Historic details about DPLTC are not as well documented as The All England Club and since recently coming across a DP cup from 1879 I wish this were not the case." That's all I got. I keep looking at this thing and setting aside the men's event (and gap), I'm studying hard the ladies. The things I look for... was the event continuous, that is did they switch to some challenger level event or exhibition tournament for a period of time... no they did not. Did they change the surface (which is not always definitive)... no they did not. Can we find articles calling it the South Of England tournament after the Open Era's beginning... quite easily. I also look to what might have caused the talent upswing in the 1970s... well before then Eastbourne was during the US Open, so no great players attended. I also found this webpage put out by Aegon Eastbourne. It seems to paint it as one big happy tournament, simply with sponsorship changes. So if all I look at is the women, I'd say put it all together as one continuous event. And since we can't really separate the men's event, since they were certainly linked with the women before 1974 and they are certainly linked today, I'd say Navops idea of one chart is the best we have to work with in this situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On formatting, I don't think it's a good idea to bold all the old event names in prose. Quotes or italics are much more pleasing to the eye. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, even if it is in line with MOS, it is distracting to the reader and makes the content harder to read than it should be.--Wolbo (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns about the depth of field in the men's after WW1 can certainly be expanded in the history section further but I had difficulties find sources that dealt with that issue maybe you both have some the club acknowledges they have had this problem certainly since the 1970's which is why the LTA decided to switch it back from Nottingham because they believe this tournament has more pedigree plus the investment plans that are underway to keep it as a combined event at least for the next 10 years and I added that information regarding the bolding point noted no problem to change per your suggestions so were agreed to keep as is I'm happy about that.--Navops47 (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we have now agreed that there should indeed be two separate articles with references to each other (see Eastbourne International talk page) then this draft needs a bit of rework to turn it into the South of England Championships article. Just checking if that's ok before proceeding.--Wolbo (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me no objections.--Navops47 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... I said I have changed my mind and agree with Navops that we only need one article. Especially with Eastbourne itself using the complete history in it's encapsulation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay getting very confused now I feel like I am in the middle of tennis rally with you two :) I have also emailed the club yesterday seeking clarification per all previous points raised there is no direct landline to the club which is odd they are only using a mobile number 07581 on the EE cell network the area code for Eastbourne is 01323 I started out with the belief that these two tournaments are one tournament Im still up and down myself with it I would suggest we hold until we get further clarification I have also emailed Karoly Mazak via his webpage I have bought his book thought I would mention that first lets see if he responds I asked him if he could confirm that the the SOE and EBI are the same tournament or two different tournaments in his opinion and provided him with a link to the talk page and draft lets see if he emails me.--Navops47 (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I missed Fyunck(click)'s later post and was under the impression that we had a consensus, sorry for misinterpreting that. We are not in a hurry so no objection to waiting until we are clear. Having said that, in my view the sources quite clearly indicate that the Eastbourne International was a new event and not just a (sponsor) name change of an existing event, something which of course happens frequently at many tournaments. That both events are sometimes mentioned in the context of one historic overview is not strange given that the location and venue was the same, and probably the organizers as well.--Wolbo (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize hese are the sources which, combined, indicate that we are dealing with two distinct events :

"Roller Skates and Rackets", p50 – "The first John Player tournament in 1974, with nearly £12,000 in prize money at stake, was combined with the eighty second – and last – South of England Championships."
"Roller Skates and Rackets", p77 – list of Eastbourne Champions starts with the year 1975 (Virginia Wade)
Aegon International Eastbourne website – "The long established WTA Premier tournament for women has been held on this site since 1974."
Official Eastbourne blog – "So another tennis week comes to town. The stars from the WTA and ATP tennis tours descend on Eastbourne for the currently titled Aegon International which has been a highlight of Eastbourne’s events calendar since 1975. The event grew from the demise of the old South of England Championships which staged its 82nd and final tournament in Devonshire Park the previous year."
Visit Eastbourne website – "June will see Eastbourne’s Devonshire Park open its doors once again to the Aegon International Eastbourne WTA tournament, which has run in Eastbourne since 1975..."
WTA tournament profile – "Devonshire Park is Eastbourne's oldest park and has hosted lawn tennis since the 1870s. It has been used as a local tennis facility, venue for a number of Davis Cup ties and facility for the AEGON International since the event's inception in 1974."
"Women's Tennis 1968–84" (John Dolan, 2013), p187 – Comments on the 1974 edition: "Sponsors John Player decided (to) expand the men's draw in Nottingham from 32 to 64 and therefore moved their women's event to Eastbourne, where Rothman's had sponsored the mixed South of England event up until 1972."
BBC article – "The women's championship, first held in 1974, is rated as a "premier" tournament."

--Wolbo (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a reply to my email from Ken Pollock Chairman Devonshire Park LTC following my email how do you want me to proceed with it?-

Hi guys have been busy doing my bit for WP:Military History recently. The Eastbourne International article was originally created as the South of England Championships you asked me to also check information at tennisforums run by Rollo which I did they are listing Eastbourne as the SOE Champs and Eastbourne Intl as continuous we can't call this article SOE Championships as it already brings that up in the search option before creating any new one should we just merge in that case in view that the email from Mr Pollock to me said its the same event. I can email you his response if you want to see it but don't know how you would do that here or if that is allowed?--Navops47 (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]