Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

16 Team Bracket changes with no discussion

Editor Trest (talk · contribs) has taken, in his own words "a lot of time and effort" into changing {{16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3}}, but as far as my eyes can see, it doesn't make the brackets any more useful, only prettier. We don't need pretty tennis draw tables, just ones which work. It makes no sense to me just to change one set of draw brackets and not all; so seeing as this is such a big change in mark-up, I would appreciate input from other project members. Jared Preston (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me but I do not find Trest's version "prettier" at all... I really dislike it. Maybe it looks better with names in the bracket, but I don't think so. Those heavy lines are what I'm gonna notice instead of the players names. The old way works well and looks better, and I don't even like the blue color changes for the rounds. If it ain't broke... Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The outline is way too bold. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 13:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Now there is a slightly different change that needs comment on at template talk]. This is just a slight change to distinguish the groups of four. I didn't have a problem before but I can see that some might find this very slight change as being better. Comment over at the bracket talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposing deployment of Module:TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis

I am proposing the deployment of the module to provide a consist look across all the templates (apart from those with added features like Template:8TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis5). To try, use {{ #invoke: TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis | teamBracket | rounds = 4 | sets = 5 }} and the usual arguments of RD1-team01, etc. --SocietyBox (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you did a change at 16teambeacket that changed "1st round/2nd round" to "Round of 16/Quarterfinals". Not sure I like that so I changed it back for discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I totally understand that. Defaults can be changed in the individual templates. So, for 16TeamBracket, it would look like: {{ #invoke: TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis | teamBracket | rounds = 4 | ... | RD1 = {{{RD1|1st round}}} }}. Or I can change the default in the module itself. All suggestions welcome. But if we can tweak this to perfection, you are in favour of doing this in general, right? --SocietyBox (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

US Indoor Championships vs. U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships

I am curious between the difference of the two championships. Both claim to be the main official indoors tournament back in the days with the former being established in 1907 and only for women and the latter in 1898 for both gender. Although the 1898 is only claimed in the infobox and no refernce given (official site doesn't back this up). My problem is: which one the legal successor of the pre-open era indoors tournament? and second what's the situation of the years, which has been overlapped by both tournaments (e.g. 1984)? The we have two national indoors champions? What do you think? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 21:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lajbi, about a year ago I posted on the same topic (see WikiProject Tennis/Archive 11) but never really followed up on it. The men's tournament began in 1898 in Newton Center. There was no men's tournament in 1899 but in 1900 they moved to the Seventh Regiment Armory in Manhattan, New York where it was played until 1963 with the exception of 1941 (Oklahoma City) and 1942-1945 (no tournament). In 1964 the tournament moved to Salisbury and was organized by Jimmy Connors' manager Bill Riordan. The last move occurred in 1977 when Memphis became the host and where it has been played since. Men's doubles were introduced in 1900. The women's tournament started in 1907 (doubles in 1908) at the same location as the men so in those days it was a combined tournament. According to Robertson's Encyclopedia of Tennis the women moved to Longwood in 1942 and remained there until 1966. Newspaper archives show it's a bit more complicated, indicating that they played periods in New York (1907–1920, 1934–1940, 1947–1953) and Longwood (1921–1933, 1941–1946, 1954–1966). From 1967 to 1972 the women played in Winchester. In 2002 the women rejoined the men in Memphis and in 2012 Memphis announced that it was renaming (restoring) the tournament to U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships. The men's tournament should not be confused with the U.S. Pro Indoor which was played in Philadelphia and was initiated by the WCT tour. Hope that helps.--Wolbo (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I remembered that thread an year ago but didn't remembered what really went down in it. Thanks for your response. I was a bit trouible with the 1930 in tennis and 1931 in tennis articles where the sources identified the US Indoors (same results) but there were men's tournament at almost the same time. Now my question is, which one should be linked in those articles as the main tournament. Or shouldn't we merged these two championships? I mean with a short story-sidenote like the one you told in your reply. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 08:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Not easy to determine but for now you could link the women's tournament to US Indoor Championships and the men's tournament to U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships. Perhaps they could be merged but I don't know enough about the Virginia Slims of Oklahoma to be able to judge if that should be part of the women's indoor history or not. It's listed at U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships but does not show at US Indoor Championships and neither on tennisforum. In any case the men's part should be augmented with the tournaments from 1898 to 1971. If the articles do remain separate than it seems they should be renamed to a men's and women's version like e.g. the US Clay Court Championship. The current naming is confusing. --Wolbo (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a nice photo from 1908 of the tournament at the Seventh Regiment Armory.--Wolbo (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And what about the mixed doubles? Which one's authority is that? The problem is so multilayered that it needs to be solved somehow. If there's no official stance on it then shouldn't we just handle it our way? Even if it means merging the two? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 09:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no info on the mixed doubles and don't even know exactly when they were played. We probably could/should merge the two articles but I need to educate myself first on the women's tournament to confirm this. In the meantime the missing years (1900–1970) of the men's singles results have been added to the U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships article. According to the Spalding and Wright & Ditsons annuals the 1898 tournament in Newton Center was not seen as an official national tournament and is therefore not added.--Wolbo (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

According to Shannon's USTA Encyclopedia the mixed doubles were played from 1921 until 1968 and were first won by the world class team of Molla Mallory and Bill Tilden. I changed my mind on the 1898 men's tournament and decided to add it after all because both Robertson's Encyclopedia of Tennis and Shannons official USTA Encyclopedia list it. It seems the Oklahoma tournaments listed on US Indoor Championships should not be considered official US Indoor Championships with exception of the 2001 edition. If this can be confirmed, as well as the status of the 2002–2012 women's Memphis tournaments, I will propose to (selectively) merge US Indoor Championships into U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships.--Wolbo (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow really great work. Let's merge them then based on your research. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 12:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Who's the best men's player in 2013?

In the ATP rankings Nadal finished first but ITF named Djokovic as its World Champion. Some editors think Nadal and Djokovic are ranked equally, others disagree, so there has been an edit war over the article World number 1 male tennis player rankings. BoDu (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the first tough one in a long time. In the old days there were many many champion sources/opinions where co-ranking could happen more frequently. These days we really look at two...ATP and ITF. And when they've been different it's either a resentful snub (which we ignored) or the points were lopsided in other departments. In this case it's really really close everywhere. We have ATP champion Nadal and ITF champion Djokovic. Djokovic won 1 Major, Nadal 2 Majors. That looks much better for Nadal. But we have the Australian that Djokovic won and Nadal didn't play. The French that Nadal won but Djokovic lost in semis to Nadal 7-9 in the 5th set. We have Wimbledon where Djokovic lost to Murray in the finals and Nadal lost in the first round. We have the US Open with Nadal beating Djokovic in the finals. So Nadal won two Majors but didn't play or make it out of the first round in two other Majors. Djokovic won one Major and had 2 finals and a semi-final. That looks pretty close. But also to point out that Djokovic was 0-2 against Nadal in Majors, though Nadal wasn't around in the Majors with better surfaces for Djokovic.

We look at the ATP points, where they might decide it because they include points from all tournaments and its 13,030 to 12,260 in Nadals favor. That's very close. The next closest player was Ferrer with 5,800. How about a drop off to the Masters 1000 events? Nadal won 5 to Djokovics 3, but in their only finals meeting (at the Monte Carlo Masters), Djokovic won in straight sets. Murray was the only other players to win a single Masters 1000 event in 2013. And to culminate the season at the year-end championships, Djokovic beat Nadal in the final in straight sets. If we go further the Davis Cup, Djokovic was 7–0 and Nadal was 1–0.

This was simply a very close year and for me the only thing that could edge it to Nadal are the 2 victories over Djokovic in Majors. But to be honest this is probably a good candidate for a split number one, just like the ATP and ITF have already done for us. Neither entity seems to be blatantly wrong in their conclusions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

One other thing. I'm not so sure about the "edit war" at noted article. We seem to have an inordinate amount of just created accounts in that war. Frodeno34, Jerseyboy30, Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan, Findingneverland01, plus anon ip's 76.64.17.49, 62.200.73.61... all look to exist only to fight over this article. They were all created in the last few days except 62.200.73.61 and he's been blocked. Very strange and suspicious group of editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Nadal defeated Djokovic in the Rogers Cup semifinals in 3 sets (6:4 3:6 7:6) so their Monte Carlo meeting wasn't their only meeting at the masters this year.There really isn't any dispute over this.Almost all of the most important stats are in Nadal's favour.If we go by number of titles,Nadal won 10 and Djokovic 7.Nadal reached 14 finals in total and Djokovic 9.The only tournament where Nadal lost before the semifinals was Wimbledon so that speaks about his amazing consistency.Nadal won a record 5 masters( reached 6 finals total and 2 other semifinals and in doing so became the only player who reached atleast the semifinals of 8 masters in a single year)while Djokovic won 3 and the WTF but lost early at Indian Wells (SF to Del Potro),Miami (4th round to Haas),Madrid (2nd round to Dimitrov),Rome (QF to Berdych),Canada (SF to Nadal) and Cincinnati (QF to Isner).He did have a greater consistency at the slams but Nadal had the much greater consistency at masters.In the span of half a year,from the month of April and his Monte Carlo title to the month of October and his Beijing title Djokovic didn't win a single title but was still ranked number 1.That's to much of a hole to overlook,that the number 1 ranked player couldn't win a single title in 6 months out of 7 tournaments played in that period and only reached 2 finals.Nadal won 7 titles in that same period.

If we go by their win/loss record in 2013 it's 75-7 (91,5%) for Nadal and 74-9 (89%) for Djokovic.If we go by their record against top 10 opponents it's 24-5 (82,8%) for Nadal and 24-6 (80%) for Djokovic.If we go by their head to head record in 2013 against each other it's 3-3 but Nadal won their most important matches (RG SF (a slam), Rogers Cup SF (a masters) and US open F (a slam)) while Djokovic won the Monte Carlo F (a masters), Beijing F (a 500 tournament)and the WTF F (the year ending masters).

Out of his 7 loses,Nadal lost 5 times to top 10 players (3 Djokovic,1 Del Potro,1 Ferrer) while the only loses to lower ranked players were to Zeballos in the first tournament after his comeback and Darcis at Wimbledon.Djokovic lost to more players outside of top 10 (Haas,Dimitrov,Isner) and more top 10 opponents as well (3 Nadal, Del Potro 1, Berdych 1 and Murray 1).

So in conclusion, the only thing that Djokovic has over Nadal in 2013 is his greater consistency at slams but even there Nadal won 2 slams to Djokovic's 1 and defeated Djokovic both times on his way to the title.Nadal had the greater consistency at masters and all other tournaments.He didn't play the Australian open because of injury and that's the only reason the ranking points are close.He didn't play the Miami masters either while Djokovic played all 9.So even though he missed 1 slam and 1 masters while Djokovic played all of them,he still outperformed him.That's just a testament to his incredible year.

Other important sources such as newspapers,articles,journalists etc. etc. - Tennis magazine France, L'equipe champion of champions, US sports academy, 2013 BTB SI awards (Courtney Nguyen), ESPN Tennis (Peter Bodo blog), 2013 TENNIS.COM AWARDS (Steve Tignor) all name Nadal their player of the year.Only the ITF named Djokovic their player of the year and that's because he played all ITF tournaments (4 slams and Davis Cup).

Regarding Davis Cup,Spain lost in the first match against Canada while Nadal was still injured and out of the tour.So Nadal couldn't play more matches for his country even if he wanted.But he did play the World Group playoffs in September.Davis Cup is a team competition and shouldn't be taken into singles results as you depend on your teammates to advance.

I don't think there should be a dispute over this.Titles won,finals reached,slams won,masters won,win/loss record in 2013, win/loss record against top 10, head to head against each other,overall consistency,rankings,ranking points (Nadal finished 1st,Djokovic 2nd) all favour Nadal.And those are the most important stats.Even the most important awards (except ITF because of their special criteria) went to Nadal. Findingneverland01 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2013 (CET)

Yeah yeah yeah. Do us a favour and shut up. Ok I'll bite. Novak won the ITF award for performing BETTER in the ITF events. Won Melbourne. Finalist New York and Wimbledon and SF Roland Garros. Also won Davis Cup and World Tour Finals (result of a merger between ATP and ITF season ending tournaments). Nadal only played a singles and a doubles match of a relegation/promotion tie in Davis cup. Zero pointed in Melbourne and effectively did the same in Wimbledon. Despite his maxi at Roland Garros and New York and a runner up spot at the WTF, Novak performed more consistently than Nadal at events that matter to the ITF. That's why Novak is ITF world champ. So please be quiet and stop causing issues by going against the source with your agenda as apparently two of the sources apparently settle the breaker in Nadal's favour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.86.22 (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that Djokovic didn't win the Davis Cup, Serbia lost in the finals to Czech Republic.So please correct your post,this is addressed to the user before Tennisfan8787.And Nadal doesn't have a zero pointer at Wimbledon,he won 10 points for his Wimbledon loss.A zero pointer means you skipped a tournament and didn't play.And nobody's questioning Djokovic's ITF award.Under the criteria established by the ITF it was deserved.

But the discussion revolves around the question who the best tennis player in 2013 is.And that's why I took all tournaments into account(ATP and ITF), the whole season and the most important stats.Numbers don't lie even if opinions are subjective.And almost all of them (except slam or ITF consistency however you want to call it) support Nadal.That is the only thing Djokovic has over Nadal in 2013. He wasn't even more consistent than Nadal when you take all tournaments into account ( again ATP and ITF).In my opinion, Djokovic's slam consistency is just not enough to put him at the same level as Nadal in 2013,not when Nadal has all the other and many more stats in his favour.The rankings reflect that.

I don't know.Why don't other users try to refute the numbers and stats.Give your arguments why you think Djokovic should be on the same level, but not subjective opinion,it has to be supported by numbers and stats.And in my opinion, the whole season must be taken into account (ATP and ITF)tournaments because that's the most objective criteria. Findingneverland01 (talk) 1:05, 29 December 2013 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingneverland01 (talk • contribs)

Hey, it could very well be that Nadal winds up here in the number one spot, but it's very very close and we have the two governing bodies of tennis split on who is number one. The ITF obviously puts a lot of stock into a player like Djokovic who played great in all the Majors (winning one), won the year end tour finals, and had a 7-0 record in Davis Cup (the premier international team event). It measured against Nadal who played great in two Majors (winning both), but won zero matches in two other Majors, played great but lost the Tour Finals to Djokovic, and was 1-0 in Davis Cup. Per the ITF, Novak Djokovic narrowly edged out Rafael Nadal "based on an objective system that considers all results during the year, but gives special weight to the Grand Slam tournaments, and two ITF international team competitions, Davis Cup by BNP Paribas and Fed Cup by BNP Paribas." The ATP uses a points system where Nadal narrowly edged out Djokovic. This was a great year for Tennis (unless one is a Federer fan), and I'm looking forward to 2014. I expect Murray to regain some traction after his surgery but I expect Federer may well drop out of the top 10 as age and another child ebb at his concentration and skills. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is using 4 sources to identify the number one. Tennis Magazine (France), Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) awards and ATP year-ending computer rankings consider Rafael Nadal as the number one. International Tennis Federation (ITF) award consider Novak Djokovic as the number one. The result is Nadal 3 - Djokovic 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.163.195 (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really. It has used several different sources throughout 130 years. ATP awards and ATP rankings are simply different feathers of the same duck. And since there are two governing bodies they are always given the most weight. By the way, welcome to wikipedia new user. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Would someone else like to weigh in? We really shouldn't leave it blank and we have to be careful with a sockpuppet in our midst. We have one person here pushing for Nadal #1 and Djokovic #2. I really don't care as long as it's sockpuppet-free, not in the middle of an edit war, and we are consistent. I think the ladies tables split the no. 1 players every time they have a difference in the WTA and ITF champions... at least over the past 30 years. I would lean for co-champions, but if I had to use my opinion to make a very hard choice I'd go with Nadal. It's obviously not an easy pick since we have top people at the ATP and ITF looking at all aspects of their respective years... and they split. Let's get a couple quick thoughts here and plop in the decision before the Australian Open starts. Hope you all are having a great start to the new year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What you all forget is that Djokovic could have easily won the ATP rankings if he hadn't concentrated so much on the Davis Cup. Djokovic still has two more tournaments to add it to the mix according the ATP best 18 rule. Nadal won the season with 19 tournaments (out of 20), while Djokovic has 17. Djokovic's performance is better based solely on the fact that he reached the same points with fewer tournaments. All Djokovic should have done is enter an 500 and 250 tournament more and win it. Then you have 20 points difference only. And the fact that Djokovic's Davis Cup performance bonus (125 plus points awarded for 8 victories) was only missed on one rubber against Belgium when Serbia already won the tie 3-0 and the remaining two rubbers were "dead" so Djokovic didn't have to play more...I guess David Goffin couldn't have had a chance to defeat him. If it wasn't for the fatigue factor Djokovic is easily the ATP number one right now. But no matter what we think anyway or the "justness" if we have two governing bodies then we have to put both number 1 on the map. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 09:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should put Nadal and Djokovic as co-champions. BoDu (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

One thing though. Just because the ITF and ATP split doesn't mean they are 100% of the time correct. The ATP completely blew it in the 70's with Conners when the points didn't match the prowess, and the ITF has done things like punish Edberg for no good reason. So we always have to look at sourcing and common sense. But in recent years all differences have been pretty darned close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Nadal only played 1 more tournament than Djokovic in 2013. He played 17 tournaments to Djokovic's 16.It's even listed here on Wikipedia, I'm surprised you haven't noticed it yet.The ATP counts both singles and doubles tournaments that you play and lists it like that and that's why it seems that Nadal played more, but he played only 1 more. Check it in their career statistics. Djokovic received ATP points for his Davis Cup performance, 430 to be exact so it only benefited him. And take into account that Nadal missed 1 slam and 1 masters, Djokovic played all of them but Nadal still outperformed him.In 8 months he achieved more than Djokovic did in 10, playing the whole season.

One more thing.If you put Nadal and Djokovic as co-champions, then you will have to do the same with the Edberg - Lendl case in 1990. It's almost identical to this situation.The ATP picked Edberg and ITF (which was strongly criticised) Lendl.Edberg lost in the 1st round in 2 majors ( RG and US open) but I guess you didn't consider him having a 'hole in his resume' in that case. He only won 1 major and less titles overall and even has a weaker resume compared to Nadal, but still you put him number 1. So what, 1 set of rules in 1 case and totally different one in another.This is a fair question.I would like it to be answered. Are the 3 of you going to make the decision? Because there are more tennis fans who don't agree with the co-champions decision (about 90% of them) but are not registered here. And yes,I've seen your page about number 1 ranked female tennis players where you put ATP and ITF combined but you haven't done that in the male's category.You would've to change the whole page in this case. Findingneverland01(click) (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2014 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingneverland01 (talk • contribs)

I think we've hashed out the whys or why-nots and so far it's only you who disagree here. Remember that Lendl wasn't even 2nd in the ATP... he was 3rd. And the ITF was hammered by Tennis Magazine, and several sports networks for punishing Edberg for his verbal abuse of an ITF tournament. Maybe there's more editors here who think as you, and I'm cool with that. That's why I asked for more input over the next several days from some dedicated "long term" tennis editors here. I want to know their thoughts about what we've all talked about here. We have a split champion as it stands between the ATP and ITF... and we're trying to establish if there's reason to believe that either of the governing bodies used really faulty data or were vindictive in some way in coming to their conclusions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

-On the topic on who is the Best Player of 2013, which is under "World number 1 male tennis player rankings," there is no question about who is the CONSENSUS (read:in general agreement) Best player of the Year. Year-End Number 1, ATP Player of the Year, and Player of the Year Awards from major media organizations (L'equipe, ESPN, Tennis Magazine, etc) all went to Nadal. The ITF is the only one that proclaimed Djokovic World Champion based on "criteria" that is not even consistent (as in the case where they awarded Wozniacki ITF Champion in 2010 where she got less Grand Slam Points that Serena but was Year-End Number One. This is the not the first time that they have rendered a controversial decision for which they have been broadly criticized, as was the case in 1990). However, in this case, there is no question that Nadal is Year-End Number 1, has more Grand Slam points, more majors, and has a better head-to-head in Grand Slams against his nearest rival. Even the table for Wikipedia uses "Consensus Number 1" and "Consensus Number 2" and pretty much there is consensus that Nadal is Number 1 while Djokovic is Number 2. -Marley2525 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marley2525 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe our sock has made another appearance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, Mr. Fyunck. I am here to join this discussion. The entries were blank that's why I added the edits, which I only made today (you can check my IP address and username). Now, the evidence as to who is the Best Player of 2013, even the entries that accompany the said table in the Wikipedia page, point to Nadal as the consensus best player, with the ITF award as the only inconsistency (it has a particular history for controversies). I've stated the reasons why I edited the entry as such above. Besides the ITF, I have not seen Djokovic named as the Best Player of the Year, and the ITF have rightly been criticized for this decision. Now, in case the "long term tennis editors" decide otherwise, then I would just make sure that the criteria are both consistent and clearly spelled out. What were looking for here is "consensus" based on awards and what the hard data shows, not rationalizations. Thank you.-Marley2525 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marley2525 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The entries were blank because of the open discussion here since Dec 23. You were reverted and chose to add it back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of personal opinions about who should be ranked no. 1 but this is an encyclopedia and not a fanboy forum like menstennisforums or talktennis which means that our own opinion on who was the better player of the two and deserves to be ranked no. 1 for 2013 is irrelevant. As mentioned by others we need to reflect what is said on the subject in reliable sources and weigh the importance of those sources. It is obvious that the media sources have chosen Nadal as the no.1 player and based solely on that it would be a clear consensus. But the two most important sources by far on this subject are the official tennis organizations ATP and ITF and their vote is split so unless there is a valid reason to discard or downplay the ITF vote we have to follow suit and place Nadal and Djokovic as joint no.1. Had the ITF vote been based on their own tournaments only (Grand Slam, Davis Cup), ignoring all others, then we would have a case to ignore it or give it less weight but they clearly state it is "based on an objective system that considers all results during the year". --Wolbo (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The other thing is that many are saying we should only look at what Nadal did as opposed to what he didn't do. Well neither the ATP or ITF work that way. Case in point is that even with what Nadal did accomplish this year, the ATP would have awarded Djokovic the no.1 year end ranking had Nadal not made the semis of the YEC. Every placement rung matters. It would have been a clean sweep for Djokovic no matter Nadals two majors to one. It was razor thin. Going into the last event of the season the ATP and ITF no. 1 was up for grabs. The difference being the ATP only needed Nadal to reach the semis to get no.1, where the ITF (likely) gave no.1 to the winner. It doesn't get much closer than that and I don't see any reason to think that either the ATP or ITF didn't do their homework. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, personal preferences, subjective views or biased assumptions on who is the best player, who is from the “best” (maybe your own) country, who deserves it more, who in ones opinion should be the no. 1 ranked tennis player in 2013 etc., have no place in this discussion. It is completely irrelevant, as Wolbo mentions. Objectively, looking at the stats, and the WHOLE 2013 tennis season there really should be no dispute over this. As “Findingneverland01” correctly displays it in his comment/text above, Rafael Nadal leads almost every stat there is and for sure all the important ones for 2013, not least the official ATP ranking system that determines who is No. 1. Nadal is thus the undisputed Year End no. 1 for 2013! The fact that Nadal was not able to play the first part of the season due to injury, thus missing the Australian Open, just strongly emphasizes how great his achievement is and makes it even more impressive that he was able to exceed Djokovic – who himself had a great season – in the rankings. If the roles were to be reversed in 2014, I would argue for Djokovic to be the undisputed Year End No. 1 for 2014 as I did in 2012 where some – supposedly strong Federer fans – kept arguing that Federer should be the Year End no. 1 for 2012, because he had a great season, regained the no. 1 ranking and broke the overall rankings record, won Wimbledon again etc..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Capricornmanager1

Actually only looking at all the stats and determining no. 1 is original research, especially when we have two (relatively) objective governing bodies telling us we have two no. 1's. Missing the AO is a big minus for both the ATP and ITF... not a plus by any stretch except in personal opinion. Rewarding something for what a player doesn't do is crazy. Heck he could play one tournament in a season like the AO, win it, and you could extrapolate that his percentage is amazing. It took the last tournament of the year to determine no.1 for the ATP and the ITF. That's CLOSE. A knee injury to Nadal during the round robin YEC would have 100% given the ATP no. 1 to Djokovic so all your objective feelings for what went before wouldn't mean anything. By your totals even if Nadal didn't play the YEC he should have easily been no.1 in both bodies, and that would be completely wrong. It came down to that last tournament for both the ITF and ATP. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Another week gone by here, and in the final week of the AO the crazy anon ip's will start editing everywhere, as often happens. We either need to lock the article again or put something in the empty spots right away. This weekend is a month of discussions here. I would go ahead and put in co-champs, but I'll change my vote rather than leave it a blank hole forever. This is the time readers are looking at this section of our encyclopedia... during the heart of a Major tournament. And them seeing a blank space doesn't really show us in a good light imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Fyunck. I do not know if you have been reverting posts on this issue (World no. 1 tennis player 2013) but I have seen your posts on "Who's the best men's player in 2013?" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis). Wolbo has been reverting my posts to begin with. I am only reverting them back. It is a silly "edit war" as you call it, but it is hardly a "consensus decision" that you and Wolbo think, that Nadal and Djokovic should be joint no. 1 for 2013. Who should decide this then? Apparently, some of us do not agree on this. And Wolbo, please stop reverting another editor's work! I will write another post here later. Capricornmanager1

It is a done deal. You'll even note that in box two I didn't even say "No consensus among the sources" or "both ranked equally." To make it more general it just says ATP champion and ITF champion. That seems to be as good as it's gonna get. 45 days of blankness would be too much. You are far far past the 3RR and I suggest you stop edit warring there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

disambiguation - (tennis) or (tennis player)

There is a move request at talk Li Na that could potentially affect thousands of articles. Our player articles that need disambiguation have traditionally use (tennis)... a one word moniker for everything tennis related. We have only used (tennis player) if it needs to be even more refined because someone like a tennis coach has the same name. Then we would need to use (tennis player) and (tennis coach)... or (tennis umpire), (tennis commentator), etc... That's what we have been doing, good or ill. There is a proposal to move Li Na (tennis) → Li Na (tennis player). The first attempt at this failed in February 2011. I lean towards "if it ain't broke don't fix it" but perhaps most everyone else would like this proposed change. In the scheme of things this is no big deal and per wikipedia guidelines, both ways are acceptable as long as we are consistent...

"The disambiguation used varies between sports, but should either describe the persons role

within the sport ("bowler", "cyclist", "acrobat", "chess player", "martial artist", etc.) or the

sport itself ("basketball", "baseball", "tennis" etc).

The style used should be consistent within each sport."

I'm sure 90% of our players have no disambiguation at all. This move is only about one person, Li Na, but since this "could" affect so many tennis articles I thought I would bring this to the attention of our many editors in case they want to comment at talk Li Na. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I would use tennis player, because the article is about a tennis player, not about tennis. --Stryn (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Already settled at (tennis), as we do all other articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Adrian Sikora disambiguation

There are two sportspeople named Adrian Sikora - a Polish football player and a Slovakian tennis player. The tennis player does not have Wikipedia article yet. (I don't think he fulfills notability criteria. If you check What links here in the article about the footballer, you will see that some tennis articles link to that page. What is a better solution to this?

• Simply remove the links from tennis articles. (Replace Adrian Sikora by Adrian Sikora in those articles.)
• Replace those links by Adrian Sikora (tennis), which will be a redlink.
• Create a disambiguation page Adrian Sikora, which will lead to Adrian Sikora (football player) and Adrian Sikora (tennis). (In this way it was done on German Wikipedia: [1]).

--Kompik (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the second option. No point in #3 (de.wiki works differently, and I suppose the footballer is the primary topic), and although #1 might be OK in some articles, #2 would be the best for now. As per Slovenský Tenis, I note that the tennis player's name is spelt Adrián. Jared Preston (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the general criteria that we use is... if the tennis player isn't notable yet but is really extremely likely to meet notability requirements in the future (obviously a little subjective), then we can red link it. Otherwise we normally remove the links completely. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I did some searching and in looking at MOS and Wikipedia Guidelines: "create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." also "Use of red links should be limited on disambiguation pages. The whole point of such a page is to direct the reader to the correct article, and a red link does not help." So unless someone is notable, it should be unlinked. But again, some leeway should be maintained. Maybe a newspaper mention that says a player is likely to be on a Fed Cup team next season.. or a junior that is ranked No. 4 or 5 and has been climbing in the rankings rapidly. But normally a red link is telling an editor that finds it, that we'd like them to create an article on this player... and if the player is not notable that would be the wrong thing to be showing and explaining to new editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If there is a link then it should always be a red piped link [[Adrian Sikora (tennis)|Adrian Sikora]]. Special:WhatLinksHere/Adrian Sikora (tennis) already shows four articles. Per Help:Pipe trick, you only have to save [[Adrian Sikora (tennis)|]] to make the link. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matt Ustas

Hello, tennis experts! This old Afc submission is slated for deletion as a stale draft. It needs to have a lot of unnecessary detail removed, but other than that, is this a notable player, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete it. It's 100% bogus. It's actually the profile of tennis player Jo-Wilfried Tsonga but with the name changed to fictitious player Matt Ustas. It was originally declined for good reason. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I will make it go away. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Davis Cup (Important!) Part 2

For the second time in recent history Davis Cup changed its URL sequence again. This time from www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie/details.aspx?tieId=XYZ to www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie/details.aspx?tieId=XYZ. Unfortunately we don't have template for tie details so the 115 pages that Google lists need to be fixed manually. Anyone interested in giving some help? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Almost none of those results are for this English wikipedia. I think 5 were for articles here (which I did just fix). The rest were from the swedish wikipedia. I think what needs to be searched is this http://www.daviscup.com/en/results. There we get 711 hits that need correcting. Daunting to say the least. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at the bot request. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 09:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed two! I've been filling missing content from the historical Davis Cup pages, so I'll keep fixing this as I go (so far I've added all missing tournament brackets and tie results - for all groups - for 1900-1987 and 2004-2012).Dlharmsworth (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess the bot is working. It fixed the link in this convo . Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC).

Premature ranking updates

Maybe policy/guidelines/consensus has changed in regards to updating rankings before the ATP/WTA/ITF have done so. In prior conversations I thought we had agreed to updating the rankings ONLY AFTER the various bodies of tennis had done so. Otherwise we can show no proper sourcing to our readers and it would be original research (which is against wiki policy). IF an editor can show a source then of course it's fine and dandy, but otherwise we must wait until published. That's the way it's always been done and it's easy to follow... no source no update. The last two days I have been scolded for reverting these premature updates (pu's) and I don't want to keep feeling like the bad guy. While there are a couple others here who revert when they see them, I feel like I'm being attacked for doing my job with little backing from fellow editors. the editors who are doing the pu's say they do it because it's a convenient time and that if they don't do it early, no one else will. That's a very valid point... it's possible the updates will get missed for a week or two. But doing it early with no sources seems intrinsically wrong to me at wikipedia. Plus if a player retires on a Saturday they will not be ranked on Monday. We shouldn't be a WP:Crystal Ball and we aren't in some monumental hurry that we can't wait till they publish results every Monday.

Now, I have no problem continuing to be the bad guy, and if I have to do multiple reverts from the same editor I leave a 1st or 2nd stage warning on their talk pages to let them know. I'm cool with that as it's part of being a wikipedian. But if everyone at Tennis Project is against what I'm doing and are actually cheering on these pu's then I can certainly stop. Heck I actually bend the rules a lot that even if the ATP/WTA sites haven't published their updates, if it's the same day (pst) I let the WP:OR go. I use pst because that's how wiki edit times shows up on my screen. So I'm asking my fellow editors what we should do about this? I know each of us tends to work on different aspects of wikipedia so no one should change their contribution style, I just want to know I'm still following Tennis Project consensus by keeping rankings to published sources. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC).

Kudos to you for taking the heel role I'm absolutely and 100% with you in this. No need to update rankings as soon as a player hit the match ball in a final. Although I understand that some people are curious about the rankings changes and look for blogs that calculate it for them but when it comes to Wikipedia one must think as an editor and drop his/her fandom for the better quality, which in this case are the reliable sources. You are interpreting it correctly and following the proper wiki guidelines. No miscommunication here. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 22:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur rankings should only be changed when they are updated from official sources ATP/WTA. --Navops47 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Although one can argue that the race rankings as e.g. the one in 2014 ATP World Tour Finals#Singles can be easily updated as it requires simple maths to add new points to it. For the record I tend to accept that logic and let that pass. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 22:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ranking updates before the offical site should only be allowed with a reliable source stated in the edit, but I have never seen any source at all in such edits. The official site is often kept from earlier as alleged reference but that means we lie about what the source says and that's even worse. Many of the premature updates contain errors and have to be corrected when the real rankings are published. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Has been discussed several times before and it should be a no-brainer that rankings are only updated once the relevant reliable sources, in this case per consensus the ATP and WTA websites, do so.--Wolbo (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

ITF Men's Circuit

I'm looking to possibly try and get the 2013 ITF Men's Circuit (including ITF Men's Circuit (Jan–Mar), ITF Men's Circuit (Apr–Jun), ITF Men's Circuit (Jul–Sep), ITF Men's Circuit (Oct–Dec)) articles to FL sometime hopefully in the near future which is a long shot but I think it's attainable, other than tracing down third party sources which I'm currently in lack of, any additional suggestions or help would be appreciated. Aureez (Talk) 10:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

All I know is that when I went to the 2013 ITF Men's Circuit article it's in horrible shape. First flag icons cannot be used for anything other than player nationality... they all have to be removed. Second, there is no earthly reason to link to countries over and over in that article. In normal article we don't link to countries, only the tournaments, but these tournaments are not notable in the least... so they can't be linked to. The same goes for articles like 2014 ITF Men's Circuit (January–March). While the player flags can stay, the country flags must go per consensus and protocol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Give me time and I'll have most of these issues sorted out, the only reason for Overlinking is solely down to the template used. Aureez (Talk) 19:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I realize that. All the other years have the same error and I'd have probably used the same overlay on a sandbox page to start the new year. Good luck. I'll stop by to help when I can. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I changed up the 2014 ITF Men's Circuit article to fit more like the layout of a TV season, it's just a starting idea as far as getting some kind of content onto the article. Aureez (Talk) 14:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Grand Slam navbox

The current navboxes for Grand Slam tournaments are split into two separate versions:

Pre Open Era

Open Era

I propose to replace these with a single navbox that combines both periods into one navbox:

See an example of the proposed combined navbox at 1954 U.S. National Championships.

This is the same setup as the German, Italian, Polish and French wikipedias use.

The new navbox has a number of benefits:

1. Easier navigation from pre open era tournament to open are tournament. There is currently no direct way to navigate from eg 1954 Wimbledon to 1970 Wimbledon. This setup solves that issue.
2. The articles relate to an edition of the tournament, not to an edition of the period (pre open or open) of the tournament and logically the navbox should follow.
3. Less vertical scrolling required.
4. The bottom of the navbox has easy direct links to the list of men's singles, men's doubles, women's singles, women's doubles and mixed winners of that Grand Slam.
5. The design is responsive to the screen resolution i.e. it adapts the width to different screen sizes incl. tablets.
6. The design still clearly identifies the pre open and open era (via two subgroups).

What are your thoughts and opinions on this navbox? Should we implement it?--Wolbo (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm 100% behind you on that, Wolbo! Jared Preston (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I never understood why the templates couldn't be more comprehensive, other than a stylistic reasons. Aureez (Talk) 17:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess the original reasoning is that the tournaments used different name. You will be listing the 1925 tournament under the navbox "US Open" when that was not it's name. I like it much better your way with one box but should we title the navbox itself "U.S. National Championships – US Open" instead of just US Open? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right Fyunck(click). That needs to be addressed somehow. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 18:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess it would easy to fix with a title like "U.S. National Championships – US Open" or U.S. National Championships/US Open." But if the same is done to the other Big Four then Australia would need to have 3 titles like "Australasian Championships/Australian Championships/Australian Open." Otherwise navigating a single navbox, as opposed to two, would sure be easier. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to adapt the title if required. As you point out Australia would need three, France two and Wimbledon only one. If we are very nit-picky the US would need three as well to include the 1917/1918 "National Patriotic Tournament". I'm not entirely convinced it is necessary, after all the Grand Slam tournament articles themselves only have the current name, but it can be done.--Wolbo (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

How about sidebar wise it as "Pre Open Era (U.S. National Championships)" and "Open era (US Open)", some adjustments would of course need to be made for Australia which I'm sure subgroups would accommodate. Aureez (Talk) 23:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are two versions for the Australian Open. The first has the same setup as the US Open but shows all the titles instead of just Australian Open. The second shows the different periods as groups within the navbox and has Australian Open as title. Combined with the US Open navbox that gives us three options. I have a slight preference for the first option because it's the cleanest / least cluttered but option two works for me as well. Consistency is important so if option three is chosen we can not mix that with the Pre Open Era / Open Era setup for the other slams.--Wolbo (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Preferences?--Wolbo (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the first one... it's cleaner, basic, and lets us know all we need to know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Seems we have a consensus for the concept. I'll wait a bit to see if there's more feedback, in the meantime here are the Wimbledon and French Open versions.--Wolbo (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

One thing... is it me (probably is) or does the gold color scheme of the AO seem much more harsh than the other three? It seems it would look better if we used a color closer to #FADB7F instead of #F9D251. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair point but knowing how these discussions on colors sometimes go it's probably best to pick this up in a separate topic.--Wolbo (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Started updating the tournament navboxes. All these articles also have a succession box in the footer (see below). Do we still need the second row of that box which points to the previous and next edition of that particular tournament now that we have the new navbox directly below it (see example)? Seems redundant to me.--Wolbo (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No point in having the s-box as well as the navbox. Delete the former while implementing the latter. Well done for your work! Jared Preston (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The first row of the succession box still has a purpose as it points to different Grand Slam tournaments (in this case the French and US Open). Would not advocate deleting the entire box, just the second row with the duplicate info. Updated succession box would then look like this.--Wolbo (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Wolbo, that's what I meant. Just didn't make it clear. The Grand Slam to Grand Slam s-box could obviously be useful for navigational reasons... You're doing fine there! Jared Preston (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Suzanne Lenglen addition and Althea Gibson removal

I proposed to add Suzanne Lenglen to the extended list of Wikipedia's Vital Articles. This extended list covers 10,000 subjects for which Wikipedia should ultimately have high-quality articles. Currently the following 14 tennis players are listed: Björn Borg, Margaret Court, Chris Evert, Roger Federer, Althea Gibson, Pancho Gonzales, Steffi Graf, Billie Jean King, Rod Laver, Rafael Nadal, Martina Navratilova, Pete Sampras, Bill Tilden and the Williams sisters. If interested you can support or oppose the proposal to add La Divine by casting your vote.--Wolbo (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice... how Suzanne and Helen Wills are missing is a mystery. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the discussion by other editors has moved to different fronts I thought I would add this info. It seems to add Lenglen we had to remove Althea Gibson. For me that was a no-brainer given that parameter, but it also got me thinking about why we should have to remove people in order to add tennis players to "Vital Articles." Take a look at Suzanne Lenglen section and the discussion below it and add your voice. Considering how many rock stars and other entertainers there are, I don't see why tennis players should get the short end of the stick. Rock has been around for 50 years and tennis 140 years. I could be way off the radar here so give an honest opinion over there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that the number of vital articles is limited to 10,000 it's normal that there will be discussions about the weight each (sub)category of articles should have within the total. Just looking at the sports categories I'd say that a total number of vital tennis articles between 12–15 seems sensible and justified.--Wolbo (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and Suzanne Lenglen now has four votes but needs five to be included. You can still vote to include (or exclude) her.--Wolbo (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, Lenglen has now been added (replacing Althea Gibson).--Wolbo (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

ITF rankings tables

It seems to me that it would make sense if the tables at ITF Rankings, Davis Cup#Current ITF rankings and Fed_Cup#Current rankings were in a consistent format. It would also make them easier to update as you wouldn't need to do both, just one and then copy across. The ITF Rankings tables in particular seem to be neglected and not updated consistently. I know the ATP rankings are in a template, so perhaps the ITF rankings could be put into a template as well? Fazzo29 (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Tennis team infoboxes

{{Infobox college tennis team}}, {{Infobox Davis Cup team}} and {{Infobox Fed Cup team}} are being discussed for merger at TfD. Participation is welcome. —PC-XT+ 16:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Commented at TfD. Not sure if all three can or should be merged but merging Davis Cup and Fed Cup should be straightforward.--Wolbo (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Another series of tennis templates has been added at templates for discussion with a proposal to merge them. We do have an awful lot of tennis event templates and it's probably a good idea to clean that up provided it is done with care and we don't lose any functionality. --Wolbo (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

ATP id's

Hi, it seems like ATP id's are not working anymore. If you try [2], the link does not work. So all links with template {{ATP}} are now broken. Are those links just temporarily broken or is it permanent now? --Stryn (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not good news. I hope it's temporary. In looking I see you can't access the players from the actual site either (except for a few top players) so I guess it's an ATP site glitch that they will fix. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Tennis in xxx country

I just found this somewhat new kind of template, which is currently added to all "notable" Scottish players' articles. I'm curious of your take on this. Do we encourage editors to create similar topic-ensembles based on nationality alone? I mean basicly tennis is not so into national but individual performances and I guess it is also unprecedented to list tournaments held in a particular country (which includes the defunct ones as well). Imagine what a US navbox would look like if made in a similar style. Also and it is rather a geopolitical issue Scotland doesn't have his own Davis Cup team so all the notable players here seem to be hand-picked. If we go with "national players" why not do it with an official Davis Cup navbox instead like the second one (note that it is not an existing template just a proposal). Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 09:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC) {{Tennis in Scotland}}

The navbox is clearly based on Category:Tennis in Scotland. The tournaments are the same as in Category:Tennis tournaments in Scotland. The lists of Scottish players are identical to Category:Scottish male tennis players and Category:Scottish female tennis players, so "notable" must mean those with articles. That is common in lists and navboxes. {{Tennis in Scotland}} was created 9 July 2013‎ by User:MacRusgail who is Scottish and probably only wanted to create this one. Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Tennis in doesn't show others. It wouldn't work for large tennis nations but Scotland may be OK. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You're background search proves to be true but we still need a general rule for such templates. Or can we tell a Latvian editor that he/she can have a Tennis in Latvia template but a Canadian don't (unless we want the navbox to contain more text than a start-article)? Also how to draw a line between Scottish and Tennis in Catalonia (e.g. Catalonia national football team exists) or Bavaria? That's why I chose the Davis Cup as a basis otherwise "sky's the limit" in a derogatory sense. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 16:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

As the creator of the template I can give the inside view. No, it wasn't based on the category as such. Even though I put a lot of the articles into the category to begin with, but the only part which I used to create part of the infobox was the section about Scottish tennis players.

Scottish tennis is quite simple in this regard. We don't have many decent players, so it's not a problem to have all of them on the template. Two of them right now are brothers, and the third, Ms Baltacha is probably terminally ill. -MacRùsgail (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution here as well as in creating the template. I don't have problem with its structure basicly I'm just trying to settle a general formatting rule, which would be suitable for e.g. a "Tennis in the US"-template. Personally I like the template however I'm thinking in its wider usage in a longer term. Your further feedback and ideas on how to make it applicable for all tennis articles is welcome. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 15:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for assistance

An editor is trying to alter the first sentence of Monica Seles article, by putting the Hu name before the Sr name [3]. Can you please intervene? 79.117.171.50 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I have no idea why it leads with Monika Seleš. She lives in the US, this is an English wikipedia, she signs her own name Monica Seles, her own webpage is Monica Seles and her own biography is Monica Seles. It should be Monica Seles (Serbian: Monika Seleš, Моника Селеш; Hungarian: Szeles Mónika). Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right. Change done. 86.127.26.117 (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Remember that's just my own opinion... not any statute or peer review. It's just that it's pretty clear that when she uses English she specifically uses Monica Seles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Fyunck(click) on this one. Monica Seles (Serbian: Monika Seleš, Моника Селеш; Hungarian: Szeles Mónika) is the correct lead here (as far as I am concerned). Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 16:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles

As @Fyunck(click): has said that this Project has been affected by removals of flags from your articles, please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles. GiantSnowman 19:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

And the response there has actually gotten rather large. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:189.6.219.27

Hi has anyone had any dealings with this editor User talk:189.6.219.27 he/she appears to be disruptive editing, banking out sections of content on tennis records articles, changing statistics some of the updates appear to be correct others are not and no explanations are given in the edit summary any thoughts--Navops47 (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That user is on our radar screen and has already been warned a few times. If the blanking continues a block will be inevitable.--Wolbo (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Human height and the metric system

Hello WikiProject Tennis members. You're invited to comment at Template_talk:Infobox_tennis_biography#Height regarding whether the use of 'm' should continue being encouraged for displaying tennis players' stature instead of the more appropriate 'cm'. Thanks.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Elena Baltacha

Anyone want to try for a GA in memory of her fantastic spirit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.252.188 (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Tennis At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this the same editor? 189.6.193.202 & 189.6.219.27

Hi a question is this editor 189.6.193.202 this editor 189.6.219.27? their editing patterns appear to be the same with further new complaints--Navops47 (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I assume so, and he has been reported. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Page moving editor

We have a problem editor who keeps moving Elena Tatarkova to Olena Tatarkova. Not sure what the agenda is. I changed it back once and asked for a discussion but it was moved again anyways. This seems like a slam dunk to me and I was going to call in an administrator but I thought I'd post it here first for help. There is discussion on the talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Senior points

I am confused by the chart at 2014_French_Open#Point_and_prize_money_distribution. Suppose you win the qualifyier or are a lucky loser, it seems that you are eligible for 25 or 16 points. However, if you lose in R1 do you only get 10 points?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Qualifiers add the points from the qualification and the main draw. Most main draw participants enter the main draw directly without qualification so they only get the main draw points. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Guideline - missed addition

Back in the day when we were setting up most of the Tennis Guidelines something got missed. Consensus at Tennis Project has been to confine "yearly" player articles to those who have won a Major (or pro Major pre-1968) during their careers. This has kept things manageable here yet allowed special players to have special info. We didn't want 100,000 "1973 Fred Kididlehopper tennis season" articles. It gets talked about in the forums from time to time but the biggest one I can recall was at Roger Federer yearly articles. I didn't really like them at all except for exceptional years but consensus seemed to be that we allow a "Career Statistics" page for any players who have overflowing stats that have won a main tour ATP/WTA event, and that yearly articles be limited to those singles players that have won a Major at some time in their careers. Some had suggested a player ranked number 1 might also get yearly pages but it's few and far between that they wouldn't also have won a Grand Slam tournament. Certainly there might always be a really special circumstance to allow it otherwise but that's why we have this talk page... just in case an editor can plead a great case for inclusion without the normal parameters being met.

Anyway, I noticed it's missing in our guidelines and it could help new editors when they create articles. The question is where to put it and how to word it. I would suggest under "Article types and recommended practices"... Maybe a section under "Single-year tournament articles" with a title "Single-year player articles" with the proper stipulations being stated? How to word it? Maybe Navops47 or Wolbo or Lajbi have some ideas? You all seem to be good at phrasing things properly so our new editors understand. I would also include a sentence on who gets Career statistics articles too since I don't see that in the guidelines either. Something that makes clear that career stats are for main draw winners (if overflowing on their main article), and yearly pages for Major winners. I guess Major winners would also include the pre-1968 pro slams also? Like I said I noticed it lacking in the guidelines as opposed to consensus so I brought it here to fine tune. I'd do it but I wasn't fond of a lot of these yearly articles to begin with and I thought maybe others here could write it more straight forward than my own typing fingers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with any of your recommendations and headings I think they make sense and should be included in the guidelines if they are not there. The yearly articles I think fit the purpose for giving readers current in depth analysis but once they go into decline and retire "are people still going to read through them as attentively"? I doubt it, some new future super player will always rise at some point--Navops47 (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be beneficial to have some sensible guidelines on these player season articles, it's getting a bit out of hand when articles like 2014 Roberto Bautusta-Agut tennis season start to appear. Limiting it to Grand Slam tournament winners seems sensible enough although I wouldn't object to including World no. 1 players if that's preferred by other editors. To get some more feedback perhaps we should alert the editors who have created these player season articles. There is a group of editors in the tennis project who do a lot of work on tournament articles and player (season) articles but who don't often participate in these discussions. Would be good to get their feedback as well on this issue.--Wolbo (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Added "Player career statistics articles" and "Player tennis season articles" to the list of article types on the Guidelines page and gave a few examples of each. No criteria and/or recommended practices have been added yet, pending outcome of this discussion.--Wolbo (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Grand Prix Championship Series

Hi, folks! I have a major question about the Grand Prix Championship Series. The article describes it as the predecessor to the ATP Masters 1000. But several articles don't mention it at all, for example Grand Prix tennis circuit and History of tennis. Also, Grand Prix season articles doen't mention Championship Series tournaments either. Can you explain it to me? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

JackHoang C&P moves

The user above has caused havoc on the Queens singles page with a C&P move. An admin is needed to put the title at it's proper name as the editor who (used the correct way) moved the page has typoed. This is not the first time that I've seen him do a C&P move. I've left a message at his talkpage. Disability expert (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Help needed with high quality unidentified French Open qualifier images

We've had a group of 85 HQ images of players uploaded to Commons who played on May 22, on day 3 of the quallies. About 70 of these images don't give the name of the player. Any help in identifying the players would be great! I've linked on the category talkpage to the Roland Garros website listing of the players who played in the qualies that day. Here's the links:

• commons:Category:2014 Roland Garros Qualifying Tournament
• commons:Category talk:2014 Roland Garros Qualifying Tournament

I've identified a couple, but it's pretty difficult. INeverCry 00:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed these both on flickr before they were uploaded and later on Commons, thinking it would be a whole lot easier if the photographer had added captions! Admittedly, the only ones I recognised were 4 each of Golubic and Witthöft, which have been categorised accordingly. I'll keep looking back in the next few days/weeks and compare them to google search as an extra help-tool. Good luck! Jared Preston (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

At a first glance, I've identified Heather Watson, Irina Falconi and Laurent Lokoli. I'm guessing Evgeny Donskoy should be there as well since he was playing Lokoli (I think it might be him on the top row in the white shirt but I'm not 100% sure). I'll try and have a better look later when I've got more time. Username of a generic kind (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I've managed to identify Grace Min, Jonathan Eysseric and Jan Mertl thus far. I'll have another look later. Boddefan2009 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Tennis At Wikimania 2014 (updated version)

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles about allround tennis players

When a tennis player is active in doubles, mixed and singles, how should be the article formatted? Should be the games separated into own sections, or everything put together into one section? Regards. --Tomcat (7) 10:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you've meant here. Are you asking if they need separate sections within an article like Mixed doublels career because if that's the case I'll say all under Tennis career will be sufficient. Especially if a player enters two or three events within a tennis tournament it fits better if all the results from the same tournament are listed in one place. But that's for the written prose part for the statistics see below. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand if you were referring to the scoreboard only then there should be a section dedicated to each event. One for singles, one for doubles and one for mixed. Like in Martina Navratilova career statistics. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant the main article, such as Elena Vesnina, who is active in all three events.--Tomcat (7) 11:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Then the first option . All in one. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability question

I just read an article in SI about Francis Tiafoe who has been hyped as the next US tennis star. I came to Wikipedia to read more about Tiafoe and realized he didn't have an article. Then I figured I would create it, though I know little about tennis. My question is if he fits Wikipedia's tennis player notability guidelines. It appears as though he passes GNG, but I just want to double check here to see if he is notable.--Yankees10 17:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There was an article about him, which was deleted in 2012. However, according to his ITF junior profile, he was ranked second in the world in April of this year, so that would pass the tennis notability guidelines. Jared Preston (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok great, I'll create it when I get a chance, thanks.--Yankees10 18:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For the future you can check the Tennis notability guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright I started it, but like I said I don't know much about tennis so the article needs improvement.--Yankees10 19:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Youth and junior

It seems that ITF does not differ between youth and junior competitions. In tennis, what is the junior age, what the youth age. I think pro era starts by switching to WTA/ATP. Also, should I put all the results into one section? Regards. Tomcat (7) 13:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "one section?" I agree that the ITF is a bit unclear about youth/junior since tournaments can have "Youth" in the name, but I believe it is officially called the Junior Circuit. There are age group tournaments. You must be 13-18 to enter the junior circuit and after 18 you're done with jrs. The jr. events are ranked from low to high, 5,4,3,2,1,A. There is something called "Junior Exempt" if you're ranked in the top 10 but I forget how that works. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I mean merge the youth/junior results into a section. Thank you for defining those terms. --Tomcat (7) 11:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, at it again with the enmasse flag removals

Seems to happen every grand slam tournament or so. I've seen removals against consensus on a few articles like Federer, Djokovic and Nadal plus Eugenie Bouchard's now too. Keep an eye out. One or two editors. Thanks Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Highest ranking

In the infobox, is the line Highest ranking and Current ranking intended for junior or pro ranking? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know we have always used pro ranking. So someone like Francis Tiafoe would have a current ranking of 1138, and a career high of 1125. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Potential flag changes for every article - Please Read

This is an FYI post. An editor started removing every flag from multiple draw articles/or adding flagathlete instead of flagicon. This certainly changes the appearance of thousands of articles so I thought it should be discussed here first. For instance the draws boxes with flagathlete and long names cause a new row to form which detracts from the draw style. On the otherhand it adds the 3 letter country code which some like better. I expressed my distaste for changing something that wasn't broken by reverting. Other editors reverted also. Now a bit of a compromise was done and that's what I wanted to discuss. Articles he changed today thus far:

• 2000 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles
• 2001 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles
• 2002 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles
• 2003 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles
• 2004 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles
• 2005 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles
• 2006 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles
• 2007 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles
• 2008 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles
• 2009 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles
• 2010 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles
• 2011 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles
• 2012 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles
• 2013 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles
• 2014 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles

As you can see he removed the redundant flags in the draw boxes... only using them in the first column, but using flagathlete instead of flagicon. I don't have a problem with this either way, but I think I would also like the flags in the quarterfinal first columns also if it were to be changed. He also changed the main seeds to flagathlete. Do we need flagathlete and these other changes?... NO. You could easily argue if it ain't broke don't fix it. Is it better esthetically or more coherent?... that is a matter of opinion and it's why I ask everyone to comment. I don't care as long as it's the consensus as to what we will be doing for thousands and thousands of draws and player articles. You'll note that the article 2013 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles has an additional item below the draw. A flag key. With an added flag key to the draws we could keep them as they are now (with flagicon) and give those that want it the full names of every country by clicking the flag key. That's just another way to do it other than adding flagathlete to every player. It is an interesting adjustment to the draw though in keeping the flags isolated to the first column... one I hadn't thought of before so think on all the ramifications and please express your thoughts here. Thanks and happy editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Does the floating question mark above the Olympic 3-digit country code should jump to the flag key? (It doesn't for me) If not than what is the purpose of the question mark? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 07:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be cool if it did, but no. I have no idea what the heck the floating ? is. Strange. I had put the flag key in BEFORE before it was changed to flagathlete as a way to keep flagicon yet allow those without mouseover ability to see the full country listed with the flags. It was just another option to try. But now that you mention that floating ?... clicking on the flagathlete 3 letter code or the flag does absolutely nothing! Zip! Hovering on the often useless country code gives the full country name. When we use the standard flagicon, hovering over the flag gives the same full country name, but clicking on the flag gives the added bonus of forwarding a person to the wikipedia country article. So we gain 3 letters but lose that country forwarding with flagathlete. Like I said, if everyone loves this new way better I can live with it. I would probably prefer the actual draws the old way with flagicon on all, and the seeds with no flags at all since they have flags in the draw. The flag key template was simply something I whipped up that could certainly be improved upon. I wish it was smaller in width but my coding skills are kinda poor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Pros and cons. The advantage of the removal of some flags from the draws would save bytes, which is always a main goal. On the other hand one have to "track down" e.g. a GS finalist nationality all the way back to the first round, which is annyoing. Changing all articles will take an immense time so I will only support it if there's other advantages for it. Right now it's annyoing>bytes. I will also check when the change has been made to the Flagathlete template code and maybe we'll get a better view on the idea behind of the "?" mark. I think it would function better if it jumped to the flag key. That way it'd still save bytes because one nation's flag would appear only once and would keep the player's nationality within sight in the same time with the help of the 3-digit. Others agree with me/us? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Two things. Imho the country codes only help for some countries as they can be confusing in their own right. The full country names would help but there is rarely room. Even with the country code some of the Wimbledon charts have names that crush the tiny boxes into another row. As for having to trace the flag all the way back that could be alleviated somewhat by showing the flag at the beginning of the quarterfinal draw, at least in Major tournaments. In the tournaments with 5 or 6 rounds without the extra quarterfinal bracket, then yes you'd have to trace all the way back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there is no need to change the current draw system. As Fyunck(click) said, it's more coherent and, at the end of the day, it's nice to watch. Yesterday editor tried to simplify draw for reader saying reader doesn't need to click on the flag to know which country it is (using Flagathlete in Seeds section and in Draw too). Today he's continue to dally with flagremoving. Maybe he should play on other pages? Arbeit10 (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The flagathlete template was changed in March from a hyperlink to a tooltip and the main argument for that change was to prevent overlinking. I use the hoovercards and moving the mouse over the country code brought up a popup with concise info about the country in question. It also does this with the flag when using flagicons. The tooltips are a step in the wrong direction in that sense but the overlinking argument is in itself a valid one. --Wolbo (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Lack of GA/FA tennis articles

I was just having a look around some tennis articles and was surprised at the lack of articles maintained by this project which have good article status, let alone featured article. There are certainly some of this quality which could do with being nominated. I'm planning on nominating Andy Murray for GA but I just thought I'd bring it up as, for example, I think Djokovic and Nadal could probably get GA status and Federer could be looked at for FA status. There are probably many other pages but I just thought I'd bring up these ones as a few examples.Username of a generic kind (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think for many, the rings and hoops one has to jump through to get to FA aren't worth it. Many articles are great articles no matter the labels that get put on them. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I remember requesting a peer review for Giorgio de Stefani back in the days then it got no response then it got relisted with zero feedback again then it got scratched without any comments. Then I remember several editors tried to push the 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season article in team work to FA but it received reviews about it having a "wrong article title" and such nonsense. The last effort was made by Wolbo (kudos) who made the 1877 Wimbledon Championship promoted to Good Article. But I guess it has something to do with the probability that no other editor owns those dozen rare tennis books it uses. I experienced myself that reviewing editors just aren't that picky when they lack the backgound knowledge or access to sources and all they can check is the grammar, which is disappointing. The fact that e.g. the Ante Pavelić non-tennis article failed to pass GA tells all about the "process". It was that time I turned my attention to the DYK project and worked there instead. But I'm happy to help if you need assisstance in one of those articles you've mentioned. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 22:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remove WTA Tier I tournaments from active players' performance timelines

I am proposing that we keep results from the WTA Tier I events in the performance timelines of retired players but remove them from the performance timelines of active players for the following reasons:

1. The Tier I events have been replaced by the WTA Premier Mandatory and/or Premier 5 events so only the latter two types of events should be included as they reflect the current structure of the WTA Tour.
2. Most of the Tier I events (with the exception of a few) have retained their status as "masters" tournaments as they are part of the Premier Mandatory or Premier 5 event categories anyway.
3. Some of the Tier I events e.g. Berlin are no longer held whilst others such as Charleston and Moscow have been demoted to Premier status, so their inclusion in the performance timelines of active players could confuse readers that are new to the topic of tennis. The inclusion of discontinued tournaments such as Berlin would also be redundant as they no longer exist.
4. The general consensus seems to be that Tier I events should not be included in performance timelines as the vast majority of articles on wikipedia tend to have performance timelines that include Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 results but omit Tier I events. This has been the norm for quite some time now.
5. Some readers may question why some active players have Tier I results included whilst others do not, so removing the WTA Tier I events would encourage consistency across the board and would also be the logical option given the current structure of the tour – younger players cannot obtain results from Tier I events as their "masters" results will come from the Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 events.
6. Eliminating the Tier I events from performance timelines would keep this table as clear and concise as possible as these charts tend to be placed in "career statistics" articles, which tend to be quite lengthy and detailed as well.

A few other notes

1. WTA Tier I events should remain in the performance timelines of retired players such as Lindsay Davenport as these tournaments were relevant when she was most active, and she cannot obtain results from Premier Mandatory or Premier 5 events (the current structure of the WTA Tour) as she is no longer active.
2. If players have won and/or finished as runner-up at a WTA Tier I event, these results should remain within their career finals tables and "masters" finals tables for obvious reasons.

What does everyone else think about this proposal? If there is consensus to remove the WTA Tier I tournaments from performance timelines, then I will add to this to the project's article guidelines. JayJ47 (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... my first inclination would be to say "I don't agree." We have the performance timelines to indicate how a player does in the biggest tournaments of their generation... regardless of what they are called. Today for the ladies those are the Majors, Premier Mandatory&5, YEC, Olympics, Fed Cup. But before then it was the Tier 1 events. My thinking is that if they overlap in a players' career we would show both unless a player didn't enter them at all. Why would you think it would be that difficult for our readers? If some feel it is, we could always add a sentence to the mandatory performance key. It already has NMS. Right now our standard is to include only a Grand Slam tournament performance chart on a player's main page, and the full chart on the Career Statistics page. I think the Tier 1 events fit ok on the Career Statistics page but maybe I'm alone in this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit ambiguous to say we should remove them from active players and keep them for retired players. Say, for example, your proposal goes ahead and we remove them from active players such as Serena Williams. When she retires do we then add her Tier 1 events back in or leave them missing, even though they were relevant when she was playing them? For what it's worth, I'd also be against this anyway for the same reasons stated above although I'm probably not the best person for an opinion on this as I don't do much editing to WTA players articles. Username of a generic kind (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It was just an idea. The main reasons why I'm proposing this is because I think it's a bit redundant to include tournaments (irrespective of their status) that do not reflect the current structure of the WTA Tour and that are no longer held in performance timelines. Like I've said before, most of the Tier I events have retained their masters status by being categorised as "Premier Mandatory" and "Premier 5" events, so if the Tier I events were to be removed, then we'd only be losing results from a few tournaments such as Berlin and Moscow. As for your comment on Serena Williams, that's a good point that I hadn't considered before. In cases like hers, I'd still be in favour of keeping just her results from the Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 events, as this would reflect the most recent structure of the WTA Tour. So I guess my main argument would be to have performance timelines reflect the most recent structure of the WTA Tour, as I personally feel that this would be most beneficial to the vast majority of readers who are probably only interested in finding out the results of an active player during this particular day and age. I'm not saying I'm completely right though and I stress that my proposal is merely a suggestion not an affirmation of something that is set stone and about to be implemented. JayJ47 (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@JayJ47, confused readers can search on Wiki for extra information about what, why & when. There is no need of removing, we can keep it in this way of thinking - Dementieva's performance timeline - just in another subsection. Arbeit10 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with JayJ47's comments. Keeping just the tournaments in the performance timeline that are part of the current structure while leaving out older tournaments of the same standing and importance is a textbook case of recentism. The example of Dementieva's performance timeline mentioned above is also far from ideal. It anachronistically misrepresents the editions of certain tournaments up to 2008 (e.g. Indian Wells and Key Biscayne) as WTA Premier Mandatory tournaments while they were in fact Tier I tournaments. And in doing so it also misrepresents the number of Tier I tournaments during that period. --Wolbo (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Grand slam champions who saved match points (from 2000)

I propose to merge the article Grand slam champions who saved match points (from 2000) into the List of Grand Slam related tennis records and remove the 'from 2000' limitation. This was already proposed in 2012 by MakeSense64 but got no reactions which is why I am posting it here. I see no reason or justification for having a separate article on this specific Grand Slam statistic and it clearly fits the scope of the Grand Slam related tennis records article. In my view we already have too many tennis records and statistics articles and would do well to limit that list to make it less confusing to our readers. This could be an easy start to that. Thoughts? --Wolbo (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Grand slam champions who saved match points (from 2000) has been merged into List of Grand Slam related tennis records.--Wolbo (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Joint notable/non-notable tournaments

I have a difference of opinion with another editor on what we should do when a notable men's event is joined with a non-notable ladies event. Per our guidelines the ladies section is not notable so it's inclusion should be voided. There was a discussion of this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astra Italy Tennis Cup where the ladies $10,000 ITF event had actually broken off to form a separate article. It was agreed to merge it with the mens event to at least list the ladies champions. I'm not sure this was ideal to list the gals non-notable winners but there aren't all that many of these dual-level joined events, so a list of winners seemed no big deal as a compromise. Now it appears we have another of the same things at the 2014 Tampere Open. The men's event is a challenger event while for the women its the non-notable lowest level ITF event. I have the same issues as I did with the former discussion, but again, since they are rare, to have a list of the non-notable ladies winners seemed no big deal. BUT... not with separate non-notable draw articles for ladies doubles and singles as has been done at 2014 Tampere Open – Women's Doubles and 2014 Tampere Open – Women's Singles. To me that's gone too far against our Guidelines. I redirected the articles but they were redirected back. Do we want to tighten up our guideline wordage to make sure this doesn't keep happening or do we want to change our guidelines to allow these articles? As I said, I can live with the Ladies champions being listed on the main article page (but even that is really against our guidelines as they stand now) but to include draw page articles for the non-notable event seems way over the top unless rules are changed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything you're saying. The winners can be listed on the tournament page as the tournament itself is notable so there's nothing wrong with having them there. The draw pages should definitely be removed as they are stand alone articles with no notability. I think just an extra sentence in the tennis notability guidelines explaining this should suffice. Username of a generic kind (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If the women's event is indeed not notable per our guidelines then logically there should be no separate draw articles such as 2014 Tampere Open – Women's Doubles and 2014 Tampere Open – Women's Singles. I see no reason for creating them. The presence of a notable men's event does not in itself lend notability to the women's event.--Wolbo (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course I see it differently but can't say more than I already have done here at User talk:Fyunck(click)#Not happy. Jared Preston (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Because my talk page gets deleted from time to time it's probably best if I post your keys points here for others to consider since they are reasonable concerns. You had said:

Editor Jared Preston - "This tournament is a dual-sex joint tournament for men and for women. It doesn't matter that the women earn less money or may be ranked lower, the Tampere Open is a notable tournament which grants the draws to be notable. Not even all Challenger Tour participants are notable, so it's not a case of a notable tournament only being open to notable players etc. I won't accept the argument that other wiki-users may create drawsheets for non-notable tournaments – the WS and WD here do not fit into this category. Where are you going to stop? Deleting junior draws at Grand Slams because junior tennis isn't notable or just in case someone creates a drawsheet for some grade 5 junior tournament?"

I hope that works for you Jared. While I don't agree with it, they are points worth noting in this discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That's very forthcoming, thank you. Obviously I spend a lot of time editing on the ITF tour events, and I'm very much an inclusionist. The line has to be drawn somewhere, so I'm not alluding to creating drawsheets or articles on all sub-$50,000 tournaments, as is done on the Italian Wikipedia (crazy, and what a mess too!), but when a larger event such as one on the Challenger Tour is organised with women's events too, I (stubbornly, maybe) cannot see why the women's events shouldn't be included. Just like at Grand Slams, we have the junior draws – and I'm well aware of the difference that a winner of a junior slam is notable whereas the winner of an ITF sub-50k tournament isn't, but my argument is about all the events at what is otherwise a notable tournament. In fact I created these to be comprehensive, even though I understand the refutations. It's not that I feel completely exonerated in this position, but other members of the tennis project have even helped with updating the scores of the events in question, so they are of interest to some people even if others are against. Anyway, that's the way I see it and it's always good to have dialogue. Jared Preston (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Need help with Women's tennis article

The Women's tennis article I think needs additional help any would be welcome. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Meh, why do we need an article for Women's tennis? --Stryn (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that is the question that first needs to be answered. I am not (yet) convinced that we need a separate article for women's tennis, anymore than we need one for men's tennis. I realize other sports have separate articles for women but the situations are largely different. In many of those sports the women only started participating at a (much) later date and/or don't have the same coverage and attention as the men. In comparison in tennis the women's game has been an integral part of the sport since almost the very beginning (even if it didn't always have equal footing) and this is reflected in our tennis articles. Also we already have the ATP and WTA articles that cover the men's and women's tours respectively.--Wolbo (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts from other editors as to whether we should have a separate Women's tennis article or not?--Wolbo (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say no. Women's Tennis Association suffices. Username of a generic kind (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Championships/Tour Finals in tennisplayers infoboxes

Hello, WikiProject Tennis.

I looked at a few articles (ex Maria Sharapova and Roger Federer), and something in the infobox struck me as odd. Under "Other tournaments" we have either "Championships" or "Tour Finals". Thanks to the wikilinks I now know what that meant in this context, but on the face of it, it looks weird, perhaps more so (for me) since english is not my first language and I don´t know that much about tennis.

I realize that Championships/Tour Finals can be practical because they´re short, but would it benefit readers in general to have the longer description, or a clearer (if that´s possible) abbrevation in the infobox? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I understand the desire to keep the tournament name on a single line in the infobox. If possible it is preferable. The "Tour Finals" label for the men is fine, accurate and unambiguous, but the women's label "Championships" is way too ambiguous and therefore confusing and needs to be changed. A logical option could be "WTA Championship". Another option is to use "Tour Finals" just like the men if that is considered generic enough or, alternatively, "Year-end Finals" for both the men's and women's tournaments. I tried the last option and it does fit on a single line.--Wolbo (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! You say that "Tour Finals" is unambiguous. It doesn´t seem that way to me, since Tour Finals/ATP World Tour Finals and the four tournaments above that in the infobox are all described as "tennis tournaments". But then again, I may not really know what I´m talking about here, so I´ll trust what you say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are all tennis tournaments but they are placed in different categories (Grand Slam, Other tournaments) to clarify the distinction. And "Tour Finals" is both distinctive and descriptive which makes it unambiguous, in contrast to the generic label "Championships" which could apply to any tennis tournament. Given that the WTA Tour Championships will be renamed to WTA Finals per the 2014 edition it makes sense to change the "Championships" label to "Tour Finals".--Wolbo (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I proposed the change on the infobox template talk page. Please add any feedback there.--Wolbo (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The label for the field WTA Championships has been updated from "Championships" to "Tour Finals".--Wolbo (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Davis Cup/Fed Cup categories

Whilst I'm here, I'd quite like to make a suggestion about something which I've thought about a few times before. We have Category:Hopman Cup competitors, so why not have categories for Davis Cup and Fed Cup competitors? Broken down into competitors by country, I know that would mean a lot of new categorisation for starts, but any tennis player correctly placed in these categories would confirm they are notable by project standards. It works well on the German Wikipedia, as can be seen at de:Kategorie:Davis-Cup-Spieler and de:Kategorie:Fed-Cup-Spielerin and works quite well for comprehensive categorising of tennis players who have represented their country internationally. Other sportspeople are categorised similarly too (Category:United States men's international soccer players, Category:Germany international footballers, Category:Canada men's national ice hockey team players etc etc.)... so would anyone counter this idea? Jared Preston (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, it's significant enough to warrant a separate category. A while back I thought about creating a category for Davis Cup / Fed Cup winners but didn't act on it. Could become a subcategory of David Cup / Fed Cup players. In contrast I'm not convinced that participating in a Hopman Cup competition is significant enough to warrant a Category:Hopman Cup competitors.--Wolbo (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Grand Prix Championship Series

Their is a request open to change the name of the Grand Prix Championship Series article to Grand Prix Super Series. Comments are welcome.--Wolbo (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The RM has been relisted to allow more feedback.--Wolbo (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Tennis tournaments pre Open era

Excluding Grand Slam tennis tournaments, are there notability criteria about the other tournaments played from 1877 to 1968, namely before the Open era of tennis?--Matlab1985 (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Good question. The Article Guidelines don't give any guidance on this and that shortcoming should be addressed. The pre-Open era non-Grand Slam tournaments that are currently handled as notable are the team competitions Davis Cup, Federation Cup and Wightman Cup and we have pre-1968 articles for those. Almost all other tournaments do not currently have year articles going back further than 1968 with a few exceptions like the Trofeo Conde de Godó which has some year articles from the 1950s. Other tournaments, like the Pacific Southwest Championships, have a navbox at the bottom of the page with links to their pre-1968 editions but, as yet, no pre-1968 year articles for those tournaments exist. In my view the present situation, where at least 95% of all tournament articles are Open era, is unbalanced and amounts to recentism. Pre-Open era tournaments mostly did not have all the best players (they excluded the professionals) but that does not mean they are not notable, certainly not by definition. To address this unbalance we could add a simple guideline stating that if a certain tournament is notable in the Open era all pre-Open era editions of that tournament are notable as well and articles for those editions can be created (provided that reliable sources are available). This does not cover everything but it would be a decent starting point. In the absence of explicit guidelines as always it is best to just use common sense.--Wolbo (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I would probably use the term "usually" in the sentence "all pre-Open era editions of that tournament are <usually> notable as well" It's a little more subjective back then. Or possibly start it with "As a general rule of thumb..." I think Wolbo's addition is a good place to start because it is pretty unbalanced as it stands. Usually the biggest events were the tournaments named after their nation... the Irish championships, the Scottish championships, but many of those exist today with slight name changes. I would think that most older tournaments listed in Tennis Archives would be notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

How about: "If a certain tournament is notable in the Open era all pre-Open era editions of that tournament can be considered notable as well if supported by reliable sources."--Wolbo (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Grand Prix Championship Series RM

Members of this project may be interested in participating in Talk:Grand Prix Championship Series#Requested move. Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

WCT Seasonal Triple Crowns and GP Triple Crowns

Hi I came across this name refering to a WCT "Triple Crown Concept" from the New York Times in 1981 found here: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/05/01 whilst looking for sources for the discussion regarding the GP championships series RM. I also came across the term being used on the GP tour in from the London Telegraph Newspaper in 1977 found here: London Telegraph July 26 1977., this from the Saraosta Herald Newspaper in 1976 stating the French Open, Wimbledon and Forest Hills as "Triple Crown" events: Saraosta Herald Jan 23 1976 does anyone know anything about this and can you please share your knowledge. --Navops47 (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Early reference here from the Sydney Morning Hearld in 1975:Sydney Morning Herald Nov 5 1975 applied to Majors but this diversifies later on the tour to included a combination of Slam and non-slam events. There are also references to the name regarding the womens tour found her in January 1977 Valley News .

New tennis formatting template being used

I've been noticing a new template being employed by an editor (Vencin)... especially on yearly articles. There seem to have been a whole bunch of templates made based on Template:Tennis sm match. Maybe it loads better or codes smaller, but for some reason it's uncomfortable for me to work with. If everyone loves it then I guess I'll just have to learn how to cope with fixing incorrect scores and such. Examples would be, original coding 2013 Novak Djokovic tennis season new coding 2014 Novak Djokovic tennis season. Andy Murray and Nadal 2014 season have been changed to this formatting, but the Roger Federer 2014 season isn't affected yet, but I'm sure it will be. I thought I'd bring it up here to see what our editors think. I don't know the reasoning for the change but it's harder for me to code. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

These new templates do look very different from the wikitable templates we normally use and are accustomed to so in that sense it is understandable that they are uncomfortable for experienced editors. The end-result on the player season article does look nice and tidy with the horizontal divider between the tournaments and the 'Match' header instead of the '#' but I'm sure the same result could be achieved with the wikitable templates. I have no idea what the raison d'être for these new templates is so why don't we invite the editor over to tell us about them, explain why they were made and what the benefits are over the existing templates.--Wolbo (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

With these templates all pages are identical (color, width, etc.). All templates have documentation how to use (Template:Tennis sm header, Template:Tennis sm tournament, Template:Tennis sm match, Template:Tennis sm footer). User not need to put color of tournament (only set c=1000), not need to set color for round and result (only set 1R, SF, W and Win or Loss for result) template set automatic color.

I have and other tennis template:

• Template:Tennis score
• Template:Tennis record
• Template:Tennis round color
• Template:Tennis category color
• Template:Tennis category name
• Template:Tennis points change
• Template:Tennis ranking change
• Template:Tennis win percentage

--Vencin (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit I find the templates created by Vencin very beneficial. I've been editing the Andy Murray 2014 season and as a relatively new editor I find them very easy to use. It saves me having to check what colour each round/tournament needs to be as has already pointed out. Obviously it's a bit of a change for anyone who has been editing season articles for several years, but I feel it definitely makes it easier for new users to edit the wiki pages. Username of a generic kind (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That's why I brought it here... I had no idea if editors love it or hate it. Some corrections need to be done. I fixed one of them but in another, the rtc value of totaling wins or losses needs to be changed to "small" at Template:Tennis_sm_match_result_text. It should be 3 not 3. I'm not sure the rtc number should be bolded as the win is, but that's a minor matter. In looking at the Djokovic 2014 season, The opponent should be simply the opponent. No need for a confusing number after the name that is different than the ranking column... it's not as clean and can be confusing to readers. The chart does look nice and it's easier to control color where I'm not having to go around correcting editors personal color choices. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I edit the template and the rtc value is "small" now :) --Vencin (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Much better. I also tweaked the "bye" so it's more traditional and not centered... eyes see it more readily. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you better centered. In old pages "bye" is in center (2013 Novak, 2013 Andy, 2013 Rafael, 2012 Novak, etc.)--Vencin (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

None of the Federer seasonal articles are centered. Neither are some of the earlier Nadal seasons. When I run down the list of opponents names, where I expect to see a name I expect to see a bye, not blank white space. I'll have to carry this on later next week as I'll likely be away from computers till Thursday. Later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Manual of Style for career statistics/other tennis articles?

I know in the article guidelines section on the project page there is a clear indication of what should go in a tennis player or Davis/Fed Cup team article, but there doesn't seem to be any guidelines for other tennis related articles. Just thought I'd bring this up given the discussions above about the templates used in season articles, as ideally we should be aiming for consistency across all articles.
One thing I wanted to know is what is expected to go in career statistics articles. For example, with the Big Four, each of them has a section for h2h against top ranked players but the ranking limit is different for each of the four (5, 10, 20 and 30). Some also include all Olympic results and some have exho finals. Different articles also have milestone wins or winning streaks but there doesn't seem to be any strict guidelines.
Is this something that we should look to have with a clearly set out MOS or do people not consider this to be a matter of significance? Thoughts? Username of a generic kind (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season AfD

The article 2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season has been proposed for deletion. For some reason this does not show in the Article Alerts on our project page so I'm adding a notification here.--Wolbo (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added my comments to this discussion. --Navops47 (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thx. It actually does now show on the Article Alerts, probably because of the WikiProject tag that was added on the talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wolbo point taken from your comments on AFD Maria Sharapopva tennis season discussing inclusion criteria for article guidelines per WPT, but the recent move of Grand Prix Championship Series to Grand Prix Super Series was argued from your viewpoint on Wikipedia:GNG because you could not find enough sources on the word " Championship" but could on "Super" hence the move the other editor is highlighting the same fact on the word "Season" in the title I was not involved in the guideline discussion for the season articles due to work commitments maybe we should look again at the guidelines the problem however will not go away if other non-project editors cite WP:GNG for proposed AFD because not enough source material is being generated to support the article title.I did a quick source search for just Maria Sharapova in 2013 no exact name tried mutiple word endings again no single significant coverage so I don't know where you go from here--Navops47 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Correction I was involved briefly and apologise for the above comment please see the AFD Sharpaova for further comments.--Navops47 (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No need at all to apologise. My arguments for renaming the Grand Prix Championship Series article to Grand Prix Super Series were not so much based on notability (WP:GNG), in my view the article is clearly notable, but more so on verifiability (WP:V) and a concern that the article as it stood was in danger of deletion on grounds of original research (WP:OR). I'll leave the detailed discussion of the Sharapova season article at AfD but please note that the article already has three references that provide coverage of the topic. If you feel we need to look again at our criteria for season player articles just reopen the discussion. The article guidelines are never set in stone, they are organic and evolve in line with the viewpoints and practices within the project as well as within the broader wiki community. They are simple the opinions and guidance within the project on how to create the best possible tennis articles for our readers. Nothing more, but also nothing less.--Wolbo (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I was away for a week and noticed this. Has something changed in wiki season articles in the last few months? I looked at the WP:NSEASONS section and it really only applies to team/organizations... not tennis superstars. I argued against all season articles way back in the day, but it has a long history now and is part of our core of consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There are wider implications in the outcome of this debate take Dirtlawyer1's reply to a comment I made "Navops, WP:NSEASONS does not include guidelines for individual player seasons because no one ever contemplated that 100,000-byte single-season articles would ever be created for individual athletes. It has nothing to do with coverage produced by team publicists; such coverage is not independent of the subject, and cannot be used to support the notability of a subject." well that certainly affects this article 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season where the entire sources quoted are written by a staff publicist at the club and infact quite number of the season articles for that team alone.--Navops47 (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Does he/she have something against tennis or sports in general? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have to say no they have produced 114 articles covering different sports some including tennis some of which have been given GA status and contributes to a wide spectrum of sports related articles--Navops47 (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

So it's specifically seasonal articles then... ok. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

List of tennis rivalries

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the inclusion criteria for the list of tennis rivalries. If interested please add your comments there.--Wolbo (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

List of tennis stadiums by capacity

There is a proposal to combine the list own men's and women's tennis venues into one list at List of tennis stadiums by capacity. If interested please add your comments there.--Wolbo (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tennis biography junior grand slam parameters out of order

Seeing CiCi Bellis' page made me realize that the Template:Infobox tennis biography junior grand slam event parameters exist. When I started fixing up Jarmere Jenkins, I noticed that something is wrong with the ordering of the junior doubles tournaments. For the singles events the open events show up in the table before the junior events, but for the doubles, the French and Wimbledon juniors show up before the US Open open.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, is there a way to tell if Jenkins played in the 2006 Wimbledon or French junior doubles tournaments or any pre 2006 junior slam events. WP does not have pages going back that far.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The doubles box wasn't fixed as it's the old way to do it. You'll see some older ones as:

• Australian Open
• Australian Open jrs
• French Open
• French Open jrs

As opposed to all the jrs listed after the all the senior majors. Once a player starts to accumulate rounds in the senior majors the jr majors results should be removed as trivial. Also Jenkins did not play in the 2006 French or Wimbledon jr doubles, but she lost in qualifying in the 2005 US open singles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Fyunck(click) So it seems at some point people have sr. and jr. tournament mixed in and then at some point they get rid of the jr. ones. I assume you are not suggesting my guy is ready to ditch his jr. tournaments. Also, I think either the singles of the doubles should be fixed so that they are formatted the same way.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

 DoneI just fixed the template (barring any typos), so Jenkins should align properly now. As ditching... sometimes we have to look at it case by case. Usually a person turns pro and once we start seeing competition in majors we'd throw out the jrs. The jr info would simply be a sentence or two in the players early years bio. Bellis is actually still competing in jrs and has said she's going to stay amateur and play in college. Here's how I see Jenkins. Only qualifiers so far in singles... leave the infobox singles jrs until she actually plays in one or two main draws in Majors. Same with doubles. She has one main draw. If she gets in another main draw in doubles, dump the infobox doubles jrs as old and trivial and plop it in her bio as prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. P.S. Jenkins is a he.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tennis event title color

It seems that since yesterday the title of the tennis event infobox, e.g. on 2014 Brisbane International, no longer shows a background color. Do others have the same experience? --Wolbo (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks identical today on Chrome, Firefox and IE. But my observation powers are lacking since I can't recall what it looked like before. I'd have to see a before and after screen shot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

here's the screen shot link (in firefox) http://i59.tinypic.com/10rs5zs.jpg Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thx for the screenshot. Until yesterday these infoboxes had a color background for the title which was selected from the Template:Infobox tennis event/color list (click on the 'Edit' tab to see the list with color codes). During the last two years I updated a whole lot of these colors to improve the contrast with the title text and make them WCAG compliant, so I'm wondering if this is a deliberate wiki update or a technical glitch. --Wolbo (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably a wiki update broke it. Maybe check at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or post at bugzilla? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Walkover in Performance timeline

If the first round was a walkover, what sign would be the cell in the Performance timeline? Maybe A or 1R? Regards. --Tomcat (7) 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

CiCi Bellis

Your friend user 333 has moved CiCi Bellis to Catherine Bellis. Now I know for sure that all though Catherine is her name it is against COMMONNAME as she is refered to in the media as CiCi. Also a bit like moving Andy Roddick and Andy Murray to Andrew just because that's their proper name. Please move the page back and take action against the user. Thanks. 80.43.252.30 (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The article name has been reverted to CiCi Bellis as the move was not uncontroversial and therefore requires a Requested move process per WP:RM.--Wolbo (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I would use the official name which is used also by WTA and ITF. --Stryn (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of flags for athletes in international competition?

I thought this discussion might be of interest to WP:Tennis editors: Template talk:Infobox golfer#Nationality field. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Red-linked tennis player articles on Wikipedia:Most-wanted_articles listing

I'm not at all familiar with your Project's notability guidelines, but, for some reason, a lot of the "most wanted" articles on the most recent (actually not so recent - it's from December 2013) listing of the most commonly red-linked titles on Wikipedia are apparently professional tennis players. Could someone from your Project have a look at a lot of these names to see if they are really needed on Wikipedia? Thank you in advance. Guy1890 (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WTA Tier I tournaments

There is a vandal or vandals repeatedly attempting to add non Tier I titles to a player's totaland thereby mess up a stats table. I dunno if the page needs protection for this. I've warned the IP address already. —Loginnigol (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've got it watched and will also keep an eye on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: use of flag icons in sports articles

WP:Tennis members who have an opinion regarding the use of flag icons in sports articles may wish to comment in this ongoing discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Formula 1. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is now a formal RfC on the Manual of Style/Icon talk page regarding the use of flag icons for athletes in international competiton: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#RFC. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Article quality

I just came past 2014 Stockholm Open – Singles article. The article contains one sentence. Grigor Dimitrov is the defending champion. There is no other text. The word Tennis does not appear anywhere. There are large charts but no explanation as to what it means. The only references are to primary sources. There is no establishment of notability of the subject.

Are Tennis tournament articles normally this poor? --Falcadore (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The tournament is ongoing and will get another lead sentence or two when it completes tomorrow and the winner is known. Apart from that, this is the normal appearance of tennis draw articles. It's not a work of art but as a tennis fan who also reads a lot our tournament articles, they have what I want 90% of the time, and 99% when I read them more than a few days after the tournament ended. What a reader wants on a match day or the next day is not the best measure for an encyclopedia. We don't have subpages in mainspace but in practice it functions as a subpage of 2014 Stockholm Open. Maybe it should mention tennis itself but I assume nearly all readers know it's tennis if they get to the draw article. ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) is in a navbox and category but only at the bottom. Tennis-interested readers are expected to be able to read a draw table. They also look like this in many other works, and lots of other sports also use them. All results can be referenced together in a similar draw page at the official site of ATP/WTA or the tournament. This is the most reliable and practical reference. All ATP and WTA tournaments receive plenty of coverage to satisfy WP:N but editors rarely bother adding the sources. Every main draw match, 27 in this case, gets news mentions but if we only show the result then adding up to 27 inline references at individual matches does not seem worth the time. Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Tennis says that anyone who even plays in one of these tournaments is presumed notable. A few similar draw articles have been at AfD and been kept without problems. There is only doubt for tournaments below ATP/WTA Tour level, and for qualification tournaments to ATP/WTA which for a period got their own article but are now together with the main draw. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Tournament. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

So that's a yes, and its a yes according to Wikiproject's guidelines. I also note, the main article of the tournament, now complete, is just two sentences long, has no references at all, other than the tournaments official website. The two sentence article lead defines the subject but does not explain it. The content is pictographic in nature when wikipedias preferences has always been prose.

You're also telling me that any AFD I bring would fail. It is not my intention to do, or threaten such a thing. That having been said, all you typed about notability is based on assumptions and other articles.

If you are satisfied with the content, then OK. I can merely point out when I see articles that are pathetically below wikipedias standards.

Are you really saying an additional couple of sentencs describing the tournament winners with a reference to some news coverage is unneccessary? --Falcadore (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles are always better with a bit more prose and better references. No doubt about that. But lacking those things doesn't make an article un-noteworthy. See 2013 If Stockholm Open – Singles and 2012 If Stockholm Open – Singles or perhaps one of the four Major tournaments the 2009 French Open – Men's Singles. All similar formatting since they are branches of the full yearly events, which themselves are branches of the historical tournament. They are mainly to show the full draw. The draws are fully referenced on the 2014 Stockholm Open so no trouble there. But a few more ref'd prose sentences would be much better. You have to realize that no one comes directly to this article. It's really a subpage. They read about the Stockholm Open article, and if they want more they read about the 2014 Stockholm Open, and if they want the detail of the singles draw they come to this subpage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles on sports tournaments are often heavy on tables with results and statistics. If somebody wants to add more prose to the lead then please do so, but as a reader I come to such articles for the results, at least when it was more than a week ago. My search only found one ATP/WTA main draw AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Bank Austria-TennisTrophy – Singles. It was ATP World Tour 250 series like Stockholm Open, the lowest level of the Tour. The result was unanimous keep. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So it doesn't run afoul of WP:ROUTINE in its current form? How hard is it for the current article writers to add that extra prose when the article is composed? --Falcadore (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

When it's composed the tournament has just begun, with names filling out the early brackets. Each day more gets filled in but of course zero prose since we don't know the winner. When the final is over, of course the final score and winner and loser are put in prose. That would be when anything extra would usually be added to prose, but we aren't going to add items that are already in the singles main article, or the tournament main article. If something unusual happens in the final, sure. If it's a players' 4th victory in a row, sure. If a player reached No. 1 because of the win, probably. It just depends on the event itself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The question is why 2014 Stockholm Open and 2014 Stockholm Open – Singles are not merged into one; considering that these events are only written about during the week which the tournament is held, there is not much room to expand any of these two articles. These two articles could easily be merged without harming the content of either one, and the article could become longer. The only instance in which draws and tournaments should have separate articles are grand slams. --TIAYN (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If the singles article is merged then 2014 Stockholm Open – Doubles should also be. It's a brief article for this draw size so it wouldn't add much to the total size. But there are many combined events with four draws (singles and doubles for men and women). Merging all those could give a long article, especially for large draws like in Category:2014 Sony Open Tennis. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Primehunter is correct, and I'm guessing for consistency across the board for readers the editors of these articles have made them all the same regardless on if there's a men's and women's event at the same event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Unidentified tennis players

I've been doing some file work over at Commons, and am wondering if anyone could help identify →this player← There's also Category:Unidentified tennis players, plus trucks load of files which haven't even been categorised there, you just have to look for them in the various tennis-related categories. I also came across File:Alona Bondarenko in Albuquerque 2008.jpg which has been previously confirmed not to be Varvara Lepchenko; but despite the resemblance of Alona Bondarenko, she just didn't play at the event – leading me to believe it can't be her either. Any help in this area would be appreciated. Jared Preston (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

ITF tournament pages: 2014 $25,000 Rock Hill, 2008 $75,000 Albuquerque. If they aren't identified then maybe the links could at least be added to the file pages. The first image has time and date but it's during practice so the order of play doesn't seem helpful. The second ITF page doesn't show order of play. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Tennis Season articles

In the early tennis season articles players from other nations except USA, UK, Australia, France and Netherlands are not listed in "Titles won by player" and "Titles won by nation". Why? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to some example articles to illustrate this? --Wolbo (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

1971 Women's Tennis Circuit, 1972 Women's Tennis Circuit, and so on.--Tomcat (7) 11:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No idea, I see no issue with completing the tables with title-winning players from other nations like was done for e.g. 1975 WTA Tour.--Wolbo (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Season articles

Is there any fresh news on the escalation of this issue? I feel it's time to rethink the notability guidelines as we are about to have a new GS winner in the shape of Kei Nishikori or Marin Cilic and I'm afraid their respective fans will flood the market with articles such as 2001 Kei Nishikori Tennis season. Any thoughts? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 16:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What would be your suggestion? Something as simple as they must have won a Major in the year in question? I have no problem with working on the parameters but do we grandfather in old created articles, or do we delete the slew of Federer articles? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I would second Lajbi's proposal for an internal WP:Tennis standard for single-season articles for individual seasons in which the tennis player in question won one or more Grand Slam events in the individual season/year in question. Other editors suggested something similar during the recent AfD for the "2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season" article. I think such a standard makes sense because I believe it will likely yield the same outcome as a full-blown analysis under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. As for grandfathering all existing single-season articles, I have three comments. First, you cannot bind anyone with such a "grandfather" clause because WP:Tennis' internal "guidelines" cannot prevail over the Wikipedia-wide notability guidelines. Second, that having been said, a grandfather clause could provide a compromise and "gentlemen's agreement" among WP:Tennis editors how to handle these articles going forward, and I don't think other editors are hovering on WP:Tennis' doorstep, looking to propose all of these articles for AfD. Third, before proposing the new single-season standard with the grandfather clause compromise, I suggest you comprehensively review all of the tennis single-season articles and see what you really want to keep or not keep, and determine if the proposed solution renders your desired outcomes. You will probably not get a third bite at this apple. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually see no conflict at all with wiki guidelines. And guidelines are not policy. But if consensus shows that articles may be deleted (for whatever reason) then certainly we can re-look at things to make them tighter. Winning a Major is certainly a reasonable suggestion. One could also simply combine multiple seasons together when some are too weak to stand on their own. You mention a comprehensive review... I think there are actually very few of these articles. They mostly center around Federer, Nadal, Serena Williams, and Djokovic. The Roger Federer articles were made with prior wiki consensus and created the rules we have today. But rules change on a regular basis at wikipedia. Also if history of other wiki articles is anything to go by, it always seems there are more and more apples to eat. They never seem to run out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Federer's earlier articles could be easily "saved" based on other notability standards. He was successful in his Junior years, and he almost had a decade with a GS win in each year. His post number-1 career would be in jeopardy but then he had a comeback era so one or two minor seasons could be sacrificed for the greater good. The GS/year would be a good first step. Adding Olympics to the mix would be fair too. I think it will leave enough leeway for editors to create season articles (up to 40 different articles per year not counting the Junior/wheelchair champions, which is TBD). Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 21:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Federer may have been notable some years, but not this season. Junior years would be gone as likely would Roger Federer's early career and 2011 Roger Federer tennis season, 2013 Roger Federer tennis season, and 2014 Roger Federer tennis season. Without grandfathering we would need to be consistent so editors could easily follow the new guidelines. With a "combined years" solution they may not be a problem as 2013 and 2014 might simply be combined into Roger Federer's later career, and 2011 could be joined with 2012. Obviously in whatever gets decided, unforeseen loopholes could be found, but it sure seems to me that we wouldn't want to start off with known implied exceptions right out the starting gate. I'm not for the Olympics addition. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What about we "encourage" editors that when creating later or early careers then let's say they should embrace at least five years? I don't have a problem if a GS victory year is expanded with four more; it's still one article instead of five. But merging two just to save one is obviously just an escape route. Certain players can also have their whole tennis career bagged together. To get a current example Marin Čilić's whole career can be a standalone article as he had only 250 tournament wins up to now. Although that would cut his main article back to minimum if moved (or cause a double entry about his career). Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 08:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying this can't be done. It is certainly one way to handle the situation. I'm saying that if it is done this way then we can't say they must have won a Major to qualify for seasonal articles, since that would be a falsehood. Whatever we come up with that allows each of the Federer extra articles must also be allowed for all other Player articles so that we are fair to everyone. As long as the guidelines are clear and equal for every player, so new editors can see just what the parameters are, then all should be well. As far as main articles go, every player article should reach a large size before splitting at all. First they spill into career statistics... then when Majors start piling up they go into seasonal articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough for me. Personally I don't feel appropriate to have a 2014 Marin Čilić tennis season neither as he spent 1/3 of the season off due the drugs ban. Any thoughts on injuries/time spent off to affect the notability? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 16:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well if you think that, then why is there a Serena article for a season when she only played something like 7 matches? (05) I think, but it was the one before the "fat" Aussie Open win. 80.42.86.184 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why this discussion is happening. Right now 2014 Cilic is allowed "if" his main article fills up. If it goes, then the Serena 2004, 2006, 2011, and Serena Williams early career articles are in jeopardy. We are talking about tightening the restrictions because a couple recent consensus votes by the wiki community have deleted some lesser seasonal articles. We would like to re-write our Project Guidelines so editors don't have to worry about expending efforts to creating new articles and then have them wiped away by a dozen voters. My thoughts on the injury/time is it's of little consequence to how we write the guidelines. There will always be a tiny fraction that will need to be looked at as a "special circumstance"... nothing will be iron-clad perfect. But as our rules stand this second, since Cilic won a Major last week, he is now entitled to season articles for every year he was a pro... even past trivial seasons... just like Serena or Federer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

---

So did we agree that a player's season is only notable if a Grand Slam was won in that given year by the player? Any objections? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

So we're clear, if that's the only wording we use in our guidelines then we must immediately remove Roger Federer junior years, Roger Federer's early career, 2011 Roger Federer tennis season, 2013 Roger Federer tennis season, and 2014 Roger Federer tennis season. If those stay (either by being left alone or consensus) then we must word our guidelines differently to encompass their inclusion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Fyunck, from my perspective, the fundamental error the creators of these articles have made is in attempting to document literally every tournament in which the subject athlete ever played in a given year, and, indeed, in every match in which the athlete played. Most of these matches are not even worthy of a footnote in the broad sweep of a hugely successful career like Federer's. If the overwhelming majority of these matches are not worthy of a single sentence of text in the article, one must question the match-level of detail included in these tables.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a stand-alone biography of Federer, where such match and tournament tables could be buried in an appendix in the final 20 to 30 pages of a 250-page book. An encyclopedia, by it very nature, is supposed to be a compendium of many topics, not the single definitive work about any single topic. With regard to any single topic, an encyclopedia sets forth the fundamentals and the major points of knowledge about a given subject; as an example, the Wikipedia article about Thomas Edison does not list every one of the 100s of experiments that Edison conducted before finally creating a successful incandescent light bulb. From the perspective of an encyclopedia, that's trivia. In the context of Wikipedia, it's also fan-boyish, which is something from which many of our sports articles suffer. If someone wants to write the definitive career history of Federer and include every match he ever played, then that writer has chosen the wrong forum in Wikipedia.

And, again, I gently remind you: WP:Tennis may adopt whatever internal standard it chooses for single-season articles, but unless the WP:Tennis standard approximates the same outcome as an AfD analysis using the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (i.e. significant coverage about the individual season -- not the athlete, not the individual tournaments or matches, but the season itself -- in multiple, independent, reliable sources), then many of those articles are still going to be subject to the same fate as the Maria Sharapova 2013 tennis season article when some random editor nominates it for AfD.

As for the example articles you mention above, my reactions are:

• Roger Federer junior years - should be summarized in one or two brief paragraphs within the main parent article; the detailed match table is of no particular value to the general reader.
• Roger Federer's early career - should be summarized in two or three brief paragraphs within the main parent article; the detailed match-level table is of no particular value to the general reader. Most of the alleged space issues would alleviated if the responsible editors would eliminate match-level detail tables, and instead focus on tournament-level detail tables.
• 2011 Roger Federer tennis season - No Grand Slam event championship. Again this level of match-level detail is overkill, major tournaments and other notable matches could be briefly summarized instead of trying to cover literally every match in which Federer played.
• 2013 Roger Federer tennis season - Ditto
• 2014 Roger Federer tennis season - Ditto

Also, creating tables of head-to-head statistics for every year/season is also a massive waste of space. If desirable, a single table of head-to-head stats for Federer's entire career could be created. The annual head-to-head tables are another example of a level of detail that goes far beyond what any reader would expect to find in an encyclopedia article; indeed, it is a level of detail beyond what any reader would expect to find in a 250-page hard-copy book biography of Federer. The problem you have, as sports editors, is not figuring out how to include every trivial statistical detail, but how to distill the key data, the most important data, and presenting the most important data in a coherent fashion useful to the majority of readers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Some are good points and some I disagree with. Fist let me say that in my statement above, I just wanted to be clear that editor @Lajbi: understands the ramifications of requiring a Major victory. I didn't say nay or yeah. You spelled it out to him even clearer on what will happen if that sentence is added to our guidelines. I don't concern myself with what "may" happen if articles are brought to afds. My only concern, as always, is that I ask myself what is best for our readers. What are their wants and needs. Most will know tennis and many will know tennis quite well. When they come here how can we help their experience. Wikipedia is advertiser driven also... we don't want to turn readers away if possible. Better too much than too little in most cases. As for Mr Edison, you do realize we have listings here at wikipedia for every one of his 1084 patents? I happen to use Federer's match details, and I know people at ESPN check those stats here also. We may not be the "average tennis reader" but I think some of your solutions are quite draconian in application. Space is of no consequence at wikipedia so that point is moot. Also I don't feel the same way about sports editors as you do. Whether it's the lives of every individual Simpson's character that was ever drawn by an animator's pen, or an individual article for every song the Beatles ever recorded, or every match played during Tilden's two year 95 match win streak, Wikipedia (as a non-paper encyclopedia) has the ability to encompass many wants and needs of readers. Details of a Federer season where he won Wimbledon doesn't seem like a major issue for Wikipedia. Probably what one of us needs to do is lay out three or four choices (including keeping it as is) and see what sticks to the tape. Maybe I'll do it tonight and post it here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I can gather, points being made in this rather small conversion can be broken down into several choices.

• Option 1:

  Keep all as it is now. Allow articles to be created for all seasons (or merged seasons) once a singles player has won a Grand Slam tournament title. Reasons why this works is that subjects such as Roger Federer already have had wikipedia-wide consensus !votes of approval for Roger Federer junior years, Roger Federer's early career, and the individual 2003–2014 seasons, with no problems until very recently.

• Option 2:

  Require a singles Grand Slam tournament victory for any created season article. This would allow the most fruitful years of a players career to be broken down into single seasons and stop articles from being created such as the 2014 Juan Martín del Potro tennis season where he barely played yet was allowed under current guidelines. This would however require the removal of Roger Federer junior years, Roger Federer's early career, and his 2011, 2013 and 2014 seasons. Also removals of 2014 Andy Murray tennis season, many Maria Sharapova articles, Serena Williams's early career, plus Serena's 2004, 2006 and 2011 seasonal articles.

• Option 3:

  Allow all seasons as per current standards but require that non Grand Slam tournament victory years be merged into prior season articles. The articles may be larger but with some content trimming and proper table of contents, this could also work. This would still allow an article on the 2011 Serena Williams tennis season but force it to merge with the 2010 Serena Williams tennis season.

• Option 4:

  1) Only allow season articles starting with a player's first Grand Slam tournament victory... none from before. This would allow articles such as 2011 Serena Williams tennis season provided there were Grand Slam tournament victories in both prior and future years.

  2) All seasons prior to that first grand Slam tournament victory may be combined into one early career article, provided there is enough content and the main page is already approaching wikipedia size limits (50–60k readable prose).

  3) All seasons after the last Grand Slam tournament victory may be combined into one later career article provided there is enough content and the main page is already approaching wikipedia size limits (50–60k readable prose).

  This would eliminate the Federer junior years but not his early career. This could be tricky in creating articles such as Azarenka's 2014 season. If she wins no more Grand Slam tournaments that should technically be included in her later career article. So tough for editors to know what to name articles after winning a Major.

• Option 4b:

  Same as Option 4 except include the limitation (as in option 3) of season articles with no Grand Slam tournament victory must be merged into prior seasons.

Am I missing something or do these options pretty much cover the many conversations we've been having? One thing is that I think we need to have an agreement with more than just 2 or 3 of us. I'd bring in the original framers of our current consensus from the large rfc at Roger Federer to see if they've changed their minds and want to now limit ourselves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, If a player such as Federer makes a grand slam final with other victories in some higher level matches e.g. Cincinnati, then it should satisfy GNG without it being considered overkill. We cannot accurately summarize his entire season body of work in just one or two paragraphs as part of his biographical page without causing the SIZERULE to be obfuscated. Right now, his tennis career needs a gigantic trimming in order to come in line with the SIZERULE, instead of an expansion. I'd say lets keep the season articles if the player has made a final with other significant victories on tour, for an established grand slam champion like Federer and Serena.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

So that sounds like Option 4 is closest for additionsubtraction? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I'll add some thoughts off the top of my head. Going off the list of options above, I would agree most with option 4. I am not comfortable with the idea of merging two seasons into one article. I do, however, support the idea of "early career" and "later career" articles as outlined above. Regarding Federer's article collection, I see no issue in retaining, as proposed above, the early career and season articles. The tough spot, as of right now, is his 2011 season article, but I don't think that it should be removed or merged, mostly for reasons which I expand on below. I do also agree that his appearance in the Roland Garros final and his win at the Tour Finals, among other titles, should still make it notable, as argued above.

I want to follow up on making considerations regarding season articles for "established Grand Slam champion[s] like Federer and Serena." I suppose this addresses the more general question of whether a player should merit season articles at all, though it may be a different discussion on whether a player's achieving a Major title merits a season article for that season. I do agree with AdditionSubtraction's point above, and I also feel slightly hesitant in allowing the creation of season articles for players if that player has won one Major. In my view, the season articles are well-merited and should be created only for players that have been major forces in the sport and are likely to be deemed among the greatest players of whatever era we consider. The season pages for these players are, thus, useful, given that the players' careers are sufficiently important to be explored in greater detail. Sure, it's a great thing for a player to achieve a breakthrough Grand Slam title, like Wawrinka and Čilić have, and also great to have thorough coverage for those events. But I hesitate to agree that their winning one Major title merits an article for the whole season (and in doing so, I agree with points made above regarding Čilić's season before the US Open). I believe that folks like Federer and Serena Williams definitely merit these season articles, and I would argue that it is also the case for Nadal, given his influence in men's tennis over the past decade, and Djokovic, in spite of the fact that he seemed only to be a major factor in tennis in the last five years. They have all had productive seasons throughout the courses of their careers, not just one-off seasons that are amazing relative to the rest of their career. So, in short, I think that the players' careers themselves should also come into consideration when deciding whether to create a season article or not.

Forgive me if I may have complicated things with my input, or provided a non-answer, but I felt that those were relevant points to make. The point I'm trying to make here is that there are some drawbacks to looking at setting up guidelines for the creation of season articles, though it is a very good idea. (And, on the same token, there are benefits for looking at this on a case-by-case basis). I feel that this could solve some problems that we are having here, but also potentially bring others up. (Of course, one issue I foresee arising would be where to draw the line in terms of which seasons should be considered for certain players. But, that's another discussion for another day.) As I mentioned before, if we're purely looking at which of the options is better, I would choose option 4. I'm saying that in choosing this option, I do think there's more to be considered than just the points made in the text of the proposed guideline. Let me know if I can make myself more clear. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Long story short I support option 4 too. As for the case-by-case proposal above AfDs mostly operate just like that. The most we can do is to set up a guideline to prevent the article mess that a new era of tennis could bring. Hopefuly the articles related to The Big Four will only benefit from a stricter guideline. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 22:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The current guidelines were put in place to curb the wild-growth of player season articles that was starting to occur with the creation of articles such as 2014 Roberto Bautusta-Agut tennis season. The requirement that only players who have won a Grand Slam tournament title are entitled to have season articles was sensible and elegant in its simplicity. It also reflected the consensus up to that point. Recent discussions made clear there is a need to further improve the guideline. Out of the options listed above by Fyunck option four seems the most sensible. There are however two scenarios which in my opinion should also be addressed. One is the '2014 Del Potro tennis season' scenario, a Grand Slam tournament winner who through injury, or other reason, is not active for most or all of the season. To address that we could add a minimum-match condition. The other is the 'One slam wonder' scenario where a player wins a Grand Slam tournament but does little of significance during the rest of his/her career. If there is consensus that such a player should not have season articles for (all) the post Grand Slam title years this could be covered by adding a performance clause of some kind. Thoughts?--Wolbo (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been open for over a month now. Have we reached a consensus that can be implemented? Seems to me there is a consensus for Fyunck's option 4, i.e. "Only allow season articles starting with a player's first Grand Slam tournament victory.". I would like to make it slightly more strict by adding the scenarios I mentioned above but would need more feedback to do so.--Wolbo (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wolbo: Wolbo, could you briefly summarize what you believe is the emerging consensus among WP:Tennis members, as well as any issues you believe remain to be addressed? Thank you for managing this discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The minimum consensus is that a player should not have season articles before the year of their first Grand Slam tournament victory. What exactly to do beyond that seems less clear. The later career part of Fyunck's option four appears less than practical to me for careers that are still ongoing. I would propose to allow season articles for all years following a player's first Grand Slam tournament win provided that they played a minimum amount of matches (e.g. 25) and achieved a minimum performance (e.g. Top 5 ranking) during a season. --Wolbo (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify my above proposed guideline, the conditions of a minimum of 25 matches and a top 5 ranking during the year apply specifically to any non-Grand Slam title year following the first Grand Slam tournament title. Grand Slam title years would always qualify --Wolbo (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wolbo, that may be a sensible compromise. Please remember, however, that external to WP:Tennis your internal WikiProject guidelines will still be back-stopped by GNG. So any internal guideline you adopt (and I'm happy to add my !vote to that) should be calibrated to satisfy GNG in the strong majority of individual cases. If you think your proposal does that, let's ping the previous discussion participants and call for an !vote.

Also, please be aware that discussion of this issue of stand-alone articles for single seasons of individual athletes (and several related issues) has been percolating, and that there are likely to be upcoming RfCs regarding stand-alone articles for sports rivalries, individual regular season games and matches, and sports seasons at WP:NSPORTS. I would be more comfortable starting that last RfC knowing that your internal WP:Tennis discussion had been resolved, and that your internal WikiProject guideline was unlikely to conflict with any other Wikipedia-wide standard. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to be the one agreeing to close or not to close since I was the one that took from what I was reading and compressed it into 4 choices for everyone. I have no problem with Wolbo's tweaking. As for GNG, it's hard to be all that concerned with it as I've found it thrashed time and time again by consensus votes. 99% of the time here, GNG comes up at tennis project because we are too strict in our allowances and someone finds a player in Bangladesh who has played one event and is in every newspaper in town. I wouldn't change our wording for that, as those cases are few and far between and GNG will take care of it when brought up for deletion. There are always exceptions at wikipedia, but final wording doesn't have to encompass every exception. Most know that GNG will often trump any other guideline, that policy will trump GNG and any other guideline, and that consensus will trump all of the above as long as enough !votes say it does. If you ping the above participants do it with the exact wording we want to enter into the guideline to make it easy on everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Fyunck, I agree that a guideline does not have to provide for every imaginable exception or contingency; guidelines should allow for the the unforeseen special case, and GNG does that. If you have really odd one and a strong majority agrees, you can always invoke IAR if you have a very good reason for doing so. That being said, there are ways to make a specific notability guideline tighter than GNG. One is to provide for another outlet for the content in another format, like regular season professional sports games being pushed into seasons articles. With regard to your locally famous tennis player who no one has ever heard of outside his hometown, there are ways of dealing with that, too. Coverage of a truly notable person should never be entirely local, or by definition, he's not really notable. That's already built into various guidelines. We can talk more. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is no further feedback we can update the guideline. It currently reads: "Allowed only for players who have won at least one Grand Slam singles title in their career." Proposed wording: "Can only be created for players who have won at least one Grand Slam singles title, onward from the year of their first title and provided they played at least 25 matches and reached a top 5 ranking during any year(s) without a Grand Slam title." Not exactly griping prose but is it clear and concise enough?--Wolbo (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I would prefer the term "Major" over Grand Slam, but if we put "at least one Grand Slam tournament singles title" and "without a Grand Slam tournament title" it would be more clearly defined from Laver and his two "Grand Slam" titles. Do we need the comma after title? Shouldn't it be removed with an "and" between title and onward? So it could read "Can only be created for players who have won at least one Grand Slam tournament singles title and onward from the year of their first title, provided they played at least 25 matches and reached a top 5 ranking during any year(s) without a Grand Slam tournament title." Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding 'tournament' for clarification. Not sure about the comma. At the risk of turning this into a punctuation exercise perhaps it should read "Can only be created for players who have won at least one Grand Slam tournament singles title, onward from the year of their first title and provided they played at least 25 matches and reached a top 5 ranking during any year(s) without a Grand Slam tournament title.". --Wolbo (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The article guideline has been updated to reflect the outcome of this discussion. Thanks to all participants. So, what's next? Formulate an RfC for WP:NTENNIS? --Wolbo (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that should work, Wolbo, and I think it will track the results from a GNG analysis in the overwhelming majority of cases. The formulation is not what I would have come up with on my own, but if it works for WP:TENNIS members and achieves the desired results, you will get no complaints from me. Thanks to you, Fyunck, Lajbi and others for seeing this through. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Notable?

I'm wondering whether other editors think Jamie Loeb, the top-ranked US college female player and ITA National Player of the Year, is notable per GNG, at this point. There are a number of articles devoted to her.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Always tough when it's a collegiate champion. Per our guideline she is not notable. No main draws in a WTA event. No wins in any notable ITF tournament, though she did make a final in a $100,000 doubles event. So she got close. As a junior she could only manage a high of 30 for a ranking. Her pro ranking is a low 596 but if she can get to 150, because of her Collegiate wins, she'll get a wildcard entry to the US Open. That might be tough to manage. Some of those links are to very local papers or the USTA, so not really useful. There is a feature in the jewish paper on her success. To be fair, there is also an espn article that talks of her to, so she's borderline GNG regardless of our guidelines. I might wait, but others here could say she squeaks in right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Tx for your thoughtful response. I'm not pointing to the sports-specific guideline, but rather to GNG. If the topic meets GNG, it appears to be irrelevant whether it meets the sports notability guideline.

The "it fails our guideline" language seems to afford our second-test-if-it-fails-GNG-sport-specific-guideline an importance it doesn't have; our sport-specific guide is just a second test if GNG is not met, to ward off deletion. Specifically, our sports-specific guideline's FAQ states:

Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?

A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines ... do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available....

Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?

A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist."

Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. If it meets GNG our guidelines are irrelevant. I was just pointing out the guidelines, which she does not meet. GNG I find to be borderline but others may disagree. I personally wouldn't create the article, but then again if it was created I doubt it would get deleted either. Just my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That's generally true, Fyunck, but certain specific NSPORTS guidelines arguably impose a higher standard than GNG. See, e.g., WP:NHSPHSATH for high school athletes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Arguably true. But I have been told many many times... if a person meets wikipedia's GNG, it trumps anything in nsports GNG. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

$$,$$$ +H

I am trying to understand the points for various tournaments. What is the difference between a $50,000 and a $50,000 + H tournament?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

+H means the tournament offers hospitality, i.e. a free room for main draw players. [10] says men also get breakfast. It's not mentioned for women but I don't know whether there is a difference. +H gives a little more ranking points than the same prize money without hospitality. See ATP Rankings#Ranking method and Women's Tennis Association#Ranking method. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Added tooltips to '+H' on various ITF articles to clarify its meaning. --Wolbo (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Tournament seeding

Why is a November 11 Futures tournament announcing seedings based on October 20 rankings per this story?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like sloppy research by the author of that story. There are no official draws or seeds yet at [11] or [12]. The latter shows the mentioned rankings under "Acceptance list" but that's on the date October 20 where rankings count for acceptance into the tournament. The seeds should be based on November 3 when they are published. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The seeds have been published. As expected, they are based on the November 3 rankings. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, I thought my guy (I am the primary editor of Jarmere Jenkins) should be a top seed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

ITF results

I have figured out how to "watch" challenger level results as the match progresses. Is there a way to watch ITF level results. What is the fastest source of information for completed ITF results.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

For the live ITF scores I am aware of this site: http://scores.itftennis.com/?alias=itf&layoutid=72&versionid=1&language=en Some tournaments also appear on flashscore, but I don't think that all of them are updated live. --Kompik (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been using the first one all week. It is adequate although I think some of the in game stats are done manually. Last night the first set of a match I was watching ended 6-3 and the break count was 3 to 0, which is impossible for a 6-3 set. However, as long as it gives me the set and game scores correctly, it is fine while I am multitasking.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)