Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:23, 11 August 2009.

List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions

 * Nominator(s): Don Lope (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

After a first wave of comments and answers, I have withdrawn and renominated the list per suggestion by The Rambling Man, to give a new boost to this candidacy. Don Lope (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support -- My issues were resolved in the previous FLC to meet WP:WIAFL.-- T ru  c o   503 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support -- The beefs that I had were cleared up in the other debate section. I think all of the grand slam lists (Australian, French, Wimbledon, US) on the men's sides are suitable for FA status. Next comes the women's for equality measures. TW-RF (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - looks good— Chris!  c t 00:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Serious inaccuracies and awkward phrasing remain in the article. Not all of the concerns expressed in the first featured nomination were addressed, and it seems like an abuse of process to have begun this second nomination (at the strong suggestion of The Rambling Man) without finishing the first one.  Is the objective to make this article "featured" regardless of its merits?  85.249.33.2 (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you operating from an open proxy again Chidel? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted Chidel's edit. All the phrasings that remain in the article's current version have been decided by consensus in the first FLC. --Don Lope (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a flat out lie, in several respects, and shows complete disrespect for this process. How about, for example, the error you made (and reinstated through your reversion) about the 9-point tiebreaker, which Wimbledon has never used? Was that "decided by consensus" at any point?  What is the purpose of this nomination if everything in the article is unchangeable based upon some alleged earlier consensus?  When are you going to stop exercising ownership of that article?  Your attitude and the fact that the article is unstable proves that this article is no where close to featured status.  98.222.42.233 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't your try to address the real issues instead of trying to ram through this nomination, The Rambling Man? 98.222.42.233 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: both open proxies used here have now been blocked. But just out of interest, I'm not ramming anything through.  I suggested the previous FLC had become TLDR so it was failed, restarted and I advised Don Lope to take anything outstanding from the previous FLC and work on it here.  And finally, the list will be promoted based solely on the consensus of the community, and that's not down to me.  Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally Chidel, it would be useful if you could register an account and stop using open proxies, that way your comments may not be discounted as the work of a blocked sockpuppeteer? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If only Chidel would open discussions before making major changes and were a tad more civil, perhaps we could work in a more constructive manner. I have kept most of his edits, tweaking perhaps a word or two, and addressed the factual concerns. I have only a couple of small issues --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC):
 * (1) "Grand Slams" is used in RS (ESPN, The Independent, atpworldtour.com, NY Times). Using it would help avoiding the repetition of "tournament" in the lead. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The real issue is what is the "best" usage for the article, not whether a particular usage can be found occasionally. Would you misspell a word in a featured Wikipedia article just because a google search can find the misspelling here or there?  I hope not.  "Grand Slams" is confusing because it has two possible meanings: (1) winning the Grand Slam by winning all four Grand Slam tournaments; or (2) a simple collective reference to the four Grand Slam tournaments.  It's easy to avoid this confusion by using "Grand Slam tournaments", and I don't understand the hesitancy in doing so other than an assertion of article ownership by you.  62.101.84.209 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see the point about an eventual ambiguity. OK for "tournaments", then. --Don Lope (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (2) "defending champion" can be used even when the champ isn't defending (CNN, ESPN). --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The real issue is what is the "best" usage for the article, not whether a particular usage can be found occasionally. Would you misspell a word in a featured Wikipedia article just because a google search can find the misspelling here or there?  I hope not.  "Defending" implies that the previous winner is trying to win the tournament again; so, it would be far better to avoid that term when the previous winner is absent. 62.101.84.209 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the RS using "defending champion" even when the champion isn't defending (AP/ESPN: "Defending champion Rafael Nadal withdrew from Wimbledon") ? I don't think there is any ambiguity with "...in the absence of the defending champion". --Don Lope (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. 62.101.84.209 (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked another editor who told me he saw no ambiguity either but "previous year's champion" was perhaps better, so I'll go for that, and use "defending champion" in the previous sentence to avoid repetition. --Don Lope (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (3) "Open" is capitalized in many RS (ESPN, Bloomberg, SI/CNN). atpworldtour.com even uses "Open Era", like the History of tennis article. A recent (short) discussion on the WikiProject Tennis talk ended with editors agreeing on "Open Era". --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The real issue is what is the "best" usage for the article, not whether a particular usage can be found occasionally. Would you misspell a word in a featured Wikipedia article just because a google search can find the misspelling here or there?  I hope not.  The "open era" discussion involved only two editors, which is hardly equivalent to "editors agreeing" on anything.  I'd wager that "open era" (uncapitalized) is far more prevalent in Wikipedia than any capitalized or partially capitalized permutation of the term. 62.101.84.209 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Open Era" is used in RS, in the History of tennis and Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era articles, and the editors involved in the WikiProject discussion have provided a good reason to use the capitalization, so I don't see why we shouldn't go for that. --Don Lope (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Don't see why", huh? Well, consensus should matter to you.  And the consensus in our articles is to use lower case.  62.101.84.209 (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to the discussion where that consensus was decided ? --Don Lope (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the consensus that was developed through editing. At your leisure, have a look at a large sampling of quality tennis articles to see what I mean about "open era" being the consensus usage. 174.143.236.197 (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had look around, and have seen plenty of quality tennis articles using "Open Era", and plenty of quality tennis articles using "Open era". I don't think there's any consensus out there on the question. And even if there was a consensus for "open era", nearly all sources use some sort of capitalization for the term. My preference goes to "Open era", but the arguments raised for "Open Era" is the previously mentioned Project discussion also seemed solid. What do you suggest ? Open another discussion on the project page ? --Don Lope (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (4) The text would flow better with one longer sentence instead of two here. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The single sentence you believe is "better" has a whopping 45 words, which is stream of consciousness instead of good writing. 62.101.84.209 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what sentence you're talking about. The one I'm proposing is: "All sets were decided in the advantage format starting in 1884, before the "lingering death" tie-break was introduced in 1971 for the first four sets, played at eight-all until 1978 and at six-all since 1979."--Don Lope (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence I referred to is at the link you, yourself provided. The sentence you just provided is still inferior to this: "All sets were decided by a two games difference from 1884 to 1970. The "lingering death" best-of-twelve-points tie-break was introduced in 1971 for the first four sets, played at eight-games-all until 1978 and at six-games-all since 1979."  62.101.84.209 (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked another editor's opinion and switched to his proposal: "All sets were decided in the advantage format from 1884 to 1970. The "lingering death" best-of-twelve-points tie-break was introduced in 1971 for the first four sets, played at eight-games-all until 1978 and at six-games-all since 1979." --Don Lope (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is generally satisfactory except I object to: 1) "tie-break" in lieu of "tiebreak" or "tiebreaker"; 2) "to" or "until" instead of "through"; and 3) the use of quotation marks around "lingering death" when none are used around other technical terms. 174.143.236.197 (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of tie-break/to/until was already discussed in the first FLC and there is nothing wrong with those terms, no reason to change them. Many RS use quotation marks around "lingering death" so that's why I put them in the first place but I guess it doesn't really matter so I removed them on the list. --Don Lope (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I will be recusing myself from this FLC, including any further comment and any possible promotion. I heartily recommend that all reviewers pay close detail to any factual concerns brought up by any editors here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources
 * Ref 19, the work and the publisher are the same. Remove the publisher. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed.

Comments – Most of my concerns were taken care of last time. Only found a couple of things that could be improved:
 * Most people know what a replica is, and I doubt it needs a link.
 * Delinked.
 * "Six of Renshaw's wins, however, came within the challenge round format, and he won the event only twice after going through a complete draw." Since he won seven times, one of the figures in this sentence is off.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 22:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed "Six of", as it was wrong, and probably unnecessary. --Don Lope (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support – Much hard work has gone toward bringing this list in line with FL standards, and I commend the nominator for his efforts. Hopefully this will be a strong template for future lists, and those FLCs should go smoother than this first attempt.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 22:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Why is Rafael Nadal in the lead on the French Open one when he has not eclipsed Bjorn Borg in the Open Era, which should be the standard to have the most in the Open Era to be in the lead? What is the reason for Agassi-Australian, Borg-French sic now ?Nadal?-French, Sampras-Wimbledon, and Federer-US, which that is because it is a breaker with Sampras and Connors because Fed won 5 consecutive unlike those two? Explain to me the change, Please Mr. Don Lope?98.240.44.215 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ideally, we should have the players holding the all-time records for most titles: Emerson for the AO, Borg for the French (Decugis' eight titles are rarely counted as real GS titles), Sampras for Wimbledon (Five of Renshaw's seven titles were won in the challenge round), and Tilden for the USO. Unfortunately, we don't have any Emerson pic, and the Björn Borg photo seems to be a copyright violation, that will most likely be deleted soon. So the next best idea, in my opinion, seems to have the most successful Open Era record holders: Agassi for the AO, Sampras for Wimbledon, Federer for the USO (as you said, five titles, but won consecutively), and Nadal for the French, since we can't use the Borg pic, and Nadal is the next best French Open champion after Borg in the Open Era. --Don Lope (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment!98.240.44.215 (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Why did you delete the open era record holders from the intro, which I think is biased to the Amateur Era, which needs to be balanced out in order to be fair in the prose. I can see putting Agassi(4)-Australian, Borg(6)-French, Sampras(7)-Wimbledon, Federer/Sampras/Connors(5)-US? Also, saying that you put consecutive records in the opening for the Amateur Era, which the same needs to be done for the Open Era in the Opening such as Ken Rosewall, Guillermo Vilas, Johan Kriek, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, Ivan Lendl, Jim Courier, Andre Agassi, and Roger Federer (2)-Australian Open, Bjorn Borg and Rafael Nadal (4)-French Open, Bjorn Borg and Roger Federer (5)-Wimbledon, Roger Federer (5)-US? Why is this not done?98.240.44.215 (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I went and looked, and we need to get the last paragraph in the intro's re-written, and we can do the challenge round and all, but we need to separate it into the more dramatic shift from amateur to professional from Championships to Opens? Why was this not done? I know I have gripes, but it is and has been overlooked because it is not written out in prose in the entries. Thanks for dealing with my concerns in advance! Have a nice day98.240.44.215 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you must have missed the words all-time in the intros. The four leads are not biased towards any era, Open or Amateur, as they only mention the all-time records (which is why Nadal and Borg are mentioned alongside Decugis and Aymé on the French list, and Sampras, Borg and Federer alongside Renshaw on the Wimbledon list). I think you're referring to the US Open list, which only mention Sears, Larned and Tilden, all Amateur Era players, but there it's just a coincidence that all US records are held by pre-1968 players. If, say, Federer wins the US Open this year, he will be added to the lead as the co-holder of the all-time record for most consecutive titles. --Don Lope (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I can see putting a different color for the Open Era and Amateur Era to show the line of demarcation! What do you think? This is a more dramatic shift in the tournament! The Australian needs to further indicate when it was staged in December versus in January! Their needs to be a visual cue as well when the tournaments switched surfaces from grass in the wikitables!98.240.44.215 (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the idea of having different colors for Open/Amateur Eras. Colors wouldn't be more informative, I believe, than the notes used in the current versions. I'm not sure either we need to have something in the Australian Open table to say when the tournament changed dates, as the info is already in the lead, and anyway not directly relevant to the competition itself (as opposed to, say, the change from challenge round to no challenge round). On the other hand, I agree something should be done for the Australian Open and the US Open about the surface switches. Again, I believe adding colors to the tables would be too much, but notes for each year in which the events changed their surface would perhaps be helpful. --Don Lope (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Without any accusations, is this IP part of the Chidel sock mess in the hidden section above? If not, and the IP is genuinely interested in the FLC, may I ask why he is not logged in? Matthewedwards : Chat  03:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Matthew. No, we're pretty sure this particular IP is not Chidel. As to why he is not logged in, I don't know.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.