Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 10

Federer Career Stats problem
We seem to have an editor problem at Roger Federer career statistics. Never mind the fact that the page is WAY over size limits and needs to be condensed before an admin does it for us. There is an editor "Praline97" who keeps adding in minor tournament timelines and also flag icons to the standard tournament timeline. I have asked him to stop (on his talk page and in edit summaries) and have reverted twice to no avail. I hate to report him but if he keeps it up we may have to since it is against consensus and our guidelines. Keep an eye out for his edits and we may have to tag team revert till he stops or bring in some administration help. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted it.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we need to semi-protect WP:SEMI a number of popular tennis-related pages, especially during the grand slam tournaments. There are so many IP-address editors coming in, who edit without considering any guidelines, and we are kept busy cleaning up all the time. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Boy that would be great during grand slam tournaments... that's when the kooks really come out of the woodworks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and temporary media attention (e.g. for grand slams) is a good argument for asking semi-protection. So, just let's do it and prepare for it when French Open comes. We will have to go through WP:RFP, but first we will need to agree on which articles need protection. I would suggest to start with the player articles of the top10 or even top20, men and women, and include any former grand slam winners that are still active but not in top10 anymore (e.g. Venus Williams). What about semi-protecting the current season articles for Djokovic, Nadal and Federer? Would it make sense to ask permanent protection for pages of certain top players, maybe the top4? E.g. The Djokovic articles seem to need our attention all the time. Any permanent protection could then be removed once the player is out of top 4. Thoughts? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past, administrators have really really frowned on any kind of permanent protection. They want everyone to be able to edit and essentially you'd be saying no anon IPs can edit Djokovic for the next 5 years. You can try but I would be more concerned with the time period of playing of the Majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Djokovic–Murray rivalry
This makes no sense, the article deserves to stay but it is not worth explaining to individuals, I think we have way too many Wikipedia bullies on here, especially refers to the user's MakeSense64 and Fyunck(click) who try to drive out all who contribute articles about tennis. I will try that this article is not deleted but I wonder whether it makes sense after such a relationship to relevant articles.Soundwaweserb (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to understand that tennis players play each all the time over the course of their careers. That is normal and is not rivalry worthy of an article. Rivalries need to be something truly special, even in a tennis sense. Murry-Djokovic is not, or at least not yet. If you feel it's bullying because we follow the Tennis guideline which says According to WP:NSPORTS, rivalries are not inherently notable. We can only have articles about tennis rivalries if there is SIGNIFICANT media coverage about the rivalry. For example, great rivalries like Sampras-Agassi or Federer-Nadal warrant an article, but articles about rivalries like Agassi-Rafter and Federer-Hewitt have been deleted by the community. If in doubt, consult WP:TENNIS before creating a new rivalry article. So maybe if you read the guidelines and make some queries this won't keep happening. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are these articles Djokovic-Nadal rivalry and Djokovic-Federer rivalry will be deleted also because they is not 'notable' rivalries? Easy it is obvious that individuals like you are trying to violently remove articles such people as you personally do not match. I do not know what you have against Novak Djokovic? Might cheer for Roger Federer or Rafa Nadal? I really do not know but it is obvious that you worry what Djokovic recalled the first player in the world and you are very biased. Soundwaweserb (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The main achievements in tennis are winning Grand Slam (tennis) singles tournaments and becoming World No 1. Consider List of Grand Slam related tennis records and List of ATP number 1 ranked singles players. Federer has 16 slam titles and 285 weeks as No 1. Nadal has 10 slams and 102 weeks as No 1. Djokovic has 5 slams and is the current No 1 with 35 weeks so far. Murray has never won a slam and never been No 1. He is in a lower league and his head to head results with the three top players of his time don't look like notable "rivalries". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you understand me, or is something else, maybe you did not understand me, I think that all these articles should retain the rivalry but I asked if all need to be removed because is not 'notable' for Fyunck(click) or MakeSense64? Whether this is the essence? I think Murray can win a Grand slam and be the first player in the future, you will see that this article will restart when they remove my opponents and again I ask what they have against Novak Djokovic,that is obvious and no doubt.Soundwaweserb (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The existance of one rivalry article obviously doesn't mean every other rivalry article should be allowed. What if somebody created a rivalry article for players who had never won anything or been in the top-20? Federer–Nadal rivalry, Djokovic–Federer rivalry and Djokovic–Nadal rivalry are the rivalries between the top-3 players of our time. All of them have won many slams and been World No. 1 for a long time. If Murray does so in the future then perhaps he will get rivalry articles but we don't make articles based on speculation about future notability which may or may not happen. They have to be notable now. See also WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines and Up and coming next big thing. I don't see why you think the proposed deletion means the editor has something against Djokovic. If anything, it is against Murray. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * These two users continuously removing articles related to Djokovic, I just asked a simple question why they behaved this way and it's not just the case to operate continuously, but apparently no one has a hearing and allowed this, because such acts of individuals Wikipedia unfortunately misses the point, I will no longer comment because it is possible to block me just because my opinion which is, they are (Fyunck(click) and MakeSense64) the Wikipedia bullies and can do whatever they want here. Wish you all the best PrimeHunter.Soundwaweserb (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What you fail to realize is that you are a massive Djokovic fan and edit lots of articles with Djokovic in them so naturally you think we pick on him because that's all you see as a fan. We edit lots of tennis articles and if for some reason Djokovic based entities are getting more attention lately it could be because he is number one now, lot's of strange edits are happening to his pages by fly-by-night spammers or perhaps because you don't read or follow Tennis Project Guidelines like we ask you too. I don't know what MakeSence's rational is, not being able to speak for him, but if I see something amiss I fix it as seems correct and if it doesn't stick I bring it up here or on it's talk page. I won't stand by and see our project's regulations, regulations nurtured and tweaked for years, trampled on and tossed aside. We try to work within those guidelines. When you were banned by wiki recently for personal attacks I was one who asked for your pardon. Why? Because I knew you were a Djokovic fan and tennis fan who would probably stay on top of the latest Djokovic stats better than many others, and I hoped that as long as you stayed within Tennis Project Guidelines you would be an asset here. I still hope that it will work out. We need your passion here but we don't need your verbal abuse and lies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a problem when strong fans try to edit or create articles, because wikipedia insists on "neutral point of view' WP:NPOV and it is difficult for strong fans to be neutral. But of course, somebody who is not interested in tennis is not likely to edit tennis articles.
 * We didn't create the wikipedia criteria for having a standalone article about something. If Soundwaweserb thinks the WP guidelines have it all wrong, then he is always welcome to propose changes at the village pump WP:VP and maybe the community will implement his ideas.
 * Once the WP policies and guidelines are changed, then we will start using the new guidelines, but for now we work with the current ones. It appears to me that Soundwaweserb refuses to accept that WP work by concensus WP:CONCENSUS.
 * Djokovic and Murray do not have a notable rivalry, because we do not have any IN DEPTH media coverage "about the rivalry". The article has only two references, one is the ATP head-to-head page and the other is a regular article reporting the Australian Open final between them, and the word "rivalry" does not even appear in the article. That's why we do not need this rivalry article on WP. If some day several independent media start writing in depth about the great rivalry between Djokovic and Murray, then we can create an article. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Rivalry articles again
Once again we have editors creating more new rivalry pages. I just Prod-ed these: Djokovic–Murray rivalry and Ivanović–Janković rivalry. And what about this new article? Women's tennis rivalries. How can we get tennis editors to work on the articles we really need, rather than continue to create useless articles that will not survive AfD? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already agreed to you prods. As for the rivalry page... borderline. It's not that it's useless (though the 2010's and other rivalry sections should be cut) but you are correct that other pages need working on way ahead of this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the rivalry article can be renamed to List of tennis rivalries and then we could also include the main men's rivalries in it. Would make for a better article. Then the not so notable rivalries that do not deserve a standalone article could get brief mention. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad idea. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the The Trivalry.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh my god! I didn't even know that article existed, LOL. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm having nightmares of the "quartrivalry" being created someday.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have put The Trivalry in AfD. We already have 3 articles about the rivalry between these 3 players, and the article itself says very little about "the trivalry". We cannot just make articles for every word play that gets invented and picked up by a few sports journalists. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

These comments show the way the thing about the articles on the rivalry and will definitely be deleted, my comment below is completely confirmed. I will not try anything and I will not take part in this story, I hope to have other users or administrators may oppose the deletion of these articles, I do not participate because they do not worth a try ... Soundwaweserb (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Doubles teams and Tennis umpires #1
How do we handle standalone articles for the most famous doubles teams? I notice we have no guidelines for it. Which teams do we consider notable enough to get a standalone article? I found articles like The Woodies and Indo-Pak Express. The Bryan brothers are found as Bob and Mike Bryan, while Bryan brothers redirects to it. Should there not also be an article for John McEnroe and Peter Fleming? Others? Many long standing teams have nicknames, but I think it is not right to use the nickname as the name for main article about the team. The nickname should be used as redirect to real name of the team. Thoughts? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would keep on using the nicknames (if there's any) per media coverage. Other sports-related articles also use nicknames, when it comes to doubles teams (it's hard to find similar team-structure, but I would cite wrestling as an example). Also readers will find it more easily than a xyw and xyz title. Anyway the latter formula will be the one to use if there's no common known teamname. The notability...well I'd be very severe with it. 2 or 3 Slams at least just to make sure ad-hoc teams won't get a green light here (team rankings are always year-to-date so I would omit them). Also I would strictly prohibit mixed doubles teams to be created at all.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also if it comes to set a rule for it it should be a general criteria applyable for pre-open era tennis articles. Otherwise there would be nothing against a Jacques Brugnon and Henri Cochet article (note that The Four Musketeers already exist - I still have doubts about its worthiness).  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was also my thinking to limit doubles team articles to the most famous ones, thus only those with multiple slams.
 * Maybe teams voted for ATP_Awards could have their own article, what you think?
 * While we are at it. We also have 3 tennis umpire articles listed in this category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tennis_umpires. One is completely unsourced article, and the other two seem to have an article only because of a recent controversy. These articles have too much weight on the negative controversy, which is against WP guidelines for living people. If we cannot find sourced prose to make a balanced article for them, then we probably shouldn't have these tennis umpire articles. I took a look at other sports and found this List of football referees. It seems like most referees do not get an article, even though in football there is arguably much more being written about the referees. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Mohamed Lahyani is just a redirect to the Isner-Mahut match, which is kinda ridiculous. "The chair umpire throughout the match was the Swedish official Mohamed Lahyani." That's it. The only information it contains is his name. In general the biggest problem with referees is that there is no significant coverage out there other than about their bad calls. Secondly does the "Gold Badge in Chair Umpiring from the International Tennis Federation" makes them notable?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  12:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow look at this category. Is it really necessary? Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a subcategory of Category:Nicknamed groups of sportspeople, so it's not alone. There is also Category:Nicknames in sports. So there are cases where a nickname became so widely used that it replaced the common name, and then we may find an article under the nickname. Artists/singers are typically listed under their artist name. In sports it is not like that, although there are notable nicknames. For our doubles teams I am still not so sure. The nickname never replaced the real name, for example when the 'Woodies' played at Wimbledon you would never see "The Woodies" on the scoreboard. Just like many football teams have a nickname (or shorthand name), but we would never see that on the scoreboard and their WP article is always under the official name. Tells me that we should probably list doubles teams with their official name and put a redirect at the nickname. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As for our tennis referee articles. If we cannot improve them, then we probably shouldn't have them. I did some search and it is indeed difficult to find any in depth positive coverage about the tennis umpires. We know their faces, but they stay mostly out of the spotlights, which is how it should be. Maybe we should just put them into AfD and see what the broader community thinks. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both. The "official" point of view convinced me. Wrestling teams compete under their pseudonyms, while the e.g. Bryans don't. So yeah have them redirected. As for the umpires let's AfD them all and we'll see what next. As for the category I've posted, I think that it is not necessarily needed to have a tennis subcategory for nicknamed groups just because it exist in other sports. As we just agreed to not have nicknamed teams (so the Woodies will be just a redirect page) and I proposed the merging of The Four Musketeers to the France DC team there would be only one page left in it. That is the Handsome Eight, that is just a two paragraph excerpt of the World Championship Tennis (if it would be up to me, I'd merged them back to World Championship Tennis). We really don't need nicknamed groups category now that those are not official.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead we could have a Category:Tennis teams and put articles like Williams sisters there (needs also to be redirected to Serena and Venus Williams - in my opinion). Currently it has the categories: Sibling duos, Indian Wells Masters, Boycotts of events. None of these are proper to a tennis team.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll go on and create that category, it will be useful to have all team-related articles in one place. Counting with the possibility of mixed doubles teams (still not supporting it) I'll will create a unisex category for all teams without splitting it into genders. Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is already a Category:Davis Cup teams and Category:Fed Cup teams, so maybe you better go for Category:Tennis doubles teams to avoid confusion. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. I'll make it your way.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

http://beta.itftennis.com
Just to let everyone know ITF is revamping its website and all player searches redirect to this beta site (which is yet unfinished). The change will affect articles with ITF references as well as such templates as Template:ITF male profile and Template:ITF female profile and so on. Gotta keep an eye on it what its final outcome will be.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

NSW Tennis Centre
What's the current name of that tennis centre? The article says it's NSW Tennis Centre, and Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre was a former name. But, it seems to be quite the opposite way. At the 2000 Olympics, it seems to have been called NSW Tennis Centre, whereas the name currently used seems to be Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre. link1 link2 link3 --August90 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. I used Google Earth to visit Sydney and search on "NSW Tennis Centre" didn't yield a direct hit, while "Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre" went straight there, suggesting that that is the current name. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a hazy thing. Mapit uses NSW Tennis Centre, as does Live Tennis Guide and Tennis Earth. A recent 2011 book on amazon also mentions the place. Yet I also see your links mentioned above too. Maybe it has a dual name? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, both names seem to be used, so we can ask which one is most common. "Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre" gets 161000 hits on google, while "NSW Tennis Centre" gets 139000, but many of these link to pages with "Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre" in the title.
 * Foursquare.com lists "Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre" but not "NSW Tennis Centre", see:
 * Right now Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre redirects to NSW Tennis Centre, but it probably makes sense to reverse that. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre is the most official name, as it's on Tennis Australia site, and that name is used in the official logo. It's also been known as Sydney International Tennis Centre. So, I think Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre should be the article name, others redirects. --August90 (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably best. I did just email the event to ask them details about why the two names. We won't be able to use it as a source but if they respond at least we'll know what's going on there or maybe they'll direct me to a source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Before this topic gets archived, I return to this. Fyunck(click), did you get a reponse to your email. If you get, then we obviously use the name that was in the message. If you didn't get, then I think we should make Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre the article name and NSW Tennis Centre a redirect, as Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre seems to be currently the most often used name. Furthermore, I think the name Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre describes the venue better. --August90 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally forgot about this post. Sadly I never got an email back from them. :-( Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what shall we do? Keep the article at NSW Tennis Centre, or move it to Sydney Olympic Park Tennis Centre? --August90 (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Court articles
Does Wikipedia need minor court pages? The first two are 2000-3000 crowd capacity courts (I would cut them at min. 5000) will be used for warm-ups (!) for the 2012 Summer Olympics. All these articles can tell is that they hosted some matches, which were upsets, because lower ranked players beat top 10 opponents. Or that it is is situated in the backyard of a hospital (Burton). Please express your thoughts on just to name a few.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  22:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No. 2 Court (Wimbledon) - (Merge to Wimbledon Courts article)
 * No. 3 Court (Wimbledon) - (Merge to Wimbledon Courts article)
 * Burton’s Court - (Remove category "Tennis venues in London", if it's not an active or notable court)
 * Tennis Courts (Berlin) - (Keep per olympics, it's a week keep I'd say and such guidelines Olympics makes everything notable around  should be reconsidered)
 * Kastles Stadium at The Wharf - (AfD?)


 * Amazing sometimes that the courts at Wimbledon have their own articles. Burton's Court seems to be a historic public park rather than just a tennis court. Tennis Courts (Berlin) is ridiculous. MakeSense talked about Tennis Clubs here at the tennis guidelines talk page (where we talk shop about other things tennis) so maybe some of those ideas we used can be applied here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Briefly, my thoughts: I think No. 2 Court Wimbledon is notable due to its champions graveyard status, which there are sources for, while No. 3 court is definitely borderline, as is the Kastles staidum. Burton's Court is really more of a municipal park then a tennis court/stadium and thus has different notability guidelines, which it appears to meet.  Tennis Courts (Berlin) were an Olympic venue, and the consensus that I've seen is that all permanent venues are inherently notable.  Overall though, I disagree with the idea of a capacity restriction (or even guideline) as to when a court is notable or not.  We should be looking solely at the number and quality of sources.  Ravendrop 23:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why can't Wimbledon Courts 2 and 3 simply be incorporated into the Wimbledon Courts article? It's a relatively small article with plenty of room for info on court 2 and 3. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I support that. (For the record I forgot about that page, and was looking at the championship page when seeing if it could merged somewhere). Ravendrop 23:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's sum up (see above).  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  08:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a footnote to be considered: In the minor town I'm living I can name: a court that is situated in a century-old park, a court that is the home of a tennis club and is the frequent host of national inter-club championship matches, and a sport complex that is used by multi-Olympic champions to warm up. Two courts that were the venues of a Davis Cup and Fed Cup match. I wouldn't even think to add them here since Wikipedia is not a tourist guide.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  08:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about the Kastles Stadium being AFD'd. It's an entire stadium, not just a court, that was specially built for the Washington Kastles tennis team and World Team tennis. Granted it's not as big as the Honda Centre, where the Anaheim Ducks play hockey, but more seats might actually be filled. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It will be good to consider that the WP notability guidelines for places and landmarks are very low. See WP:NPLACE. If it exists it often survives AfD. When I first saw the standalone articles for courts 2 and 3 on Wimbledon I was also thinking that they should be merged together with the Centre Court article. But given that there are standalone articles like Louis Armstrong Stadium and Margaret Court Arena, it is only normal to also have standalone articles for the 2 and 3 courts at Wimbledon. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also WP:LOCAL says:"Initially, information on places of local importance should be added to an article on the community where that place is located." and that "Adding a large number of small stubs at one time tends to cause concern and is discouraged." . So one paragraph-length articles shouldn't encouraged to stay if they aren't landmarks. I guess none of these are.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Courts (of any kind) where international events are held are not just places of local importance. These are also not one-paragraph articles. And even one-paragraph places may survive AfD. For example, this one was a Keep: Articles for deletion/Spartak Tennis Club. The bar is really low for places and venues. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * True, it is a pretty low bar. But lets look at Margaret Court Arena. It's part of Melbourne Park which has it's own article as it should, yet it's a woefully small article at 6,180 bytes. Wouldn't it also be better with the info for Margaret Court Arena merged into it? Same with Louis Armstrong Stadium. It's part of Billie Jean King National Tennis Center which is a pitiful 8,151 bytes in size. It seems like if the parent article is so small and needing of more info, that the articles that sprang from it should be merged. "IF" however the main article itself is huge then by all means find items in the article to have their own stand-alones. thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That used to be my thinking too. But I guess there is a different reason for keeping this to separate articles. These stadiums are often used for other purposes throughout the year. There may be a concert in the Louis Armstrong Stadium, or some gay event in the Margaret Court Arena. So, visitors may want to find that specific stadium. Articles for places and landmark always give exact place coordinates (useful for gps). This doesn't work so well anymore if different stadiums are thrown into one article. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL...I had not considered that aspect... the coordinates with different events. Still not sure about it but it does make sense MakeSense. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's something I realized when I tried to add the coordinates to Tennis Courts (Berlin). It is a very small article, but it was quite tough to find out where these olympic tennis courts had actually been. To find the olympic venues is of course easy, but some tourist may want to know where the tennis was being played. So, that's why there are articles for each of the buildings within major sports venues. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the court must be special in some ways to have an article in Wikipedia. The specialty may be that it's relatively large, it's used also for other events than tennis, it's very old, it's hosted numerous memorable matches, or something like that. Wimbledon's old No. 2 Court hosted numerous memorable matches, and it wasn't just a coincidence. Those losing legends played there because that court had biggest seating capacity after the stadium courts. But that court doesn't exist anymore. That court was also known as Court No. 3, and its area is now used by Courts No. 3 & 4. And the new Court No. 2 is where Court No. 13 used be located. So, after all we can't say the new Court no. 2 is the "Graveyard of Champions". Court No. 2 is just a name, nothing more. That's why I think there's no need for an article. That's the case with Court No. 3, too. Maybe a good rule of thumb could be that court's with more than 10,000 seats can have an own article. That'd mean there would be articles for the two main courts of each slam. Smaller stadium courts could have a separate article from the tennis centre if the stadium court is special in some ways, e.g. used by other sports, yet usually in those cases there's no article about the centre itself (e.g. Kooyong Stadium). --August90 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's really difficult to create standard criteria for tennis court articles. The situation differs too much from case to case. Some have long history, other courts are very new. Some are considered landmarks, others are not. Some are part of multi-purpose venues, others are used only for tennis. So we cannot really make it depend on seating capacity only. This list article gives a good idea of some of the tennis court articles we currently have: List of tennis stadiums by capacity and we also have this category: Category:Tennis venues. It is also good to note that the courts for the French Open were kept into one article Stade Roland Garros, unlike what we see for the other slams. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Canada Masters
Is this the "Canada Masters", "Canadian Open" or "Rogers Cup" as a category name? See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_28

70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The page is in the process of being moved from Rogers Cup (tennis) to Canadian Open (tennis). The redirect page has some minor edit so the move is being handled by an administrator. We try to use a legitimate non-sponsored name but this one slipped through the cracks. To this day it is still often called the Canadian Open by the press, see here and here and here. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ivanovic-Jankovic rivalry
Hey there. I mean, I don't want to get into an argument with anyone because it's not really worth it but I do think that this article should stay. I've looked at reasons at why the Djokovic-Murray article should be deleted and yes, you guys make a point there. But I mean, to sya this is not a rivalry is overreaching. They've both been ranked No. 1 in the world, both have had considerable successes in their careers, they're from the same country and there is obvious bad blood between them. And well, most of the citations I've included in the article mention the fact this is a rivalry. And I think it's better written than most rivalry articles out there. It's not just a head-to-head page or something and it's not over the top either. It's pretty neutral and I've only mentioned notable events between the pair. So perhaps the nomination for deletion should be put on hold or reconsidered? Visual planet (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting points but often there is bad blood between players. A couple things... Stand-Alone rivalry articles need to be something really special or they don't meet tennis guidelines. This rivalry isn't talked about really AT ALL. You can find a press report on anything but no one cares about this because both players have sort of imploded. Rivalries take quite awhile to nurture. Remember we write for history too. 20 years from now when people write press articles about the 2000s and 2010s in tennis you think they will ever mention the Ivanovic-Jankovic rivalry. Not a chance as it stands right now. But, important for you, this deletion request is a "proposed deletion" only so if you "object to deletion for any reason" simply remove the proposal request (all the stuff in – ) and explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. Proposals are for pretty much cut and dry deletions. The fact you are objecting here would change that but no one will do it for you. Then if consensus is still to delete it, a formal "nominate for deletion" procedure can take place where reasons are laid out and discussed, polls are taken, and finally someone looks at the all the reasons and makes a decision one way or the other. No hard feelings if you remove the proposal since it's your right to do so if you see fit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right about the history thing but Visual planet has also a good point in fulfilling all these criteria that was set against Djokovic-Murray. Both girls were ranked number 1 and one of them certainly won a major. The same nationality also fuels the heat of the rivalry. BUT. It could also serve as a basis for a Rafael Nadal - Juan Carlos Ferrero rivalry. Nadal leads 7-2, almost the same as for our girls, the are both Spanish, won major, were number 1. And certainly had a rivalry on who's to be crowned the king of clay. Do they deserve their page? No. So 2 instances of press beef and cyber bullying won't repel an AfD. If it could be expanded with two or three more controversial events or something bigger, then please do so otherwise I'd vote for delete when it comes to deciding.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  08:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget that rivalry articles like Agassi-Chang were almost unanimously deleted recently. They were also from same country and obviously have more slam victories together than Ivanovic and Jankovic. It is not our fault that WP puts the bar rather high for any kind of rivalry articles, also in other sports. There has to be in depth coverage in several reliable media and it has to be about the rivalry, before it can be considered notable enough to get a standalone article. See WP:NSPORTS. If, some years down the road, both Ivanovic and Jankovic have slams to their credit, and have met in several major finals, and media talks in depth about their rich rivalry,... then we can start thinking about a rivalry article for them. Remember, there is no Serena Williams - Kim Clijsters rivalry article either. Why not? Because they have not met in major finals. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, the Djokovic-Murray rivalry must be deleted, and the Ivanovic-Jankovic rivalry as well. It is just not significant yet in terms of RS(Reliable Sources) for either of them to be created in the English-language Wikipedia. The Ivanovic-Jankovic rivalry might be consider to be one on the Serbian-language Wikipedia, which they do in fact have one of those. So, I would suggest to put both up for deletion at the same time.HotHat (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Generic version of Template:DavisCupbox?
Can there be a generic version of this one? One that doesn't use countrydata templates? – H T  D  15:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You wan't a version without flags? Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 21:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. And if possible, perhaps an option of best of 3 and 5 sets so that it can be flexible. – H T  D  01:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging our multiple tennis records articles
As per recent extensive discussion, I have started to merge tennis records articles. I am starting with trying to merge Fastest recorded tennis serves and Tennis players with most titles since 1968 into List of open era tennis records. Also Grand slam champions who saved match points (from 2000) can go into List of Grand Slam related tennis records. If there is no objection then these mergers can be done after one week. We will also need more cleanup in these articles. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those sound like good ideas to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Denes Lukacs > Dénes Lukács move request
I'm sure all here have a working knowledge of Tennis project consensus and guidelines through the years so I'll leave that be. An article created at Denes Lukacs is up for moving to Dénes Lukács. I created the original article so my feelings about it are known, but regardless of your stance take a peek and add an opinion to the situation if you like. Since it could affect some other tennis articles in the future I thought maybe a heads up to tennis fans might be in order so they're not left out no matter what side of the fence they wander. Just an FYI...Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

List of tennis rivalries
Okay we all agreed on rivalries before and got rid of some of them by time. Now I don't want to make a trend by pointing the spotlight at it, but it seems that some of the non-notable ones were transferred to a "list". I don't know if lists have a different regulation but this article compiles nothing but a series of collapsible head-to-heads. Also its name is List of tennis rivalries and is only reserved for women but that's the lesser problem with it. The major thing is that it exists.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a new article. I had proposed to rename Women's tennis rivalries to List of tennis rivalries, and posted the idea on the article creator's talk page. He seems to have been bold and gone ahead with it already. This is OK. Of course the list will need to set proper inclusion criteria and be improved. But hopefully this will help to keep people from creating more standalone rivalry articles that do not meet notability guidelines. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the good intent but I don't think it will keep anyone away from creating new rivalries. Seasoned editors weighs notability before doing so and obsessed tennis fans and newcomer Wikipedians won't ever find this list (as they don't find our guidelines neither). And I still think head-to-heads are not worthy of an article no matter how many of them is put together. It's no better than a gallery of photos where the two players having rivalries are put in a split pic face to face and their H2H record is in the caption. I know the article was a solution to a previous issue but that doesn't relieve it from now being the issue.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * An article always should stand on its own, not be created to avoid problem with other articles. Of course, if less unnecessary rivalry pages are created because of this list, then that would be a nice bonus. We do have some 30 standalone rivalry articles that were kept in AfD. So it makes sense to have a list of tennis rivalries. But it should not become yet another repository of match results and other fancruft. You can see how I am adding the men now. Will also make a table for the women. It doesn't need to be much more than that. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done some work on this list article. Seeing the result I am starting to think that Hingis–S. Williams rivalry should also be deleted (not enough meetings to be a notable rivalry), while Graf–Sanchez-Vicario rivalry probably deserves an article. Thoughts? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not always easy calls is it? Hingis-Williams does seem a bit paltry on meetings for a true rivalry, and while Graf-Vicario met more times my recollection in the press was that there was talk of Graf-Seles, Graf-Navratilova, Graf-Sabatini... but not much talk of "Rivalry" between Graf and Vicario. I guess I'd have to look around for old articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not even in the list until I found Graf-SV as nr9 in this article about 10 greatest rivalries (men and women):Tennis's 10 Greatest Rivalries. They met in 7 grand slam finals (= a lot). Hingis and S.Williams met in only 1 grand slam final. I think Graf-Sabatini was talked about because Sabatini always lost. How about Davenport–V. Williams, also seems more deserving of a standalone article than many others in the list? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 7 Major finals is a LOT. The number is impressive but to have a stand-alone was there a lot of talk and press about it being a "rivalry?" Maybe there was, I just don't recall but maybe that's because neither the two were what you'd call charismatic. Pause for a quick google search. Back. I do see Houston Chronicle article, NY Times article, and yahoo sports entry. So my memory of what the press thought is probably a bit faulty. It's only problem is the overall lopsidedness of the rivalry but that really doesn't matter. Thumbs up to it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Tennis Barnstar
I had created this a year ago (forgot about it till now) and gave it out informally a couple times. I was talking with the Barnstar editors and they thought I should bring it up here to see if perhaps we would want this as our semi-official "Project Barnstar" to get it added to the Awards Page or perhaps the Barnstar page. Probably a better fit in Awards but that's really up to those that maintain the barnstars. Either way it needs to be approved here first. I kept it very basic and recognizable so everyone could have fun with it. If we decide not to use it as a project award I can always add it to the list of personal awards where everyone and anyone can add something. That's where I was going to add it but then I thought maybe we'd want to make it more tangible and official.



Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 02:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks great! ( G a b i n h o >:) 20:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC))

Problematic articles
What about these articles? Tennis performance timeline comparison (women) and Tennis performance timeline comparison (men) The women's article is way too long (246kB) and among the few references I can read that Myskina is pregnant. The men's article is shorter, starting from 1967, but I think both articles are almost unreadable and I see no easy way to make them readable. If I want to see the performance timeline of a player, it will be much more convenient to go find it in the player's article. And to compare the timelines of two players is very hard, unless they are right next to each other in the list. So, what is actually the purpose here? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually kind of like them and use them from time to time (as do a few newspaper reporters I know). At a glance I can see the pattern of who dominated and who didn't over a 6 year span. You are correct that they're long so we could split them into sizable chunks. As I read the size guidelines I do see "These guidelines apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages... They also apply less strongly to list articles." And also "If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact." We also have to assume that he mens article will one day be as big as the womens. They had an attempt to delete the page once and it was buried in a wave of keeps, so it must stay. I guess it could be cut into 3rds and retitled so each section is about 100k. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The women's lists were a bit more readable before 1999, because the more dominant players were put on top, not just alphabetical. Maybe we can make the lists sortable. I think it would also be more readable if we only include players that at least won a slam (now it has many 1 time finalists). It would also be more readable if the "A" gets replaced by "." (would make the real results stand out better). Another problem is the 6 year spans, which makes "winner of most titles.." for each section quite arbitrary. Is there a way to make it a more continuous table (maybe with vertical timeline) ? MakeSense64 (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with clumping best players first... it used to be that way and it was better. I'd have to see a chart with replaced "A" to comment thought the usual thing to use in that case would be a "-". Not so sure about winners only as I kind of like it the way it is. As for vertical it could work if you could turn the players names 90 degrees, otherwise it seems like it would increase the width way too far. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "-" seems to be taken already for indicating years before and after official career. It is unnecessary. Look at Mary Pierce, we go on adding "A" because she is not officially retired (but some players never officially retire). Maybe we should just use "-" instead of "A" to make the tables more readable. Will discuss it on the pages in question. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy Roddick Foundation
Does this need a standalone article? I notice that Andre Agassi foundation was kept nicely in his main article under philantropy. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that it loosely meets WP:ORG and WP:ORGFAQ but I'm pretty sure every former and current number one male player has a similar charity organization and not sure each one of them needs a spin-off article on their own.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  19:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. For example Nadal's foundation is also mentioned in the "off the court" section of his biography article. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Links from seeds to draw sections
I suggest that seeded players in draw articles get a piped link from their seed to their draw section. I often do a browser search or scroll up and down to find the section for a player of interest. A link would be practical. Qualifying gets less attention but for consistency we should also do it there if the main draw gets links. Here is how it could look compared to the current formatting: This was made with templates designed to resemble the current auto-numbered list format. If we format it ourselves instead of relying on the list format then the format could be different, but I like the current format. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Main draw: 2012 BNP Paribas Open – Women's Singles becomes User:PrimeHunter/sandbox4
 * Qualifying draw: 2012 BNP Paribas Open – Women's Singles becomes User:PrimeHunter/sandbox4
 * Qualified players: 2012 BNP Paribas Open – Women's Singles becomes User:PrimeHunter/sandbox4
 * On first glance I really like the way it works. I too have hunted for the seed in the draw sheet by scrolling or using "find" in firefox... this would sure be easier. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea, but it took me a while to figure out how it works. It should come with a small instruction, something like : "You can click on the number in front of a seeded player to locate him/her in the draw." The question is: can this be baked in in the general draw template, or will it have to be modified and entered separately for each tournament? MakeSense64 (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have made Seeds explanation and added it to the bottom of User:PrimeHunter/sandbox4. It says "Click the seed of players to see their draw section." This is succinct and works for both men, women and doubles. The links between seeds and sections have to be made separately for each tournament. This should be simple with seeds. If there is support then maybe we can get a bot to help with old draws. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Better. Maybe more clear: "Click on the seed number of a player to go to their draw section.". I am not sure, but instructions like that might have to be written in italics. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I added it with a doubles option so gives:
 * Are there any objections to introducing this link system in articles? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me. It improves things, so I can't see why anyone would object. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good usability improvement. Go for it. --Wolbo (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good usability improvement. Go for it. --Wolbo (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Independent sources in draws?
Should we demand independent sources in draw articles? Armbrust added primary sources to 2012 BNP Paribas Open – Women's Singles. I removed it with edit summary "remove , no need for independent sources in a draw article with purely stat-like info". Armbrust readded it and gave me a template warning  (thanks for the experience, my first one after 23000 edits and six years, four as administrator). We may have thousands of draw articles where the only listed reference is the draw at an official site. The only prose is usually a couple of lines like "A was the defending champion but lost to B in round X. C defeated D in the final." See for example 2010 BNP Paribas Open – Women's Singles. I don't think we should demand independent sources for draws of tournaments listed at WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. If somebody wants to spend time adding additional sources for information already sourced in the official draw then go ahead, but maintenance tags like primary sources seem ugly and unnecessary to me. The same applies to one source which was added to 2012 BNP Paribas Open – Men's Doubles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically Ambrust is correct. I would have called the WTA something between a primary and secondary source because the primary source would be the Indian Wells Masters event itself. The WTA then takes, scrutinizes and publishes the draw that you used as a source. It can't be denied however that the WTA is intrinsically involved with the tournament which could be argued makes them a primary source. I would wish we could tag the source to ask any who read it to check and see if they can find a better source, rather than have an ugly header that may never be removed for the fact the draw may never be published by true secondary sources. I would agree to vanquishing it for the draws but we don't have the power to affect wiki policy here at Tennis project. That would need to be explained and asked for someplace else, which I have done for us here. We'll see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PrimeHunter just pointed out the second main problem of the tennis draw articles, almost every one of them have very minimal context, thus the Context tag could be added to them too. They depend too much on their parent article, which is is most cases completely unsourced (thus they are marked with unreferenced). The "A was the defending champion but lost to B in round X. C defeated D in the final." is very little context for the article and they need more. The tags primary sources (for singles draw articles) and one source (for double draw articles) are correctly applied, because the the tournaments are part of the professional tennis tours, which are organized by the ATP, the WTA or the ITF (or a combination of these two). According to the GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article", but it looks from this complaint, that Primehunter thinks tennis draw articles should be exception to this. I see two ways to fix this. Either the tennis draw articles are merged with their parent articles (just like the badminton tournament articles, like: 2012 All England Super Series Premier, don't have 5 sub-article for the draws alone) or they are expanded with more context and more independent sources (just like the 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits?  08:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically every header is ugly. But that's not a reasoning. Nor is that it is easier. If its purpose - the Wikipedia requirement issue - still exist, then it should stay. Based on ugliness many could argue for the removal of such templates. As for the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability question we don't all agree that it's a problem. As you and I discussed a month earlier there even are draws that are unsourced in Wikipedia (or sourced from tennisforum.com), if they got tagged with some sort of verification template we couldn't complain a word about it. It would be nice to encourage editors to find proper sources to these draws or even include it in our guidelines. We can find reliable sources like tennis.com that publishes the draws (BNP Paribas Men's) so it isn't a big thing to replace them.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Armbrust is right that articles should not rely only on primary sources. But, per WP:PRIMARY it is acceptable to use primary sources for straightforward factual material (I think draws and results are in that category.). It would not be any problem if the articles came with sufficient prose that is referenced by secondary sources. So the problem is more that we make standalone draw articles without any prose to with it. Whether the ITF is a primary source for a draw is a rather complicated question. The ITF organizes the Fed Cup and the Davis Cup, so then there is more reason to see them as a primary source. The ordinary tournaments are independent organizations, who have agreed to use the ITF tennis rules, and who work with the ATP or WTA to get their tournament on the calendar (and make it count for rankings). It is more like a symbiotic relationship between the tournaments and the ATP-WTA-ITF. Sometimes tournaments sue the ATP in court (like happened with Hamburg a couple years ago). This definitely shows that the tours are independent from the tournaments.
 * So, I understand the situation like this. A tournament, say Dubai, signs up participants and makes the draw. They send this draw to ATP or WTA and to the ITF. So, Dubai tournament is the primary source of this draw, and when the tours or ITF publish it on their site, then they become secondary sources. If a journalist takes the draw from the ATP site, then he is in fact becoming a tertiary source. While the tours and the ITF are not independent from tennis, they are independent from the tournaments, and they are also independent from the players. So, I think we can use them, but only for plain facts like results or draws.
 * My idea has always been that the real solution is this. Right now we put prose about individual matches in the player's articles or in their "tennis player by year" article. The result of this is that our player articles become very long in the career section (making it necessary to split of "yearly" articles for top players). Meanwhile our article about the tournaments and draws have virtually no prose. If we put match reports in the tournament articles, then they would have prose to go with the draw, and meanwhile we could be shorter in our player articles, by using a wikilink to the tournament page where the player had notable results. It would also mean that a match report is not found twice (in each player's article), but just once (in the tournament article). MakeSense64 (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Per my question and answer at Wikipedia Verifiability, the draws are sourced great as they are. We can use the actual tournament as the source as well as the ITF or WTA or ATP. There really should be no problem with primary sources or single sources with draws. There were at least 2 administrators who said remove those tags. So that should be that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good news. Several of them also seem to say that we should have at least some prose referenced on a secondary source. That could be as simple as adding a brief paragraph in the beginning about who won this tournament and against who, sourcing it to an article about the final (which we can always find on yahoo or espn). MakeSense64 (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Rankings articles
We already have a standalone article for ATP rankings, which explains the history and changes in the rankings method. For WTA rankings we do not have a standalone article, although it also has its own history ( I remember the "quality points" system of some years ago), and could also contain a section about controversies around the rankings (as has been in the news a lot around women being ranked No. 1 without winning any major titles). So, I think there is good reason to create WTA rankings. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

sports by month articles
There is a series of articles like January 2012 in sports, which have been kept every month since 2004. I notice that tennis is rather poorly represented. The grand slams are covered, but I think an entry for the finals of main tour events (or at least the masters) would not be out of place. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Player names have no diacritics
We have some ongoing RM discussions related to diacritics in names, which seems to be a long standing problem despite our project guideline to use the English version of the name as found the ATP and WTA tour sites. I did some research and here is what I found: This implies that every player who competes on international level does so under a name without diacritics, a name that (s)he can chose (and change) on his IPIN profile. That's why in all drawsheets we find non-diacritic names, and these official drawsheets are often main sources for many of our articles. This is a strong argument for using only non-diacritic names in all tennis articles. Doing otherwise burdens our tennis editors with a lot of extra work, because every name in a draw found in reliable source is non-diacritic name, but to use it in WP article (e.g. draw or tournament article) we then have to go and find out if WP uses the diacritics for that name or not (which may change from time to time because of RM). This is of course a ridiculous situation. The current system in which the names are moved and removed between diacritic and non-diacritics on a case by case basis is not workable, because in almost all our tennis articles we have to mention the names of different players (the opponents they met), so it becomes completely inconsistent when we get diacritic names alongside non-diacritic ones. Djokovic is currently at his non-diacritic name, but his countryman Tipsarević is kept with diacritic. Same for Ivanovic and Janković. If they play each other and it is a match we have to mention in our articles, then we end up using diacritic and non-diacritic name within the same sentence. It will be nearly impossible to get any tennis article to GA status with such a mish-mash. I am thinking that maybe we should try to email ITF directly and ask what is their official policy about the player names. That is probably the best way to try to solve this ongoing problem. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Any player (junior or higher) who wants to participate in international competition needs to register for an 'IPIN'. The name attached to this IPIN is the official player's name, which is used and found in all official drawsheets, official results, on the scoreboards used at major tournaments, and on the websites of the relevant tennis tours.
 * To register for an IPIN you have to go here: . I tried to make a registration and when I filled out a name with Czech diacritics it got me a "Family name is not valid" error message. The letters with diacritics I could make pass are the "é" (like in French) "á" (as used in Spanish), "ö" (like in German and Scandinavian languages). It is not possible to register a name with diacritics from Slavic or other languages. You will get a "family name is not valid" error. You are welcome to test and verify this for yourself.
 * In fact, even the Western letters with diacritics get stripped of them in the player's name on their profile and in the official drawsheets and results. If you try to access the "Find a player" box at http://www.itftennis.com/ with a name that has any diacritics in it, you get a warning that you can only use a-z.
 * I don't think it is up to ITF to decide how Wikipedia should look. They are biased as this is their promotion and exactly this is why the third party source guideline is in effect here. We can have our own policies, which could be even better than the current ITF routine. And I also doubt registering at ITF is the only way to turn professional. If you do the same at your national governal body I'm pretty sure they can give you the same license (because every tennis association is a member of the ITF). And as it is they probably use diacritics too. ITF established its website in 1997 so the online registration couldn't be available any earlier and I suppose players didn't have to travel to London to visit the ITF office nor could it be done by mail so it strengthens the national associations' role. As it has been pointed out anglicization is highly misinterpreted in Wikipedia. It's not about renaming e.g. the Battle of Raab to Battle of Győr. As one voter said "I recognise that some sources have stripped diacritics, but we don't have to mindlessly repeat their error". We are about to build an errorless collection of knowledge, which doesn't allow to make such blatant errors just because simplification has priority over facts. Also I don't agree on worrying about editors work too much as other pages with diacritics have no problem in getting to GA or FA status. That's not the main problem that prevents tennis articles to get promoted. In contrary : if we want to reach that status at any time we should be more encyclopedic and less almanac styled and so use diacritics.  Lajbi   Holla @ me  •  CP  17:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you clearly have not visited the IPIN site. Quoting: "All players who wish to compete in ITF Junior Circuit, ITF Pro Circuit or ITF NEC Wheelchair Tennis Tour tournaments are required to have a current IPIN Membership."
 * I think that before the internet days these IPIN registrations were handled via national organizations. When this system went into effect I don't know. But fact is that players compete under the name connected to their IPIN registration, which is a non-diacritic name. You can say ITF is a primary source in this, but primary sources are not considered all bad automatically. And journalists take the names from ITF, ATP and WTA sites and from the drawsheets and results they publish. This is not an error that is being repeated. The non-diacritic name is the name under which all these players compete. And since they are only notable because their activity as a tennis player it is logical to use the name connected to that activity, thus the name from their IPIN. Simple. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But here this is an old argument and you're speaking to the choir. Consensus has been to use tennis authorities and English press for years. The problem is usually foreign editors wanting to corrupt the English alphabet to their own. We need everyone's insight and expertise but we need it within the parameters of this English language wikipedia and Tennis Project. Other wikpedia's don't seem to have this problem but the English language one does so now it's filled with errors. In correctly sourced and spelled tennis article names we always let readers know how the name is spelled in it's foreign tongue. I don't think other wikis even do that. We also make sure to redirect the foreign spelling to the correct English alphabet title, or at least I'm careful to do so, just in case we have non-English versed visitors to our English wikipedia. It's what we do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fyunck(click) you are correct with you current asumptions on the matter, but it no longer jives very well with Wikipedia policy. Take for instance Barack Obama,  he has what are known as Authority control numbers, which associate him to his name on Wikipedia, and the first one says by native usage he has diacritics, which the one that they use to classify him is the non-native form, which supports English-alphabetical language usage.  This is what his name is on here by the way.  I would suggest the IPIN is a form of Authority control number, which we must follow on all tennis related matters, since it is the sports governing bodys' attempt to classify their player names and codify them.  So, if makesense and lajbi are correct we must go by the IPIN usage without diacritics in names, so it would be Djokovic and not Đoković.HotHat (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We have some big diacritic offenders such as Lukáš Dlouhý, Karel Nováček, Goran Ivanišević, Marin Čilić, Ivan Ljubičić, which they sould be titled Lukas Dlouhy, Karel Novacek, Goran Ivanisevic, Marin Cilic, Ivan Ljubicic to conform to the IPIN Control Numbers. These are just to name a mere few.HotHat (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me make sure I understand this. You are saying that because we have the governing authority of professional tennis using the IPIN as it's defacto Authority control marker, that going by other sources such as Davis Cup, Wimbledon, English press, or ATP/WTA is not needed? If that's true it's a little tough for me since I've always tried to follow wikipedia's "use English sources" policy, and Tennis Project's consensus and guidelines. It didn't matter to me if it's diacritics or not as long as that's what the English sources tell us. It would seem a little weird to me (and against wiki policy) to us an IPIN name if every other English source happened to use diacritics on a handful of tennis player names. This IPIN is new to me so I don't really know what to say right this minute. I'll have to read about it, and listen to what others say here before I could endorse that approach. Interesting stuff. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at Obama for a second, the first source said we should call him Barack Obama not the natavistic, tribalistic, or nationalistic name such as Bārāk Ūbāmā. So, this appied and applied to the vietnamese names of their political leads such as Truong Tan Sang, Nguyen Tan Dung, Nguyen Phu Trong and Nguyen Sinh Hung. Also, take a look at a Nobel Peace Prize Laurete from Vietnam Le Duc Tho. This is pretty cut and dry stuff! By the way what is the governing body of tennis? The International Tennis Federation not the United States Tennis Association, All England Lawn Tennis Club, French Tennis Federation, Tennis Australia, Association of Tennis Professionals, Women's Tennis Association and The Olympic. So, we need to follow the IPIN if that is what they go by to make draw sheets and official documents. We need to follow what has been laid out before us in these example that I just cited. See we need to follow the English-language alphabet on these matters. Sorry to be so harsh Lajbi, but I agree wholeheartedly with MakeSense64 on this matter.HotHat (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that wikipedia policy is not to go by official language or sources... policy is to use and go with English language sources (though some certainly have more weight, such as the ITF). Look at Bill Tilden. Everything and everyone seems to call him Bill Tilden not William Tilden II, so that's where his article is at per Wiki policy. Always going with an authoritative source would be against policy of all wikipedia. Look at the Taiwan debate right now. Official name Republic of China but 99% of the English speaking world refers to it as Taiwan so a huge debate is going on. Another prime example is Burma, official name Myanmar. UK is mostly all Burma per sources and US is split but more at Myanmar. Australia and Canada are split with a tilt towards Burma. There are politics involved there also with no Western nation recognizing the gov't nor it's right to change the country's name. Common English sourced name has kept it at Burma, but again officially the UN calls it Myanmar. So just because a source is more "official" wikipedia has never relied on that entirely. Our guidelines here at Tennis cover this right now as we use ITF and ATP/WTA as our name sources first, but we then confirm those with other English sources I mentioned. Only if there is a 50/50 discrepancy between all those sources do we need to discuss things to find the proper article name. So while this ITF registration ID probably makes it even stronger as a tennis source (which I endorse), it can't be the only thing we look at per this Encyclopedia's own rules. Comments? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hothat. Right on. ITF governs the tennis just like FIFA governs football. We have to understand that in team sports like football the issue of player names is not as important as in tennis because in tennis players are pitted directly against each other, so we are using the player names all the time in our articles about players and tournaments. Basically it is a small disaster when a name gets moved to diacritics version, because that means we would have to correct it in maybe 100s of articles. Not very realistic and that's why our articles are full of errors and inconsistent naming.
 * ITF is the primary source of information about tennis, so it is the source that journalists use when they write their articles or post draws or results in their newspaper. Per WP:PRIMARY it is OK for us to use primary sources for straightforward facts like results, draw or names. I have never seen any diacritics in official drawsheets or results and I was thinking there must be a reason for it. That's how I came across this IPIN registration. Basically the players are forced to chose a non-diacritic player name for themselves when they register IPIN. Then that's the standardized player name that ITF requires to be used in all official results. As evidence for this you are welcome to check out this Serbian webpage about the Serbian Open results: . The page is clearly in Serbian, but you don't see any diacritics in the player names. Or go to this official webpage about the recent woman's Paris Open: . You will see many French qualifiers in the list, but all written without the diacritics that are normally used in French. This is a policy that ITF seems to enforce. The reason is probably quite simple: if they don't agree and don't stick to a standard spelling for all tennis player names it is soon going to be a confusing mess that would create problems for the purpose of identifying player and keeping stats and rankings. This is exactly the kind of problem we have got in our tennis articles, thanks to ambiguous WP policies and case by case decisions made about in RM discussions. What we need is a consistently used policy for all tennis names. The only reasonable choice is go by the official player names that ITF uses based on the IPIN registrations.
 * The implication of IPIN is that nobody plays tennis under a diacritic name, they all play under a non-diacritic name that the player himself has chosen on his IPIN registration. Since the tennis players are notable for their activity in tennis we should use the name that is officially connected to their activity. And that is always a non-diacritic name.
 * Using examples about using diacritics in names from outside tennis is not really relevant. The sources we are working with all the time (draws, results..) are based on the primary sources from ITF, so they come without diacritics. People who disagree with this are welcome to show us an official drawsheet or results that have diacritics in the names. Just doesn't happen, not even in the minor challenger tour, junior play or wheelchair tennis. That are the plain facts we have to go with. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But we also go by common name such as Bill Tilden instead of William Tilden II because most sources refer to him by that name. The ITF refers to him as William T. Tilden but it was decided to put it at Bill because the entire press corp and tennis announcers have used it for so long that it's his common name. So the IPIN does get overridden here on occasion per legitimate guidelines. I'm just saying it's not etched in stone. The large majority of time the ITF naming is great but with Tilden or Jimmy Connors we have gone with common name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Bill Tilden played long before there was anything like IPIN or ITF. He doesn't have a profile on the ATP site. Of course, it would be good if we could figure out when this IPIN or standardized names system came into effect in tennis.
 * I am not sure what point you are trying to make with Jimmy Connors, but Jimmy Connors is exactly the name I find both on the ITF and the ATP tour site.
 * The reality is that the official IPIN name becomes the common name for the player, because reliable media sources will check their facts and spelling of names against the official source, which is the ITF. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked on the ATP site, which still publishes drawsheets that go back to as far as 1968. Here is an example I found for Monaco: . Since this is a tournament held in french speaking country one might expect to see diacritics in some French names. I don't see any. Of course it is very possible that the Tours have retroactively standardized the names of players into the IPIN system. I think all players that have activity in open era tennis have been given an IPIN number (and name) to avoid confusion between players. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An error by me on Jimmy Connors, Tilden does have an ITF profile though. And I see Pancho Gonzales has an ATP site that has Richard Pancho Gonzales while the ITF site has Pancho... interesting. I would have to say it would certainly be a relief if we just used ITF names no matter what (even if we have to change Gonzales and Tilden... no more squabbling over nicknames or diacritics either as we could put those in brackets. Everyone would know how to name a tennis player article. And right now since draws often have pdf's as their only source yet people have placed diacritics in the wiki draws, those written wiki draws don't match the pdf's and are in error. That would all be fixed too by going with the ITF IPIN. But I still say it likely goes against wiki policy of sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly the issue of player names will be much more murkier waters in the pre open era, but that is not surprising given the history of the tennis tours. Since about the 70s I see consistent use of standardized names in tennis, which are always non-diacritic names. That too is not surprising since tennis has of course a strong English language historic base. And still today 3 of the 4 majors are played in English speaking countries. The ITF policy around anglicized player names reflects this, and in an encyclopedia we try to report on facts, not on how we want it to be. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So if we just check drawsheets on other sites (and when I say check it means we really look into it if there's any published not just throwing in the ATP/WTA/ITF related ones) then we find Eurosport with diacritics on. The UK version so it's in English. And if we don't want confusion then we just have to compare the ammount of data pre-open and open era and it's clear that pre-open era is a couple of decades longer (and also free of IPIN). Just for the record I planned to create the 1929 Wimbledon Championships - Women's singles based upon a reliable foreign (!) source, which is the only one available right now and using diacritics but I suspend it until this discussion is closed.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not an official drawsheet, and Eurosport (being a commercial venture) may have other reasons to add diacritics back in for the players of certain countries. I notice that players like Jankovic and Cirstea are without diacritics in the page, but for Czech players they seem to have added them in, so it is definitely very inconsistent. This basically shows that Eurosport is not a reliable source for player names.
 * That excludes ITF/ATP/WTA from being reliable as they are the biggest business ventures in this sport.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It are primary sources, just like FIFA or other major sports organization. Primary sources are no good for establishing notability for example, then we need secondary sources. But for simple facts like official draws, results, names, rules of the game,.. they are the best sources because they are the official sources. It are sources that are frequently used by secondary sources when they do their needed fact checking. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything before the 1970s, you will have to go with the names that are most commonly found in the English language sources and/or in the sources that are used for your article. That will always be so, no matter what comes out of the discussion for the convention of naming of current players. For 1929, clearly no IPIN was in place, nor was there any ITF or ATP. And if in doubt about a certain name, you can also put up the question here on the project. We are supposed to work together, so ask for the project concensus on a certain name is always a good option. On WP, not everything goes as we would want it to go, that's so for each one of us. But if we try to get a fair concensus, then we cannot be blamed for anything. For example, I would summarize a lot more in our tennis articles, but the broader concensus is to have a lot of details and even stats pages, so I go with that. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Personaly, I don't understand what is wrong with using diacritics? I don't find it difficult to go to players article and to check the spelling (and even if editor doesn't do that, the link usualy works because it's redirected to the right place). We have redirects for all (?) articles where needed and WP search is not diacritics sensitive so it's not a problem of being able to find some player. And it's not that names with diacritics can't be sourced... Actually, it's difficult to find articles in english about players outside ATP top100 and then foreighn language sources are used, which mainly means sources in players native language and thus they use diacritics. Names with diacritics contain more information than these simplified english versions. Personally, I use WP to check the real spelling of some names because it helps me to pronounce them in a correct way (which I find nice and respectful to the player). And I don't think that english wikipedia is only for english native speakers, it's the international one. Most WPs in other languages don't have decent articles even about the topics related to their country so it's not so easy to check some information there. '' Offtopic. We have a similar discusion in my country about the letters and diacritics that do not belong to the alphabet of national language, where the main question is weather to allow using them in passports or not - and this is a really complicated question. On one side, name belongs to the person not to some language and nowadays a lot of people migrate between countries, get married to foreighners and etc. So for the same person his/her nationality and origin of the surname can be different. However, people with "foreighn" letters in some country would have a lot of problems, because most people don't know how to write them, how to pronounce them, in my country we would even need to start spelling our names (which we never do now, we don't even have the word "to spell") and in many cases it would end up in mistakes and problems following from that.'' Niktute (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with diacritics, and the 'real' name of the person (with diacritics) is always given in the very beginning of each player's article. But these diacritics become a problem when tennis naming conventions are not used consistently. Some players are at their diacritics name, other are at the common name without diacritics. When we write our articles about tournaments and draws, our sources do not give any diacritics, because ITF doesn't use them. So, for example, this is the source you have to work with if you are going to create a draw article for WP: .. no diacritics at all. Then how are you going to write the names with diacritics? Which ones need diacritics? Look up each and every one of them? You are going to be busy...
 * Actually, I have just tagged 2012 Australian Open for factual accuracy. Diacritic names are used throughout the article, but none of the sources used to back up the article has any diacritics in the names. WP policy requires us to work on the basis of our sources. We need verifiablity WP:V. That means we should use the names we find in our sources. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said before, name in diacritics isn't unverifiable, even if it's without diacritics in draws of tournaments. I don't think that some article should be renamed just because in some other article, which has a link to the first one, the main source doesn't have diacritics. Actually, using or not using diacritics isn't question about tennis, whole WP uses them, so why tennis players should be an exeption? Just because of lazyness of some editors? If you want to create an article about the draw but it's too difficult to use diacritics, you can leave names without them, links will work anyway and someone will add diacritics later. Personally, I think that if you are creating those articles often enough it's easy to remember which players have diacritics in their names and which players have disambiguations so need a different link (and this is a bigger problem than diacritics because redirects do not solve it).
 *  Oftopic again :) I think that the reason why many sites do not use diacritics is more or less technical (or it was technical and now people are just used to skip them). I have some diacritics in my own name and when I need to fill in some important online form I usualy skip diacritics because not all systems deal with them correctly, sometimes in a final result I have a completely different letter (or other symbol) in my name which is more anoying than not having diacritics. But this is something what happened much more often few years ago and I believe that in the future it won't be a problem any more. Niktute (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not laziness of the editors. We are using the WP naming convention which recommends to use the most common name in English language sources WP:ENGLISH. There are typically very few English sources that use diacritics in tennis players names, because they adapt the spelling of names found on the official tennis source: the ITF website. Let's also not forget that visually impaired people have more trouble to read text that is full of diacritics they are not used to in normal English language.
 * It is true that names with diacritics are often verifiable. But they have to be verifiable in the sources that come with the article. We can not expect readers to always click to other articles on WP in order to find the sources to verify a name with diacritics. In fact with many of our tennis articles a reader can wonder where the diacritics name of the player comes from, and whether it is correct. The article often gives no reliable source for the diacritics name. E.g.Radek Štěpánek, which of the sources in that article establishes this diacritics name? MakeSense64 (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * -It sure is far from laziness and I resent it. Its not the English alphabet, it's consensus at Tennis project, it's in the guidelines. When I create an article I check the ITF (the governing body of tennis), the ATP, the WTA, Davis Cup, and Wimbledon. I occasionally check draws, the UK and US press, and google comparison the diacritic vs non-diacritic name... the type of things we do for every wikipedia article. Wiki wants these sources. You seem to want us to disregard them by using spellings that are so far in the minority that they can be outhit on google 200–0! What would be lazy is to simply throw in a foreign alphabetic spelling without checking all the English sources to make sure you are using the most common name and the name used by every faction that has some sort of tennis authority. You are also wrong that diacritics are used in every project... see Talk:Marek Zidlicky for an example. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to offend anyone with my comment about laziness, I just think that it's not agood argument to skip diacritics just because it takes a bit more time to editors to check the spelling. I'm sorry if I sounded too rude. Niktute (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I got an idea lets look at the letters in the English-language alphabet first uppercase/capital ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ and now lowercase/undercase abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz, which have not diacritics on them, which are accent marks. We don't use those in the English-language, at all! So, I suggest following the 26uppercase/capital and 26 lowercase/undercase letters in the alphabet. I don't get why we even allowed or allow or tolerate any diacritics in the first place on this English Wikipedia. By the way, I would say the William Tilden to Bill Tilden argument is false because it is the same difference as Richard versus Dick Cheney, we have secondary names for certian English names like for women sometimes Margaret is Peggy, it is personal preferences in the english laguage using the english alphabet. I was pointing out the diacritic version of Obama, that's all! I think native and tribal names need to be left off of wikipedia, when the go against the English-language alphabet.HotHat (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We are to use names that are relatable and recognizable to english-language readers and diacritics are plainly NOT!HotHat (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The correct spelling of foreign personal names, including the use of diacritics, is effectively a quality standard for an English-language reference work (per Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, Webster's and others). A serious general-purpose encyclopedia can not apply lower standards for some sub-set of articles. Prolog (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are arguing for native name accuracy, which I don't want to totally forbade or forbid from Wikipedia. I just think article titles should reflect the English-language alphabet, which Radek Štěpánek looks like Radek_%C5%A0t%C4%9Bp%C3%A1nek, which sould be avoided at all costs.  I think we need to develop a cogent consensus to WP:Article titles#Use English-language alphabet.  I would support the inclusion of diacritics in a very minimal way, which would be done like Novak Djokovic to be put in a secondary name section or under his English-language alphabetical name.  This would allow us to achieve the highest of standards such as the sources you cite as reference works.HotHat (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Prolog, but what you say is just not true for tennis player names. Have you ever taken a look on the brittanica? Ilie Nastase and Helena Sukova are already written without diacritics over there. One French player from the 1920 has a diacritic. The simple fact is that per current ITF policies every player chooses a player alias that is in English alphabet only, and that's the name they use in their activity as a tennis player. Who are we to push diacritics back in if the player himself has chosen a non-diacritics name to play tennis? Tennis players do not play in their personal name, but under an English alphabet name of their choice, and we should respect that choice in our articles about tennis. Do you agree? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
I came across some older discussions that are relevant in this context: Of course, since we now have new arguments like the standard IPIN name system, we could reopen that topic, especially since the discussions are 4 years old. Since 4 years have passed and the same problems with tennis names still continue, it is an argument that some naming convention for tennis names would be useful. At some point the project ice hockey also succeeded to get a specific naming convention approved for their sports Naming conventions (ice hockey), so why can the same not be done for tennis? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Older proposals to prefer diacritics in names have consistently failed after long discussions on Talk. See:Use diacritics and Usage of diacritics and Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). The guideline that is in effect is "use English": WP:ENGLISH
 * I also came across an attempt (which also failed) to move all tennis names to their non-diacritics version. There was a long discussion about it in 2008. See: Requested moves/Tennis
 * Essentially this was done in 2008 where consensus was "no diacritics." Admins even moved the player pages to the non-diacritic name. What happened was czechs didn't want their people spelled in anything but czech, Swedes wanted Swedish, etc... So those editors from other language wikis overwhelmed tennis project. There also were (and are) die-hard multilingualists who want the English language to incorporate every letter and dialect into this wikipedia. Not much we can do about it but keep trying to change things. Our project policy is still the same... English sourced names, though in 2008 it was even more severe in "no diacritics" at all. Our guidelines are clear but a few project members simply ignore it to the detriment of our project. I guess for some, consensus and project unity don't mean a whole lot. We don't always agree but when consensus is reached against my arguments I follow it because it is probably best for Tennis Project and articles not to be a divided mess. You also have foreign editors quickly creating newly notable players making sure their language rules are followed, not English. It's tough to change back once an article is created because they have a lot of friends. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account of the 2008 events is far from accurate. Two users (one of which was admin/crat) interpreted this discussion as consensus support for their (anti-diacritic) position and started moving articles. The matter was brought to AN/I and soon all of the moves had been reverted, primarily by three previously uninvolved admins (self included). then proceeded to create dozens of RMs that were merged into Requested moves/Tennis, where the proposal to remove diacritics was soundly rejected. Three years later, during the diacritics RfC, you "added name info" to the tennis article guidelines without any discussion. Prolog (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey) was rejected. The hockey project agreement is here. Prolog (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was consensus in the Tennis Project, just not in wiki where of course you rejected it. As for hockey we have Talk:Marek Zidlicky as an example of a non-diacritic move. You may have been uninvolved but I'm sure you were not unbiased as I have seen on this issue many times. We had many questions about which way to do it along with other queries on notability and the last good archived argument was in favor of NO diacritics at all. I was going to add that but instead softened it to include sourcing instead of No diacritics. In with MOSFLAG debates I was shown and told that no talk at all is needed to add complete changes to the guidelines that were never talkied about in archives at all. That's written mostly with no consensus at all. At least I looked back and even used a softer wording to follow wiki policy and guidelines. There are changes being made as we speak to the guidelines, without consensus, which will be reverted if it looks wrong to tennis project members. That happens a lot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I just came across this document published by ITF, which explains very clearly how to register for an IPIN: IPIN registration guide In step 6 it is clearly explained that you can only register with a name that is fully in English alphabet. This confirms what I already found by trying to make a mock registration: you can only register to play tennis with a name that is in English alphabet, thus no diacritics whatsoever. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But it seems that IPIN is only required as of 2010 (other source). It only justifies your claim on players who registered in 2010 and onwards. But for players retired in 2009 and earlier this whole IPIN rule simply don't apply. The online form was only launched in 2012 (!). That is three months from activation now. We can't be sure what was its process earlier. This whole thing is too messy to build a rule upon it.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also this link published in 2011-08-09 states that "Note that if you are under 35, then you are NOT considered a Senior by the ITF and you do not need an IPIN unless you intend playing in one of the four Grand Slams or in the Davis Cup." - so the only tournaments directly under the control of ITF (and not ATP and WTA) and our scope of notability is wider that these five tournaments. Of course this could have also changed (or it could be still in effect), but in 2011 it was like this.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The IPIN system exists since 2004: . Later on it was expanded to include juniors, wheelchair and from 2012 also senior tour will require it. Now more and more things are put online, as every organization does. But that doesn't mean there was no organization or standard English language names before the digital age. The ITF has a pretty long history of governing tennis: . Notice how for 1978 Chris Evert and Bjorn Borg (no diacritics) were the first world champions. It will also be good to know that per WP guidelines, when names get changed, we are required to put more weight on the names found in sources after the names were changed. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The ITF in 2007 had this in red letters on the site "All players entering ITF Pro Circuit tournaments MUST have a valid IPIN in 2007. Any player (including on-site alternates) who enters a tournament without a valid IPIN will have his entry rejected." In 2006 at was worded "Failure by a player to present a valid IPIN to the ITF Supervisor will result in the rejection of that player's entry." It is listed in 2005 but with no consequences. In 2004 it first gets website mention in October. Now this covers ITF professional events which includes the Majors but says nothing about he WTA or ATP tours. We will probably only want firm IPIN sourcing from 2007 onwards. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If IPIN only allows the non-diacritics use of names how can http://es.atpworldtour.com the official ATP site for Spanish readers can use diacritics for Spanish players (not just only for the text)? I checked IPIN and there's a Spanish/French language registration form, did you test it as well? I'm sure a player can pass an official diacritics name via them. Isn't it problematic?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a problem since for English WP we are supposed to depend on what is the most common name in English language sources. Yesterday I was digging in some of the official statutes and rules of the ITF and they have English, French and Spanish as their official languages. From what I tested earlier you can make certain French and Spanish diacritics pass through the IPIN registration form. But in all English language pages on ITF they are removed, and these names get picked up by our other English language sources. So it becomes the common name for the player. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Let's see where this goes. I propose that we move all tennis player pages to the none diacritic name, but we put in the diacritic name in under the english-language alphabet name, and mention it in the opening of the article like Novak Djokovic.HotHat (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's what we have as a guideline and consensus now. Back in 2008 an Administrator followed through on what you suggested and the non-tennis wiki community shot it down as fast as lightning. Since than we have been forced to take each article one at a time to RFM's where sometimes it moves and sometimes it doesn't. Not a lot else we can do even though you are correct at what "should" happen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Through discussion with one of the editors who closed the RM of Sasa Hirszon, I have learned that what we need is a RfC, with hopefully broad participation (we can send out neutrally worded invites to different projects), where we can then try to get a broad concensus for a consistent naming convention for tennis players. Otherwise we are always confronted with the argument that our guideline is just an in-house project decision with no concensus from the community. Our guideline is not given weight in RM discussions because it was not approved by the broader community. That's why we often lose in RM debates.
 * We don't need to rush this. We need to prepare it properly and collect the info we need. We will have to make the case why a more consistent naming of tennis players is desirable (even necessary). We can try to build on the naming convention that is used by the ITF, because that is the official source. We can refer to older discussions, and show that the problems have persisted ever since. There are existing policies like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:STAGENAME that can be relevant too..I have written the ITF and hope to get an answer whether there was any naming convention or registration system they used before the IPIN system.
 * If we are lucky, we can get to some naming convention, just like there already are Naming conventions (baseball players) and Naming conventions (sportspeople). If baseball can get a convention that the name on the baseball cards, or even nickname of the player is used as name for the article, then why can tennis not get a convention that we use the player names as found on the ITF site (which lists all of them per IPIN). That's the name they go by in their career as a tennis player. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because baseball players don't have strong presence in Serbia, Sweden, Poland, Hungary or France and the undue influence they present us with tennis players. Just because the ITF made it a requirement way back in 1923ish that the ITF would be "for ever in the English language" holds no meaning to certain editors. That IPIN exists now probably has the same lack of caring. They want their language represented in this English wikipedia and their projects together hold more sway than tennis project does. I don't see an RfC debate really getting anywhere. The RFM's now go about 50/50 from what I've seen. I just depends. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we have to expose that as a form of WP:ADVOCACY and Tendentious editing, which is what it actually is. Take for example our good friend Radek Štěpánek. Show us the English sources which write about him with all these diacritics in the name. So, then what happened to WP policy? Has it all turned into dead letter? It is coming to the point where it is even difficult to find out how a certain name is spelled in English (and this is supposed to be English WP ?). Take Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, prime minister of Iceland. If you want to find out how her name is spelled in English you have to scroll down into the references. So, even though it is an easily verifiable fact how her name is spelled in English, that information seems to be banned from the article itself. What happened to WP:COMMONSENSE, which is supposed to be above any policy? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...when you're right your right. Looking at Sigurðardóttir gives me a headache trying to figure out what it is :-) Someone explained to me that the % of foreign editors, who's first language isn't English, to the English wiki is increasing every day... probably to the detriment of their own language's wiki. That makes it tough for the English alphabet. As for the next step... I don't know. Hopefully by the time the English alphabet is extinct around here I'll be on a beach in Hawaii. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's not even the worst example. Look at Eiður Guðjohnsen if you want to see two of these "coconuts" in a name. But they also see no need to at least mention the common English spelling in that article. I was honestly starting to think that maybe we should all migrate and start editing on the Simple English wikipedia instead. But alas : ... so, that's supposed to be "simple English" that even children can edit. Huh?
 * Makes me think. If there is a "simple English" WP, then why not create a "pure English spelling" WP as well? I am quite sure that more than a few editors are more than ready to leave all this diacritics nonsense behind. And it is easy to predict which version would become the most used one. In February 1267 people tried to find "Novak Djoković" on WP: . In the same month 172948 people looked up "Novak Djokovic" . So 0.7% of the readers look for the diacritics name. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See that's why diacritics are needed. THERE'S NO SUCH NAME as Novak Djoković. You searched for a mistyped gibberish. So it proves that there are 0.7% of readers who don't know what his real name is. They need to be put back on track here so when they start to type a tennis player's name to the searchbox they will be shown how it is correctly written. And it also shows that you don't pay attention to (my) comments because I've already explained what's the situation with the "Dj" consonant.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  08:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Lajbi is correct on the foreign spelling. His Foreign spelled name would be Novak Đoković, not Novak Djoković. I see that searching the non-English name of Novak Đoković under the same dateline we get 1173 search hits . 50 of them probably mine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So, that's even less of them. Sorry Lajbi, but anything that starts with "They need to be put back on track here so when they start to type...." sounds like WP:ADVOCACY. Readers may not be interested at all how his "real" name is written, just like nobody cares that Arantxa Sanchez Vicario's "real" first name was actually "Aránzazu". Anybody who wants to know how Djokovic' "real" name is written in Serbian will find out right in the beginning of the lede, or can click on the link in the left, which takes to his Serbian WP page. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Essay
As a logical next step, I have started a new page on the project here: WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names, which we can use to collect the relevant materials we have found, like IPIN and consistent use of English in tennis long before that, with its sources. I hope some others can help to make this page into a good explanation of why our project uses a guideline to use the English names of the players. Then we don't need to always give a long explanation in related discussions, we can then just point to this page for those who want to understand our reasons or see the sources. It will start with the status of essay, but once it is good enough and convincing (hopefully) we can try to upgrade its status to guideline. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The essay is gradually rounding into shape: WP:TENNISNAMES. If you think something is missing or can be added to improve, then feel welcome to do so. E.g. it would be good if we can add something about the pre-IPIN convention for names (if any). If more different editors from the project have contributed to the essay, then it also gains more credibility. Anyway, it will be good to have this on a page we can easily refer to, rather than hidden somewhere in the Talk archives. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that there is still no consensus behind it to back all its claims up. Two editors against one (that is me) is not a consensus (nor it is a valid "voting"). You can have a redirect like WP:TENNISNAMES but it still won't be a guideline that pushes move requests into its aimed direction.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's also not being claimed. See the first infobox on the page. Essays are written so that one doesn't need to repeat the same information and sources over and over in various discussions, then any editors can just point to the essay where everything is explained in more detail already. In the same way we already have WP:TENSCR as well. However essays can (and do) move up to guideline status (and even to policy in some cases), but that depends on other editors picking up on it. It is not so that this is a two to one case. It seems like the use English names guideline has existed within the project tennis since 2008. It is just that the project has never worked to get it accepted by the broader community.
 * Embolded by some "successes" to move tennis players to diacritics names, the pro-diacritics editors are now going even further and starting to basically "ban" the English spelling from these articles. See the Sasa Hirszon and Sasa Tuksar articles for examples of where this is going. In the longer run I think this may lead to two English wikipedias: an English(international) version, where you find diacritics all over the place, and an English(English) version, which sticks to the common spelling found in English sources. I already know on which one I will be editing and reading. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I still haven't seen that 2008 consensus that both you and Fyunck(click) are referring to. I'd asked him to link it but it didn't happen so I kindly ask you too that if you can find it please show me, because otherwise it's kinda hard to see what sort of consensus it was. I'm here at Wikipedia for seven years now and haven't ever been confronted with a problem like this (and by that time in 2008 I was already editing tennis articles and visiting this page and didn't see any diacritics issues). Maybe it's thanks to the "diacritics community" but I've never noticed players with deprived names and all worked out pretty well here. When editors from England vote for diacritics (as it happened), maybe this matter isn't that annoying for English users. I hope you reconsider this when all the projects will follow the pro-diacritics way of thinking and only wikiproject tennis (and probably wikiproject hockey) will be the last ones not to do it. Because possibly the day of Wikipedia International/English will never come.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  16:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Before IPIN
Just adding this for the record. ITF answered my question what was done before the IPIN system. They say they have always had the players' names in their databases in English letters only, "so as to prevent duplicate records of players". But she could not tell when exactly they started doing this. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Always cool when they answer something. We figured as much, plus they've had the "for ever in the English language" stamped in the bylaws since the 1920s. Of course those were the days of ink wells and paper. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, often we can figure things out (but that doesn't always convince other editors). I also figured that it would be particularly easy to get in trouble with the surname Gonzalez, which is not only extremely common, but can come with or without diacritics : González (surname)
 * There are a few hundred tennis players with the surname Gonzalez, we can find them here (you will need to click on "More" a couple of times). For example we have Fernando Gonzalez from Chile . But there is another Fernando Gonzalez from Argentina . He seems to be allowed to use the same name, because the players can be distinguished by nationality. Then there is a third Fernando Gonzalez, who is also from Chile. So he chose the name "Fernando Gonzalez Herrera" ,using his maternal surname to distinguish him from the other Fernando Gonzalez in Chile . Another interesting case is Miloslav Mecir, father and son. They get the same name at ITF, but it cannot be a problem since they play in different eras, so they cannot meet. and  MakeSense64 (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So she didn't say these are stage names, right?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  16:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox tennis event
Hi, I added the field 'Surface' to the 'Infobox tennis event' template as in my view it is part of the basic info on each tournament and therefore belongs in a summary infobox. Haven't changed a template before so just checking if this is OK or if a discussion and consensus is required prior to such a change. If it does is this the correct page for discussion? See 2012 ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament for an example.--Wolbo (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-sponsored name of AEGON Classic
As there's a guideline to avoid sponsored tournament names, I wonder what should be the name of the AEGON Classic. The original name of the tournament was Edgbaston Cup. But, as "Classic", as well as "Championships" and "International", seem to be LTA trademarks, I think we should use "Classic" in the article name, just like we use "Championships" and "International". But should we have the tournament venue Edgbaston in the article name, like with Queen's Club, or should we have the tournament city Birmingham, like with Eastbourne? I think we should use Birmingham, as Queen's Club is probably used to clarify which London tournament we're talking about. Yet, of course we have the Rosmalen Grass Court Championships article, but that's the original name, and in this case the original name would be Edgbaston Cup. So, I propose Birmingham Classic. --August90 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't move it to a name that is original research. All the other moves have backing by sources. It may well turn out that some of the sponsored names must stay because they are are brand new tournaments or because there simply are no other sourced names. In this particular case we do have some sources. Many simply call it a win at the "Edgbaston Priory Club" but plenty of sources use "Edgbaston championship." Reuters, Rediff Sports, the Bleacher Report. The only problem at all that I see is that at the turn of the century there was a mens tournament called the Edgbaston Championship, so if that tourney info is ever completed here at wiki I guess we'd have to put (women) or (men) after the name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, what about Edgbaston Classic? Here are some sources using that name; The Telegraph, Yahoo! Eurosport, Reuters, tvnz.co.nz. Yet, also the name Birmingham Classic is used by The Telegraph and Reuters, as well as by ESPN. Anyway, I think it seems that we have sourced non-sponsored names, so we can rename the article. But, if possible, I'd include "Classic" to the new article name, as it's the tourney trademark. --August90 (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I like those Classic sources you found. My opinion is I'd go with "Edgbaston Classic" per those sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Edgbaston Classic" or "Birmingham Classic" are OK for me. There are sources for both names, yet neither of them seems to be much more popular than the other. I don't have a specific opinion about whether we should use "Edgbaston" or "Birmingham". I think that depends on whether the tournament is usually referred as the Birmingham or Edgbaston tournament. --August90 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Two-person consensus isn't too impressive, so I added a movenotice to AEGON Classic in hope of more responses. Please, express your opinion on the proposed move here. --August90 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The tournament is known and has been known simply as "Birmingham" in common use, in similar manner as Aegon Championships for ATP is known as "Queen's". "Edgebaston" would be most confusing change of name. I see that many tennis tournaments are known by their sponsor names at wiki. But if for some reason this has to be changed then maybe something like WTA Birmingham or Birmingham Classic as suggested in OP... http://www.wtatennis.com/page/Tournaments/Info/0,,12781~438,00.html Mrmarble (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Birmingham seems to be the more used location name outside UK, especially in non-English speaking countries, whereas Egdbaston seems to be commonly used in UK media. Might this guideline help in deciding between Birmingham and Edgbaston? If the tournament article has strong ties to UK, Edgbaston should obviously be used. If not, then Birmingham could be an option too, as it's maybe the more commonly used location name abroad. WTA Birmingham could also be an option, yet ATP Buenos Aires is the only current tournament following that "ATP/WTA+city" naming system. And as been said previously in this topic, keeping AEGON Classic is also a possibility, if we don't reach consensus on the non-sponsored name. --August90 (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Tennis umpires #2
As per recent discussion I have put Eva Asderaki and Mariana Alves into AfD. We will see how they go. Depending on the outcome we may have to create some article guideline for tennis umpires. If they are not kept, then we probably better do away with the tennis umpires category. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just spitballing here, but I wonder if we should have a single article with a list of chair umpires who have reached the pinnacle of their professions? I'm not sure what that would entail but as a "whole group" it might pass tennis muster as being notable... by themselves not so much. That might also satisfy the umpire adders while keeping the non-notable solo articles away. Just a thought. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I just came across List of snooker referees, so there can be no reason not to have such a list for tennis umpires. But it actually surprised me to find well developed articles like Michaela Tabb. Snooker is a very minor sport, so maybe we should have tennis umpire articles after all. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The snooker referee list has no references and no context. There have been thousands of tennis refs so we'd need some reasonable cutoff like refs that have ref'd multiple Grand Slam tournament singles finals. As for individual articles, that Snooker ref has her own website and bunches of bio articles in magazines and newspapers, plus she was a good player herself in the past. Can any of our refs point to that kind of notability and sourcing? If they can then i guess they should also have their own articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are something like 26 "gold badge" umpires, and that are the notable ones who will always do the major finals. They tend to have pretty long careers, so even adding in some retired ones the list would not become too long. If sports like snooker and pool have referee articles then it is hard to argue against them for tennis.MakeSense64 (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also found out that there are currently 45 "silver badge" chair umpires. But where do we find all the names?MakeSense64 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We also have the problem of which type of tennis umpires are we talking about? Per Official (tennis) we have Line Umpires and Chair Umpires and then go up to Referee Umpire who oversees the Line and Chair Umpires and finally the Chief Umpire who oversees the whole tournament. If you are talking mainly about the chair umpire, he/she is just one cog on the gear. I had seen a list (unknown accuracy).
 * Gold Badge Umps are:
 * (men) Jake Garner, Steve Ullrich, Pascal Maria, Kader Nouni, Cedric Mourier, Emmanuel Joseph, Enric Molina, Mohamed Lahyani, Lars Graff, Mohamed El Jennati, Carlos Bernardes, Roland Herfel, James Keothavong, Gerry Armstrong, Damien Dumusois, Gianluca Moscarella, Fergus Murphy, Ali Nili, Carlos Ramos, and Damian Steiner
 * (women) Eva Asderaki, Kerrilyn Cramer, Lynn Welch, Mariana Alves, Alison Lang, Louise Engzell, and Marija Cicak
 * So 27 gold badge chair umpires with the addition of Marija Cicak this year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Line umpires are usually not notable. (But if they work in a Williams match, then their chances for notability go up considerably ;-). Referee umpire and chief umpire are rarely in the picture, so I think a list of chair umpires would do. They are also the umpires that are most well-known and get included in the victory ceremony after grand slam finals. We can start a list of just the gold badge chair umpires, and set that as the criterium for inclusion. As far as I know only the gold badges get to work in major finals, so if a certain umpire does a slam final (men or women) then we know (s)he is gold badge, and then we will also usually have sources citing him or her as the umpire for that match. That allows us to create a well sourced list. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was enough to start the page: Frederick (Freddie) Sore. Can use some more refs and maybe it would be good to add nationalities since that is relevant in their job (cannot officiate a match if one of the players is from same country as the umpire).MakeSense64 (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Asderaki and Alves are now redirecting to List of tennis umpires. What are we going to do with Freddie Sore, the only article remaining in our tennis umpires category? It lacks sources for most of the prose in the article. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume it had a good source in his obituary in the Daily Telegraph, but it's no longer available. He is a more special case but I did a google search and found nothing except sites that pull info from wikipedia. So that's the problem... no sources, though I'm sure some books on wimbledon have some. I would be tempted to merge the article into the List of tennis umpires where we could have prose on special cases, but then it wouldn't be a true "list" of umpires anymore. It would maybe be best (imho) if this umpire list could contain an extra sentence or two on the umpire in case they were slightly more famous or infamous for something. For example Frederick Sore could say: Frederick "Freddie" Sore - He was the longest-serving umpire at Wimbledon, officiating for more than 40 years until his retirement in 1989. He was a popular figure and got along well with even the most difficult of players. And that would allow a little blurb on Alves to say, Mariana Alves - Infamous for making several bad calls in the 2004 US Open quarterfinal between Serena Williams and Jennifer Capriati. That sort of thing might make the List of Tennis Umpires a little more robust. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if Freddie Sore was a chair umpire for 40 years. A list article can have some prose. And we could put the current contents of List of tennis umpires under a section "Chair umpires", making place for a second section (maybe "Referees") where cases like Freddie Sore could find space. I am not too eager to create a few lines of prose for each chair umpire, because that will become filled up with stuff like "this umpire made a terrible call in the match between 'abc' and 'xyz' at wimbledon". We could add some info about the major finals they umpired (e.g. man and woman singles finals at the 4 slams), if we can find sources for that information. That would be a real improvement. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Draw key template
I think that there is a need to make a slight change Draw key. Ever since the qualifying draws have been moved in with the main draws, the section levels have been incorrect. If you'll look on any page with the qualifying and main draws on the same page, such as 2012 Sony Ericsson Open – Men's Singles, you can see that the qualifying draw sections (First Qualifier, Second Qualifier, etc.) are listed as subsections of the section entitled "Key," not of the section entitled "Draw." The problem lies in the fact that the template is transcluded with a third-level section header. Hence, I would advocate that there be a method, whether through the addition of a parameter or through simply coding (if possible), to ensure that the template can be transcluded with a fourth-level section header so that the subsections are correctly listed. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea. We could manually move the draw key above the qualifying draw section so that the draw looks good section-wise, but then the key isn't in the same place as it is in the main draw. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't make any changes to it, since the template is protected. Any thoughts? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Qualifier n currently has section number ?.?.n in the TOC, for example 3.5.1 to 3.5.12 for Qualifier 1 to 12 in 2012 Sony Ericsson Open – Men's Singles. I like that. If a Key section is inserted with the same section level then qualifier n becomes ?.?.(n+1). I suggest the qualifying key stops being a section. It could just write "Key" in big bold instead of a section heading, controlled with a parameter to Draw key. See User:PrimeHunter/sandbox4 for an example. I don't think we need Key in the TOC when the key is immediately shown in Draw, and the section edit link at Key has always been misleading because the link goes to a fully protected template. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the key in your sandbox test works great. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Another issue is that we should probably display different terms for main draw and qualifying draw. Currently they both use Draw key with all 9 terms. Can any of Qualifier, Lucky Loser, Alternate, Special Exempt be used in a qualifying draw? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I don't think qualifier or lucky loser can come into play. Alternate and special exempt may be possible, but I'm not very sure... Prayerfortheworld (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

page blanking editor
We now have an editor way overstepping his bounds. He is blanking pages and asking for speedy deletes of redirects. It's one thing to disagree but to vandalize in this manner is unacceptable and might not have been caught. Luckily an administrator saw it and fixed it quickly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Try to assume good faith. It looked like good faith but bungled execution to me. The edit attempted an explanation in the edit summary but should't have blanked and shouldn't have used db-g6 but gone to Redirects for discussion. The subject is from Brazil where most people speak Portuguese. If the subject has Portuguese as native language and officially spells it Nicolas (I don't know) then it could be discussed whether the English Wikipedia should have a redirect on the Spanish form Nicolás. A search shows that many Spanish sources write it Nicolás and redirects are cheap and not required to be "correct" so I would keep the redirect. By the way, db-g6 placed the page in the hidden categories Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion. They are monitored by administrators and there was no attempt to hide the blanking. Any administrator would look at the page history before deleting a currently blank page. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering his other recent edits, good faith isn't at the top of my list right this second. But I see what you are saying which wasn't readily apparent in the edit. I have seen his name spelled here at wikipedia as Nicolás and also a couple foreign google hits. In looking at a Brazilian site they spell it simply "Nicolas". It would seem that some Spanish entities spell it different in Spanish rather than Portuguese and that it really should be a non-diacritic version in English. But if you say it was simply a bungled attempt at an addition, I'll trust your judgement in this situation and I apologize to the editor. He could have brought it up at the tennis project to discuss or better he could have told us on the talk page why there was a problem. If had seen that I would have done nothing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fynuck, Thanks for the apology. Though I do not know why you consider noting my reading of WP policies on Talk pages of BLPs about your edits and moves isn't "good faith" - "good faith" allows other editors to comment on the edits/moves you make at Talk pages. That is what Talk pages are for.
 * As regards the afd of the erroneous redirect, as you could see from edit summaries I considered it simple WP:cleaning up a.k.a. good WP housekeeping, following removal of a mistaken Spanish translation on a Brazilian BLP here. I also noted the rationale on afd for the REDIRECT, I hope that the continued existence of the REDIRECT does not lead to mislinks such as you have cited at 2012 Aberto de São Paulo – Doubles, I expect it won't. But all in all this is not a big issue is it. The result is the BLP in question has been improved. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The redirect was new and fixed many existing red links in articles shown at Special:WhatLinksHere/Nicolás Santos. If both his native and English name is Nicolas then you can go through them and change it. If you fix them all and the redirect is deleted then people may still continue to add red links to Nicolás. I think a "slightly wrong" name redirecting to an article with the right name is better than getting red links. By the way, Afd refers to WP:AFD (articles for deletion) which is not the deletion process you used. With db-g6 you chose WP:CSD (speedy deletion, no discussion if an admin accepts deletion). I don't think WP:CSD applies and you should have chosen WP:RFD (redirects for discussion, requires discussion). PrimeHunter (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PrimeHunter, thanks. I don't use these often enough to be familiar, thanks for the clarification. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality ratings
I'm familiarizing myself with the Quality Assessment of tennis articles and noticed that 1980 US Open – Men's Singles is categorized as 'C-Class' and 2008 US Open – Men's Singles as 'B-Class'. Can anyone explain why these articles are so categorized as to me they appear (almost) identical to the many other GS draw articles which are mostly uncategorized. Should these articles also be categorized B or C and what explains the difference in rating of these two articles? --Wolbo (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Req move Ilie Năstase → Ilie Nastase
Please be advised of RM on BLP page rated "High importance" Talk:Ilie_Năstase. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Tennis articles quality is low
There are only two tennis articles with FA status: Mario Power Tennis and Wii Sports. Of our 87 articles with "Top" importance, we have just 4 with a "B" rating, and all the rest is lower: Australian Open, Grand Slam (tennis) , Tennis and The Championships, Wimbledon. See: WikiProject Tennis/Assessment.
 * While we manage to cover all the players and the tournaments we are supposed to cover (and then some ;-), our project largely fails to work on quality even for our Top importance articles. I know our assessment department is largely dead, but maybe we should make some effort once in a while to get at least our 87 Top articles up to a better standard. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We should strive to get more B/C articles into the GA/A category. One logical first candidate would be Tennis which currently has a B rating. If anyone can tell what needs to be done to improve this into GA/A I'll gladly join in the effort. --Wolbo (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Wimbledon Championships or Championship?
Noticed that a few of the Wimbledon year articles are titled in singular, e.g. 1883 Wimbledon Championship, instead of plural, e.g. 1884 Wimbledon Championships. Is this historically accurate or a typo? It concerns 1878, 1880, 1881, 1882 and 1883. All other years are in plural. If it is a typo how can we fix it? --Wolbo (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know the official name but 1877 to 1883 are the years with only one event, men's singles. Category:Wimbledon Championships by year shows those are exactly the years with singular Championship. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thx. That category list is useful. I was aware that it started with men's singles only but I see now that there is a discrepancy between the article title and infobox title for 1877 and 1879 where the article is (correctly) in singular but the infobox title is (incorrectly) in plural. I'll adjust that. --Wolbo (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Błażej Koniusz
I do not think I am the only one who would be concerned to see the deletion of sole accurate source for spelling of name of in a BLP prior to a move and de-diacritaling. I have asked BLP Noticeboard for advice. (That's the required notification). Now, a personal observation.... I have seen out of the corner of my eye this saga producing questionable editing behaviour for over a year without myself touching it. But I am now of the opinion that it is becoming increasingly desperate and disruptive and needs to stop. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that you need to stop and have brought it to the attention of BLP myself though I explained it in more detail. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion is on WT:BLP. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Arena centrala.jpg
Can anyone identify the court in this photo: File:Arena centrala.jpg? I'll ask the uploader but she/he haven't edited in nearly 4 years. If so please add to the description. Thanks -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 12:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The uploader added it to BRD Năstase Țiriac Trophy the following minute. It's the Central Court of BNR Arenas in Bucharest. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Aha! First, thanks! Second, I never thought to look in that log while finding descriptions. Learned something new.  -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  12:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Bernard Tomic
Members of WikiProject Tennis might have a look at 2012 Bernard Tomic tennis season and 2010 Bernard Tomic tennis season. They look deletable to me, but your opinion may be different.  PK T (alk)  14:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree. Tomic does not seem to have enough standing to merit his own season articles. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the compromise at tennis project was that if a player has won any grand slam tournament they can have a separate season article. Otherwise, no. I'd have to dig up the dialog that was simply never put in the guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In looking back at the consensus I see that if a player wins a major title or becomes number 1, then every year afterwards deserves a separate season article and every year prior would be put under a single article such a "John Doe's early career". This is assuming of course that the info no longer fits in the main page space. Otherwise it's just trivia and should be merged and redirected. So in Tomic's case consensus says those pages are not allowed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Serbian Tennis Players Names Petition
I petition that we move all Đoković now Djokovic and Ivanović to Ivanovic like names ending in vic to be without the diacritic on the c to make them all uniform, which here are some articles that would be effected Janko Tipsarević and Jelena Janković. I think it is pretty cut and dry at this point we have to go by Djokovic and Ivanovic standard and remove the diacritic on the c on these two effect names, which we probably have more offenders.HotHat (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to do it unilaterally. We should use wiki and tennis project guidelines and simply follow the English sources and tennis governing bodies on each and every player. I'm sure you are right that most would wind up being at a non-diacriticized "c" but with the hundreds of moves by some editors to foreign spellings such as the current request at Talk:Sophie Lefevre it has becomes much more difficult. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi HotHat,
 * Before you do anything you may wish to get a copy of Ronelle Alexander Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Textbook: With Exercises and Basic Grammar (9780299212049): This has an extensive section on romanization in the former Yugoslavia and how Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia apply romanization. Also you can invite participation from our co-workers on WT:WikiProject Serbia. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note about details
I think we could have a more prominent note about detail in the "Article types and recommended practices" section. Currently, the bottom of the section features WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, but I'm noticing that several player articles still have a bit too much detail, likely added by newer/anonymous users.

From what I can tell, people constantly update these pages throughout the season, adding in practically every tournament, every win, every loss, and multiple scores.

This adds up over time, making the articles look jumbled with numbers, and making the sections look daunting in terms of length. I noted this while helping clean up Petra Kvitová and Agnieszka Radwańska, which used to be much longer. The articles on Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray are currently tagged (not by me).

My proposed note would be something like this: When a player loses before the fourth round, it's generally not necessary to mention that in detail (if at all). The reader will assume that on their own.

For example, instead of this...

"In Dubai, he lost in the opening round to [other player] by a score of 3–6, 6–4, 2–6. In the Indian Wells Masters tournament, he beat [other player] in the first round 6–4, 6–3, then lost in the second to [other player] 2–6 4–6. In Miami, he defeated [other player] 4–6, 7–5, 6–1, and [other player] 7–6 (5), 3–6, 6–4, before losing to [other player] 1–6, 4–6."

We'd generally aim to present this...

"Following early-round losses in Dubai, Indian Wells, and Miami, he reached the quarterfinals at the Monte Carlo Masters, losing to [other player] 5–7, 3–6."

I've found that this approach can make an article flow smoothly. It helps to wait until a player is finished with a tournament before adding in their results. Just a proposal. -- James26 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it's against Tennis Project Guidelines to include any scores in prose unless it was something out of the ordinary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know. What did you think about the point I was making? I notice you contribute often to tennis articles as well. -- James26 (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @James26. I have tagged some of the top player articles for being overdetailed a couple of months ago, and just as easily I could have tagged nearly all top 50 players. And you just happen to be the first editor who takes note and cares. We can look at the article of any Marion Bartoli and we will notice that the yearly sections in their tennis career are getting longer and longer every year, especially since 2010. So, as you observed, opponents and scores of matches are being added on an almost match-by-match basis throughout the year. Not only that, usually it comes without proper sources.
 * The problem is this: the few remaining tennis editors who are active in this project, are unable to keep cleaning up so many articles. To clean up just one player's article (as I tried for Djokovic) is a lot of work. You find yourself removing badly worded prose about things like eyedrops being used, complaints about shoulder pain or the speed of the courts, bathroom breaks, etcetera... just useless trivia that do not belong on WP. Then by the time you are finished with cleaning and rewriting, "new stuff" is already being added in the 2012 section, not rarely by IP editors/fans who do not know the guidelines..
 * I think you are on the right track with your suggestion. We do not need to mention every match played, and we do not need to mention every scoreline in the prose of our articles (although I personally would suggest to make an exception for the scores of grand slam finals). We certainly do not need to mention every little injury or excuse given for a lost match. I think we should mention any round reached in the four grand slams, and the quarter finals or better in the other tournaments. We could also mention any doubles titles won. That would summarize a player's year quite well. If we do not make such a cleanup in tennis articles, then I think some day the larger community will come in and just delete most (or all) of these career sections on the basis that they cannot be rescued (so better to rewrite from scratch). MakeSense64 (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Defining the Grand Prix
Hello. I notice that there have been a significant number of recent edits to 1970's Grand Prix calendars which were probably made in good faith but are wrong. The ATP's calendar has a way of misleading Wikipedia editors into thinking that all the tournaments it lists for a particular year were part of the Grand Prix, but this is completely untrue - the ATP didn't administer the Grand Prix until 1990, when it became the ATP Tour, and as a result it lists all the tournaments that it sanctioned, and not just the ones that were part of the Grand Prix. If you want to put WCT tournaments into a calendar, please do so on separate pages, but they were not part of the Grand Prix and any attempt to say they were will be reverted. The same is true of tournaments listed on the ATP calendar that appear to been independent of the Grand Prix and WCT. The exceptions to this rule are the calendars from 1985 to 1989, which are correct because WCT put their events back on the Grand Prix calendar after the 1984 season.

How do I know that the tournaments listed in Grand Prix articles were part of it? Simple - I possess copies of reasonably reliable sources - namely the relevant yearbooks from this series of books which tell me so. If you can find a source which says otherwise, please share it with the WikiProject because it will be very useful in filling in the gaps. There are, however, still holes in our knowledge of the Grand Prix calendar, so please feel free to fill in Grand Prix calendars for years which have been left empty and they will be suitably amended at some point in the future when we have more information. We also need editors to create more WCT season articles, and all the information required for them can be taken from the ATP calendar.

In short: the ATP calendars aren't completely reliable and 1970's calendars in particular are not to be taken at face value. Totalinarian (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember we talked about that earlier this year. As I asked on the Talk here Talk:1970_Grand_Prix_%28tennis%29, it would help if you could drop brief notes on the Talk of each year article, which tournaments belonged (just the cities will be OK) to it. Then other editors can fill in the blanks based on the draws we find on the ATP tour site. Most of us do not have access to the "World of Tennis" yearbooks. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Bear with me - I haven't got direct access to my yearbooks at the moment - and I'll see what I can do; by the way, I don't blame editors for not knowing about the unusual set-up of the Grand Prix because it's natural to assume that the ATP is a reliable source on it. I used to think the same way until I discovered a way to acquire a few of these rather rare yearbooks. Totalinarian (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are some general rules for Grand Prix and WCT calendar editors: as stated above, the calendars between 1985 to 1989 do not need to be divided because WCT merged their events with the Grand Prix after the 1984 season. Between 1982 and 1984 WCT ran a separate calendar of events to the Grand Prix, so separate articles are required for each. Between 1978 and 1981 the Grand Prix counted WCT events as part of its calendar, so the ATP calendars are generally correct for those years. Prior to 1978 the Grand Prix had the Australian Opens of the previous year in next year's calendar (i.e. the 1975 Australian Open was part of the 1976 Grand Prix) but did not start again until May; the starting event varied between the British Hard Court Championships (Bournemouth), the Bavarian Championships (Munich) and (1974 only) the Trofeo VAT 69 (Florence). The exception to this rule is 1977, where non-WCT tournaments between January and April were part of the Grand Prix. Exceptions for other calendars will be listed here shortly. Totalinarian (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's very useful already. For the years where the calendars were separate, maybe it is sufficient to tell us which events belonged to WCT (which was the smaller tour if I am correct), and then the rest belonged to Grand Prix, is that right? Starting and ending tournaments of the official "season" will be useful, since they didn't cut it off by year. How about the woman tour(s), are they also in the year books? MakeSense64 (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether WCT was smaller than the Grand Prix is a matter of debate; it was commercially more prestigious than the Grand Prix but didn't count the majors (Grand Slams) amongst its tournaments (one Australian Open excepted). As for the main question; I've reverted and adjusted the 1970's calendars according to previous edits and my memory – and I'll have to check edits made with the latter – but the 1980's calendars are generally correct (i.e. WCT tournaments were on the WCT calendar and unlabelled tournaments were on the Grand Prix). Grand Prix seasons between 1977 and 1985 started in January – after the Masters – and concluded with the Masters in the following year (e.g. the 1984 Masters were held in January 1985). The women's tours are a bit more complicated and I can't really go into more detail without direct access to my yearbooks. I should be able to provide more information in a few weeks. Totalinarian (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Career sections
I picked up this comment from a recent GA reviewer on the Svetlana Kuznetsova article : Talk:Svetlana_Kuznetsova I think there are some useful ideas here. 1 - We can characterize our "xyz career statistics" as List articles. We should give them a lede accordingly. Then these articles become less likely to be challenged, as there is more freedom in lists. 2 - In the player article itself we only mention the "significant" results and describe the "slumps and recoveries" in their career. Thoughts? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The catalogue of results becomes relentless. I'd prefer to see only the significant ones in this article, and the full catalogue in a List, something like Pete Sampras career statistics. By "significant" I suggest: reaching semi-finals or better at major junior tournaments such as Junior Wimbledon; a lot of the first 2 years of the pro career, where she's climbing the rankings; wins against opponents much higher in the rankings; eventually only matches in major tournaments (e.g. at least 4 opponents in the top 10) against 10 top players; any slumps and recoveries"

Tennis tournaments
Came across this list article, which is rated Top importance: List of tennis tournaments. It can really use a good cleanup and probably needs to be reorganized. But where to start? How about a more simple alphabetic list that doesn't need to be updated every year? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, definitely in need of a major improvement. I would propose:
 * Changing the lede from "List of tennis tournaments" to " List of current tennis tournaments"
 * Updating the 2011 table to reflect the current situation and removing the year from the title and the week and dates from the table. Perhaps we could instead mention the month as that is less sensitive to updates.
 * Deleting the the 2010 and 2009 tables completely. It makes no sense to have one or two year old tables but no other years and it is practically impossible to add all previous years. Those tables belong in the "Tennis in " articles.
 * If it is supposed to be a complete list of tennis tournaments it should also list e.g. 'Kooyong Classic"
 * Remove 1000: ATP World Tour Masters 1000, 500: ATP World Tour 500 series, 250: ATP World Tour 250 series from "Other tournaments". They are not tournaments, but tournament series.
 * --Wolbo (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the list can accommodate both the "current" and the "historic" tournaments, we can just make two sections for them. Then we don't need to change the name.
 * We already have yearly articles like 2011 ATP World Tour which show the tournaments on a month to month basis. Keeping a very similar table in this list article is redundant information. This list article would become more useful if it is kept more simple. I agree on deleting the 2010 and 2009 tables. We can add exhibition tournaments like Kooyong Classic, we just find a way to differentiate exhibitions from main tour events (for example through color coded table). Agree on removing the different "Series". MakeSense64 (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The lists on the page were so long that I missed the existing 'Past Events' section completely as well as the 'Exhibitions' section (listing Kooyong). I deleted the Men's 2010 table and also the Women's 2010 and 2009 tables. That is certainly a step in the right direction. Also removed the ATP series wikilinks. That's the easy part done. Having discovered the 'Past Events' section I'm fine with the 'current' & 'historic' setup of this article. It's mainly the practicality of creating a complete and useful list of past events that I have some concerns about. What to include/not include (e.g. pro tour)? Is all historic info available? The past event list as it currently exists has in my view very limited practical use and needs to changed into a table format like the current events. That's a major undertaking.  --Wolbo (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good steps already. The article will need a lede and needs to state clear criteria for inclusion. But that's something we better discuss on the Talk page there. I dropped the note here and it's nice to see it being picked up, but of course we need to continue the work in the article space itself. I will join as time permits me. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So where do we go from here? Ideally the article should list all tournaments but it would become impossibly long if we listed all past tennis tournaments. Also it lists the men's challenger tournaments (but only about 110 or so of the more than 150) but doesn't list the women's ITF tournaments. I agree the article needs a clear definition of the criteria for inclusion but the more we exclude the more it conflicts with the generic (inclusive) article title. Ideas? --Wolbo (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently the article is about 50 kB size, only half of the 100 kB threshold where we normally start thinking about splitting it up. So that's not a concern for the moment. As I said, further discussion is better carried on the Talk page of the article, but for starters the lede could simply state that it is a list of historic and current tennis tournaments, which are notable enough to have their own article on wikipedia. The inclusion criteria can always be refined or added to later on, but we need something to start with. Then just take it from there, step by step. The article will not get improved overnight, but by and by it can get better if a few people keep watch over it (it is on my watchlist). MakeSense64 (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * True about the 50KB but it currently only list about 200+ past tournaments and surely there are well over a thousand in total. This NYT article lists 200 'tournaments' in the US alone in 1921(!). Questions: 1) Do we have notability guidelines for past tennis tournaments? 2) Procedural: Should we copy this discussion to the tennis list article talk page or post a message there pointing to here? Don't think there is enough traffic there to have an active discussion (from 2009 to 2012 there was no post at all). --Wolbo (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even here on the project page there are not that many editors watching (many have thrown in the towel). So on most tennis articles you are usually editing alone (which can be both a blessing or a curse). To your questions: 1) I don't think so. 2) I would just wait till this section gets archived, then you can post a link to it in the Talk of List of tennis tournaments. Otherwise the link will not work once it gets archived.
 * By the way, this "list" of tournaments from 1921 is only trivial mentions (and probably mostly local club tournaments), so definitely we need more than that to include a "historic tournament". MakeSense64 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Tournament names
I know this has probably been discussed many times before but can anyone tell me what the current situation is regarding the naming of tournaments? Is there a consensus and guideline or not (yet)? At times I see the 'colloquial' name used e.g. 'Cincinnati Masters' but also the commercial name 'Western & Southern Financial Group Masters & Women's Open' is used. There seems to be little consistency. I'm strongly in favor of using the colloquial name (provided of course one exists) in most occasions as the commercial names are probably meaningless to a large part of our audience. Obviously the commercial name should be mentioned in the event's article. I'm reasonably knowledgeable on current tennis but when I read in Juan Carlos Ferrero's article that he had lost at the 'Sony Ericsson Open' I had no clue whatsoever that the Miami Masters was meant. --Wolbo (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We use non-sponsored names (if possible) as per tennis project guidelines but of course not all have been changed to fit that bill. We use the most common term available for the tournament name, hence Cincinnati Masters (since sponsors always change). But for each individual year we keep the sponsored name as it won't change for that particular year, hence, 2010 Western & Southern Financial Group Masters and Women's Open. For an individual players article, I guess it's sort of flexible. If they win a tourney one time and it's in prose or talking about a single year, I could see someone using the sponsored name. usually in any kind of a career list it should be the non-sponsored name. Of course if we have a brand new tournament that has only had a sponsored name we run into trouble but we do look for what the press is calling the event to try to move it from the sponsored name. We cannot make up a name ourselves as it must be sourced. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Junior tournaments
Afaik, junior tennis is not considered notable, except for the junior grand slams. So what to do with these articles? Some of them are apparently not kept up to date (recent years missing), and are poorly sourced (if at all). MakeSense64 (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Petits As
 * Dunlop Orange Bowl
 * Osaka Mayor's Cup
 * Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup
 * I would say they are not notable at all. I've never even heard of the jr Fed Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I (partly) disagree. I haven't heard of three out of four of these tournaments but certainly the Orange Bowl is a pretty well known junior tournament and many of the tennis greats have won it in their younger years.--Wolbo (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I probably heard about the Orange Bowl too, but not the others. By the way, there is also Junior Orange Bowl (tennis) and Junior Orange Bowl.
 * I also noted that our article for ITF Junior Circuit is outdated and refs need to be fixed.
 * I figured out that besides the junior grand slams there are 5 "Grade A" events: . So if the Orange Bowl and Osaka Mayor's are keepers, then we probably should have articles about the other 3 as well. Another option is to merge them into a new section at ITF Junior Circuit, since that is now a very short article. Petits As is the main 12-14 years tournament (and I found some 30 gnews sources for it, mainly in French).
 * My feelings are mixed about these articles. On the one hand we don't consider junior tennis notable, on the other hand tournaments like the Orange Bowl seem to have a long history and I found it interesting to go through the names of past winners. My guess is that in AfD several of these article would survive based on GNG. MakeSense64 (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're probably right in some of them surviving an afd. I like the merge idea for the vast majority so we can keep them all in one place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That being said, maybe we should also have a look at other junior sports. E.g. junior ice hockey seems to have more than a few articles about tournaments Category:Junior ice hockey. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Article double
Eckerd Open and Virginia Slims Masters are doubles and should be resolved, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention before doing something. The only thing which separates the 2 articles is the earlier doubles results. Afro ( Talk ) 16:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As the original creator of the two articles, I would like to point out that the two tournaments cannot possibly be related. French Wikipedia may think otherwise, but there is a big difference in importance between the Virginia Slims Circuit's year-end event and a relatively small tournament held in September. The Florida Federal Open didn't start until 1977, and even then it was held five months after the date that the Masters used to be held on – and on hard courts as well – and only switched dates so it could change its surface and join the American women's clay court season in 1987. The tournaments weren't even held in the same city – the Masters were held in St. Petersburg while the Florida Federal was held in Palm Harbor, Clearwater and Tampa.


 * The logical conclusion is to therefore remove the references to the Masters that someone has put back into the article on the Eckerd Open (they were only in the original because I mistakenly followed the advice of the French Wikipedia article) and not to delete one of them. The two tournaments were separate and not linked in any way, shape or form. Totalinarian (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

List of ATP Tour Grand Slam tournaments and Masters singles champions has been tagged for deletion
Personally I find it a very useful article. Which guidelines can be used to defend it? Gap9551 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Defunct tournament
Had a quick look at all the different tennis categories (Category:Tennis) and noticed we don't have one for defunct tennis tournaments. Would it be useful to create this so we can, well, categorize defunct tennis tournament? They do have a dedicated tennis infobox but I don't think that can be used for categorization --Wolbo (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is List of tennis tournaments. An infobox can add a category. Infobox defunct tennis tournament doesn't do it but uses can be found at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox defunct tennis tournament. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Naming convention
One of the stated goals of the WP Tennis is to "Standardize naming: "Wimbledon" vs. "Wimbledon Championships", "US Open" vs. "U.S. Open" and "French Open" vs. "Roland Garros"". While the many tennis articles I've browsed appear to have a reasonable standardized naming for Grand Slams I can not find a GS naming paragraph in the Article guidelines section. So 1) do we have an agreed upon naming convention for Grand Slams (Open era & Pre-open era) and, if so 2) should we not add this to the article guidelines? --Wolbo (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say yes and yes. As the majors go it's always Wimbledon... then it's Australian Open, French Open, US Open for the modern game. These terms are also used in "general" even before the advent of open tennis. When we get specific in pre-open tennis I believe the usual terms are Australian(earlier Australasian) Championships, French Championships and U.S. National Championships. I'm not sure why we use U.S. in this sense but I'm guessing it's because we follow the sources and far more use U.S. in that context. All 4 are considered Majors since 1925. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

2004 Estoril Open, 2004 Estoril Open – Men's Doubles & WP:NOT
also posted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines Can some one explain how 2004 Estoril Open and 2004 Estoril Open – Men's Doubles pass the enduring notability of persons and events test of WP:NOT as they consist only of results. Mt king  (edits)  23:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very unlikely that main tour (ATP and WTA) tournaments would get deleted, since we even keep such articles for the lower Challenger tour events. Earlier this year we even struggled to delete some 200+ articles for the minor Futures Tour, which has plenty tournaments with less than $25k prize money.
 * It is a long standing problem that many of our tournament articles have little or no prose and are merely lists of results. But that is not seen as a reason delete. It means the article has to be improved. The question is: who is going to improve them with additional prose? Many tennis editors have thrown in the towel since we have national projects trying to push more diacritics into the names of players. It's just not practical to change the spelling of so many names all the time. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But if they do not pass the WP:NOT policy (because they lack enduring notability) they should not be in the encyclopaedia Mt  king  (edits)  05:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think so, then just put them in AfD and see what comes out. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As MakeSense64 says, completely notable but we need some more input to improve these articles so the question doesn't even need to be asked. 03  md  01:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would the 2004 Belgian Grand Prix pass as part of enduring notability? Afro  ( Talk ) 15:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an auto race and should be posted in the appropriate project for clarification. This is for tennis related queries. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's about the autorace as such but rather to show how difficult it is to prove that any sports event has "enduring notability" (per WP:NOTE). I believe Mtking's query is a tangent from a lengthy and somewhat heated discussion on the notability of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) events. I read up a bit on the relevant guidelines (WP:NOTE and WP:EVENT) but find them difficult to apply to sports (and tennis) events, particularly because they include rather vague and ambiguous terms such as "enduring notability", "lasting effect" and "routine coverage". A very strict and literal interpretation could seem to suggest that 80% (rough guesstimate) of all sports articles on WP should be deleted which is clearly neither sensible nor constructive. WikiProject Tennis has what I consider to be sensible and logical guidelines on the notability of tennis events and the ones mentioned clearly fall within the guidelines. Nevertheless it doesn't hurt to compare the project guidelines against the general guidelines once in a while to verify that they are (still) compatible. --Wolbo (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see Mtking prod'd the pages and I removed the notices. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Nomination. Please note that that the 2004 Estoril article has now been nominated for deletion as well as the Men's Singles and Men's Doubles articles. If this is allowed to stand it will mean the deletion of hundreds, if not thousands, of similar articles covering ATP and WTA professional tennis events. This seems completely destructive and in direct conflict with the WP Tennis project goals. --Wolbo (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open

Project Goals
Had a quick read through of the WP Tennis Goals and while they come across as both sensible and worthwhile I have a few questions / suggestions:

1. Goal "Tennis, History of tennis, ATP Tour" This mentions no actual goal or proposed action. Assume it is meant to indicate that these are 'top importance' articles that should have our attention. To make it actionable would it be a good idea to merge this with the goal "Need to make at least one article into Featured Article status" into "Achieve Featured Article status for Tennis, History of tennis and ATP Tour"?

2. Goal "Create an article for every player who has won more than x matches in a Grand Slam tournament"

Should this be expanded to "Create an article for every notable tennis player"?
 * I don't think that it's worth creating an article for every notable tennis player. Since every player who represented his country in Davis cup is notable I could name some guys who are notable even though they couldn't be called professional tennis players. There wouldn't be anything to write about them, no articles, even finding some basic information could be difficult. I think that we can have different criteria for players who may have an article on WP and for players who should have one. Niktute (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tennis players articles are unbalanced at the moment. We have many articles, often lengthy ones with (too) much detail, on players that are barely notable, yet we have no articles or only stubs on legends of the past. Have been updating/expanding a number of articles on past greats but there is still much work to be done. It's a valid point that our guideline, which says that every player has to be notable to have an article, doesn't necessarily mean that every notable player needs to have an article. Fair enough, but we would still need to improve this goal because without at least defining 'x' it's rather meaningless. --Wolbo (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Goal "Standardize naming: "Wimbledon" vs. "Wimbledon Championships", "US Open" vs. "U.S. Open" and "French Open" vs. "Roland Garros""

This sounds like a subgoal of "Create guidelines and templates for tournament articles, draws, and player articles". Shoul it be indented?

4. Goal "Finish the performance timeline comparison tables..."

Why only woman?

5. Goal "Need to make at least one article into Featured Article status"

See 1.

6. Should we add a Goal "Create an {Infobox tennis biography} for every tennis player article" as a subgoal of 2.?

Thoughts and suggestions? Probably best to add your feedback as an indent under the individual points to keep it readable. --Wolbo (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Level of detail on many tennis player articles

 * Hi, I would like to propose a goal of culling the vast amounts of minute detail that seem to plague many tennis player articles. See, for example, my recent comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rafael_Nadal#Too_much_detail 86.179.1.71 (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Playing style, etc
hello,

I am searching for reliable sources about the playing style of Svetlana Kuznetsova. Is there a special website for such information (apart from the official websites)? Thanks.-- GoP T C N 17:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

1800s/Early 1900s Tennis History
Can we sort out a way to differentiate between Challenge Rounds and finalists in the Wimbledon/U.S. National Championships etc - the finalists are technically semi-finalists as the winner reached the Challenge Round - the real final - stats and infobox wise, this means the rounds reached in a tournament are in order 'QF', 'SF', 'F', 'F', 'W' which is just plain silly. Should we use 'CR' or downgrade the QF, SF, F as it was called at the time to 1R, QF, SF which would make more sense? An example - Wilberforce Eaves reached the "Final" (ie round before the Challenge Round) of Wimbledon 3 times, and reached the Challenge Round of the US once - these are all down as 'F' results, even though he progressed further in the U.S. Championships... Asmazif (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2012 (GMT)


 * Use 'CR'; what would we call the new First Round? If you wanted to put a name to the "Final", call it the "All-comers Final"; I seem to recall reading somewhere that this was the term applied to Wimbledon finals of this sort. Totalinarian (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There indeed seems to be a consistency issue regarding the handling/notation of finalists in the All-Comers tournament versus finalists in the Challenge Round. But degrading the F for an All-Comers final to SF can not be a solution. Apart form the issue Totalinarian mentions it is simply incorrect; an All-Comers final is still a final (of the all-comers tournament) and not a semi-final (where is the other semifinal?). Degrading it to SF would result in 1 semifinal, 2 quarterfinals, etc which is clearly not correct (nor clear). Bud Collins' History of Tennis Encyclopedia refers to the Challenger Round tournament results as : Q - S - F - Ch. We should be able to distinguish between the All-Comers' F and the Challenge Round F. In the prose of the article it's not really a problem; wherever applicable we should, and I believe do, use the terms All-Comers and Challenge Round (capitalized or not?). Would this be an acceptable option for the tennis biography infobox?
 * US Open = F Ch (1897)
 * (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * yes, I believe that would work. Thanks for the responses. And we'd still use 'QF' for players who have gone out first round I'm assuming? I mean it's technically correct, yes - just seems a bit weird seeing as they haven't actually won a match in the main draw. Asmazif (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2012 (GMT)

Possible list?
Hi Project. I was wondering about branching off from Grand Slam (tennis) (if Sharapova wins) to create a List of women who have won career Grand Slams? I'd like to deal to deal in a lot more detail than current exists in the Grand Slam page so I think it's a viable standalone list. What do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea. But is there any reason why not under the List of tennis players who have won career Grand Slams? Or do you want to create List of men who have won career Grand Slams later too? Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  15:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, not a bad idea. I just thought we could have two lists, but one, initially, may not be a bad idea either.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think first one article would be enough and if the article becomes too large, than it can be split according to gender. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  17:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then I may just do that. Thanks for your thoughts Armbrust.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency in infobox fields running over onto two lines
Was just wondering why it was that half the time fields such as 'Australian Open', 'Highest Ranking', 'Current Ranking' etc run over onto two lines and sometimes they don't, regardless of how much info is filled in under these fields...? What can be done to make sure infoboxes look more like these: Magnus Larsson, Florian Mayer rather than these: Alejandro Falla, Onny Parun? Thanks. Asmazif (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2012 (GMT)
 * Must be the way they are designed. I have almost no knowledge of how these templates work technically but it looks like it tries to put both columns (header + content) in the same template width and when the content column requires more space it decreases the width of the header column which causes more headers to run over onto two lines (see also Roger Federer). I personally wouldn't mind a slightly broader infobox which fits more content on the same line in order to give it a cleaner look. See the difference between the tennis infobox and the golf infobox at Ellsworth Vines. --Wolbo (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely, making the specifications the same as the Golf infobox makes a lot of sense, will make the pages look so much more concise and tidy - I'd say that at least half of tennis player's infoboxes have the problem, especially in the top players. Thanks for the response. Asmazif (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2012 (GMT)

There's a similar issue when you use the Birth/Date/Age template. If the player's birth month is longer than five letters, the age will appear on the line below, which doesn't look great (eg Benedikt Dorsch). Jevansen (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

more tennis player moves
Just an fyi, another tennis player move attempt is underway:Nikola Cacic to be moved to Nikola Čačić. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here we go again ..... Jevansen (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Svetlana Kuznetsova GAN
hello,

just wanted to mention that unfortunately nobody has picked this article, so it would be nice if someone would do the GA review. The original reviewer is on wikibreak. Regards.-- GoP T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 13:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * TonyTheTiger took this :)-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 16:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi GoP, good luck with the GA review. I'll have a look at the article as well (not as an official reviewer) and see if I can help. In the meantime for clarity's sake please make sure you sign all your answers to TonyTheTiger comments.--Wolbo (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)