Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 11

2012 WTA Challenger Tour
The WTA referred to this as the WTA Challenger Series] so like the 1990 ATP Challenger Series article shouldn't this also follow the same suit? Afro ( Talk ) 21:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Richard Williams (tennis coach)
User:Goredblue123 has created a "new" article at Richard Williams (tennis coach) by copy-pasting the content from Richard Williams (tennis) and then converting the latter to a re-direct. As a result, the edit history has become detached. Can an admin sort this out. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you could post it on WP:ANI. That's indeed the wrong way to move an article. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to be fixed already. The page was moved to avoid confusion with a tennis player named Richard Williams: Richard Williams (tennis player) MakeSense64 (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have fixed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone move this article back to R. Norris Williams as that was the correct title? This player, twofold winner of the U.S. National Championships (and Titanic survivor), was usually referred to as R. Norris Williams or alternatively Richard Norris Williams. I don't know why User:Goredblue123 moved this article, these kind of changes should at least be explained and preferably discussed beforehand. Also noticed the WP Tennis tag is missing on the Talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also noticed that this user moved Hazel Hotchkiss Wightman to Hazel Wightman without any explanation or prior discussion. The resulting page has no more history and the Talk page contents are gone. Can someone with knowledge on properly moving articles revert this article back to Hazel Hotchkiss Wightman? Thx.--Wolbo (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the copy-paste move from R. Norris Williams to Richard Williams (tennis player). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thx. Any chance you can also revert Hazel Wightman back to Hazel Hotchkiss Wightman? Had a look but I don't think a simple undo is sufficient.--Wolbo (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I didn't see a problem with a simple undo so I did that on both titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox navigation
The Tennis Event Info infobox, used for almost all tennis tournament articles including the yearly Grand Slam articles (e.g. 1999 US Open), has a nice navigation feature at the bottom to easily go to the previous tournament (<1998) or the next tournament (2000>):

If you go down one level to the separate events, e.g. 1999 US Open – Women's Singles, this nifty navigation feature is absent and you can no longer easily browse between the different years of, in this case, the Women's U.S. Open singles event (note: now the template has been updated the example does show the previously absent navigation links)

Thought it would be a good idea to also add this navigation feature to the Grand Slam Events infobox which is the infobox used on the articles for the different events at a (Grand Slam) tournament. Being a complete template n00b I asked for assistance at the help desk and User:John of Reading was kind enough to help out and create this new version (1999 US Open – Women's Singles):

It uses the 'before_name' and 'after_name' fields to create the links to the previous and next tournaments. Think it looks and works great but since its a template functionality change I'm posting it here first for review before implementing it. It shouldn't take too much effort to fill in the values.

Does this get the WP Tennis seal of approval? --Wolbo (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It gets mine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made the edit. This means the second example in Wolbo's post here is now displayed with the new links. I've also edited the third example to use rather than my sandbox, so that this talk page doesn't get disrupted when I re-use my sandbox for something else. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Great! Thx! Note that until the 'before_name' and 'after_name' fields have been added to all the relevant articles infoboxes the nav links will go to the higher level of the Grand Slam tournament (1998/2000 US Open) instead of the event (1998/2000 US Open – Women's Singles). --Wolbo (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC on how to handle significant alternate names
Since this may impact all biographies, including tennis bios, I thought it might be important. RFC on Alternate names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

List of tennis venues
These lists have a lot of overlap so we don't really need both: The first one is unsourced, while the second one appears better developed. Delete List of tennis venues ? MakeSense64 (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * List of tennis venues
 * List of tennis stadiums by capacity


 * It would be good to try and get a bit more order in the very large number of tennis lists that often, like in this case, partially overlap each other. A bit of pruning wouldn't hurt and will make it easier to organize / merge / standardize the remaining lists into a more logical and coherent collection. In this particular case I see no reason to have two separate list of tennis venues and agree that List of tennis stadiums by capacity is better developed and sourced. But if we have only one list I think the generic name 'List of tennis venues' would be better. Also if we have one single list I'm unconvinced that the current setup with separate tables for ATP and WTA venues is sensible (too much overlap).--Wolbo (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Confused about French Pro Championship
I know some of these Pre-open era tournaments need a re-write but I'm confused about one of the facts about the 1933 championship, it says the only match played at Roland Garros that year was a Davis Cup tie, it confuses me because USA/FRA's H2H does not indicate a single tie between 1933 and 1981. Afro ( Talk ) 06:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't quite say that. It says it was a pro event in "the Davis Cup format." It is detailed here . I hope that helps clear things up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, I must have misread it thanks. Afro  ( Talk ) 07:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Merging sections 'Collaboration' and 'Cleanup Listing'
The two project sections Collaboration and Cleanup Listing seem to largely overlap. 'Collaboration' contains a list of articles which are unreferenced while 'Cleanup Listing' shows all articles that require some kind of cleanup (incl. unreferenced articles). The lede of 'Collaboration' mentions "This department is for recognizing and fixing articles, within the scopes of Wikiproject Tennis, that need improvement." which is identical to the purpose of 'Cleanup Listing'. Any objections to tidying this up by merging them into one section? --Wolbo (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Cleanup list has been moved to the Collaboration section where it replaced the existing, and outdated, list of articles requiring a reference (FYI, the category 'articles requiring a reference' is also part of the cleanup list so no info is lost). The section 'Cleanup listing' has been removed from the navbar on the right side of the page and from the 'Departments & Projects' overview on the main page --Wolbo (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: should we rename the tab 'Collaboration' to 'Cleanup'? 'Cleanup' is more specific than the somewhat ambiguous term 'Collaboration'. Besides, since most WP Tennis sections are about collaboration in some way it seems a bit peculiar to have a single section with this term.--Wolbo (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitively think 'Cleanup' would be a better name for that section than 'Collaboration'. Any objections to renaming it?--Wolbo (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Collaboration tab has now been renamed (moved) to Cleanup as well as all the links to it. --Wolbo (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wimbledon results
I have added the 1927 Wimbledon women's singles draw. Note that, contrary to the Wimbledon 1927 main page, Helen Wills did not become Helen Wills Moody until December 1929. After a long time away due to illness, I plan to add more of the missing Wimbledon draws over time. Rmallett (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice to see someone return after an illness and good to see progress on the Grand Slam draws. I adjusted the instances of 'Helen Wills Moody' to 'Helen Wills' for the 1927 Wimbledon article given that she was not married at that time. Also moved 1927 Wimbledon Championships - Women's Singles (hyphen) to 1927 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles (ndash) as the std format for draw articles. --Wolbo (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. When I move the 1928 draw from my user space, is it just a matter of moving it to 1928 Wimbledon Championships &ndash Women's Singles ? Rmallett (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Most of the championships now have corrected links (hyphen > ndash) to the different events so if you go to 1928 Wimbledon Championships and click on the red Women's Singles link you can copy the draw into the empty article and you're good.--Wolbo (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I prepared the 1928 draw in my user space, but when I tried to move it to an article including &ndash it refused on the grounds of an invalid character in the title, so I changed it back to hyphen, sorry. Rmallett (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It also wouldn't let me move the 1929 draw to an article including – on the grounds of an invalid character in the title, so I had to use a hyphen again, sorry. I will keep trying :-) Rmallett (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you using the old improper &ndash or the proper "–" character? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) When creating or moving a page you must use the actual character '–' and not write it as . You can for example copy-paste the character from somewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I see that there is a pull down, which currently says 'Insert' followed by  – — ‘’ “” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ √ ← → · § immediately after the Save page, Show preview, Show changes buttons.  I guess the ndash is the first or second of these ? Rmallett (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The en dash is the first, shorter dash (width of an n). The second dash is the em dash (width of an m). Jenks24 (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Navbox wikilinks
FYI, added wikilinks to the individual years in the U.S. National Championships men's singles champions navbox which links directly to the respective men's singles articles (except for the first few years for which no men's singles article (yet) exists). If response is positive (or at least not negative) I'll add this to the other navboxes as well. Useful or not? --Wolbo (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently no objections so added wikilinks to the individual years in the US Open navbox as well. Others to follow.--Wolbo (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The years in 'Pre Open Era Wimbledon men's singles champions' navbox are now wikilinked as well.--Wolbo (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And 'Wimbledon men's singles champions'.--Wolbo (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A few more done.--Wolbo (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Width of Infobox tennis biography template
I'd like to request an increase in the width of this template, something similar to the Golf equivalent (see Ellsworth Vines' page for both, and the difference in width between them) in order to hopefully prevent some of the actual field text on the left-hand side (e.g. 'career prize money', 'current ranking', 'australian open') from running over onto 2 lines. This happens on many players' pages, e.g. Roger Federer, Fred Stolle, John Isner and Jérôme Golmard, whereas the infoboxes presumably should look relatively clutter free/stay on one line ala David Nalbandian, Denis Istomin, Marat Safin and Alexander Popp. This would greatly improve the presentation of such pages and make the infoboxes more efficient and easier to read... would this be possible? I have posted this at the Help Desk also. Thanks. Asmazif (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2012 (GMT)
 * I'm not against it but Tennis takes its cue from project biography which uses info boxes such as Albert Einstein. Golf is the project that is out of whack. I'm not saying it isn't better, but it is a big thing to go against biography standards. In looking at Baseball Steve Garvey, it appears that they use the same size as golf also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Even if going against the standards is a big thing to do, would it not still be the right thing to do to implement it if it's going to have a positive effect on thousands of player pages?. If it's a task which requires a great degree of time and effort then yes, I see your point. Asmazif (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2012 (GMT)
 * I see from the discussion at Template talk:Infobox tennis biography that the issue has been solved by adding a few non-breaking spaces (&amp;nbsp;) to the label fields. I also made the template slightly wider (23em) but not as wide as the golf template (25em). By my measurement the template width increased from 246px to 258px which is actually more in line with the biography template (e.g. Churchill) which I measured at 256px. The increase allows four years on one line in the 'Grand Slam Singles results' section which, combined with the non breaking label for e.g. Australian Open, looks a lot neater. See Roger Federer.--Wolbo (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, everything looks much better now with both these edits. Asmazif (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2012 (GMT)

Relocated Masters events in Singles performance timelines
There seems to be some inconsistency in how relocated Masters events' winning percentages are treated in Singles performance timelines. In Federer's case we talk about calendar slots, Hamburg/Madrid clay is treated as same event and Stuttgart/Madrid indoors/Shanghai is treated as same event. In del Potro's case we talk about the host city, Hamburg is considered as discontinued event, Shanghai as new, and Madrid indoor and clay tournaments as the same. Personally I think we shouldn't consider Madrid clay and Hamburg as the same event when it comes to winning percentages, those clay courts had their unique characteristics. Also neither Stuttgart, Madrid indoors, and Shanghai should be considered as the same event, of those only Shanghai is an outdoor event. But I also think we should have separate winning percentages for Madrid indoor and clay tournaments, combined winning percentage doesn't make much sense. --August90 (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, Djokovic's singles performance timeline has winning percentages like I described above. Should we make it a standard? --August90 (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Djokovic setup seems more logical. Don't really see the point of combining W/L and Win % for different Masters tournaments like Federer's career statistics overview does with e.g. Hamburg and Madrid just because Madrid took the place of Hamburg in the Masters Series. --Wolbo (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Now Federer's singles performance timeline seems to have Hamburg results on Madrid row and Eurocard Open/Madrid indoor results on Shanghai row, which I think makes it even more confusing. I think we have a consensus that the Djokovic setup is the way to go, I'd just change it so that the text starting from 2009 on Hamburg row would be "Not Masters 1000" instead of "Held as Madrid (Clay)", as the Hamburg event still exists. Similarly the text until 2008 on Madrid (clay) row would be "Held as Madrid (Hard)" as both Wiki article and ATP website consider it as the continuation of that indoor event. And the text until 2008 on Shanghai row would be "Not held" or something like that and the text starting from 2009 on Madrid (Hard) row would be "Held as Madrid (Clay)". I think that Djokovic setup can be used in article guidelines, and I can start calculating those winning percentages in players' timelines. --August90 (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

1973 Grand Prix (tennis)
I'm a bit confused about the contents and purpose of the 1973 Grand Prix (tennis) article. According to the lede it's supposed to be an overview of all Grand Prix tournaments in 1973 but it also list the World Championship Tennis (WCT) tournaments and USLTA Indoor Winter Circuit which I believe were not part of the Grand Prix circuit. All the Grand Prix tournaments for woman are missing (apart from the mixed doubles) and the article overlaps with 1973 Men's Grand Prix (tennis). Can anyone clarify?--Wolbo (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These are the other articles I could find relating to the 1973 season (this setup applies to other 1970s seasons as well):
 * 1973 Men's Grand Prix (tennis)
 * 1973 World Championship Tennis circuit
 * 1973 Women's Grand Prix (tennis)
 * 1973 Virginia Slims WTA Tour
 * These articles seem to be fine in the sense that the overviews match the article titles. I notice there is as yet no 1973 in Tennis article but that should be added to the equation (see 2007 example). So what to do with the 1973 Grand Prix (tennis) article (and similar ones)? Should it's contents be modified to match the article title or should we perhaps turn it into 1973 Grand Prix (tennis). Thoughts? --Wolbo (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We also need to check if the Grand Prix list is complete. Neither the 1973 Grand Prix (tennis) or 1973 Men's Grand Prix (tennis) article for instance mention the Sydney International (then New South Wales Championhips) but according to that article it was part of the Grand Prix tour at the time. There might well be more missing.--Wolbo (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know I rarely contribute nowadays, but I saw this section and had to step in. The line about the Sydney International being part of the Grand Prix was added to the pages of virtually all the modern tournaments when it's not true. The tournaments that are listed on the 1973 Men's Grand Prix page were part of the Men's Grand Prix, as are those listed for the 1973 Women's Grand Prix. A reminder again that the ATP's calendars for the 1970's in particular are inaccurate and do not reflect the various circuits that existed then. In short, if a tournament is listed on the Wikipedia pages, it actually was part of the Grand Prix. One minor point about the 1973 Virginia Slims WTA Tour as well: it was really the Virginia Slims Circuit because the WTA had only just been established in 1973, and even then it was called the Women's International Tennis Association (WITA) and had no administrative duties within the Virginia Slims Circuit. Totalinarian (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd seen your contribution to these articles and was hoping you would drop by to comment. As mentioned the list in 1973 Men's Grand Prix (tennis) seems fine and in line with the World of Tennis 1974 book but do you agree that 1973 Grand Prix (tennis) contains WCT and US Indoor tournaments that do not belong on a list of Grand Prix tournaments? If so, what do you think we should do with that article? If we just take out the WCT / US Indoor tournaments the article pretty much becomes a duplicate of 1973 Men's Grand Prix (tennis). I mentioned the 1973 Sydney International (New South Wales Championships) because I came across it but could not discover if it was part of the Grand Prix circuit at the time or not. The Wiki article says yes but it's not in 1973 Men's Grand Prix (tennis) and it is also not mentioned in World of Tennis 1974 as either a Grand Prix or WCT tournament. So, what circuit was it part of or was it a stand-alone, independent tournament? --Wolbo (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. When I created a similar article for the 1971 Men's Grand Prix someone cited WP:CONCEPTDAB to point out that I was not allowed to separate the Men's Grand Prix from the Women's Grand Prix and would have to put both of them on one main page, but I had already created the 1973 articles by then and I wasn't prepared to merge the two to form a large and – in my opinion – stodgy article. In my absence someone then put all of the tournaments cited in the inaccurate ATP calendar (I can't stress this enough) back onto the main 1973 Grand Prix page, leaving the inaccurate article available today. The New South Wales Championships (Sydney International) did not appear in the 1974 Grand Prix (according to World of Tennis 1975) and was not part of the 1973 WCT or US Indoor circuits, so it must have been an independent tournament – it did not become part of the Grand Prix until 1977. I'm so glad that someone else has a World of Tennis annual that backs up what I've been saying for quite a while – these annuals are key to improving the reliability of this WikiProject. Totalinarian (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bought a couple of World of Tennis annuals recently (most of them are dirt cheap) and agree that they are crucial sources for covering the 1968-2000 period. After 2000 info becomes more easily available online but it's still a shame they discontinued these annuals in 2001. Does anybody know if the ITF Yearbooks are a decent successor? Thx for the explanation, it's now clear how these articles came about. Still we need to decide what to do with 1973 Grand Prix (tennis). One option would be to merge the Grand Prix Men's and Women's article but that would indeed become a very lengthy article and besides the ATP and WTA years are also covered in separate articles so it seems consistent to do the same here. I'm more and more inclined to turn them into 1973 in Tennis given that a) we can't leave the article in it's current incorrect state and b) as mentioned removing the WCT and US Indoor tournaments turns the article into a duplicate of 1973 Men's Grand Prix (tennis). Thoughts?--Wolbo (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

One question...
...is here: Talk:Tennis_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics. Somebody answer, please. --Stryn (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Template colour problem
Please see Template talk:Tennis events 2. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wimbledon infobox refers to women; early pages refer to ladies
The new Wimbledon infobox refers to women's singles, while the early Wimbledon draw pages refer to ladies' siingles (because that's what Wimbledon called them then, and still calls them now) with the result that the infobox doesn't link to the early draw pages. Rmallett (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone look into this dispute in List of career achievements by Roger Federer?
An anonymous user started deleting large parts of this article claiming duplicate and trivial information. While in some cases he/she was right about duplications (and these have been fixed), this person continues to delete many records on false grounds, see Talk:List of career achievements by Roger Federer. Can someone look at the article and discussion and independently decide if some achievements indeed are not important enough to be listed? I suspect the importance-threshold is lower in this dedicated article compared to e.g. the more general Roger Federer article, and I don't see a problem with listing a large number of achievements, but I also don't want to enforce my own views. Gap9551 (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm quite happy to read a list of tennis records (split, as necessary, into male vs. female, pre-open vs. open, different surfaces, etc.) but to have a dedicated record page for a particular player does encourage people to go loooking for categories in which they can claim records. Rmallett (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean 108.78.177.132? In looking at the differences here I find I might have made some of the same trimmings myself. I would also have made other trimmings. You want this to be about Federer... not his peers. You also don't want arbitrary numbers like Sampras winning 14 in 49 Majors while Federer won 17 in 37. Those are items that imho are unneeded trivial stats. I would have written "Federer holds the open-era record for most consecutive US Open titles at five (2004–08)" and that's it. Nothing about pre-open era winners since you already stated it's an open-era record. Things like "7 Grand Slam titles in 9 attempts, 8 in 10 attempts, 11 in 16 attempts, 12 in 18 attempts, 13 in 21 attempts, 14 in 23 attempts, 15 in 25 attempts, 16 in 27 attempts and 17 in 37 attempts are all all-time men's records." are way overkill imho. You would need to find an actual press report that could be quoted as saying "Roger Federer has won 13 in 21 attempts." I would have kept "Federer, Jimmy Connors and Sampras have won a men's open-era record five US Open titles" but worded it differently or combined it with the consecutive record above.


 * So Items like "Federer (2003–09) is the only man in tennis history to play in seven consecutive Wimbledon finals" I would keep. But "Federer (2004–09, 6 years) has appeared in six consecutive US Open men's finals" I would dump as not a record. This I would keep "Federer is the only male player in tennis history to reach at least three Grand Slam finals for four consecutive calendar years and five overall (2004, 2006–09)". This I would throw away "During open era, Federer is the 3rd male to appear in 8 finals of the same grand slam, 8 at Wimbledon. Lendl (8 US Open finals) was the first player to achieve this feat followed by Sampras (8 US Open finals). However Lendl only won 3 out of 8 US Open finals and Sampras won 5 out of 8 US Open finals, where as Federer won 7 out of 8 Wimbledon finals. On the other hand, Sampras is undefeated in all 7 Wimbledon finals that he appeared in." It's probably all in the eye of the beholder... I tend to be much tighter in what I would think is an actual record that people might talk about. I'm more exclusionist than inclusionist. If I see "He is the 4th..." warning flags go off that this is not a record or this is not worthy of inclusion. So my opinion would be to open it for discussion on the talk page. I'd rewrite it myself but I would think many would yell at me for cutting it by a third and shortening many of the sentences to remove player names that aren't named Federer. Anyway, my two cents. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that sounds reasonable. I agree that the articles could be more concise and that some achievements are too detailed. I cut out some overly detailed information. I certainly wouldn't mind if someone else also did this too. The reason why I brought it up here was the difficulty to discuss things in a reasonable way on the talk page with said user. Gap9551 (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He seems to have a bad bedside manner and is at an/i because of it, so you're not alone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Channel Slam
Is there really such a thing as a Channel Slam? winning the two majors, French and Wimbledon in the same season? I know espn used it once or twice in sources but for "we" at wikipedia to use it in multiple articles should the term be a little more widespread? Maybe it's an espn thing. We don't want to be the primary source on the internet. Even less source worthy appears to be "small slam" which is very rarely used for winning 3 majors in a season but has been added to an article or two. I just want to make sure we are all on the same page in allowing or not allowing for consistency. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The term 'Channel Slam' does not appear to be widely used in reliable sources but it has a couple of mentions. Apart from ESPN it can be found on an SI.com blog (link1, link2) and also on a Wimbledon 2011 page (link3). Apart from these sources it is mainly used on personal blogs and a tennis forum or two. The term 'Small Slam' comes from bridge so perhaps there is some logic to using it as 'Grand Slam' is also a bridge term but it seems to have very little traction in reliable sources. Apart from that it sound an awful lot like a contradictio in terminis. You either win the Grand Slam or you don't, a Small Slam is like being a little bit pregnant. Or did Murray just win a Really Small Slam? My verdict: 'Channel Slam' marginal yes, 'Small Slam' no.--Wolbo (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I would have leaned marginal no on Channel Slam but at least it has been used on a few occasions. I guess my weight of it would be percentage of use... just French and Wimbledon vs Channel Slam. It would seem to me that the scale would clunk down heavily on not using Channel Slam as standard usage in wikipedia. Even if it was 60/40 against, that would still be a sizable chunk of usage. It must be more like 1000 to 1 against in all press usage? When we compare one particular name against another particular name it's easy to compare in google etc... we can see that name "A" gets more hits than name "B". But when you're comparing a rare name "A" against no name at all it doesn't work the same way. It's 5 or 6 instances of finding name "A" but really countless thousands of finding nothing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never heard 'channel slam' or 'small slam' used by the British media.Rmallett (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't support neither of them. It has the same "sense" as let's say calling the US, AUS and Wimbledon the Commonwealth Slam or the US and AUS the Transpacific Slam or the Roland and US Open the Liberty Slam. There are plenty of variations for them to not include any of it just the full or zero Slams and still we will have career, calendar, classic or golden Grand Slams to talk about.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also to have a wikilike argument here, an average reader who is unfamiliar with tennis needs to have less specific (or made up specific) terms to come across and search for while reading the article. Also I'd wait until a book dedicated to tennis mentions any of them. Widespread terms are hard to deny but news hypes and forced word usage by sports commentators are not to be confused with people's everday coffee chat about tennis.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  12:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Christian Boussus
His - unsourced - article (and also its - unsourced - French equivalent) claims he died at the age of 95. While the Time Magazine of 1943 reports that he fell in World War II. What to do next? He hasn't played tennis after 1939, which is quite suspicious. Tennisarchives support the 2003 death date but it's asite that gathers information from every available sources so Wikipedia could also be one of them. Still they have no activity data after 1939, when he was just 30 years old and at that time you'd have had 10 more years in tennis (also a possible warwound could explain it but later wartime pictures show he wasn't enlisted - see below). I could find three pictures of him dated later than the 30s from WWII, but they are still earlier than the Time accounts. ALSO this French article at the Société Française des Parfumeurs (French Society of Parfume Makers) states he married Cellier Germaine and was still alive in 1970. Any ideas?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  21:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He definitely seems to have survived WWII according to scoreshelf.com. See also this 1946 newspaper article.--Wolbo (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that Tima Magazine got it wrong. He is in multiple draws of the French Championships, 1949 and 1953 for example. And here is a newspaper clip from his 1953 loss to Ken Rosewall. So unless there were two different Christian Boussus's, I think the latter death date is correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am tend to believe it but it would be nice to have a proper source for the article. At least for his date of death as there are ambiguous sources out there. So we know he survived the WWII and perhaps lived in the 70s, but 2003 is still 30 years after the latest news about him... I am surprised that a player named the "fifth musketeer" who lived such a magnificent age doesn't even pop up at a findagrave-like site at least.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  23:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think he was called the fifth musketeer universally... maybe only a couple sources. But I was also surprised I could find no obituary on his death. I did find that a video was made of Boussus playing tennis for the prisoners in Sept 1943. So he was probably presumed lost at first when Time published the names in June, and later found out to be captured instead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay I will add all this info on his page as well as an infobox. He's a former Davis Cup captain and a mixed doubles Australian Open champions so I think his article deserves to be improved a little. Still his death date needs clarification in the near future. Maybe some French newspapers will find out he's missing...again and publish something about him.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  23:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are two French websites mentioning his death in 2003 (link1, link2) and Figaro has a preview of an article on his death in 2003.--Wolbo (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * nice finds! You're a better man than I Gunga Din. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Figaro is an exceptional nice catch, I'll include it in his article soon. Coincidently I also found the other two but I had my concerns on tennis-histoire as it is edited by only one man, who posted his own CV but nothing about being a tennis expert. I rejected the other at the first glimpse too based solely on its URL but on the second closer look it seems like a valid site of the local sports club of Bagnères-de-Bigorre so it could be also useful with its bio summary on Boussus. I searched news.google.com and found info on his studies and that he was ranked N°1 French tennis player in 1934, 1936 and 1937 by the French Lawn Tennis Association. Funnily enough I found another source for his death at the The Milwaukee Journal but as proven here it's just the same hoax. I like draw attention on André Lacroix (tennis)'s death in his article that is based on the same Time info. Maybe it needs a double check too? Again thank you folks, I found out to be a category category for him already existing in Commons so photos are also available for his infobox.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Finished expanding it, although it's still a stub. Have a look at it if you have time.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  14:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can help me out to expand it to 5x bigger than it's original stubbish state within a week, we could send it to DYK. Maybe a detailed description of his victory and finals at the Slams? Contemporary newspapers seem to have reported it in depth.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange articles
a couple of strange articles that look like hoaxes to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Alexandra Machedoska and Lucerne Open. There may be more by these editors but I could find no sources for these articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hoaxes: Machedoska isn't listed in the rankings from September 10th (her ranking apparently updated on September 8th) and there hasn't been a tennis tournament in Lucerne since the 1994 European Open. The WTA activity for Renata Voracova this year doesn't list a tournament in Lucerne either. Totalinarian (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In the AfD Fyunck(click) said both are the works of Menzeliotsky but there's two other editors involved, namely Croszia and Mustafiska. Checking his contributions reveals there's a couple of other subpages 2012 Lucerne Open, 2012 Lucerne Open – Singles,  2012 Lucerne Open – Doubles, 2011 Lucerne Open, 2011 Lucerne Open – Singles,  and they are preparing a third one here : User:Anyalivictor. Maybe a mass nomination?  Lajbi   Holla @ me  •  CP  18:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. The question is are these all the same user or a tag team of kids pulling pranks? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Second Lajbi's idea; while I'm sure Renata Voracova would appreciate the efforts of the editors involved to boost her ranking (she is 347th in the world in today's new singles rankings) Wikipedia attempts to provide information, not novel and somewhat optimistic fiction. Totalinarian (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * These are sockpuppets, I bet.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  20:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

List of xxx Davis Cup team representatives
As I've seen a couple dozen lists of the above form has been created and added to Template:Davis Cup by Jevansen. Basicly it's not a bad idea and it could be especially useful if we add a short introduction of players into it as many of the Davis Cup players' articles will probably not be created or will never surpass the stub category. We can have then redirects from all names to the appropriate section of the list. Thus many one-time Davis Cup players could be covered by Wikipedia. Also this way these lists could become more detailed and perhaps could apply for a featured list badge.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Points Vulture
I'm sure this article doesn't belong to Wikipedia. Does anybody else think it should be deleted? --August90 (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be deleted in my opinion. It is probably a joke, and the references do not support the content, in fact none contains the word 'vulture'. Gap9551 (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a joke that should belong to Uncyclopedia (even it'd be quite poor an Uncyclopedia article :D ). But would it fill the criteriums for speedy deletion? And also the creator of the article, Alexio92 seems to be a troll, just check his contributions. --August90 (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't quite seem to fit speedy deletion. I have proposed it for deletion instead. I also removed all named players as unsourced derogatory terms per WP:BLP which applies to all pages. This meant all references became irrelevant and also had to be deleted. None of them supported the "vulture" claim. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Original creator removed the proposed deletion template. Why not just nominate it for deletion so the process couldn't get halted by such acts. Editor also messed with Juan Mónaco,David Ferrer,Victor Hănescu ‎,Alan Hansen,Javier Hernández Balcázar.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  19:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep...nominate away. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Points Vulture. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Expert needed: 1921 International Lawn Tennis Challenge
The above article lists the Racing Club of France as a venue used during this event. Are any of the entries on the page Racing Club de France the venue mentioned, or was there another similarly named facility used? - TB (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Only sort of. Choice two "the former name of Racing Club de Paris football club" is sort of correct but that article is about the squads of football players not the Venue. The venue and team/squad were founded in 1882; the team was football, the venue became multipurpose. The 1900 Olympics were held here, and the French Tennis Championships were held here from 1910-1926. In 1928 Roland Garros became the permanent site of the French Championship (later the French Open) and the Racing Club of France slowly slipped into history as a major tennis venue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes sense. I'll see about splitting the venue content from the football club to make a natural home for this content.  Cheers. = TB (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Help needed:French Open mixed champions
The current template Template:French Championships mixed doubles champions contradicts the list List of French Open mixed doubles champions in the early years winners (1912-1914), although I think the latter is correct there's no proof for that. Are the mixed results are properly archived in the Roland Garros site or on any reliable other?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  22:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The template is incorrect, for 1912-1914 it shows the results of the World Hard Court Championships. The correct mixed results are the ones in the list and can be found on the Roland Garros site. They are also listed in Gille Delamarre's book Roland Garros - Le Livre du Tournoi du Centenaire.--Wolbo (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) They show winners of two different tournaments which may be considered the precursor to the French Open. The French Championships were only for French players. List of French Open mixed doubles champions shows the World Hard Court Championships which was open to foreigners (that's what "Open" in French Open means). See French Open. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it looks like they both show the opposite tournament of what I said. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the List of French Open mixed doubles champions is correct. Someone blew it on the template by using the WHCC instead. It has now been fixed... thanks for bringing it to our attention. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Project Goals Proposal
Not much feedback so far on the WP Tennis Goals post so in an effort to takes things forward (or perhaps drag a dead horse?) here's my proposal for an update to the project goals.

Current Project Goals

 * Tennis, History of tennis, ATP Tour
 * Create an article for every Grand Slam tournament ever held
 * Create articles for each Grand Slam tournament draw: Men's Singles, Women's Singles, Men's Doubles, Women's Doubles, Mixed Doubles
 * Create an article for every player who has won more than x matches in a Grand Slam tournament
 * Add 'Performance Timeline' sections to all the above articles
 * Create guidelines and templates for tournament articles, draws, and player articles
 * Standardize naming: "Wimbledon" vs. "Wimbledon Championships", "US Open" vs. "U.S. Open" and "French Open" vs. "Roland Garros"
 * Finish the performance timeline comparison tables, which will include the career Grand Slam tournament, World Hard Court Championship and Olympic results of every woman who has reached at least one Grand Slam tournament, World Hard Court Championship or Olympic final during her career.
 * Need to make at least one article into Featured Article status.
 * Create articles for every notable tennis tournament for male and female players, especially since the beginning of the Open Era, including yearly articles and draws.

Proposed Project Goals

 * (1) Take Tennis, History of tennis, ATP Tour, Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open articles to Good Article status and at least one to Featured Article status
 * (2) Create an article for every Grand Slam tournament ever held
 * (a) Create articles for each Grand Slam tournament draw: Men's Singles, Women's Singles, Men's Doubles, Women's Doubles, Mixed Doubles


 * (3) Create articles for every notable tennis tournament for male and female players including yearly articles and draws.
 * (4) Create an article (including infobox) for every player who has reached at least the quarter finals in a Grand Slam tournament
 * (a) Add 'Performance Timeline' section to all relevant player articles


 * (5) Create guidelines and templates for tournament articles, draws, and player articles
 * (a) Standardize naming: "Wimbledon" vs. "Wimbledon Championships", "US Open" vs. "U.S. Open" and "French Open" vs. "Roland Garros"


 * (6) Finish the Tennis performance timeline comparison (women) and Tennis performance timeline comparison (men) articles

The numbers are added purely for reference. Here's an overview of the changes and explanations.


 * (1) Merged "Tennis, History of tennis, ATP Tour" with "Need to make at least one article into Featured Article status." Added the Grand Slam tournaments.
 * (2) Unchanged
 * (a) Unchanged (indented)


 * (3) Removed "especially since the beginning of the Open Era" and changed order (2 & 3 are both tournament goals)
 * (4) Specified "x matches" to "reached at least Grand Slam quarter finals". Without defining "x" it was an empty goal. All notable players is perhaps too pie-in-the-sky ambitious and the "quarter final" requirement seems reasonable and is also easily verifiable and therefore practical. Added the goal that all player articles should have a tennis biography infobox.
 * (a) Changed "all the above" to "all relevant player" (indented)


 * (5)) Unchanged
 * (a) Unchanged (indented)


 * (6) Added men's performance timeline comparison and removed detailed explanation (can be seen on the article pages)

Hope to get some feedback on this proposal and reach a project consensus. It's not very busy in here at the moment so I'll wait a considerable time before making any updates. There is no real rush but we should get this sorted. --Wolbo (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

How about adding a project goal regarding the amount of articles that require cleanup? Seems to be a good indicator of the overall quality of the tennis articles (together with the quality assessment). Proposal: Currently 16.4 % of the articles are marked for cleanup, but about 40% of those are related to Persondata templates missing a short description. --Wolbo (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (7) Ensure that no more than 5% of all tennis articles are marked for cleanup.


 * If there are no objections I'll update the 'Goals' section sometime next week. Would prefer to do so based on a bit more more feedback from and discussion with other tennis editors but the lack of that should not be a reason not to move forward (per WP:BOLD). Of course we can always revisit this topic at some point in the future when hopefully the activity here picks up.--Wolbo (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The proposed cleanup goal "Ensure that no more than 5% of all tennis articles are marked for cleanup." is the last update that is still outstanding. Any objections to adding it? --Wolbo (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Last call for comments. If no objections I'll update this next week.--Wolbo (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I appreciate your efforts in this direction. Once the Wimbledon singles draws are complete, we can talk further about what needs to be done, which may require a visit to the Wimbledon library. Rmallett (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done (see below).--Wolbo (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Updated Project Goals

 * Improve Tennis, History of tennis, ATP Tour, Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open articles to Good Article status and at least one to Featured Article status
 * > Merged "Tennis, History of tennis, ATP Tour" with "Need to make at least one article into Featured Article status." Added the Grand Slam tournaments.--Wolbo (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Finish the Tennis performance timeline comparison (women) and Tennis performance timeline comparison (men) articles
 * > Added men's performance timeline comparison and removed detailed explanation. --Wolbo (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Create articles for every notable tennis tournament for male and female players including yearly articles and draws.
 * > Removed "especially since the beginning of the Open Era" and added notability wikilink. --Wolbo (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Create an article for every player who has reached at least the quarterfinals in a singles event or the semifinals in a doubles event at a Grand Slam tournament
 * > Replaced the meaningless 'x matches' with the criteria of reaching the quarterfinals in a singles event or the semifinals in a doubles event. Left out 'including infobox'. --Wolbo (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Create an article for every Grand Slam tournament ever held as well as for each draw (men's singles, women's singles, men's doubles, women's doubles, mixed doubles)
 * > Merged "Create an article for every Grand Slam tournament ever held" with "Create articles for each Grand Slam tournament draw: Men's Singles, Women's Singles, Men's Doubles, Women's Doubles, Mixed Doubles"--Wolbo (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Add 'Performance Timeline' sections to all the above articles
 * > Changed to "Add 'Performance Timeline' sections to relevant player articles" --Wolbo (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * > Added "Ensure that no more than 5% of all articles are marked for cleanup."--Wolbo (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Player Article Goal
Current goal:
 * Create an article for every player who has won more than x matches in a Grand Slam tournament

Proposed goal:
 * Create an article (including infobox) for every player who has reached at least the quarter finals in a Grand Slam tournament

After browsing through the Grand Slam draw articles I believe it might be sensible to distinguish between singles and doubles players and adjust for the fact that singles draws are generally larger and the players more notable. So with that in mind here is a revised proposal for the player article goal:
 * Create an article, including infobox, for every player who has reached at least the quarterfinals in a singles event or the semifinals in a doubles event at a Grand Slam tournament

Any feedback / objections to this revised proposal? --Wolbo (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW I would agree with that. Not interested in doubles myself, since so many players withdraw from doubles somewhere along the way, if they're doing well in singles. Rmallett (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If there are no further objections I'll update this in the course of the week.--Wolbo (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest setting up a guideline that favors prose instead of wikitables and statistical data. We could encourage editors to include at least 1,500 characters of written text when creating these articles, so at least they could pass the DYK nomination minimum requirement.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I never knew about DYK because it's 'below the fold' on the home page for me, so I never see it; and it's ephemeral anyway, so personally, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Rmallett (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1,500 characters won't do any wrong to the article. It is really just over the stub-limit. DYK is ephemeral or not it boosts the viewership, and also guarantees that the article has a minimum grammar/formatting/neutrality as it is required in the manual of style.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI DYK
 Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox tennis circuit season
Noticed that the yearly ATP Tour and WTA Tour are lacking an infobox which makes it difficult to get a quick summary view of these lengthy articles and to easily navigate between the year articles. To address this shortcoming I created an {Infobox tennis circuit season} (see below and here). Well, not so much 'created', it's more 'creatively copied' from other infoboxes and then made some adjustments. It should be possible to use the infobox for all the yearly ATP Tour and WTA Tour articles but also the yearly Grand Prix articles, WCT circuit articles as well as the Year in tennis articles. This may require further development. So what do you think, useful addition or waste of space? Any sugestions for improvements? --Wolbo (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Added a tournament categories field. Another option is to create a separate field (+label) for every tournament category but that list would be very long to cover all the tournament categories used since the Open era so a generic 'categories' field is the more flexible solution.--Wolbo (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I really like and support that. Although categories won't work with year in tennis articles and pre-professional era tennis, the parameter could stay at least it will be omitted for earlier years. So for the year in tennis we need women and team tennis infos, Olympics for Olympic years, and mixed champions perhaps ("most improved" and similar awards could go both ways separated with a slash). The other line I would reconsider is the "most finals" since it's an unofficial statistical data and based upon this many others could join the infobox...without significantly improving it. Maybe we can have a picture and caption included within the infobox as many ATP/WTA articles already start with pic at the top (ok, I see it already has it and works well as I tested in 2010 ATP World Tour). So it's a good idea and nice work.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. Yes, the image was included already in the template. I had the ATP or WTA logo in mind and didn't think that would look particularly good in this format but the photo quadtych at 2010 ATP World Tour fits very well.--Wolbo (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I could help with the template documentation if you feel so.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  16:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, be my guest. Thx.--Wolbo (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like this in the 1931 in tennis article.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Categories turned out to be fine with earlier years contrary what I presumed. It's the awards that weren't introduced until some decades ago.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Added an 'Edition' field to the template. Not so useful for articles like 1931 in tennis but meant for ATP or WTA articles like 2000 ATP Tour.--Wolbo (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Lahyani and notability
Just making sure those that don't regularly read our project page realize that umpires and notability have come up once again. At Articles for deletion/Mohamed Lahyani. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor contributions spot checks
I am watching over an editor. Per agreement, one of her tasks is to update facts and figures in tennis articles. I don't quite understand the codes and conventions used. Would somebody please spot check a few edits to make sure they are alright. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Reposting again below. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Algernon Kingscote
 Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer is a resounding 'No, I did not know, in fact I had no clue who Lucas Cleeve was'. Nice work on the Algernon Kingscote article! --Wolbo (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's your credit as well. Thanks for helping me out.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  16:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Editor contributions spot checks
Repost, this time with the all-important link. Yes, I am a balloonhead. :)

I am watching over an editor. Per agreement, one of her tasks is to update facts and figures in tennis articles. I don't quite understand the codes and conventions used. Would somebody please spot check a few of her 8 zillion edits to make sure they are alright, and just give me a thumbs up here. Also, maybe invite her to join the project here because she's very productive and likes tennis.

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just looked over the last three players edits and they look pretty good.... some of the tedious stuff that not many like doing too. I sure hope BrightStarSky keeps doing it because we could always use prolific editors. Make sure he/she reads over our project guidelines and if any questions arise never be afraid to ask right here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I also hope this prolific editor continues. I (also) invited her to join this project.


 * Project talk page stalkers: Please don't hesitate to let her know that she's appreciated if you feel she's doing good work. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Standardized color scheme for tournaments
Added a table with the standardized color scheme (and color codes) for tournaments to the Article guidelines for reference purpose.

As far as I'm aware, based on current articles as well as previous discussions, these are the agreed standardized colors. This color scheme table is a reference for editors and can help them to update those articles that are currently non-compliant. The Grand Slam Cup is an obsolete tournament (ran from 1990 to 1999) so perhaps this should be listed separately. Also as far as I can tell it's colors usage is not really standardized, the color shown is per the Pete Sampras career statistics article.

Relevant archived discussions on color schemes (new to old): Any comments or suggestions for improvement? --Wolbo (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Archive_7
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Archive_6
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Archive_5
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Archive_4


 * The Grand Slam Cup is now listed separately as an obsolete tournament. --Wolbo (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge fan of color charts (some because of blind/colorblind rules here at wikipedia) but I think they are here to stay. That said the yellow for the WTFinals is not the same as the chart above it. It should be FFFFCC which is much softer and pleasing to the eye. The Sampras page is actually a bit stewy in it's color arrangements. I changed your chart above and on the guideline page accordingly. If it was me, to keep in sync with the rest of the pastels, I'd have gone with an olympics of FFE976 or at most FFE34E. Otherwise I like it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thx for the correction, must have taken the color for the World Tour Finals from an incorrect article. Inadvertently that shows the value of having this color scheme / code table in the guidelines to make clear what the correct colors are. I never liked the early color schemes we used, they were much too flashy and prominent and therefore distracted from reading the content of the article. They also had serious accessibility issues due to the low contrast ratio between the letters and the background color. Frankly those colors did more harm than good but IMO the current softer scheme does not have these issues. And it's a good step forward to standardize the colors for both ATP and WTA (the WTA colors were an abomination). I understand the current color for the Olympics, for FFE34E you can subsutitue GOLD, but agree that it does not fit well with the rest of the scheme and is too heavy. Of the two substitutes you mention, FFE976 and FFE34E, the latter has my preference, it's still recognizable as a gold color and differentiates enough from the WTF yellow. This is how it would look: --Wolbo (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Any objections to changing the color for the Olympics to the one shown above? --Wolbo (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's better. Not so bright. --Stryn (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * looks good to me too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * With the consensus on the Olympics color it looks like we are done but the discussion at Template talk:Tennis events 2 makes clear that we should also take the accessibility guidelines into account to ensure that people with low vision / color deficiencies can read the tables as well. Part of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) deals with the contrast between text color and background color and while our tournament colour scheme is WCAG 2 AA-level compliant (contrast ratio at least 4.5) only the 'ATP World Tour Finals' and 'ATP World Tour 250' are AAA-level compliant (contrast ratio at least 7). Please find above a proposal for a color scheme that fully meets this highest level of compliance. A 'Team Events' option has been added. Downside of this change is that it requires a significant update of articles but the end result will be a scheme that meets the highest accessibility guidelines and should therefore be relatively future proof. Might as well bite the bullet now. Thoughts? Comments? --Wolbo (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we get some feedback on this so we can finalize our consensus standardized color scheme and get started with the necessary udates? Thx.--Wolbo (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What's to be done (if anything) to the WTA colours ? The ATP and WTA colours should be the same for equivalent levels, if there are equivalent levels.  Otherwise, my only comment would be that they should comply with the accessibility guidelines, as you say. Rmallett (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The table also has a column for the WTA tournaments and yes they will be the same for comparable levels. The same will apply to historic categories i.e. the color for 'ATP World Tour 250' will also be used for its predecessors 'International Series' and 'World Series'.--Wolbo (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The last chart up there with the added team events at ECF2FF, is my favorite. When charts get larger it's far more pleasing to the eye. Also rememeber that the W3C Guidelines also say "color is not used as the only visual means of conveying information" so in reality there should also be a symbol associated with each color, every time. In practice on wikipedia this is rarely followed and can make charts very cumbersome by having to add symbols like †‡€⁪ұҰΩ┴▼ for each and every entry in color. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the W3C guidelines it can be argued that the text itself, i.e. `ATP World Tour 250`, is the primary means of conveying the information and the color plays a supporting role. It seems we're reaching a consensus on this color scheme but I'll wait a little while longer to see if there is any more feedback before adding the color scheme to the article guidelines.--Wolbo (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Updated
The consensus color scheme has now been added to the Article Guidelines with a small section lede. Let the updates begin! --Wolbo (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the Grand Slam Cup as a separate color event. As it was basically a year end tournament it falls within the same category as the ATP World Tour Finals and can therefore use the same color (FFFFCC).--Wolbo (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Court titles being removed
Just a heads up... we have a newer editor removing the number of titles Margaret Court won in her career. We have had it listed as 192/92, overall/open era, in the infobox for a couple years, and that's pretty simple and informative... but Mouchatm is insistent on removing the historical data. I've reverted him twice and left a friendly note on his talk page on how things work in hopes that he'll self-revert. We'll see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we have a reference for that record? I mean these are probably not only the GS titles and the minors should be cited properly otherwise the editor is right if we stick to the rules of Wikipedia...I mean anyone can add any kind of number to that infobox but even the Margaret Court career statistics doesn't list them all and that article is also unsourced.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not being removed because of it's accuracy... it's being removed because the editor wants no pre-open era stats in the box. 192 per sports birthdays. I have seen talk at tennis forum that it could be 194. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Then it's a case of unexplained removal of sourced content. Probably it's his self-proclaimed idea of what an infobox should look like.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  19:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Now obviously even with sources, the older records could be off because...well... they're old records that weren't documented as well. So i guess we use the small amount of sources we can find and if we come across better more substantial sources we'll just edit the numbers accordingly. But he seemed to be saying...since they are pre-1968 wins they aren't really wins. That I find very narrow-minded in tennis history. Plus with Margaret Court's infobox we actually show both totals anyway. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

HawkEyeBot
Hello all. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia (as an editor), but I was hoping to share with you a project that I've been working on that will hopefully excite you guys. I want to build a bot to check the statistics in the grand slam singles performance timelines for players. Please check the user page for HawkEyeBot for some more details. I'm mostly done with the code base, but I do need to implement a framework to communicate with the WikiMedia API. I'm not sure how long that will take, but for now, I can run the wiki text through my script and get the correct replacement output. Hopefully this bot with alleviate the pain associated with users incrementing win/loss counts incorrectly. Anyways, let me know if this will be useful for the community! sitongpeng (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Questions:


 * 1) Is there always a Singles Performance Timeline section/subsection for players that have appeared in a slam?
 * 2) Why do only certain pages include a Singles Performance Timeline that shows performance for the Olympics and other Masters tournaments?  Is there a rhyme or reason to why some players get that and some don't?
 * Also, please let me know if you guys are interested in having HawkEyeBot make these statistics fixes. I want to get a dialogue going.  Thanks, sitongpeng (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've updated HawkEyeBot's page to be a little more specific and I've included links to a trial run I did on wikia. I'd love to hear your comments. sitongpeng (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the BRFA for HawkEyeBot if anyone wants to track the progress of the bot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/HawkEyeBot Sitong(talk) 01:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Djokovic-Murray rivalry
I think we have a tried and true rivalry now between these two just based on their meetings in the finals of some very prestigious tournaments like the Australian Open last year and the US Open this year, which was split amongst the two. In addition, the two have won a final in the Masters Series against each other over the last two years. Source HotHat (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that Djokovic - Murray can now be called a rivalry and deserves an article. It does qualify according to WP:NSPORT as there is now a significant media coverage on this topic. Perhaps it would be useful to augment this generic NSPORT rivalry guideline with specific tennis criteria such as e.g. at least 15 head-to-head matches of which at least 5 finals and both players need to be or have been in the top 5 with at least one player in the top 3. Specific tennis criteria could help to balance possible overeager press coverage.--Wolbo (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Grand Slam singles finals
Do we need a list like this when we already have a well-referenced List of Grand Slam men's singles champions?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  22:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope...not in my opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we do. We already have so many lists on Grand Slams and I don't see what this particular (unsourced) list adds to that collection.--Wolbo (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I don't know if uselessness is enough for an AfD. Of course the lack of sources would easily push it through but I'm afraid some editor addicted to lists could easily save this by Googleing "all Grand Slam finals" and could come up with e.g. an ESPN page where it was published.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it has all the finalists in one place, which AFAIK is not true of the other pages, so (to me) it is far from useless. IMO it would be better to improve it by adding links to player pages, and perhaps scores also. Rmallett (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Giorgio de Stefani DYK
 Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  08:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's interesting in itself, because commentators often say that there are no rules regarding rackets; and, for example, that there is nothing to stop a player using one racket in each hand. Rmallett (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It could happen that this regulation was reversed decades later. Also there are only a few ambidextrous players, and currently there are none of them in the mainstream scene.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are definitely rules on the dimensions of rackets and their hitting surface (ITF Rulebook Appendix II) and the ITF in 1978 outlawed the famous Spaghetti Racket (1, 2).--Wolbo (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Before I forget...magnificent work on the Giorgio de Stefani article, Lajbi! Massive improvement in a short period of time.--Wolbo (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Funnily enough it was him that forced the governing body to introduce that rule for the first time . Although I preferred the original hook (voted down) for the DYK that was: "that 1932 French Championships Runner-up Giorgio de Stefani almost reinstated tennis to the programme of Olympics as an IOC member in 1966 when his initiative was vetoed due to technical errors?".
 * Anyway I try to set a standard for newly created articles here, which could give their DYK an easy push. And draw attention to those articles that are only couple of sentences long and could be fivefold expanded at no time to get featured on the opening page. It worth trying since Giorgio's article got 2000 hits, which is quite good compared to the fact that mostly history-related articles gather such ammount of clicks usually.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Updating stats and our guidelines
I know we recently talked about this again but somehow I can't find it in the guidelines or here. Clarifying... we update stats like weeks at number 1, or rankings, on Monday when the ATP/WTA update the stats on their websites, not before. Correct? Those websites are used as our sources and if they are not updated we don't update. Without those sources to verify it would be original research or WP:Crystal Ball. Today I reverted Tennis records of the Open Era – Men's Singles and ATP World Tour records for just this sort of thing, from editors who have been editing tennis articles for awhile, so I wanted to make sure we are all still on the same page with this issue. I'm sure someone like Wolbo could find the last time we discussed this but it's eluding me right this second. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Had to look for a minute (sometimes you recall there's been a discussion but can't exactly remember where) and this I believe is the last discussion on the topic: Talk:List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_players. And yes, we agreed to follow ATP/WTA with their updates but haven't yet added that to the Article Guidelines.--Wolbo (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just want to thank you guys for updating these stats every week throughout the ATP / WTA seasons, much appreciated. Rmallett (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course now I looked and found it was added to the guidelines under Player Articles. I just tightened the wording to when atp/wta update as opposed to just Mondays. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

classification renaming
See talk:Disability table tennis classification and talk:Disability racquetball classification where this rename is proposed. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Disability table tennis classification → Table tennis classification
 * Disability racquetball classification → Racquetball classification

DYK for Pat Spence
 Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  16:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1,817 hits. I'm not bragging just the Quick check button above doesn't work.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Daniel Prenn
 Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  16:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2,036 hits.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

New player photos
We've just had several hundred new hi-res photos of Tennis players batch uploaded to Commons from Flickr. They can be found here: 2011 Roland Garros, 2012 Wimbledon Championships, and 2012 Summer Olympics. INeverCry 00:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Very cool. Thanks for the heads up. Now what we need is for some of these photographers to takes shots of former players from the 70s and before. Many of those player's articles have no pics at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Marvelous collection.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a couple hundred more from today: The Boodles 2010 to 2012 and 2011 Wimbledon Championships. There are alot of shots of the big guys and girls, but there are also very nice shots of lesser-known players. One of the shots from yesterday was the first we've had of Marc López, which I added to all his articles. I'm busy on Commons with admin stuff, but hopefully we can get some of these into articles soon. INeverCry  16:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ignacy Tłoczyński
 Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * About 1.700. I'm planning to update this stats and DYKs on the main project page under a news section of some sort instead of the talk page.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to do something like what we have at WP:Poetry and other projects: WikiProject Poetry, where we list FAs GAs and DYKs. It would be an easy thing to start, seeing there's only 15 recognized tennis-related articles right now. There are probably some old tennis DYKs that would have to be searched for. INeverCry  18:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Kho Sin-Kie
 Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jiro Sato
 Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  14:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally one I knew! Was starting to dislike these DYKs, never knowing the answer, they made me feel dumber every time ;-) Nice work Lajbi.--Wolbo (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Davis Cup timelines
I know most of the editors are not so pro-timeline here but I'm planning to add Davis Cup timelines - similar to those of the Grand Slams at players' bio - to the xxx Davis Cup team‎ pages. It could be all the way identical to the GS one and could use the same performance keys like this (This is actually for the Davis Cup timeline of Hungary):

Any comments on this?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this on the Italian Wikipedia Davis Italy Davis Cup team page. It looks better:

 Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  21:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Italian Wikipedia has some good elements, e.g. much prefer their Grand Slam navbox combining pre-Open Era with Open Era to the one we use, but this doesn't look like an improvement. It would introduce a visual style that we don't use and it takes up much more real estate compared with your first example.--Wolbo (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I like smth like this:

It still needs some improvement but I just wanted to express my suggestion. This table represents Latvia's perfomance at DC. Niktute (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Classification to Disability Classification redirects
,, have been nominated for deletion, please see WP:RFD. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

US Indoor Championships
Noticed that the US Indoor Championships article only contains an overview of the women's championships. Couldn't find a similar article for the men's championship which started back in 1898. Does anyone know if we have one or is this an omission? --Wolbo (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I noticed that before. We certainly need the men's in there too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Poor but notable articles
Recently editor CO_MEIJER created a bunch of articles but was blocked for doing this in Dutch language. Most of his articles are needed here and many of them were saved from speedy deletion, although they remained in very poor quality and uncited (speedy criteria were passed by simply adding DC,ITF and tennisarchives links to each bio). These pages are Jan van der Heide, Hans van Swol, Robert Van Meegeren, Allen Morris (tennis), Josef Knottenbelt, Ody Koopman, John Linck, Fred Dehnert, Johannes van Dalsum, Ian Ayre (tennis), Andrew Lloyd (tennis), John Fraser (tennis). Please have a look at them if you have time.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  08:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Noticed these a while ago. It's good they were kept and have at least been translated so they can be further improved as time goes by. Two of the articles, Hans van Swol and Allen Morris (tennis) weren't created by CO MEIJER but could still use a boost.--Wolbo (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I started to push them to some acceptable level beginning with Jan van der Heide. It's really frustrating to see this wave of stubs growing over our capacity.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Tyler Weekes article
An editor has expressed some concern about the notability of this article, wondering if perhaps it's simply a promotion page. It looks like one to me and he doesn't appear notable as a tennis coach. Any thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The same case that happened with Oscar Wegner. But sad news is it is almost impossible to get it AfD'd, because a well-sourced (or seems to be well-sourced) article usually deceive other editors.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Ramberg
 Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Davis Cup
Firstly, the Davis Cup homepage describes the 2012 Davis Cup as "the 100th final" here, but according to the Davis Cup article here on Wikipedia (and my manual count of wiki articles), it is the 101st tournament. Can anyone clarify, preferably with a reference in the article in question? Secondly there seems to be no information about how the home team is decided. Does anyone have any information about this which could be incorporated into the article? Thanks Cloudz 679 20:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There was a tournament but no final in 1974. From 1974 Davis Cup: "The final was scratched and South Africa was awarded the Davis Cup after India refused to travel to South Africa for the final in protest of the South African government's apartheid policies." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The official site is inconsistent about whether to include 1974 in the count of finals. http://m.daviscup.com/en/news/article.aspx?id=29930 says about the 2009 final: "This is the 98th Davis Cup Final". I guess that should be considered an error, and the more prominent claim that 2012 was the 100th final is the official policy.
 * See printed page 12 (document page 17) "Choice of Ground" in 2012 ITF Davis Cup Regulations. The home team is the opposite of the last time the two teams met. If they haven't met since 1970 then draw lots. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, great response here, I have added the information about the hosting to the main article. Feel free to reword as necessary. Thanks Cloudz 679 05:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jenő Zsigmondy
 Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Borgs win streak
In 1978 Bjorn Borg had a win streak of 49 (as listed below). Taken from the ITF and Davis Cup sites. Addition isn't rocket science here. But we have an editor changing the Guillermo Vilas and now List of Open Era tennis records articles and I'm getting tired of correcting him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

SWE d. IRL 5-0 in IRL 17 Mar - 19 Mar 1978 won 2 matches in a row

Las Vegas, NV, USA 20 Mar - 26 Mar 1978 won 4 matches in a row

Milan, Italy 27 Mar - 02 Apr 1978 won 5 matches in a row

Rotterdam, Netherlands 03 Apr - 09 Apr 1978 won 2 matches in a row (the only ones he played)

Dallas, TX, USA 09 May - 14 May 1978 won 1 match in a row (the only one he played)

Rome, Italy 22 May - 28 May 1978 won 6 matches in a row

Roland Garros, Paris, France 29 May - 11 Jun 1978 won 7 matches in a row

SWE d. YUG 3-2 in YUG 13 Jun - 15 Jun 1978 won 2 matches in a row

Wimbledon, Great Britain 26 Jun - 08 Jul 1978 won 7 matches in a row

SWE d. ESP 3-2 in SWE 14 Jul - 16 Jul 1978 won 2 matches in a row

Bastad, Sweden 17 Jul - 23 Jul 1978 won 5 matches in a row

Flushing Meadow, NY, USA 28 Aug - 10 Sep 1978 won 6 matches in a row and then lost in the finals

That's 49 in a row. We all know walkovers don't count as anything but this editor is adamant. Need some help I think. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 Novak Djokovic tennis season
This article badly needs update. Federer's and Nadal's 2012 season articles are updated long time ago, I find it unbelievable that's not the case with the No. 1 for the second-consecutive year. BoDu (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season was fully covered back then and the we has a wikiproject kinda taskforce for improving it at the end of the year around December. It was even peer reviewed. No need to be enraged about it, sooner or later we'll get there and catch up with ourselves.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  22:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Djokovic is currently the best player in the world. Djokovic's 2012 season finished on 12 November. There was need to update this article before December. BoDu (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

1930 in tennis
As some of you might have noticed I've been putting together this list for a while and it's finally ready. I tried to pay attention more and learn from the mistakes of the 1931 article. So this time it's a bit less hectic, I set up a tournament schedule first and then fill it up, I included every tournament that was continued the next year, cover all areas, be more straight with the usage of flags and names, etc. Have a look at it if you feel so.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  22:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Impressive article! Really adds value to the body of information on tennis history. Keep it up the good work, only 70 or so more years to go.... --Wolbo (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the early years and the wartime seasons will be shorter and faster to create...sometime.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  21:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Transition of Championship / World Series to International Series Gold / International Series
I'm not sure Wikipedia is correct in the timing of the transition from the Championship Series and World Series to the International Series Gold and International Series. These navboxes indicate that the International Series (Gold) started in 1998 while the ATP Tour article for 1997 already mentions the International Series in the key table. Many tournament year articles for 1997, 1998 and 1999 also mention them as being part of the Internationals Series (Gold).

However, the official ITF World of Tennis annuals make no mention of the International Series for the years 1997, 1998 or 1999. According to the 2001 annual the transition to the International Series (Gold) took place in 2000 (together with the transition of Super 9 tournaments to the Tennis Masters Series) and was part of a marketing deal with ISL. The 2001 annual does not specifically discuss the transition to the International Series but has a list of tournaments titled 'Men's International Series 1' (p.151) and 'Men's International Series 2' (p.155). No mention of the term 'Gold' is made. At the top of these lists it mentions "Formerly known as Championship Series tournaments" and "Formerly known as World Series tournaments" respectively.

I could not find any prior discussion of this on the Talk pages. Should we update the articles in line with the World of Tennis annuals? --Wolbo (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. There seems to be a confusion within the tennis body itself (which is not suprising) as ITF uses the word International Series Gold officially in 2008 VADA report.  Lajbi   Holla @ me  •  CP  17:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I misread the first part. So it's not contrary to the current state of navboxes (it actually supports them) but to the World of Tennis.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about the term 'International Series (Gold)' in itself but about the timing of it's introduction. Were the Championship Series and World Series renamed to International Series (Gold) in 1998 (as the navboxes indicate) or even 1997 (see 1997 ATP Tour article) or in 2000 as the World of Tennis annual mentions? That at least is not clear to me.--Wolbo (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. This publication states "Twelve of the more prestigious Grand Prix events later were labeled International Series Gold while the remaining (approximately 60) became known as the International Series. The format continued from the 1998 season to the present, although slightly reorganized in 2009", which is strange because it uses the word "continued" but it obvously excludes the 2000 start date. And it seems like a really throughout reliable source.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks very reliable but I'm pretty sure we can't use Wikipedia as a reliable source for Wikipedia.. ;-) --Wolbo (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeez! That was a KO to me. I think I give up. Maybe you should just be bold and change it as your magazines imply.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  21:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tried to find more sources. Wasn't easy, there's enough to be found on the launch of the Tennis Masters Series in 2000 but not much on the launch of the International Series (Gold). Found two sources that corroborate the launch in 2000 instead of 1997: 1) 'Neues Reglement der ATP' A German website that mentions the International Series as part of a new tournament setup for 2000 and 2) This site which seems to have official press releases and one of them, 'ATP TOUR $1.2 BILLION VISION' mentions "Establishment of ATP Champions Race 2000...and which links the four Grand Slams, the new Tennis Masters Series and 60 other tournaments on the ATP Tour now to be known as the International Series".--Wolbo (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Another source shows that the St. Petersburg Open was still a World Series event in 1999, again supporting the claim that the International Series only began in 2000. I have started to update the relevant articles and navboxes to reflect this. --Wolbo (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople
An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Serious lack in tennis rules and terms
As I was writing the 1930 in tennis and the 1931 in tennis I came across a couple of Types of tennis match, which is missing entirely in Wikipedia while it was popular back in the last century. One of them is the "handicap match", completely missing from Glossary of tennis terms, not mentioned in the disambig Handicap page nor in the Handicapping article. The second one, which is somewhat related to that is "scratch", whose tennis meaning is also missing from the corresponding disambig page. Both of them can be added from Spalding's official lawn tennis annual for 1911. Any newer source you know of or ideas about a separate article maybe?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I did not know we had a Glossary of tennis terms but a reference to the handicap system should definitely be included. The handicap system seems to have been used with some regularity in the last part of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, often as an additional event at a tournament. It's a pretty elaborate system and I was thinking about adding a paragraph on it to the History of tennis article but haven't come around to it yet.--Wolbo (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it was a distinct event within a tournament. Check Spalding pp. 241-243. There's everything about it, still I don't know if it was put out of effect or modified later. Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Added handicapping to the Glossary of tennis terms. Max Robertson's Encyclopedia of Tennis (1974) also has a paragraph explaining this system. --Wolbo (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice job. Happy New Year folks!  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  12:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Created a redirect from Handicap (tennis).  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  12:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

WTA website
Hello members. Yesterday, the Women's Tennis Association updated the layout of their website. The URLs of the player profiles changed. Fortunately, however, the links weren't broken – I've updated the template accordingly and used the opportunity to create a documentation page. There are some problems with the revamp though, namely that not all the links are working just yet – the site still has some problems. I came across this forum which comments most of the changes. I fear that some of our infobox statistics will become harder to update, career high rankings aren't dated anymore (only the year in parentheses) and most of the players' templates in Category:WTA Tour navigational boxes will become unworkable if the sort-by-nationality function isn't included. All-in-all, I just wanted to make a note of this here so everyone is aware of the change. Jared Preston (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not into Women updates but it needs attention then if the revamp gets over.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  08:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can still see the highest ranking date on itftennis.com. But yes, I agree, that updating the WTA stats will be harder in the future. --Stryn (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have written to the webmasters to ask for the reintroduction of functions lost since the revamp and will keep my fingers crossed. Jared Preston (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Should we start to fix broken WTA-links? If anyone knows how to fix the links using AWB, tell me. --Stryn (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The links using the template are not broken, only the bare direct links. I don't think there are so many of them, but it would be good to switch to the template anyway. Jared Preston (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * About 690 bare url profile links as you can see here. --Stryn (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We should ask for a bot to be written to do that. If there's a convertable logic between the new and the old URLs then it wouldn't be a complicated one.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it's pretty easy:  http://www.wtatennis.com/page/Player/[Info / Activity / Stats]/0,,12781~[PROFILE ID],00.html  →  http://www.wtatennis.com/players/player/[PROFILE ID] . --Stryn (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I don't think there are that many bare links. Of that list you've posted, Stryn, I simply chose one article at random, Kim Grajdek, and that article uses the template – the external link isn't broken. Maybe the list just hasn't picked up on all of the changes due to the WP:JQ. Jared Preston (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't check any articles of the list. Then we can try following search: . There is a few wrong links. --Stryn (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It has only been five days since I wrote them a mail, but I very much doubt that I will get a reply. I think we can assume that the ranking-by-nationality feature will not be re-introduced to the WTA website, so I ask the question again: what shall we do with the (majority of the) templates in Category:WTA Tour navigational boxes? Some can of course be updated manually by checking all of the players' rankings, but in doing this, it can be very easy to miss one, especially if there is a new ranking or for some of the countries with players spread out over the top one thousand places. I had been doing the updates over the past months for some templates, but thinking about this is causing headache. Although I'd be sad to see the navboxes go, if they can't be reliably updated, should I not take them to WP:CFD? Jared Preston (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.wtatennis.com/press-center has links to pdf files with rankings sorted by country. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They are currently dated 10 December. Hopefully they will be updated better during the WTA season. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They were finally updated for this week and currently say 31 December 2012. I guess that means WTA intends to update them during the WTA season. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WTA has updated profile pages little bit. Now there is also date for highest ranking. --Stryn (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Order of play for Masters 1000/Mandatory Events
Would it be good to include OOP for these event because it's mainly only grand slam and it would be much better to include these as well. Matt294069 (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes we can, good idea! But always remember Raul's Laws, when it comes to suggesting things or complaining, but this is suggesting. This is what it said, and is the most pertinent information to "be prepared for the fact that doing so will make it your job".HotHat (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Doubles seeding table
I was reading some tournament article when i noticed the doubles seeds rankings in the tables seemed to be the sum of the positions of each player. I found this a little confusing, and i think that posting the doubles ranking of each player is more straightforward. It may be something like this:

(The original table can be found in 2012 BB&T Atlanta Open)

If not, we can add a footnote under the table stating that "rank" actually means the team's combined rankings.

Please let me know what you think. Faute de pied (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that a footnote would be the best option. Perhaps just something like this:


 * The "Rank" used for seeding is the combined doubles rank of the two players as of 


 * Thoughts? Sellyme Talk 21:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong but the team ranking is actually the combined sum of the doubles OR singles ranking of the two players counting the one, which is better for each (this is a rule adopted couple of years back to encourage singles players to enter doubles tournaments).  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's quite confusing. Perhaps it would be best to just omit the "rank" column entirely and just have the seed numbers, then? With such a convuluted system the actual number thrown up by rank is pretty worthless. Sellyme Talk 07:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Precisely. The table apparently shows the doubles ranking but doesn't specify whether it is or not. We're certain that the singles seeds are based on the singles rankings, at least in the majority of tournaments. I don't know the criteria for doubles, but take the case of 2011 Indian Wells where Federer and Stan Wawrinka weren't seeded and one could assume, because of their ranking, that they should've been. It's just more complicated than the combined doubles rankings only, what happens if we have let's say Team A 1st and 4th and Team B 2nd and 3rd? Add tournaments like Wimbledon that count other variables and it ends up making no sense at all. Faute de pied (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Splitting the ladies timeline
I see an editor has split the article Tennis performance timeline comparison (women) into 3 articles and maybe more. It had been brought up on the talk page as being 200+k in size and that some had trouble loading the article. Wikipedia has limits of 100k (at least in readable prose) but also we have to make sure readers don't have too much trouble loading the page. I had mentioned that maybe it should be split when another editor asked but right now it is being split in 37k size pages which seems WAY to small to me for charts. I thought maybe others had an opinion on whether it should be split at all or split in two or split in three? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed the discussion and it looked like there was no clear consensus on what to do in terms of splitting the article. It appears someone is jumping the gun / being bold and started to split up the article and I'm not quite sure what the aimed for result is. While the article size argument is valid it is also true that the more you split up the original article the more it loses its informational value so it seems logical to split it into the largest pieces allowable.--Wolbo (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect use of Template:Main
I have noticed a widespread misuse of Template:Main across tennis articles. Two examples include 2012 Rafael Nadal tennis season and 2013 Australian Open – Men's Singles. The purpose of Template:Main, as stated in its documentation, is to accompany a summary within a higher level article, so that the reader can link to the detail that is being summarised. It is not to be used at the top of an article to help navigate 'up' the hierarchy. The solution is to include the link within the lead paragraph, e.g. "The Men's singles competition of the 2013 Australian Open..." If there are no objections, I will begin fixing these. --Jameboy (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never thought of that until today and never thought about it as being misleading or wrong usage. One thing is what its documentation says (possibly written by one editor/creator) and what it is actually used for in my opinion. It's the difference of being prescriptive or descriptive. Since the community has used widely this (I estimate that a hundred of articles are affected) to level-up the hierarchy as you said and it worked fine I think it doesn't need to be changed. Instead one should edit the documentation of the template to include this type of possible use or initiate a discussion about it on its talk page. Why not have a template like this to navigate through subarticles? And since I cannot think of a template that could easily replace it right now and I think that intro (which is fine, don't get me wrong) would require a huge amount of work to be added to all articles that uses it (and a partial result would be half of the articles using the Main template and half of them the new intro, which is inconsistent), to avoid confusion it's better be left as it is. No visitor ever argued about the readability of said articles to this point and possibly found the header easy to click on instead of reading a whole intro to find the link they are looking for.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  21:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be made a correct usage. It's convenient, it looks nice, and there's no good reason not to use it as such. Is there any actual rationale for not wanting to use them as hierarchy navigation? Sellyme Talk 07:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been talked about several times with anyone responding that it should not be used as a "see also", buy nothing was ever done about it. See Template_talk:Main and Template_talk:Main and Template_talk:Main and Template_talk:Main. Basically they say we should be using details or further. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The rationale is that you will have thousands of articles with needless hatnotes, when the same link(s) can easily and more naturally be placed in the lead. That something requires a huge amount of work is not really relevant. The point is whether it is the right thing to do. Wikipedia should have a consistent look and feel, and we can only attain that if templates are used consistently. It now seems that someone has recently changed the documentation to allow usage of Main in lead sections. In my opinion this makes things worse and only serves to cause confusion as to what is a "main" article. I think the best solution would be to get rid of the word "main" entirely. However, I am going off-wiki for a while, so I'm not going to worry about it. --Jameboy (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Head-to-head records
Hello,

is there a reliable site recording all (or at least notable) head-to-head records of single players? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, atpworldtour.com.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * http://www.atpworldtour.com for ATP, http://www.wtatennis.com/head2head for WTA. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean all head-to-head records of a particular tennis player, like Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics.--Tomcat (7) 17:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I know you can only do one-to-one comparisons.--Wolbo (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, good to know. --Tomcat (7) 18:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Shortest Grand Slam finale?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortest_tennis_match_records#Grand_Slams_2

"French Open

Steffi Graf won, 6–0, 6–0, in 32 minutes against Natasha Zvereva in the 1988 French Open final. This is the shortest ever Grand Slam final.

Wimbledon

In the 1922 Wimbledon final Suzanne Lenglen defeated Molla Mallory, 6–2, 6–0, in 23 minutes."

If S. Lenglen won Grand slam final (Wimbledon) in 23 minutes, how can the French Open game be designed as the shortest ever Grand Slam final, when that one took 32 minutes?
 * I don't know. And there have been other 6–0 6–0 finals. I changed it. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Junior results should remain in a player's main article?
I've noticed that editors have been including junior grand slam results in players' career statistics pages, specifically under "grand slam finals". I am proposing that junior grand slam results be omitted from these pages and be merged into a player's main article instead under "junior career" for example. I think the career statistics pages should only be documenting professional results from the ATP or WTA Tours. Thoughts? JayJ47 (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't agree with putting those stats under Grand Slam tournament results...maybe a separate table. What pages are putting the junior results under grand slam finals? Most player articles shouldn't even have a career stats page as they don't warrant it. It's better in keeping up with editing that all items are in one article unless it's simply too large. Too large being a rough combo of 50k of prose, 150k of wikitext or 750k file size. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agnieszka Radwańska career statistics and Victoria Azarenka career statistics are two examples of what I've been talking about. JayJ47 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

WTA Big Three - should this article exist?
We are discussing the removal of this new article at Talk:WTA Big Three and whether it should be deleted, parked for future use, or remain as is. The article Big Four (tennis) was recently created but the term has been talked about a lot for 2 years, and off and on for a couple more years. I can't see "WTA Big Three" being an encyclopedic entry right now, but maybe if these 3 girls dominate the scene another year and half we may need the article. Please join the discussion at Talk:WTA Big Three. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Norway Davis Cup team
I just found this article recently which was created and expanded into its current form in 2007. Although it has been tagged refimprove-tag since then but still it looks like a very throughout article, which could be easily promoted to a Good Article without any big effort in my estimation. Anyone interested in giving it a try?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ranking updates - is this site usable?
We have some editors who like to update player rankings prematurely, against guidelines. I have mentioned to one editor that we go by sources of the WTA or ATP when they update their own official pages, though I suppose that if ESPN posted rankings early it would be a legit source. They're usually are a week behind though. However he came back with a different source for the WTA rankings of tennis4wta.com. I can't tell whether this is a personal blog we can use, simply "projected" rankings, or whatever. It seems to have no contact or section about their sourcing. Can we use this as a legitimate source of information? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is owned by some Turkish guy, whose name and his company shows no relation with the WTA at least not by Google. This page floods the visitor with a bunch of pop-ups and as far as I know official sites do not need pop-ups to generate money.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable source, so better that we don't use it. --Stryn (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is clearly not a reliable source and I see no reason or benefit to rely on other websites besides the official WTA and ATP sites.--Wolbo (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Help needed : French Open women's doubles champions
I've already brought this issue up couple of month before with the mixed doubles champions. This time the Template:French Championships women's doubles champions and the List of French Open women's doubles champions don't show the same champions for years 1907-24. Do we have a reliable source to clean this up?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that the Template:French Championships women's doubles champions navbox shows the World Hard Court Championships winners for the years 1914 – 1924. From 1925 onwards it shows the French Championships winners and becomes identical to the List of French Open women's doubles champions. Even though the WHCC for this period was an official ITF World Championship it doesn't mean that it was the same tournament as the French Championship. It wasn't and therefore in my view the 1914 – 1924 entries should be removed from Template:French Championships women's doubles champions.--Wolbo (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Any objections to updating the women's doubles navbox so that it only shows winners from 1925 onward (see example men's doubles)?--Wolbo (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually I think that would be a partial mistake. While prior to 1925 the French championships were not an international Major, they were still the French championships. If the title of the templates were French grand slam champions then absolutely it would be from 1925 onward. But these templates are French Open Championships which I would think would be from 1907 on for the ladies. I would vote for the men's to follow the same format. Obviously the way it is now is wrong since it has the WHCC listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that solution and agree it is more in line with the title of the navboxes. It is also the existing setup for the men's singles, women's singles and mixed doubles navboxes so that's another reason to go for this option. To make it consistent we'll have to change the men's and women's doubles navboxes.--Wolbo (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While on the subject I noticed we don't have any year articles for the 1891 – 1924 period of the French Championships. Is this by design / agreement or is it just the case that nobody has gotten around to it yet? --Wolbo (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Two things here. I don't know any agreement on the 1891 – 1924 hiatus but a I found a partial list of winners on the official site of the Racing Club de Paris. Unfortunately it only lists the winners practicing in the said club. The other thing is that it differentiates between the "national championships" and the Grand Slam/internationals, which results in some similarities in those years when the French Open was a closed championships (early years, WWII) and when there was no national just international tournament; 1930-40. But for the later years it considers e.g. Mademoiselle Julie Halard-Decugis as the champion in 1997. And it also considers that national the continuation of the pre-WWII international, which is the predecessor of the French Open as Wikipedia currently shows it.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What I tried to get at is either we need to ultimately separate the national tournaments (like the Tournoi de France (tennis) is currently distinguished) and take out pre-international winners, or at least indicate that there was a coherent national French Championships which ran uninterrupted from the WWII onwards.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  14:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The women's and men's doubles navboxes have been updated with the early entries from the French Championships. The period 1891–1924 has been added to the men's doubles navbox. For the women's doubles navbox the French Champions from the period 1907–1913 have been added and the existing (WHCC) entries for 1914–1924 have been replaced. That fixes the WHCC confusion / error and makes the setup of the French navboxes consistent. --Wolbo (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for 1877 Wimbledon Championship
Inspired by Lajbi's nice work on his numerous DYK articles I decided to give it a try as well and see what it's all about. Didn't realize that to get a DYK on the Wiki homepage you have to expand the content of an article five-fold. Once over that shock I started working on the 1877 Wimbledon Championship article, submitted it and the DYK is online now (for eight hours).--Wolbo (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you nominated it for Good Article too. Fingers crossed. In my book it passes.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * lookin' good. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx. I nominated it for Good Article mainly because I'm curious about that process. Haven't really had any experience so far with GA or FA nominations and we don't have many of those in our project. Thought this article could possibly qualify because it contains nearly all relevant info that is available on the first Wimbledon tournament and even if it fails it will be a good learning experience that can be applied to future nominations.--Wolbo (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. As far as I remember the last one that got even peer reviewed (which is a pre-step to the GA) was the 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season two years ago. So go on, win this one!  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

problem editor
We seem to have good editor who won't follow guideline around here. User:Dencod16. I noticed that scoring in prose corrections in articles like 2013 Serena Williams tennis season are being reverted and the extreme detail is also being left in. I'm not sure what the best procedure is but this is also happening with all Serena's other yearly articles. Advice? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ANd we also seem to have a problem with "administrator" (editor) User:Fyunck(click), who has not followed the purpose of wikipedia as an encyclopedic site, which means informations should be comprehensive not brief. And his edits are in a form of opinion rather than unbiased writing. There are means of editing things without being too brief, if the scoreline is the problem you could have just made it in a way, without compromising the information given, which you have done.

Hoax?
I just wanted to notify the project of my AfD nomination of 2013 ITF Tennis Open and its associated articles as a hoax. I'd be grateful for any input. Jared Preston (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and now another: Articles for deletion/2013 LN Tennis Open. Jared Preston (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * articles deleted. Thanks. Jared Preston (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, nice catch.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, cheers Lajbi! Mind you, as you saw yourself, it was a bit of an eye-catcher and hard to miss! Jared Preston (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was just me and the lack of my involvement in WTA articles.  Lajbi   Holla @ me  •  CP  11:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * These things pop up from time to time, and this one was quite intricate. I wonder what the impulse is for this editor/editors to do this? Some look so good I wish they would use the effort to create something real. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: "They" are at it again. / /  all involved in creating hoax tournament pages, as well as an apparent. Do you think this is one user? Certainly very fishy. Jared Preston (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

User report
User:Socialhistorian2013 has been making unnecessary edits to Serena Williams page. The user has been making certain edits like so:


 * After a chance meeting with a young girl who idolized Serena, she signed up to play in Cincinnati. During her conversation with the girl Williams felt inspired and was informed that she could be even better at tennis. Williams went home and watched some of her old matches and started to believe that she could win again.

And

Williams in her biography talking about her meltdown on court.
 * "All I could think was that I so didn't want to be there, at just that moment. On the court. In Melbourne. Fighting for points I didn't really care about, in a match I didn't really care about. So what did I do? I cried. Right there on court... It started during on of the changeovers, but it continued when I went back out to play, an it was such a low, desparing, desperate moment for me. I don't know how I managed to keep playing, but I kept playing, because that's just what I did."

If they are to be placed, certainly not in the main page but in the individual tennis season Dencod16 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * unnecessary. Dear God! It's the truth of what happened and explained what happened and should not be in the individual article but in the main article. Dear God you need to get some idea of how to write an article. The essence of Wikipedia is to create high quality pages. Deleting information and making up rules is not helpful especially quotes which are important. The first quote of 06 makes sense. It does not make sense on the 2006 page which you wrote. It came at a time when she was depressed a dropped out of the season. The second is important in demonstrating the pressure she was under. The third and deleted fourth ones demonstrate how thankful Williams is to be playing. Why should this be deleted when most of the page bites are taken up by tables. Delete the rest of the prose not the quotes as it downgrades the article.Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You have no idea at all, i think you have been banned before and made a new account. It is not important to put them on the main page, you have no idea of making an article just because you found Serena Williams' book doesn't mean you have to put everything in the page. This is not a trivia page. The page are already too long, and your informations aren't tennis related and how she has done in a season, which the main page is all about, others details should be placed in the section pages. Even her deals are so unnecessary you have completely destroyed the page.


 * According to this section. Handling trivia
 * Integrating trivia sections
 * Often the content in trivia sections can be better presented elsewhere in the article, either by merging individual items into the existing article text, or by creating a new section and moving items there. However, when creating new sections you should always be sure that it doesn't provide a framework for further miscellaneous contributions.

Integrated trivia content can still be presented in a list, because it is a good way to present some types of information. However, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, and new section should always have a limited scope. As an example, see Alex Trebek#Cameos, which lists shows/films on which Alex Trebek has had a cameo appearance. Other cameos can be added to that section, but general miscellaneous facts would not fit there.


 * Handling trivia
 * Trivia articles
 * Trivia articles most likely come up as forked-off trivia sections that have grown too large, see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Just as trivia sections should be avoided, trivia articles should be avoided. These articles solve the problem of trivia cluttering up the parent article, but this solution creates other problems. Unlike trivia sections, trivia articles are not especially useful as repositories of information to be integrated elsewhere. This is because trivia articles keep such information away from the main page on a subject. This presents an inherent challenge, because there is usually no text in a trivia article to absorb the disconnected items. Dencod16 (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What an idiot. I am not an old user I am a new user. You are being a bully. Stating a fact which led into her siging to a tournament is not trivia. Stating appropriate quotes are not trivia and if you read the talk page other users have no problems with it. You are nothing but a bully. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol at bully, you are not abiding by what was agreed upon, go look at the Roger Federer page that is what everyone's goal is, it is condense and brief. Dencod16 (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Despite "I am not an old user I am a new user." User:Socialhistorian2013 has been blocked as Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of KnowIG. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

New sports related IRC channel.
There is now an WP:IRC channel for collaboration between editors in various sports WikiProjects. It's located at. Thanks Secret account 03:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Move to User space
Btw. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names was moved out of WikiProject Tennis space after the RfC closed - making it appear as if it was a personal essay rather than part of WikiProject Tennis. Can I ask, is that normal? Should the result not remain on record as part of WikiProject Tennis history? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:Frédéric Vitoux (tennis). Is anyone aware now of any evidence since the RfC (none was offered in RfC) that an anti-foreign-accents policy really exists at ITF? There seems to be no WP:RS confirming Francesco Ricci Bitti is against foreign accents, and that it is not simply a website designer's decision. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Tournament Names in lists
Right now our Guidelines state that "The full tournament title should always be used along with its location (e.g. Australian Open, Melbourne, Australia) rather than simply just the city and country in which the event is held (e.g. Melbourne, Australia)." This is common sense to include the actual tournament name where imho it's actually more important than the city location. But it turns out that many editors have missed this tidbit in the project guidelines under Career. This is really just a re-affirmation post that including the tournament name is the correct thing to do. Comments? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I for one think that the tournament title should be used along with the location of the tournament since this was the norm on wikipedia a couple of years back before a group of editors, mostly IP's began changing it to the city and country format which I really disagree with. An alternative could be separating the three into two columns, one for the championship alone and one for the location e.g. Column 1 = Championship: Australian Open, Column 2 = Location: Melbourne, Australia. Thoughts? JayJ47 (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but the only problem is fitting into the chart. It's not always as simple as plopping in the name for when I change some to tournament/city/country it won't fit neatly in the column without wrapping. So we also would need to change the table size. So, an example with part of Federer's career stats. It looks very neat but lacking the tournament name it's against our guidelines as it stands:

Per guidelines it should be:

What you are suggesting as a possibility is:

I have no preference on either of the latter two. They both work in conveying the information. Whether we keep guidelines the way they are now or make a change to the extra column, I would suggest that since city/state/country names can be overly long, that we abbreviate states and countries with their two and three letter codes, respectively... as I did in the 3rd chart. I added a bogus entry at the bottom to show city/state/country. We could also allow either of the last two formats so as not to be a cookie cutter assembly-line. Another point is that sometimes we add a number afterwards to show multiple wins in the same tournament. That's hard to do if we keep changing the name of the tournament just because the sponsor changes. It is probably best if use the generic non-sponsored names (like Swiss Indoors) throughout these charts. Any thoughts from others? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * How about this.

That's where I remembered the two column format from. This was taken from an older revision of Kim Clijster's stats page in 2010. If the championship column is too long for the tournament name, city and country then why don't we just include the tournament name since technically its the only one that actually means "tournament" or "championship". JayJ47 (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Table without the city and country. JayJ47 (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As per guidelines, Yes ... The full tournament title should always be used but the two column format seems perfectly okay. The first column with generic non-sponsored names (like Swiss Indoors) more appropriate. Even to show multiple wins in the same tournament is more readable. The second column with abbreviate states and countries with their two and three letter codes. The third table by user Fyunck(click) is more suitable. - Ninney (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's another alternative, which would require little change from the existing format. It includes all the relevant information without exceeding page limits. JayJ47 (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks like original choice number two (as per guidelines as they stand now). It does seem to have too much color though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fyunck(click), you and I both know guidelines can change if we work on developing a new consensus on them. I think we have to take into consideration those with color issues, and start to look at the way things are displayed.HotHat (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that this discussion is about the best way to display tournament names and locations (city, country) in tables, not about color usage. There was a fairly recent discussion on colors (one of many) that resulted in the current guidelines which are AAA-level compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Probably best to keep those two discussions separate. Of course we can always revisit the color discussion if we see further room for improvement.--Wolbo (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Rivalries
Let's get some things ironed out here, so that we can move on as a project. Let's first take the "Big Four" players, and do they actually have rivalries or not? This can be done as a vote of Yes, No or Maybe. So, here they are in alphabetical order.HotHat (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Djokovic-Federer
 * This might be considered a rivalry, so Maybe. They have only met in one grand slam final, but have played in many memorable matches.HotHat (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Djokovic-Murray
 * This sould be considered a rivalry, so Yes. They have met in three grand slam finals, two wins for Djokovic and one for Murray.HotHat (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Djokovic-Nadal
 * This is a true rivalry, so Yes.HotHat (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Federer-Nadal
 * This is a bona fide rivalry, so Yes!HotHat (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Federer-Murray
 * This sould be considered a rivalry, so Yes. They have met in three grand slam finals and all were won by Federer, but Murray took the Gold over Federer.HotHat (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I advise Fyunck(click) to peruse these souces ESPN, USA Today, Metro, Daily-Mail, and even the ATP World Tour.HotHat (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will be advocating for the recreation of this article because it is just as notable that Djokovic-Murray, and Djokovic-Federer is at the current moment, and it is back up with sourcing above and a bunch more, so it was wrong to have deleted it in the first place.HotHat (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Murray-Nadal
 * This is No rivalry at all. They have never met in a grand slam final.HotHat (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

All except Murray-Nadal are major rivalries and should have pages. (Myrmecophagous (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC))


 * I would support the reinstating of the Federer-Murray rivalry article as per above. Spiderone  10:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Motion seconded, they are recognised as having a very competitive rivalry, especially with regards to big matches. TheTradge  14:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The question should be: "Are there independent reliable sources which describe the above pairings as a rivalry?" If yes, than there is nothing in the way of creating an article for it. Note, that news about their matches alone is not enough, just like the number of Grand Slam finals played against each-other alone is not enough. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Armbrust here. There is no magic number that creates an arbitrary rivalry. Per guidelines and Nsports, rivalries are not inherently notable and we can only have articles about them if there is SIGNIFICANT media coverage about that particular rivalry. So not just passing use of the term rivalry. That's a big no on Fed/Murray and Murray/Nadal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, that is a big no on Djokovic/Federer because it is not considered a true rivalry in a significant number of press publications. Then, this means Federer's only true rivalry is with Nadal alone, and with no one else. Djokovic's only rivalry is with Nadal, and not with Murray if we go by Federer/Murray deletion debate.HotHat (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Nikola Milojevic
Several Drawsheets (Boys Singles and Doubles at Grand Slams) link to the article Nikola Milojevic. See What links here. But the article is about soccer player not about a tennis player. Perhaps disambiguation page and a separate article for the tennis player should be created? I wanted to bring this to the attention of the people active in this WikiProject, since they are in a better position to assess his notability. --Kompik (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The article Nikola Milojević (tennis) has been created, so no the tennis related articles can link there. If I did not miss anything, no more tennis-related links are going to the article about the footballer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Nikola_Milojevi%C4%87 --Kompik (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)