Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 4

Top importance Tennis Articles
We need to revise around 50 articles that are to be classified as top importance tennis articles, so that in the future, there will be minimal arguments about it. I am sure that players which are notable throughout the world for playing tennis should be in the category such as, Federer, as well as the obvious stuff, (Tennis obviously... the Grand Slams etc.) Bear in mind that we couldn't go wild and add every player who has won a tennis match... or even a grand slam. -- Dark Falls  talk 11:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

List of records in tennis
While watching Andy Roddick play at Wimbledon, I went to Wikipedia to look for the fastest serves in the men's game and the women's game. I couldn't find any information, which leads me to propose/suggest a List of records in tennis. It would contain not just fastest serves, but also most victories, most weeks at #1, most consecutive weeks at #1, most Grand Slam titles, most titles per Grand Slam, most titles (ATP, Masters and Grand Slam), longest winning streaks, etcetera. It would be similar to the List of Formula One records. Any thoughts/suggestions? A ecis Brievenbus 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Aecis, there are several existing articles that contain the information you mention. Many of the men's records can for instance be found at Association of Tennis Professionals. Wolbo 11:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Separating Amateur/Open-Era tournament lists
recently started to merge Template:Wimbledon tournaments and Template:Wimbledon Championships, then requested that the former be deleted and began changing the templates included on all Wimbledon pages. I disagree with this change, but think it's worth discussing. Are the Amateur and Open eras different enough that they should have different template? This is the norm right now, see for example Template:French Championships (tennis) and Template:French Open tournaments or Template:U.S. National Championships (tennis) and Template:US Open tournaments. I think this break is quite reasonable. Nearly every statement about tennis history is qualified with "in the open era", so there really is a meaningful break. The open-era templates represent the current tournaments, whereas the amateur-era templates are entirely of historical interest. Separating them also avoids an unwieldy info box at the bottom of each slam article. --dantheox 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they should be kept separate. —MC 00:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe a related idea... with various bits of template magic, we should be able to have one, unified Grand Slam template that displays the right thing based on the page title. That way we won't have to go through the pain of changing every slam if we reorganize things... --dantheox

Masters/ATP Tour/WTA Tour info
I think that for individual tournaments, such as 2007 Tennis Masters Cup, or 2007 Queen's Club Championships, there should be a box stating the champions of each event, just like the GrandSlamInfo Template,  If anyone would like to whip one up, that would be most appreciated. Maybe there could be differnt ones for the ATP Tour and Tennis Masters Cup. - Allied45 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've created the NEW ATP Infobox! And will be making a WTA Tour infobox also! The New Infobox: Allied45 04:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Order for list of tournament winners
There doesn't seem to be a consistent order for listing tournament winners in the few Wikipedia pages I've seen for WTA Tournaments. Some lists start with the most recent winner(s) (e.g. Indian Wells) and others start with the first/earliest winner (e.g. San Diego). Is there a general consensus on what order needs to be followed?

Also I would like to update the Wimbledon womens doubles winners lists with finalists and scores. Could anyone tell me how to separate the mens champions list from the women's like the entries for the other Grand Slam events? Thanks! IsidoreR 22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Consolidation of Davis Cup and Fed Cup team templates
I'm not a regular member of this WikiProject, but I'd like to make some changes to how Davis Cup and Fed Cup articles are written. I've been doing a lot of work for WikiProject Flag Template over the past few months, improving the way flag icons are generated. Some of you may have noticed some work I just completed for WikiProject Football, where I replaced over 900 country-specific flag templates with 7 parameterized templates. The new templates are built upon the identical internal mechanism as the familiar flag and flagicon templates, so usage is quite straightforward.

I'd like to do the same thing here. Currently, there are 200 templates in Category:Davis Cup team templates and another 142 templates in Category:Fed Cup team templates. I can replace all of them with two templates! I have already created davis and fed, and they work for almost every team.

Usage is very simple: instead of, you would use   to produce. The new templates can work with nation names (not just country codes) if you prefer when editing:  produces. Historical flag variants are handled by using the same template arguments as with flagicon, so you don't have to learn a new system. Just as  produces,   produces. The  parameter has the same effect.

I hope you can see the obvious benefits to this proposal:
 * Editors don't have to learn multiple different systems for flag templates.
 * Maintenance is simplified because a flag image is stored in one spot. When a new SVG version is available for a .jpg, for example, a single edit can make the change for all instances that use that flag.  Individual sports WikiProjects don't have to make parallel updates to their specific set of templates.

I am not suggesting that I impose a lot of work on the editors of this project. I am prepared to make all the substitutions and template deletions myself. I'd just like your approval and feedback before I proceed.

One related question: Are the flags used in CARdc, ECAdc and POCdc really the correct ones for those multi-national teams, or just place-holders because they seemed like the best fit? I'd like to know how to best substitute for those templates.

Thanks, Andrwsc 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure if the CARdc, POCdc etc. flags are correct, but it definitely seems to be a good idea. I spent ages trying to remember them and tag all those templates with the project banner, so it'll definitely make life easier. As for the substitution of the "irregular" images, creating a perimeter, with the name of the alternate image will probably solve that. -- Dark Falls   talk 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think those flags are correct either; I just put them there because they fit… —MC 15:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I see that the Davis Cup and Fed Cup websites also use little flag icons for team results, and notably, have no flags for these teams. Perhaps we should follow suit.  If so, then there are two alternatives.  We can simply wikilink the name of the team, or we can use a template that inserts an appropriate size blank space, so that team names line up when in a list.  I've done this before.  What do you think?  Andrwsc 22:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been two weeks with no more discussion on my proposal, so I'm going to be WP:BOLD and go ahead with the changes! Andrwsc 04:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Call for article guidelines/best practices
I've added links to a new Article Guidelines subproject on the main page. This was motivated by seeing the 2007 Wimbledon Championships article, which is a complete mess. We should have guidelines and links to exemplary articles for each type of tennis page. This will help to channel the enthusiasm some pages get during grand slams, and provide a forum for reaching consensus on stylistic issues. I've started the discussion on the subproject page for everyone to chime in.

I think a good start would be the 2007 Wimbledon Championships article I mentioned before. If we can make it into something respectable, we could point to it as a guide when the 2007 US Open rolls around. --dantheox 20:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left some comments at Talk:2007 Wimbledon Championships. Feel free to chime in with ideas there or on the subproject talk page. --dantheox 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess we couldn't get it done before the US Open… :-) —MC 18:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and we're paying the price, too: 2007 U.S. Open (tennis) is following the same incoherent format as this year's Wimbledon article. Fortunately, there's a lot more of a break before the next Slam =) --dantheox 19:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is :P —MC 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

French Open Slam Status
We are having a problem in what constitutes a slam over in the wiki article "Grand Slam Women's Singles Champions." The original framers of the article greyed out pre-1925 French winners on the basis that the event was open only to French Club members until 1925. Obviously the Wiki "French Open Winners" article would include everyone... no problem there. But when it come to totaling slams we run into a problem. Most books I've come across include the other big 3 events from their inception but they were supposed to be open to all countries, even if very few other countries sent players way back then. But now we have an editor of the page who insists that the French be included from it's inception in totaling all slams. His claim is that since no country sent players to the US Championships it was pretty much the same as the French Championships. It's gotten heated and we are at an impass because most of the posters their don't seem to care enough about this particular item to express a viewpoint. I posted this in the articles' talk page:

Thoughts on the French Championships. I'm asking here what the active members on this article think about changing the pre-1925 French Championships to make it count as a slam. I could show you stacks of evidence from books that would show why it should not be included and Mr Ryoung will say the same in his opposing view, so that won't help you at all. I'm asking for people to go to a book store or library or your own book shelf and see what it says under "Slam Titles." The individual Tourny names won't help here since of course someplace like the Australian Open would list everyone who has ever won their tourney, as would a book when you look up Australian Open. But those are taken care of here in the wikipedia under the individual tourney names. The French Open wiki site lists all past winners as it should. But this article is "Grand Slam Women's Singles Champions", a different beast altogether. Look up total slam titles in whatever sources you would like and make an informed decision and post it here so we can see some sort of consensus on what everyone is thinking. 5 or 6 posts won't really help but if we can get a couple dozen thoughts it might help for making a better article and a way to solve this logjam. I hesitate to go to mediated arbritation because a non-tennis person will make a decision on a teniis related article but if we must we must.

1. I would vote for keeping the status quo for the pre-1925 French Open; Grayed out names, no slam numbering or counting until it was open to International players in 1925. Fyunck(click) 05:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

I believe that articles listing past history should be do just that. The facts of the matter are, that all four of the currently-recognized 'Grand Slam' tennis singles championships evolved over the years. The Australian Open even went through a patch in the 1970's where top stars, such as Borg, Connors, and McEnroe, often didn't bother to show up...resulting in slam 'champions' like Brian Teacher. This is hardly comparable to today, when all four titles are vigorously contested by the likes of Roger Federer and Serena Williams. Other major changes throughout the years have included the 'opening' of the tournaments to professionals in 1968 (beginning at, of all places...Roland Garros!), the elimination of the 'challenge round' in 1922, etc. To not count the French championships prior to 1925 would be akin to not counting Babe Ruth's home runs, because of the exclusion of 'black' players from 1880 to 1947 in baseball. It also misses the historicity of the years. 'Greying out' is an inhospitable snub, especially when one considers that the game of 'tennis' or 'tenez' originated in the chateau of France.

Let's not forget what the NAME of the article is: "Grand Slam Women's Singles Champions." Since the term 'Grand Slam' wasn't even coined until 1933. Strictly speaking, there was no such thing as a 'grand slam' until some 56 years after the first Wimbledon tournament in 1877. Further, doing a little digging we find this about the early U.S. 'Open':

Only clubs that were members of the United States National Lawn Tennis Association were permitted to enter.

Also, the first 29 mens singles winners at Wimbledon were from the U.K. Early fields for both men and women tended to be limited to not just people from the same nation, but also the upper-class elite (hence the idea of an 'amateur' championship, to discourage the common people, who needed to be paid to survive, from competing). Note the lists on these articles recognize this, and count the titles two ways: Open-era and 'All-time.' I think 'All-time' means all-time, not just 'what Fyunckclick feels like.' I note the World Almanac lists Suzanne Lenglen with 12 titles. I note the Encyclopedia Britannica lists the French champions since 1891. I note that most of the competitors most-affected (Henri Cochet, Jean Borotra, Suzanne Lenglen) demonstrated their top-notch ability. Even Max Decugis won some Olympic medals.

Perhaps the biggest argument against Fyunclick, however, is that the 'French only' rule wasn't really enforced:

the first French Championship, the pre-curser to the French Open, was staged in Paris in 1891 and won by a certain H. Briggs - an Englishman.

So, it appears the first-ever title, in 1891, was won by...an Englishman? Clearly, Mr. Fyunclick's 'anti-French' crusade should come to an end. For 20+ years I have followed tennis, and though some sources tend to list only the winners since 1968 or whatever, most, when listing 'all-time' lists, do just that. Clearly, a learned tennis person knows that Roy Emerson's 12 'slams' are worth less, because Rod Laver and Pancho Gonzales were restricted entry during Emerson's years of winning titles, and Emerson never won a title once the championships were 'open' to professionals. Yet the same cannot be said for Suzanne Lenglen, Henri Cochet, and Jean Borotra...the 1920's-early 1930's were the 'golden age' of French tennis, and their success then has never been repeated.Ryoung122 08:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Doing a little more research, we find that the 1892 and 1897 French (mens) finalists were also Englishmen:

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-french-men-s-singles-champions-and-finalists

And, further, in 1925 the French was 'promoted' as an 'international' tournament to enchance its prestige and get foreign visitors. To now turn around and punish the French for inviting foreigners to compete is simply wrong. T(Remember, the French were aslo the first to open their tournament to professionals in 1968.) A search of the historical record finds that, contrary to oft-repeated commentary, the French championships did not actually 'exclude' foreigners. Thus, the rationale for 'greying out' is moot.

Now, no one would argue that the 1891 tournament in any way resembled the level of competition today. But the same can and should be said for Wimbledon in 1877 (Spencer Gore never won again) or the U.S. Open in 1881.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 08:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I could refute most everyone of RYoungs statements but why bother... everyone in this discussion is probably a tennis fan (I have been for almost 40 years now) so I don't feel a need to preach to the choir. Check out the facts for yourselves from places other than answers.com which just takes it's info from wikipedia anyways. Thanks. Fyunck(click) 09:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How could answers.com take that from Wikipedia, if it's not on Wikipedia? And if it is, that just goes to show you that you are not considering the larger picture. You are focused on merely 'winning' an argument rather than respecting history.Ryoung122 09:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Numerous sources, from the World Almanac to the Encylopedia Britannica to ESPN list the French winners since 1891. Here's another one, from CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/05/24/singles.wnners/

Also, the argument that the pre-1925 champions should be exluded because foreigners 'weren't allowed' has been shown to be false.

However, perhaps the best argument to be made is that Wikipedia, unlike a published work, is an edited entry that anyone can edit. To achieve 'consensus' requires respecting multiple points of view. A notation has already been made for the year '1925'. To simply act like pre-1925 titleholders didn't exist smacks of one-dimensional, dictatorial, and parochial meddling. I find it hard to believe that just one individual, going by an alias, has deemed himself more important than international media sources like CNN.Ryoung122 09:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

USA Today also lists since 1891, no 'exlusionary' rule:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/majors-women.htm

Note these are English and American sources, not French sources. The best thing anyone can do here is to treat the French Open with the same respect as the other three: list the titleists since tournament inception. Even if the "Australian Open" was once the "Australiasian championships."Ryoung122 09:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122 09:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else have an opinion on this? —MC 00:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Davis Cup articles - lists of teams
Currently, many Davis Cup (and Fed Cup) articles have sections that show this list of participating teams in each group & region. They are shown like: Is there any specific reason why this tabular format is desired, instead of just a simpler bulleted list, such as: Thanks, Andrwsc 10:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The question of putting links in tennis performance timelines
Recently, editors User:Wolbo and User:Tennis expert have engaged in continuous reversions on each other's edits on the Roger Federer page. The disagreement is over the issue of wikilinks to tournaments in the performance timelines. E.g., Wolbo favors a layout where one can click on, say a W in a table to be directed to, say, the Wimbledon 2003 draw. Tennis expert is against on grounds of making editing of the tables more difficult. The issue has been discusse somewhat scattered around the Wiki, so let us all settle the issue at this place. I made a post on Tennis expert's talk page, when he labelled one of Wolbo's reversion vandalism, I repeat this post here, as a start to the discussion:
 * "== Your edit war with Wolbo on wikilinks in tennis performance timelines ==
 * Re: your edit war with Wolbo on the Federer page, you note that no consensus has been reached; see here. That is technically correct as far as I see. But all the discussion I was able to track down, was about you opposing it. See here, and here. I could find no other editors opposing wikilinks in tables. And one voice trying to compromise, was deleted from you talk page; see last deleted entry here. I can't really see that the discussion is over in the sense that you can call Wolbo's edits vandalism; see here. From what I can dig up, one could conclude that around four editors (Wolbo, dantheox, Autodidactyl, to some extent Supertigerman) have supported the idea of wikilinks in performace timelines. That suggests that it was worth discussing more thoroughly. Please let me know of any discussion I have missed. Thanks. --HJensen, talk 07:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)"

My opinion is that the idea of links to draws is nice, as it highlights these main draw articles. Also, we do not need to make it a mandatory thing on all players' article. Since, the Federer article is going for GA and eventually FA, it would be a very nice touch to the article. And for retired greats, there would be no problem of making updating of tables more difficult. An argument I don't think is that good in any case. Please put your opinions here. Thanks.--HJensen, talk 16:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with HJensen, largely for the reasons he laid out above. I've often looked at a performance timeline and wondered "who did he lose to in the quarterfinals that year?" Links to the draw can immediately settle that question. I also agree with the point that it highlights our draw articles. Many readers might not be aware that, through the Grand Slam Project, we have draws for almost ever grand slam ever contested. More exposure is a good thing.


 * I think an argument could be made that these links look bad, especially on the colored backgrounds for SF and W cells. Blue underlined text on neon green or yellow is almost nauseating. Would it be possible to change the color of these links? Black looks better than blue. On the other hand, this would further increase the difficulty of making the edits. How are these edits typically performed? I picked a few random players from the Wimbledon draw, and their performance timelines had all been updated by different users, both registered and anonymous. This appears to be a distributed effort, so I don't think the increased pain will affect anyone too much.


 * Another option would be to have a bot that goes around fixing these links. There would be a pretty high one-time cost to set this up, but it might be worth it in the long run. --dantheox 20:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Very few editors other than myself go around checking the edits made by others to ensure that the timelines remain correct. This is already a very time consuming process. Making the timelines even more difficult to edit because we keep adding complicated "enhancements" to tables that, in edit mode, are very user unfriendly just doesn't make sense, as does not having a standardized way of presenting the timelines (e.g., requiring certain players to have links to the draws while saying, oh well, it's not required for others). Perhaps HJensen and Wolbo would volunteer to conform all the hundreds of timelines that currently exist to this proposed way of doing things. Maybe I have missed it, but I haven't noticed either of them making the effort so far. Tennis expert 05:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest we first keep the discussion to the issue at hand, and then afterwards pass out honors to those having done most edits. In a general discussion, I would think that any editor's argument carries the same weight irrespective of number of edits. Your comments exclusively point to the added complications, while you deliberately put "enhancements" in quotation marks. Do you really not think it is an improvement? As to your stand that this is an "either or" thing, in the sense that every timeline should then feature it, I don't agree. Extending Wikipedia is an ongoing process and any change will necessarily have to be incremental. I see nothing against the idea that the links are put into those players where editors will do the effort, and those where there are not willing editors will not get the addition. You don't see the same performance timeline in all tennis bios on Wikipedia in any case. You wouldn't, I guess, argue that we should delete the singles performance timeline featured now in, e.g., Lleyton Hewitt because there is no equivalent timeline in the Carlos Moyà article?--HJensen, talk 14:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Top ten North American male tennis players
Template:Top ten North American male tennis players has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —MC 22:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tennis tournament names
Can anyone here read Dutch? There was a proposal on the Dutch Wikipedia (now implemented) to, I assume from looking at that chart, drop the sponsors' names. Should we do this here? (cf. WP:COMMONNAME?) —MC 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read the discussion there and would summarize it as follows: because sponsors change and people often don't even know the official name of a tennis tournament, the article names will be changed to "ATP-tournament of Cityname" and "WTA-tournament of Cityname". Where both men and women play in the tournament, the way it is implemented is to redirect the official name to the men's article and have a text in the lead linking to the women's article, or to redirect the official name to a disambiguation page with two links. Where existing articles contain both ATP and WTA information, they need to be split.
 * The original discussion I have missed and I'm sorry to say that I don't agree, for what it is worth. I don't think consistency of article names is an higher principle than calling things what they're called (WP:COMMONNAME). Also the split between men and women causes more problems then it solves, e.g. redirecting to disambiguation pages or ATP pages, splitting articles that don't merrit splitting, etc. Dropping the sponsor name (while keeping redirects from the official name) I do agree with. I would prefer something like "Wimbledon (tennis)" and "Rome (tennis)". A problem is the Ordina Open: do you call this "Rosmalen (tennis)" or "'s-Hertogenbosch (tennis)"? The first is what it is referred to locally, the second internationally... Gidi70 11:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Anybody have anything to say about this? —MC 01:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Forehand
Someone has been messing with Forehand, but I'm heading off for the night and don't have the time to untangle it. Maybe one of you can take a look? --Falcorian (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article contains a long subjective and unsourced list, inappropriate for an encyclopedia, so it clearly invites opinionated attacks.--HJensen, talk 11:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The list does seem fairly arbitrary, and also a bit tilted towards present players. And it doesn't include Aaron Krickstein :)  But it might help to divide the list into current and past players. ShabbatSam 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside from the list, I question some of the points of the article. The opening sentence to me is true only of a cross-court shot, and just as true a description to me of a backhand cross-court shot.  And the description of 'inside-out' is not my understanding of the shot.  'Inside-out' forehand means hitting the ball cross-court from the backhand side of the court, regardless of whether you had to "run around the backhand" shot first to do it.  And from that position, you can also hit the shot down the line, which would NOT be an inside-out forehand.ShabbatSam 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Connors nominated for Article Improvement Drive
Jimmy Connors has been nominated for the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. Any editors who would be interested in collaborating to improve this article should indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 17:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Slam vs Grand Slam
Just because many use a term doesn't make it correct. When I grew up in the 60's, 70's and 80's the only term I heard to describe the Aussie, French, Wimbledon and US Opens were "Majors." Somewhere, probably during Navratilova's dominance, the term "Slam" was used for the individul tournies. This made sense as winning all 4 in a calendar year was a "Grand Slam", a term used since the 30's. But people got lazy, sportscasters included, and started calling the individual tournies "Grand Slams" incorrectly. In conversation you let that slide, but this is an encyclopedia! Can't we at least get it right here? Do not call them "Grand Slams", call them Majors or Slams. The headings in all the wiki Tennis articles should reflect this. Maybe if enough people see it printed the correct way the debasement of the term will change. Fyunck(click) 18:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right. When I was a boy (30 years ago) a "Grand Slam" was a thing Rod Laver had won among the men. But time changes, and I don't think we can fight this change of common usage. I mean, when the official web site of the 2007 US Open goes on about "The Grandeur of Grand Slams - 2007", referring to the four tournaments of the year, it is a sign of a lost battle.--HJensen, talk 21:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably too true. I still believe it is incorrect usage and poor english, but as with many words these days it may be too late to save :-( Fyunck(click) 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Set nomination
I have created a tennis set nomination for Version 0.7, please take a look and leave comments. What we need to know are: (a) Is this a suitable list of the top tennis players (13 male + 13 female), plus other key articles? (b) Are the articles of a reasonable quality? I realise that such lists are subjective, but I made up the lists based on details posted on the list pages, as well as my own (small) personal knowledge. I realise that the older players will typically get less coverage, but we do want to make sure the selection covers the truly major players from all time periods. Please give feedback. Thanks, Walkerma 03:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm missing Pancho Gonzales Wolbo 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Great list. How about Jack Kramer and all 13 players from this list. Also may I suggest ATP Tour, WTA Tour, Davis cup, Fed cup and History of tennis. Thanks! RC 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Most wanted articles
The list of most wanted articles was recently updated, and I've created a section for the many tennis biographies on there. If anyone gets bored, here's a good place to find something to do ;). --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I found three redirect pages from here: Nicole Provis, Nany Basuki and Asa Carlsson. (maiden names, nicknames) --Hhst (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Addition: The most "wanted article" from other Wikipedia versions: Marcel Bernard and Roderich Menzel (both 6 languages.) . (Sorry, I haven't written Menzel myself, I'm ashamed of it.) --Hhst (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:Tennis award

 * I'm still new to this project, but I've noticed that WP:Tennis doesn't have an ward for best contributors. Though it might be a good idea to create one, especially since many smaller projects have one. What do you think? Ban  Ray  13:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Something random...

Any thoughts? Should I add it to the WP barnstars page? Ban Ray  13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any other sports WikiProjects with their own barnstars? There's always the Running Man's Barnstar. --dantheox (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that Wp:Football has two, not sure about others Ban  Ray  18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt we need a barnstar page. We only have around 30 contributors, and half of them aren't even active... -- DarkFalls talk 00:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're probably right then! Ban  Ray  17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike Leach
I want to give a heads up to those who edit tennis-related articles. When referring to the tennis player, Mike Leach, please use "Mike Leach (tennis)" instead of "Mike Leach", since the latter links to the football coach. Thanks! → Wordbuilder (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

US Open (tennis)
When are you guys going to reach a consensus on whether to use "US Open" or "U.S. Open"?

I'm currently in a discussion with Tennis expert on which one to use and he keeps saying a consensus was not reached on this issue. But then in his edit summary he says changes were made against consensus. So is he right that a consensus was not made here in April 2007 or is he right a consensus was made elsewhere?

I'm also writing here, because I think we need someone else to either mediate or join the conversation on either this talk page or on the US Open (tennis) talk page. --203.220.170.192 (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It was discussed here. I think it is clear that the consensus was that in the Open Era it should be US Open rather than U. S. Open. I guess tennisexpert just want his opinions to stand. Drop the punctuation by all means.--HJensen, talk 08:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * hjensen, no one was advocating "U.   S.    Open."  Thanks for misrepresenting my position (yet again).  Tennis expert (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please hold back the sarcasm. I honestly read that old discussion as you being the only one that kept insisting on not using the term US Open. Sorry if I misunderstood you position. US Open it is then. --HJensen, talk 10:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * When you stop being sarcastic and incivil in your edit summaries and posts aroud Wikipedia about yours truly, I'll go more than the extra mile (or kilometer) to accommodate you. Sorry you can't see the difference between U.S. Open and U. S. Open.  I advocate the former, never the latter.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from calling me incivil. Unless you can show an example, I would very much like you to strike that comment. You are, on the other hand, accusing me of "misrepresenting my position (yet again)"! Thereafter I apologize if I misunderstood your position. I really think I am trying my best here.--HJensen, talk 20:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * An example of your sarcasm: "Can 'experts' avoid edit summaries?" (posted by you twice in reference to me even though you yourself do not always post edit summaries). Tennis expert (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That was not meant as sarcastic. I am truly sorry if it came off like that. I had hoped that the quotation marks around the word "expert" signalled that I was just making a harmless joke with your user name, which - as you must admit - does invite to such humorous remarks every once in a while (and all I wanted was some dialogue - I felt it was a minor thing not needed to go to the talk page - but I have done that now). On a more serious note, I am still not satisfied that you have labelled me as being incivil. That is uncalled for, and I would very much like you to strike that remark. Thanks.--HJensen, talk 23:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't invited anything of the kind, just as you do not invite jokes about Denmark by admitting that you're Danish. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but that "expert" sarcasm happens all the time to me, almost always by vandals.  I don't appreciate it.  I chose my name on the spur of the moment several years ago.  Why you and others think it's clever to joke about it (when the real issue is disagreeing with my edits) is beyond my imagination.  It's a juvenile passive aggressive activity.  Tennis expert (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. This is an unfortunate clash of personalities and perhaps cultures. I am truly sorry that you take such harmlessly intended comments as "passive aggessive activity". I have never had any such intentions, and shall refrain from making any implicit or explicit remarks about your user name from now on. I really meant it as just humorous to get things working a bit smoother. I was also sure your remark about kilometers instead of miles was just a reference to my origin. I did not take that as an aggressive remark. But I still think there is a long way from such a minor misunderstandings over a few wordings and then accusations of incivility. Please don't lump your understanding of my good faith writings into the intentional malicious behavior of vandals. Thanks again. --HJensen, talk 06:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature
Could you add details of all abbreviations used - both the literal expansion and what that actually means to the articles of tennis players. (I suggest a template for easy inclusion into lots of players.) For example, in Tim Henman the table at the end is full of many coloured "R1, RR, QF, W". I guess, but do NOT know that this means "The player got as far as Round 1, RR??? no idea, Quarter finals, Won the event." But if that is the case then the totals don't add up. There are 11 wins listed with the total being 12 and yet there is only one "W". It makes no sense to the non-expert. Also remember that there will be readers whose first language is not English. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Laura DuPont
I created article Laura DuPont, perhaps someone could mosey over there, check it out, and rate it (stub class, methinks). Thank you. Guldenat (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Importance scale
I've replaced the importance scale, the general one was confusing and unsuitable for this project. Any thoughts are welcome. Ban Ray  11:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer Capriati
Please can someone look at this article, it needs a rewrite as it doesn't seem to flow too well. I'm trying to do this for several other female tennis-player articles as well. If you see the talk page, you'll see what I mean. Thanks, -- Solumeiras talk  11:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of national flags in tennis articles
I could not find this issue discussed elsewhere, so permit me to raise it here. Why, exactly, are we identifying players with national flags in contexts where the players are not representing countries? I understand the exception of IO games, Fed Cup and Davis Cup, but what about WTA/ITF/ATP tournaments? The players playing there are competing as individuals; in some cases, the issue of nationality is not straightforward, and the player actually possesses several passports. Players train and live in various places. National anthems are not played before tournament matches or at the moment of awarding winners, national representation win totals or orther statistics are not maintained by ITF (except in the national team competition case), WTA or ATP. Please explain, exactly what justifies branding players with national flags in international tennis, other than in the national team competition contexts? --Mareklug talk 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot address the flag versus spelling-out-the-name-of-the-country decision, but it is longstanding tradition in tennis reporting to specify both the name of the player and his or her nationality, even in events other than the Olympics, Davis Cup, and Fed Cup. Tennis expert (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I debated this issue briefly with someone at Talk:Delray Beach International Tennis Championships. I'll repeat what I said there: I think the issue of whether or not a player is representing their country is subjective. You assert that they aren't but do you have anything to back this up? Patriotism is a common feature amongst players and supporters, and the media have made a huge fuss, for example, over the rise of Serbian tennis, with no objections raised by the players in question. I assume the ITF/ATP/WTA doesn't play the national anthem because it's impractical to assemble a band in the stadia, and it's anyone's guess who will actually win the event at such short notice. However, player nationality is acknowledged and celebrated at times: for example, the singles champions at the French Open have their national anthems played. So whether or not they represent their countries is debatable; what is irrefutable is the perceived importance of nationality by the governing bodies, media outlets and fans. The majority feel that nationality is notable. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Tone
As I've been watching the Australian Open I've been reading a few tennis-related articles and am pretty surprised by the poor quality of them in general. Most are not written in an encyclopedic tone, and read as if they are articles in a magazine or similar publication. There are a lot of weasel words that need dealing with, puffers, and NPOV policy needs to be applied. I don't have the time, inclination or expertise to fix the vast number of articles that needs fixing, but its something the Wikiproject needs to look at. The articles I read were (but from what I've seen this is the tip of the iceberg) Maria Sharapova, Steffi Graf (and a lot of other bios) & 2008 Australian Open. It's definitely good writing, but just not suitable for an encyclopedia. PageantUpdater talk • contribs  01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a lot of editors are continuously updating the bios as a tournament proceeds. This creates lots of news-style sections, which usually all are deleted after the completion of the tournament by more experienced editors. It is such a waste of time. If people would just wait until a tournament is over!--HJensen, talk 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New article on Sasson Khakshouri
Some help would be appreciated with this new article. Many of the google hits turn up foreign language sites, so hopefully somebody associated with this project will have better resources. Pairadox (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

List of French Men's Singles champions and finalists
Is it just me or does that page title make no sense? I understand why the 'Open' was taken out but as it stands the name is really ambiguous. Would it be an option to change 'French Men's' to 'Roland-Garros'? Crickettragic (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Wikibook up for Deletion
I don't know how much interest that participants with this Wikiproject may want to get involved with a related Wikibook, but I'm leaving this note here to inform those who may be interested that the Tennis Wikibook is currently nominated for deletion on Wikibooks.

This book is certainly in sad shape in terms of offering any realistic information about how to play the game or go into depth about the topic, and it would be appreciated if somebody interested in the topic could help add content to those pages. The primary rationale for deletion is due to the fact that the information in this book is of such poor quality that it doesn't merit even being on Wikibooks any more. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Incentive

 * The Official Florida Gators Wikiproject will award this Barnstar to editors who help to expand articles pertaining to the Florida Gators Tennis. Jccort (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Help request: GA backlog
Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while, and some articles wait up to 50 days for a review. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject Tennis is to try to find time to review Ogre (game) and Nashville Sounds. If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming of tennis biographies
Since this is something that is going to involve a number of articles, and something that is likely to cause a little bit of commotion, I thought it would be wise to have a discussion before doing it, even though it is ultimately pretty much unavoidable. This seemed to be the most appropriate forum, since people here are more specifically devoted to tennis-related articles. I will try to post notices about this discussion on the talk pages of as many articles as I can remember that are to be affected. So the thing is: there is a significant number of tennis biographies that are, right now, violating the naming conventions of the English-language Wikipedia, namely Naming conventions (use English). The situation concerns biographies of tennis players of Slav and South American countries (that I have noticed so far). As it is stated in our Naming Convention, which I linked above, in the case of spelling of a person's name, on the English-language Wikipedia (thus not applicable to other Wikipedias necessarily, subject to local policies), the name of the article is to be the preferred spelling in the English-speaking world , if it exists. If not, then we use the original spelling in the native language. In the case of tennis players, the preferred spelling in English is easily verifiable by how those names are spelled by the ATP and the WTA respectively &mdash; which is used normally by the media and any other means of divulgation in English-speaking countries. What that means for practical purposes is: no diacritics, romanization of any non-Latin letters or symbols, as done not by Wikipedia, but by the sources (in this case, the ATP and the WTA). Currently, many biographies are not observing this, such as Fernando González, Ana Ivanović, Ivan Ljubičić and Radek Štěpánek. In addition, there is the peculiar case of Novak Djokovic (spelled as is): while the article has been moved to the appropriate naming on this Wikipedia, the player's name continues to be listed on other tennis-related articles routinely as Novak Đoković, the original spelling in Serbian. All of those will need to be fixed. Obviously, there are many people, especially people who contribute only sporadically to Wikipedia, and possibly concentrated on tennis alone, or maybe limited to a small number of biographies or tennis-related articles, and thus will be unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, who might tend to call upon "national issues" and claim that the original spelling needs to be kept out of "respect for the countries" from which the player comes. Unfortunately, this argument cannot prosper ultimately, for the reasons I've explained above. But I've seen this argument time and again, especially concerning Slav players (and especially on Djokovic's entry). Therefore, if there is anything anyone would like to point out about this, it would be preferrable that we get any problems out of the way now. But again, ultimately the naming conventions are clear: this is the English-language Wikipedia, and in here we use the preferred spelling in the English-speaking world if it exists. In the case of tennis players, it clearly exists and it is easily verified. Redux (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you. But I predict that what you're proposing is going to precipitate massive edit warring and all the unpleasantries that result from that.  Tennis expert (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is precisely why I thought it best to discuss first, before implementing a broad move of articles. The goal is to bring this situation to the attention of sensible people beforehand, since it seems that it is clear enough what needs to be done.  Once anyone who wants to has had an opportunity to voice any concerns, we will proceed to the renames deemed necessary.  There will be no edit warring, because anyone trying to "force" the articles to stay at a naming that they might think is right for whatever personal reason ("national pride" or something else) will be incurring in several policy violations, since such actions can be construed as Vandalism, POV pushing and/or a violation of WP:POINT.  Any and all of which can and, if necessary, will be addressed with the appropriate administrative measures. The point of what I've just said is not to make omenous threats.  Far from it.  In fact the whole point of even having this discussion is to attempt to make this as transparent and smooth as it possibly can be.  But I do feel the need to reassure all that contribute constructively and reasonably that the discussion will yield results that will ultimately benefit the project.  Redux (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I support this. Don't let the people who created the problem in the first place, by ignoring Wikipedia policy, make you jump through any further hoops. Unfortunatly because Three-revert rule is so time consuming I wouldn't bother using it - simply revert, warn, ban and seek page move protection - Protect. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 21:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also completely agree with you. I have stated my opinions in relationship with the discussion concerning Novak Djokovic. In particular, it is important to note that there usually has never been an established consensus for naming the articles with their native spelling in the first place. Hence, any arguments against a move to English spelling due to "lack of consensus" is not viable in my opinion. (In the case of "Djokovic vs. Đoković", a move to English spelling was indeed blocked for a while by use of that argument until some neutral Admins stepped in.) --HJensen, talk 18:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not agree cause I do not agree with the Naming conventions (use English) to begin with. I think it's arrogant to sugest that the English alphabet is the only alphabet that should be used on English Wikipedia. With redirection pages the name Ana Ivanović can be "saved" and a lot of time can be saved too. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not what WP:UE says. One extreme view is indeed that diacritics should never be used; another is that they should always be used. WP:UE supports neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This does not really refer to us placing an alphabet before any other. This is about a methodology and the established fact that on the English-language Wikipedia content is written in English. That applies to the spelling of people's names as well: if there is a preferred spelling used in the English-speaking world, that is what is going to be used on this Wikipedia as the article's title. We are not making this up as we go along, this is an established methodology of work &mdash; and a logical one, obviously, since this is the English-language Wikipedia. You should notice that this is about the naming of articles. This is not about excluding or hiding the native-language spelling of anyone's name. As a matter of fact, we are required to give it in the opening paragraph. Not to mention that it is good practice to have the original spelling exist as a redirect to the correctly-placed article. Now, even though this is not a discussion about deletion, regarding this kind of personal sentiment towards how the English-language Wikipedia is written, there is a page that completely applies here (mutatis mutandi): Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically the third section, #Personal point of view, and in it, the subsections "I like it" and "I don't like it". In order to oppose the concerned moves validly, you need to indicate either that there is no preferred spelling in the English-speaking world, which causes the article title to default to the native-language spelling, or that the English-speaking world happens to spell it exactly like the native spelling, which means that the article would already be at the correct location. In the case of tennis players, that is evidently difficult to conceive, since this needs to be backed by verifiable sources, and since both the ATP and the WTA use English as their working languages and they themselves list the players excluding diacritics and so on, the players' profiles on the official website of the concerned governing entity becomes a quasi-indisputable proof of the preferred spelling in English. Redux (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be strange to apply this to tennis players only. So you need a larger debate related to all names with diacritic. Anyway, see this.--Svetovid (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a straw poll. And it seems to have been made complicated by the fact that it was stemming from a then-live debate over the naming of the article on Zurich, which means that opinions were already polarized going into it.  And obviously, in spite of its existence, our methodology was not changed.  Also because Wikipedia is not a democracy. In the general situation at hand, there will be clearly established spellings in English, which are used widely in the English-speaking world (given the media coverage of a very popular sport, etc.) and which are easily verifiable (ATP and WTA, as mentioned).  There is also the fact that we are applying a homogenizing rule, because in some cases it's just a diacritical mark (so see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Personal point of view#It doesn't do any harm) and in others, there are significant differences (as in the case of Djokovic).  Otherwise, then we really would be making the rules up as we go along. This is concerning the tennis-related biographies.  It is not possible to work on an all-inclusive discussion on this, because conditions may and do vary wildly regarding whether or not there is an established spelling in English, how well-established or used it is in the English-speaking world, etc.  In the case of tennis, the circumstances are made easier because of the ATP/WTA spelling and the popularity of the sport throughout the Englihs-speaking world.  This makes the situation far more solvable in this instance.  And obviously, we are not going to avoid addressing it where it can be addressed because it may be wrong elsewhere as well, under [possibly] completely different situations. Redux (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've come to agree with this idea. I used to vehemently oppose it, actively implemented the usage of discritics, and wanted Wikipedia to present the "most factual" version, so that people could be informed. Now I'm trying to look at it from an objective viewpoint, and all I can see is that it creates too much tension, and the arguments in favour of retaining diacritics are usually a result of linguistic partisanship. This encyclopaedia is for everybody, it isn't for seasoned tennis fans or people familiar with the nuances of diacritics. One argument could be that they're necessary to prevent mispronunciation i.e. Lubikick, but does the average English reader really know what the "č" sounds like? The extent of the problem is widespread but that's no obstacle. The one stipulation I would make is that the original form should be in parenthesis after the English version. I also disagree that a decision needs to be made Wikipedia-wide, this should be initiated at grass-roots level so that the change is gradual and the discussion doesn't become too convoluted. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As I mentioned before, we are already required to provide the native-language spelling in the opening paragraph, so that is already solved.  In addition, although not mandatory, it is already an established good practice to have a pronunciation key for the native spelling (using the IPA) also in the opening paragraph.  So it would appear that all bases are covered in that regard.  Redux (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Man, I am SO happy to see this discussion. It bothers me quite often to see these non-English spellings for tennis on the wikipedia player bios.  And it bothers me as an editor as well, because I don't HAVE those keys on my keyboard, and it makes me feel like I am being delinquent when I use English spellings for these player names when editing articles.  So by all means, let's get this policy implemented.  Hopefully there is a bot you can create to make these changes, that would also leave a nice, explicit note to future editors explaining why?  OK, enough happy talk for now, time to get on with what I came here for: MoS for Scores. ShabbatSam (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an addendum to this comment. Actually, you DO have the letters available when using the editor in wikipedia. It is just rather cumbersome to use. But it is there. Sp this it not a strong argument (although I fully agree).--HJensen, talk 07:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ťĥáņķš fòŗ ťḥě ţĭþ!ShabbatSam (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This thread is now over a week old. In addition to the naming conventions that need to be followed, there was no sustainable opposition made here, aside the "I like it"/"I don't like it" remarks that, as I mentioned before, cannot prosper (see my previous comments). On the contrary, consensus is overwhelmingly clear in support of the already-existing naming conventions that, on the English-language Wikipedia, we will use the preferred spelling used in the English-speaking world &mdash; in the case of tennis, verified by the spelling used for each player on the official websites of the ATP and the WTA. That being the case, barring the presentation of something new and relevant, we will commence the implementation of the outcome tomorrow, May 19. This will consist of 2 lines of action: the main one will be the moving of all biographies concerned to the ATP/WTA-used spelling; the second action will be the correcting of the players' names' spelling in all instances where it was spelled using the native-language spelling, both in results articles, such as in 2008 Hamburg Masters - Singles and in all biographies with career statistics boards, such as Rafael Nadal, where the article's title is unaffected by this and it will not be moved, but the opponents' names on that board will be changed to match the spelling used in the English-speaking world. Needless to say that the second part, although technically easier, represents a massive effort. So we will be counting on the help of all of those willing to. And this brings up an important point: once the spellings are corrected, if people, be it anons or other registered users, start reverting it back to the native-spellings, please do not engage them in revert wars. Revert once, inform them of the naming conventions and of this discussion. If they either ignore you or reply with answers such as "Wikipedia is disrespecting X country/culture/langugage" and go on to re-revert it again, report it immediately to the administrators at their noticeboard. As I mentioned, anyone trying to "force" articles or spellings to stay how they personally think those should be will be incurring in several policy violations and will be subject to administrative measures. Redux (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the "real names", will stay in the article I don't mind the changes anymore. Good luck but I don't expect a 100% succes rate............ Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the best way to include the native spelling? For the Serb players I've just been putting Serb Latin; what about the rest of the Slavonic players, and the Hispanic ones? I really don't how to format this. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Normally, just go with your common sense. One way to do it would be something like this, in the very first sentence of the article: "Radek Stepanek (spelled Radek Štěpánek in Czech) is a..."  The important thing is that the information be conveyed in as clear a fashion as possible.  Redux (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Serbia seems to use two alphabets: Cyrillic alphabet & Serb Latin. I think it is the most respectfull to but both in tha article (in the Ana Ivanovic article this already happend). Most countrys use only one alphabet. In the countrys who use only Cyrillic nothing has to be changed cause Alyona Bondarenko article was never named Альона Бондаренко. The same probabley for Chinese etc. The only 'problem' is forms of Latin alphabet, but I thought that

only Central European countrys use a different versions of the Latin alphabet then English people. The country's language article should say what alpabeth they use. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If I might just add something at this late stage. The fact that the Serbian language is written in either of two scripts is not as big an issue as many of its exponents actually believe. Cyrillic is the primary script, the Latinic is a standard transliteration effectively no different to the Roman script forms of any other language: it is a fact that all main languages of sovereign states have a Romanised counterpart to their initial script. Although I favour the preservation of diacritics, I accept that this is slowly diminishing. As such, the new Serbian variations (Jelena Jankovic, Novak Djokovic etc.) serve as English exonyms which means that the Serbian names will be displayed in the style of a translation. The conventional practice for such presentation as can be checked by selecting the thousands of Serbian-related pages across English Wikipedia is: Good Morning (Serbian: Добро јутро, Dobro jutro). A simple click on the language link will explain everything about the importance of the alphabets so there is no need to provide links for the articles regarding the alphabets themselves, as indeed a page exists for every language's conventional scripts, Romanisations included. It would also be in harmony with all other language presentations across Wikipedia. English title > followed by primary script > followed by Romanised form. Here is an example containing Greek and Bulgarian. However the presentation is finalised, I must ask that Cyrillic maintain first position. Evlekis (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor problem is that all their trainers, friends and family members are not listed at ATP/WTA. So right now we have a strange mix of Anglicised and original names. Squash Racket (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What is special about tennis players that they deserve special treatment on Wikipedia? Why not to apply this rule to all articles? Why it is OK to have José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Gerhard Schröder, Agim Çeku, Kimi Räikkönen, Nicklas Bäckström and not Tomáš Berdych?--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing. You are welcome to make efforts in implementing English naming conventions in other areas of the English wikipedia.--HJensen, talk 13:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, no any difference. It seems that this thread was made specifically in order to impose some double criteria of couple guys, member of "anti-diacritics squad", universal , self-proclaimed "experts".--Aradic-es (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you trying to say here? It is actually quite difficult to understand. It just doesn't sound as if you are assuming any good faith. Sorry if I am mistaken.--HJensen, talk 09:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This proposal is in fact a hidden attempt to impose some anglified no-diacritics "spelling" . There were similar attempts that failed in order to gain consensus.


 * Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)
 * Use diacritics
 * Usage of diacritics

So ,I see this proposal as an alternative way to impose POV. What is the difference between the biographies of tennis player,, politicians scientists. --Aradic-es (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So, I see no reasons for making this thread but to impose some "no-diacritic". And no, I see no WP:AGF  in this proposal. Yes, Couple of guys here are trying to persuade us that "this is not anti-diacritics movement". That is same as saying "We don't ban the Chinese people enter here-just to those who are shorter than 190 centimeters" or "we do not ban the black race people enter here-just to those who have curly hair". So predictable and transparent tricks-old as the world itself --Aradic-es (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are putting up a lot of straw men here for something I really do not understand. I can't make head or tails of what you are writing. I am sorry. If your post was coherent, it could be reported as a breach of Wikiquette, as you seem to be implying that some editors are racists by proxy. But I hope I misunderstand.--HJensen, talk 11:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, off course. You don't understand. Like usual.nothing that I write. --Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please try to clarify. What does "Like usual.nothing that I write" mean? I am really sorry, I just don't get it. And I don't understand your last post either. E.g., "Couple of guys here are trying to persuade us that 'this is not anti-diacritics movement' ". What does it mean? You are apparently accusing someone of doning something. That I understand. But unless you back it up with examples and names, then it doesn't really make sense. It is just an unclear exclamation. I hope you can understand that. --HJensen, talk 13:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am just trying to use the same rhetorics as you are. Which usually is in the following steps: respecting them and your opponent is NOT.
 * if somebody says somethingthat you disagree then
 * pretend that you don't understand him/her
 * try to make joke with all the given examples
 * make fun of his/her spelling mistakes- not forgetting to emphasize his/her knowledge of English (apart from own one) as the crucial criteria that (s)he is wrong
 * try to cite as much as WP:SOMETHING, WP:THIS, WP:THAT... no mather if it is relevant. Empšhasizing that you are one who is
 * declare yourself a "universal expert" and your opponent as "amateur"
 * label your opponent as nationalist, chauvinist, extremist... in order to make their attitudes as undesireable. Off ,repeat as much as you can that you are "moderate" and "objective".
 * if the certain rule is against you try to make fun of it-label it us meaningless,something that has to be changes.

whatever change was made emphasize it as "historical" etc.

As we can see so called consensusabout "Novak Đoković" hat was made in April 2008, just 7 days after 2 years of discussion- used good opportunity in good time. Syncronized acting and imposed the rule.more -less same user -member of anti-diacritics squad. Great job. Congratulations!

there are couple users repaeting the same arguments in couple articles and/or wikipedia policy discussions:PMAnderson,TennisExpert,PhillipBaird Shearer ,Somedumbyankee and ,of course, our dear Norse PhD HJensen. Since there was no any consensus about usage of diacrics at general level I consider this as a hidden illegal attempt. --Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I find this response below the belt, so I thought it best to have somebody to look at it here: Wikiquette_alerts.--HJensen, talk 14:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well,I gave my response there,too. --Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Suggest that those proposing the multiple move at WP:RM consult WP:RM for the recommended procedure. Andrewa (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A delicate issue as "no diacritics" argument certainly cannot be done without a RM. A RM should be held, and not for multiple pages but for each individual page. If there is consensus on them that they can be moved, they will. Otherwise, they should not be moved. This is a controversial move (and for the record, one which I strongly oppose).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you are completely misunderstanding the purpose of the page WP:RM. That page is primarily for requesting moves when the user proposing the move, for some reason, cannot do it himself of herself (eg. anonymous users who believes a page should be moved).  You should read the second paragraph at the very top of the page.  This fits exactly: the proposal to move a large number of pages was bound to stir some controversy, so a discussion was started before anything was done.  Notes with links to the discussion were placed on the talk page of numerous articles that were to be affected.  The discussion went on for 8 days-and-change without any move actually being performed.  At the end of this very reasonable period of time, consensus was rather clear, and I'm proud to say that all involved were quite reasonable and understanding, and that includes users who are regularly involved with tennis-related material and who resisted the moves at first. There was discussion and consensus reached prior to any moves being performed.  Clearly a discussion was necessary in this case, but WP:RM is a forum where such a discussion can take place, but it does not have to take place there, as it is being explained on that page itself.  All the steps were taken appropriately, and we have moved to the implementation phase &mdash; but please, do refer to my above comments regarding arguments to avoid in discussions, which is completely applicable here; "I don't Like It" is one of them.  As for the points you brought up on my talk page, I have explained the situation in yours &mdash; anyone else, obviously feel free to check it out.  Redux (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Wikipedia tradition has for a long time effectively demanded that any resolution resulting in a controversial move must go through WP:RM. It's the only place where users monitoring moves can keep a regular eye on and thereby be informed in good timing of any move discussions that they might be interested in taking part. Obscure discussions occurring somewhere else and not being advertised on RM lack legitimacy. Hús  ö  nd  15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Standardization of Tennis Match Scores
This something I just noticed tonight, and it made it somewhat difficult and confusing to visually assimilate the match scores I was reading.

Apparently on March 23, someone or somebot (or some combo of the two, since there were multiple edits per minute being made by the same IP address) decided to change the presentation format of the tennis scores in hundreds of articles. See.

The changes all have the edit comment of: "MoS: Hyphens are often wrongly used for disjunction in Wikipedia; this is especially common in sports scores."

This is just a HORRIBLE change to have made, and I would like to see the scores changed back and no edit war ensue.

Tennis (and similarly volleyball, table tennis, etc.) scores are quite different from scores in many other sports (such as baseball, football, basketball, soccer, etc.) in that the scores follow a predictable format and that a match score contains a multiple of the component set scores.

So in tennis, you could conceivably report the scores of a match as 64 61 with no punctuation aside from the space and still be understood. You could even report a tiebreak set as 763 and still be understood.

On the other hand, a basketball score of 131-2, however unlikely, needs some punctuation (or to use the above editors terminology, some visual disjunction) to distinguish it from a score of 13-12.

And in basketball and similar sports, there is just ONE score to report upon for each match. So there is no need to concern yourself with horizontal spacing of the scores visually, and its effect on the ability of the reader to assimilate the meaning of the scores.

In tennis, however, you have a series of scores for each match, so you need to concern yourself with each piece of a set score as well as the visual presentation of a match score.

Consider the following presentations of the same match score:

64 16 763 6711 75

6-4, 1-6, 7-6(3), 6-7(11), 7-5

6–4, 1–6, 7–6 (3), 6–7 (11), 7–5

Hmmm ... I am not even sure if that is going to show up as intended.

But anyway, the point is that while all three versions of the scores can be read and understood, the first version is difficult to visually assimilate, the 2nd version (which was used before the edits were made) is the easiest to assimilate, and the 3rd version, the current version, is more difficult to assimilate.

(Please note that I also have changed the tiebreak display here to what I have always seen used in websites and news reports, no SPACE between the set score and the parenthesis with the tiebreak score).

The elongated hyphen (pardon me for not knowing the technical term) has the visual effect of pushing the end of one set score closer visually to the start of the next set score than to the start of its own set score. That is, a score of 5-7, 6-1, 6-2 looks more like 5 7 6  1 6  2.

And the additional space before the tiebreak score serves only to further turn what should be a visually clean match score into a giant blob of hyphens, numbers, and parentheses.

Of course, if the 3rd example above does not contain the elongated hyphens, you may not be seeing what I am talking about.

If you have seen what I am talking about, what are your thoughts? ShabbatSam (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the em-dashes make it very hard on editors. But as far as I can determine, the only way to go back to simple hyphens is to change Wikipedia policy.  We can't do that just for tennis.  Good luck with changing the policy.  It's been tried before without success.  By the way, there should not be a space before tiebreak scores.  That is our tennis consensus.  Tennis expert (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The bot's edit refers to the manual of style which says that en dashes, the correct term for the "elongated dashes" (not em dashes, as the above reply states), are the correct way to separate sport scores (which includes tennis scores). I disagree that this makes it any harder to understand than using hyphens, as the dash clearly shows which numbers relate to each other and the commas make it even easier to understand. However, it can be annoying for editors to use en dashes, especially as some editors insist on using the HTML entity "&amp;ndash;" instead of using the en dash in the raw code (there was a recent discussion about that on the (association) football WikiProject). - MTC (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the way to go back is to find which bot did it, and request that the function of the bot be disapproved as disruptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention
Could someone point out where in wiki is the naming convention for female players? As far as last names being listed in charts as the married name or the name by which the player played under whilst competing. I don't know whether she changed it or not but if she did would we put down Steffi Graf Agassi or simply Steffi Graf? Chris Evert Norman or Chris Evert? Maureen Connolly Brinker or Maureen Connolly? Just a query so I don't mess things up and I couldn't find it listed anywhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As you know, we've discussed this many times before. Chris Evert doesn't go by "Chris Evert Norman." Maureen Connolly did go by "Maureen Connolly Brinker."  Steffi Graf does not go by "Steffi Graf Agassi."  That's the difference.  Also, in results tables, it's very confusing for new tennis fans to see a player's maiden name in the early years and her married name in later years, with no obvious connection between them.  To avoid this confusion, our consensus is to include the full name, e.g., Margaret Osborne duPont, assuming that the player in question actually used her married name at some point.  Tennis expert (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't discuss this "many" times. I just wanted a wiki resource where it was pointed out. And how do you know that Chris won't go by Chris Evert Norman? She might. I just wanted to know where the consensus was located since I couldn't find it. When going to Wimbledon and looking at records on the walls you see players' tennis playing names, not their married names from 10 years after retirement. It's confusing to see the married names listed here. But again I just want to see where in wiki the consensus or protocol is located. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The consensus is evidenced in hundreds of articles all over the English Wikipedia. For example, the article about Chris Evert is entitled Chris Evert and the article about Margaret Osborne duPont is entitled Margaret Osborne duPont.  Married names didn't just happen "10 years after retirement," either.  Many (if not most) of these players married in the middle of their careers, such as Beverly Baker Fleitz and Patricia Canning Todd.  Have a look at this thread at tennisforum.com.  It would be far more confusing to see both "Gail Sheriff" and "Gail Lovera" in a table without any connection between the two.  Unless you followed tennis closely, you would have no idea that those two names refer to the same player.  "Gail Sheriff Lovera" or "Gail Sheriff Chanfreau Lovera" (she married several times) in both places in the table, which is our usual practice, eliminates the possibility of this confusion.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds of articles with non-english name spellings that are incorrect by wiki standards so one can't just go by 100s of articles. And I have no problem if someone is married while playing and we use their married name... I mean you have to pick one of them. But are we gonna use Chris Evert Lloyd Mill Norman if she chooses to go by Norman? It seems strange by tennis standards and if we don't then it's not consistent with Connolly Brinker. Maybe I should have asked if there is an unbiased authority figure here who could point me to wiki protocol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Editorial consensus is evidenced on Wikipedia by what editors do. Sorry that's apparently not good enough for you.  As for my alleged bias, I am biased only to the extent I disagree with you.  You apparently want to hear only what you want to hear, and everyone who disagrees with you apparently is biased.  Authority figure?  Who exactly would that be?  Tennis expert (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Editorial consensus is evidenced on Wikipedia by what editors do". I didn't know that. Tennis expert, you mention in your first friendly response that it has been discussed "many times before". Why not lead Fyunck towards just a few of these discussions? That would be helpful.--HJensen, talk 05:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also since TE does far more editing than the average tennis editor he makes his own consensus by bulk changes... is that really fair? In the past most tennis wikiites have been wallflowers and can't (or won't) match TE's amount of editing. That shouldn't make a consensus. Shouldn't we at wikipedia strive to make an article better rather than making sure we don't upset the consensus? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You asked what the consensus, i.e., naming convention, was. And I told you what it is.  I then told you why I believe that the current consensus is the best way to go.  Quit muddying the waters by mixing up the two discussions.  As for why other people don't edit tennis articles as much as me: (1) I'm not convinced that's true anyway, as I limit myself to certain retired players, certain current female players, and only a few current male players.  For example, I rarely touch the Andy Roddick or Roger Federer articles.  (2) Everyone is free to edit as much as he or she wants.  That's what makes Wikipedia "fair."  Or maybe you believe I (and only I) should have a quota....  Finally, re-read the portion of WP:CON, which states that silence is consent, and WP:SILENCE.  Tennis expert (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I asked where in wiki is the naming convention listed. Where was the consensus vote or series of arguments, pro and con. I wanted to be directed to those points. I did not want an opinion on what one person thinks it should be. You're being silly on the quota thing. You should edit as much as you like but don't go saying it's a consensus if you write most of an article yourself. 6 months down the line someone reads the article for the first time and sees a way it could be done better and you then tell them no, it's a consensus. That's more like a bludgeon instead of diplomatic dialog. Silence isn't always consensus... sometimes it's better than an edit war to pick battles even though one knows the article is in error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

HJensen, see WP:CON. Tennis expert (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. See also WP:CCC. In any case, are you implying that it is better for Fyunck just to start editing, and then wait for your reversals? Will that be a challenge of your old consensus, of a sign to the fact that there never was an cnnsensus in the first place? (In a nutshell: For how long should an edit stay undone before it becomes consensus?). BTW, I thought it was quite civil of him to take up the issue here, instead of just jumping to action.--HJensen, talk 10:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect that Fyunck brought up this issue because of my edits here, which fixed an internally inconsistent, consensus violating, ambiguous, and un-user-friendly table. By the way, it's not "my" old consensus.  Jeez ... I'm repeating myself, and you guys apparently aren't understanding (or aren't willing to understand).  Tennis expert (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Tennis Expert, see WP:AGF (and for the parenthesis you might consult WP:CIVIL). And just for productivity's sake, you may want to address the questions I posed, serously and in good faith, namely for how long a thing should stand unchallenged before it can be considered a consensus, and where this was discussed "many times before"? Thanks --HJensen, talk 20:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC) (Edited by --HJensen, talk 22:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC) )
 * I take silence as indication that it was not discussed "many times before".--HJensen, talk 09:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mikhail Youzhny
Does anyone else think that the Mikhail Youzhny page needs a cleanup aswell as more references being added?

In my opinion it's a mess. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As are around 75 percent of tennis articles.... Be bold.  Tennis expert (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

list of tennis scores on userspace
Please take a look at Miscellany_for_deletion/Tennis_scores and assess whether the list is encyclopedic material that can be added to a tennis article. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

runner-ups
Hi there. Most dictionaries only recognise "runners-up" as the plural of "runner-up" though Merriam-Webster throws "runner-ups" a small bone as "also" occurring.

More than half the pages on Wikipedia where the word "runner ups" occurs relate to tennis. You might want to think about changing your standard layout. Regards, jnestorius(talk) 00:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Already been discussed to death, with a consensus reached. We use "runner-ups" and "runners-up" in clearly delineated situations.  Tennis expert (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm having difficulty finding the discussion. Could you point me to it? Thanks jnestorius(talk) 07:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is User talk:Tennis expert/Archive 1 the discussion you're referring to? I find User:Zaxem's argument there very unconvincing. jnestorius(talk) 19:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So, have you found that old discussion to death? jnestorius(talk) 14:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:ATP Race
Hi, I made some templates for ATP Race, I think its useful. There are links

So, I want your argument about it.This is an example:



And this is thr result:

Gentlemen...
I recently moved the template pre open era to Template:Pre Open Era Wimbledon Gentlemen's singles champions, as the main list is named thus. Should gentlemen be the norm? And should all other pages be moved accordingly? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you talking about? Tennis expert (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Should Wimbledon related templates and articles be entitled Gentlemen/Ladies over Men/Women though it defies Grand Slam convention? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Which templates and articles specifically related to Wimbledon use "men" or "women" instead of "gentlemen" or "ladies"? Tennis expert (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Template:Wimbledon women's singles champions and others, I'm sure. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If any Wikipedia articles or templates use "gentlemen" and "ladies" in lieu of "men" and "women," it's because Wimbledon itself uses the former (rather pretentious, in my opinion) terms. Tennis expert (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This has already been dicussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 2. –MC (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Junior players
What's our policy on articles about junior players? I remember a discussion about Bernard Tomic some time ago, but I had been without internet for eight mounts, so I don't know is policy changed? Couple of days ago, someone made Bojana Jovanovski article, and its terrible. What to do? :) --Göran Smith (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD Nomination for Rome Masters 2006 Final
I've nominated the tennis-related article Rome Masters 2006 Final for deletion according with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please have your say on the issue here. - Allied45 (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Roland Garros/French Open name dispute
I know that the Wikipedia article lists Roland Garros' name as the French Open, but I think we should change it to Roland Garros. Never as it been officially known as The French Open, only by some English commentators. On the Roland Garros website it makes no reference to the French Open, and I think it should be called by it's official name, Roland Garros. --MacMad (talk · contribs) &#xF8FF; 05:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See OFFICIALNAMES; which is not a policy, but it relates to some other pages that are. jnestorius(talk) 11:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I just wanted to know weather people wanted it to be known as French Open or Roland Garros. --MacMad (talk · contribs) &#xF8FF; 13:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This was also discussed here. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing Templates
Hi all, I just moved Template:GrandSlamInfo to Template:TennisEventInfo, made it so this template can take "gender-free" events (e.g. "Event - Singles", as opposed to "Event - Men's Singles") and then redirected to it Template:AtpTourInfo and Template:WtaTourInfo. The only thing that those last two templates provided that the first one doesn't is generic light blue/pink colours in template headers, but as each different tournament should have its own colour anyway (as per the inter-year navbox colours) this isn't much of a loss. I added the other colours to the template where they exist.

Finally, I created Template:TennisEvents and Template:TennisEvents2 to act as counterparts to Template:GrandSlamEvents. The former has no "Mixed Singles" event but both men's and women's events (and, in the case of Miami Masters, boy's and girl's events too). The latter is gender-free. Again, I provided colours matching those of the inter-year navboxes where possible. These templates obviously need to be populated onto individual event articles. I hope you find them useful! rst20xx (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They're now on all the Masters - phew! rst20xx (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I've made a template for Draw keys, similar to Template:Performance timeline legend - rst20xx (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Rain stopped play"
I was trying to find the article on this (I knew we had one), and finally found it at Rainout (sports). I set up some appropriate redirects, but at present Rainout (sports) only refers to rain stopping play in baseball and motorsports; it's very US-centric. Not knowing that much about tennis, I wondered if the experts here at WP:TENNIS might like to put together a paragraph regarding the effect of rain on outdoors tennis on the Rainout (sports) article? I have left a similar sort of message on the WP:CRICKET talk page. Neıl   ☄   11:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

1994 ATP Series
As I've been recently working on improving tournaments articles from the 1994 ATP Tour, I have tried to dig the archives of the ATP and ITF websites to determine exactly of what series was part each tournament in the 1994 calendar. I have found that, aside from the Grand Slams, the Davis Cup and the Year-End Championships, there were something like 60+ small tournaments, similar to the current International Series, under the appellation World Series - and I have created a template for them :

The remaining 21 events seem to fall into two categories:

Milan, Memphis, Philadelphia, Stuttgart Indoor, Barcelona, Tokyo Outdoor, Stuttgart Outdoor, Washington, Indianapolis and New Haven are all labeled CSD by the ITF website.

Indian Wells, Key Biscayne, Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome, Montreal-Toronto, Cincinnati, Stockholm, Paris Indoor, and, to my great surprise, Sydney Indoor and Tokyo Indoor are labeled CSS by the ITF.

That leaves me with two questions: First, what do CSD and CSS mean ? I guess the CS stand for Championships Series, but what what do the D and the S mean ?

Secondly, why are Sydney and Tokyo Indoor put in the same category as the Super Nine events ? Were they really eleven top tier events in 1994, or is it a mistake from the ITF ? You can see Sydney and Tokyo Indoor labeled as CSS by looking in Boris Becker's 1994 calendar, for example.

I'd appreciate your input on these questions, which would allow me the create templates for those two series, for the year of '94 and all other calendars of the nineties, and continue to improve individual events articles. Cheers, --Plafond (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While waiting for an answer, I've created a similar template for the 1995 ATP World Series here - and I've encountered the same problems that with the '94 calendar : I still can't figure out what CSS and CSD mean, and while the Sydney Indoor event no longer exists in '95, the Tokyo one still does, and still falls, according to the ITF website, in the same category as the Super Nine. --Plafond (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On the ATP site (1994, 1995), the list Sydney and Tokyo, as well as everything that's not a Slam or Super 9, as 'Grand Prix'. Based on the prize money for those two, I would guess that they are part of the "CSD" series (International Gold equivalent) and the ITF made a mistake.   As to what CSD and CSS mean, I have no idea. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Largest Tennis Centers
There appears to be a conflict in articles that mention size ranks of tennis centers. See Talk:USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center. Apparently there is no consensus (or even a discussion yet) on how to qualify such claims. Number of courts? Spectator total seating? -newkai t-c 01:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Guillermo Coria
I'd be grateful if one of you tennis experts would review the comment about Corria in our article on Yips and either cite the comment or remove it; as his biog article does not mention yips, I'm concerned about WP:OR. --Dweller (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I took it out. It is unsourced. --HJensen, talk 20:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great, thank you. --Dweller (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Illegal moves
As we can see here ,here, here, here , here hereand here, User:Tennis expert has involved himself in a huge "anti-diacritics" with no any support just renaming the pages independently. In some the moves he is calling this thread as referrence. --Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a complete fabrication and outright distortion of the facts. The moves were in accordance with consensus, as demonstrated in this discussion.  Tennis expert (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to make a recommendation here: there needs to be a creation of a Style guide here at WP:Tennis which will deal with this issue as well as other stylistic issues to do with tennis articles. Initially it could simply deal with this issue as this seems to be the most recurring one. The style guide should be built on consensus, and any disputes can simply be resolved by referring to it instead of to past discussions - rst20xx (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The "consensus" is that 1 user made a statement and couple guys said "Well, you are right..." . Yeah, very funny.--Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't make fun of the process. That leads nowhere. Do you have a productive suggestion to make, or do you just want to make sour remarks from the sideline? (BTW: It is better to use ":" to make indents in discussions.)--HJensen, talk 19:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rst20xx, there already is clear consensus about the naming of Wikipedia articles. See WP:UE.  But some people personally don't like that consensus but are unable to change it.  So, they edit war and go around Wikipedia being incivil and making false and inflammatory statements to promote their personal agendas.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tennis expert, I'm saying that it might help prevent arguments like this if this is repeated here at WP:Tennis as WP:Tennis policy - rst20xx (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's already been tried. Tennis expert (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(reset) Sorry, what? As far as I can see, the only thing you can be referring to in that thread is Aradic-es' reference to the failed proposals here, here and here. But I have no idea what that has to do with what I'm suggesting. I'm simply suggesting you create a page, oh you could use this one: WikiProject Tennis/Article Guidelines. And in there, you could create a section about diacritics, and this WikiProject's consensus on their (dis)use in tennis articles. And then in the future, when this debate crops up, you'd only have to point to that, and it'd be better proof of consensus than some past thread. The only reason you could possibly have for not doing that is if you don't really have any consensus here in the first place - rst20xx (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read the discussion? A consensus was reached there to examine each tennis biography to determine whether the article names should be changed based on WP:UE, which itself requires editors to see what verifiable, reliable, English-language sources say about the names of tennis players.  What else do you need to know?  Tennis expert (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I have told so many times:what is the difference between tennis player, politicians, scientist. How is that their names should be different??--Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are, of course, no differences. This is, however, a talk page on the Tennis Project, so it is natural here to dicuss the format for tennis bios—not those of, e.g., politicians or scientists.--HJensen, talk 12:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and tennisExpert is try to impose spelling from tennis related websites that never use diacritics. Such as :Atp, ITF , Davis cup , Tennis hall of fame--Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tournament names
New-comers to the discussion Yosef1987 (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In the bios, should it be like Miami Masters or Sony Ericsson Open etc?? Taking it to the right place from the wrong place Yosef1987 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In deciding on this, we should also take into account that ATP has planned a change in tournament structure from 2009 and onwards. So, it would be great if we could reach a decision that could "be ready" for this. Also, I think we should strive for some consistency such that we should not need to change tournament names whenever a new sponsor takes over (as of now - or at some point in time around now - Federer is listed as winning the Sony Ericsson Open in 2005; but the Miami Masters was the Nasdaq 100 that year), or whenever a new tournament structure is implemented (it would in my opinion be silly to make changes to the Agassi article if tournaments change status and/or name).--HJensen, talk 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lindsay Davenport and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario should be the standard we follow. Those articles use the name of the tournament at the time it was held, and the name is linked to the corresponding Wikipedia article (which does not change).  In addition, the tables have separate columns for tournament location and tournament name, and the tables are sortable.  Finally, the tables have small numbers to indicate how many times the player won the tournament or was runner-up.  All these features minimize the chances of confusion while faithfully reflecting the historical facts.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm the same dude that uses the 62.57 ips and reverted tennisexpert lately reverts like a half dozen times. Just didn't want to mix into this, but i got bored finally. First of all, I will remember my 2 points:


 * 1st) The "Master Series Miami" MUST, must, M U S T appear on the table. It's the tournaments reference.
 * 2nd) The "Key Biscane" information is irrelevant here. The only important thing is USA and maybe (I think not) "Florida".


 * Now, I would like to ask tennis why are u telling us to follow a standar which like everyone finds wrong cause we want all-time references and not old or soon-old tournaments names. Yeah lately you and a few more have changed all historical tennis player articles to this style and now you clain they're the reference. Thats not true, they are not, cause you didn't make any consensus with the rest of people to get into this. Everyone here but a few of you wants easy info and just the relevant one. In this case this info is "Miami Master Series", thats the info someone in 10 years will need, nor "Pacific Open" or the name it had 3 years ago or will have in 5 years. You are wrong on that position, because we want useful info. And no, you're an expert and maybe you memorized all the tournaments names the last 10years but someone who comes to an encyclopedia to get info is because he doesn't know the same than you. Wikitestor (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, after a single post tennisexpert think he has a lot of people supporting him and changed back everything, so reverted again. This will take years if he keeps being so preopotent. Wikitestor (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tennis Expert is entitled to his opinions. Here and below you are being quite rude and personal; please read WP:CIVIL. Such argumentation is ad hominem and is not acceptable. I don't think writing the word "must" three times in different ways is a way to present your arguments. It surely doesn't convince me. And declaring a war as you do further down has never helped here on Wikipedia. It is really a dead end.--HJensen, talk 21:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I dunno if this will ever end, here it is again http://masters-series.com/, sponsors' names change, tournament names do not, each tournament's name is there under each box on the official site, I am with the non-sponsor names, eg: Madrid Masters NOT Mutua Madrileña Masters Yosef1987 (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm also with the non-sponsor names, if anyone didn't notice it. I tell this because tennisexpert said on roger federer's history page (when he put again the key biscane thing for 8th time) that I was alone defending my position and he had 3 people with him, when at least 3 people were defending me and I dunno if anyone defended him... Just make sure about a thing. If this never ends, it will be because someone like him doesn't want to have any consensus, if you don't trust me go to Rafael Nadal's and Roger Federer's articles and check how while this discussion is opened he made the changes 3 or 4 times, everytime saying he had reason when no consensus was taken and moreover no one supported him yet. If there's a war, I'm gonna fight till the end. Wikitestor (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I started a while back I am with the non-sponsor naming, I won't have an edit war, I'll have my last words said again here, if there is one good explanation that says the following is non-sense, I will apologize and stop talking about it
 * "http://masters-series.com/, sponsors' names change, tournament names do not"
 * Also it is better to follow this: Edit_war and see how such things are settled, I'll do my part and read it soon, all I ask is PLEASE let's cooperate for a better information delivery, no matter how small or big the topic is, thank you all very much Yosef1987 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The link you provided uses the sponsors' names. Enough said.  Tennis expert (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The ATP calendar for 2009 also uses the sponsors' names. Tennis expert (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you see? he is kinda prepotent "enough said". Enough time, going to revert your last changes again. 62.57.212.101 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to Tennis expert: Did you look carefully at the site? Look at the bottom of each box please, sponsors change, that's what they normally do actually Yosef1987 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Josef1987 there is no point trying to talk with someone like him, as you see he wont ever answer to anything, just be prepotent to the rest. So there will be a long war. 62.57.212.101 (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Playing "tit-for-tat" does never work on Wikipedia. If you think someone is behaving in a wrong way, you will not achieve anything by copying that behavior. It is just childish, and nobody takes such behavior seriously in the long run. (For example, this intervention after Yosef1987 direct reply, is ruining the discussion.)--HJensen, talk 07:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert, please hear me out, this is not my reference, I've already gave you a link and you refused to check it out carefully, so here's what I'll say, check this out, and this here, also you'll find out a page says: "The 2008 Miami Masters (also known as the Sony Ericsson Open for sponsorship reasons)...", it is a de facto as well as the site I gave you that sponsors change, like when Miami MS was called: Nasdaq 100, I don't know how else to explain, you don't try to explain it to me what you think, which I am willing to hear but not like this: ''The link you provided uses the sponsors' names. Enough said, because The link I provided uses the sponsors' names and the tournaments names as well'' !!! Thank you Yosef1987 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One more thing please to "Tennis expert", Official calender, let's see what it says: "Pacific Life Open – Indian Wells", but a few years back it would have been "Another sponsor – Indian Wells". Same for Miami/Sony/Nasdaq and the whole gang Yosef1987 (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

....also, all the templates, every where on tennis articles, do not mention sponsors, because they change, copy and paste from Indian Wells Masters, the ATP Masters Series Tournaments template: Indian Wells · Miami · Monte Carlo · Rome · Hamburg · Montreal/Toronto · Cincinnati · Stockholm/Essen/Stuttgart/Madrid · Paris. Please refer to all my replies before replying, because definitely this reply is not a reference, just proving a point, because consistency is mandatory to Wikipedia Yosef1987 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, stop trying, check down: he has replied to the other discussion about the 500s etc changes on 2009 and he even made a comment totally irrelevant there, with a single line (like here) ignoring all of us. He replied there and can't reply here, he has no point to win this, he had no consensus to change it and he wont put it again, slowly we are going to change all the tennists articles to a consensed style, not the style HE, and ONLY HE, wants to impose. 81.184.38.161 (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't refer a discussion that is less than 24 hours old as a "war". It is in extremely bad style, and damaging for the project.--HJensen, talk 07:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yosef1987, please refer to the Arantxa Sanchez Vicario and Lindsay Davenport articles for the best way to handle the official names of tennis tournaments that can change every few years. (I referenced those articles earlier in this thread and explained my reasoning.)  Tennis expert (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this should end like this, I am not mad at anyone, I am proving my point for a better Wikipedia. Oh forgot to say, the sponsor name for Monte-Carlo MS is Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters not just Monte-Carlo Masters :):):) I have asked for a support, should be on the way from the Tennis Project members hopefully, that is extra opinions, 3 won't do it Yosef1987 (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, remember that edit warring is a blockable offense. I recommend that we stick to resolving this matter before deciding to change this naming convention. Personally, I feel that the historical name (with a piped wikilink to the current name) of a tournament should be used. The Gdansk Vote is an example of where it was determined that the historical name of a geographical entity would be used in articles written about an era in which the historical title was prevalent. For example, articles which refer to Saint Petersburg from 1924–1991 would be piped as Leningrad, since Leningrad was the official title of the city during that era. I believe the same naming convention should be applied with tennis tournaments. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't taken part in the edit war except in the talk page, the right way to do it, thanks for joining us and please stick around for a while, about your suggestion of piping(?), I dunno, still will confuse readers and won't help the consistency, like the Nasdaq 100 problem and many other like it Yosef1987 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nishkid64 for the reasons I've already provided in this thread. Tennis expert (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it's natural that readers click or scroll over links to clarify their confusion. Besides, this encyclopedia isn't designed to make things as convenient as possible for the present-day reader; we're here to make sure everything is written with historical accuracy. Piped links are historically accurate and clarify any confusion a reader may have over the tournament name. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, I agree. Tennis expert (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * With the many players' bios and the tournaments, and the eras, it will be a nightmare, inconsistent, and pointless, we are here for the tournaments not the sponsors and sponsors' history, don't you agree? Yosef1987 (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm totally with Yosef1987. Mixing the sponsorships names here will just go in one direction. But you could improve even more in that direction: just delete all tennis-related articles. It's the same way, but faster. I am sorry but If I need help (because that people enters wikipedia..) and I find names not related to the original tournament names, im leaving wikipedia and going google. That's the truth. 81.184.38.161 (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, lots of debate here. Why don't we formally settle this with a vote, ala Gdansk Vote. --Armchair info guy (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:POLLS. Voting/polling is not a substitute for discussion and achieving consensus.  I am opposed to a vote on this particular issue.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously because you are alone on that role.81.184.70.220 (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Erh, no. I oppose a vote as well.--HJensen, talk 19:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For new-comers
For new-comers to this discussion, here is what's going on: each tournament has 2 names, a name that doesn't change over time and is basically the host city's name (e.g. Miami) and we have the sponsor's name, which changes whenever a new sponsor takes over, now which name to use in the biographies, remember that a player's career can witness sponsor changes, and it is good to point that templates here and the tables and the statistics use the simple name (e.g. Miami)

Example:
 * Monte Carlo Masters / Masters Series Monte-Carlo presented by ROLEX
 * Cincinnati Masters / Western & Southern Financial Group Masters
 * Madrid Masters / Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid

Consistency and accuracy is the target, thank you Yosef1987 (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC) --- Only skimmed the debate, but my two opinion: I would see things continue as they currently are at Canada Masters and 2004 Canada Masters, i.e. Additionally (and this is where the debate seems to be focused), I think the tennis player articles should avoid sponsorship names as well. Now, as for why: the ATP seem to often use the sponsorship title, but not always (e.g. here). If the ATP consistently used the sponsorship names, I'd agree with Nishkid64, but sometimes they use non-sponsorship (because sometimes it's less confusing!), hence in my opinion both are acceptable, and hence I'd go for the less confusing option, i.e. the non-sponsor names. As for the "1000 Series", well that's a different matter... rst20xx (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead of main says "The Canada Masters (also long known as the Canadian Open), currently sponsored as the Rogers Cup...
 * Lead of 2004 says "The 2004 Canada Masters (also known for the women's event as the Rogers AT&T Cup for sponsorship reasons)"...
 * Main has a section explaining the event name at various times.


 * I'm semi-new to tennis (like 3 years), and when I see sponsor names I get totally lost. I know the masters for Miami, Madrid, Indian Wells, etc. If someone comes wikipedia needing help and find the sponsorship names, we won't help him at all, he will confuse and go search for help on other page. 81.184.38.161 (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whenever you are confused, all you have to do is look at the tournament location, which is the column right next to the tournament name. Really, how difficult is that?  And if you find that too difficult, just hover over the name of the tournament to get the name of the linked article.  So, you have two easy options to remedy your confusion while preserving historical and factual accuracy.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What if it was really old? Why dig out the sponsor's history for that particular tournament? Yosef1987 (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not difficult to do. And the task is necessary to have an accurate encyclopedia.  That's something you want, right?  Tennis expert (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just one thing, I don't have to know that the Miami masters is held on Key Biscane, I don't have to know it, it's not relavant info. 81.184.70.220 (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is utterly irrelevant what a two-edit anonymous user has to know.--HJensen, talk 13:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sure the MILLIONS of visitors (obviously 99% of them anonymous) doesn't deserve any knowledge. Then why would they search on wikipedia if they're not welcome? 81.184.70.220 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you just argued against getting certain information, and now you sarcastically say 99& doesn't derserve knowledge. What are you getting at? I never implied anyone was not welcome.--HJensen, talk 22:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert: Won't say much so my point becomes very simple: Sponsors change over time, so to maintain accuracy and factuality would be impossible in all bios bec of the different eras and we saw that happen even in the recent era (the Nasdaq 100 thing) Yosef1987 (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not hard at all. In fact, it's a very simple task.  The Internet is full of information about past tournaments, including their former sponsored names.  And their are newspaper archives on the Internet that would show those names.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure it's that easy. I've looked for names for a few men's tournaments, and while you can find a few years here and there, it's far from complete.  For women's tournaments, it's easy: there's a PDF file on the WTA website with basically everything. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are newspaper archives that make it easy. I use them all the time.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert: in Arantxa Sanchez Vicario and Lindsay Davenport: are you referring to the piping? Actually there isn't much on those articles, mainly only the grand slams...am not against piping, but here's a question, since the articles themselves here are non-sponsor named, why use a sponsor name to link to a non-sponsor named article? Example: 2006 Miami Masters - Men's Singles...I guess if we settle this it'll be over... Yosef1987 (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We're talking about tables here. See these tables in the Arantxa Sanchez Vicario article and this table in the Lindsay Davenport article.  These are perfect examples of what we should be doing in all tennis biographies, for the reasons I've already stated.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Something everyone has forgotten is that using the official sponsored names of tournaments is something we've been doing for a very long time. I did not just "invent" the idea. See List of tennis tournaments, for example. So, what's the big deal? Tennis expert (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting, Tennis expert, that you're completely ignoring the fact that I pointed out above that the ATP doesn't always use the sponsor names itself. "Historical accuracy", yeah right. Either are acceptable, you just find yourself entrenched behind one and not the other, and that one just happens to be the less logical, more confusing and harder to maintain - rst20xx (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * dead on, Rst20xx, and I don't know how to go further, I have said all I've got, and the replies are never direct to my simple questions, and I'd yet ask it again, just C&P:
 * but here's a question, since the articles themselves here are non-sponsor named, why use a sponsor name to link to a non-sponsor named article? Example: 2006 Miami Masters - Men's Singles, for Wikipedia...not for me, please please consider Yosef1987 (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it because sponsors change? and city names are actually official as shown under each box on the official site, but they show the sponsor, because they need the $$$...That answers my question, why complicate matters? And have flaws all over the biographies? Yosef1987 (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the triple replies, trying to make a point, Rst20xx summed it in: less logical, more confusing and harder to maintain Yosef1987 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Simple. Wikipedia is not a sponsored website.  It is an encyclopedia that reflects facts.  If the real world fact is that a tournament has an official name with the sponsor in that name, then Wikipedia should reflect that fact.  I don't know why you believe that showing facts is a "flaw".  And I've tried to answer all your questions.  Your disagreeing with my answers does not mean that I've failed to be responsive.  Tennis expert (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rst20xx, see this, where the ATP provides the locations of tournaments and then the official names of those tournaments. That's good enough for me.  How is using the official names of tournaments in an encyclopedia "illogical"?  How is having a column with the official name right next to the column showing the location "confusing," especially given that the official name will the linked to the appropriate Wikipedia article?  Finally, you really should WP:AGF and not presuppose anything about my internal thought processes.  OK?  Tennis expert (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this: add the sponsored names (where available) to the tournament pages (like the French Wiki does, but leave them off the player biographies? IMO, it's interesting information to have on the tournament profile, but who the sponsor was doesn't really matter when looking at one player's results. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * TennisExpert: LOOK! The ATP uses both. What do you have to say to that?!? Anyway, I would support Spyder_Monkey's suggestion, which is funnily enough what we were doing before TennisExpert decided to change a few things - rst20xx (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Spyder Monkey as well. —M.C. (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's do a brief survey of what the English-language news media does around the world. And let's use the Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida as the example. (1) New York Times: uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami) (2) London Times: uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami) (3) Sydney Morning Herald: uses the official sponsored name (4) International Herald Tribune: uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami) (5) Times of India: uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami) (6) Dawn (Pakistan): uses the official sponsored name (7) Reuters: uses the official sponsored name (8) USA Today: uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami) (9) Tennis.com: uses the official sponsored name (10) Xinhua (People's Republic of China): uses the official sponsored name (11) The Star (South Africa): uses the official sponsored name. (12) Pravda (Russia): uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami). Tennis expert (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Let's do a brief counter-survey of what the English-language news media does around the world. And let's use the Miami Masters as the example again. (1) New York Times: uses "Miami Masters" (2) The Times: uses "Miami Masters" (3) Sydney Morning Herald: uses "Miami Masters" (4) International Herald Tribune: uses "Miami Masters" (5) Times of India: uses "Miami Masters" (6) Dawn (Pakistan): uses "Miami Masters" (7) Reuters: uses "Miami Masters" (8) USA Today: uses "Miami Masters" (9) Tennis.com: uses "Miami Masters" (10) Xinhua (People's Republic of China): uses "Miami Masters" (11) The Star (South Africa): uses "Miami Masters". (12) Pravda (Russia): uses "Miami Open"?!? I have to say, that is the most pointless activity I have ever been forced to carry out - rst20xx (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What we're actually talking about doing here
Here are two tables based on the Roger Federer article that illustrate what I am advocating. The first table is the status quo. The second table is my proposal. As you can see, what I am advocating is neither radical nor unreasonable.

ATP Masters Series singles finals (23) Wins (14)

ATP Masters Series singles finals (23) Wins (14)

Tennis expert (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a news delivering agency, sponsors should be mentioned as they are at the top of each tournament's article (or in the history), otherwise, no, and I am glad many agree with me, I don't have time to go any further on this, but I hope, I only hope for Wikipedia, that what's logical, and less confusing and easier to maintain is chosen and done, thanks all for your time and I'll look here every now and then, and oh yeah, comparing the two tables, a player wins a championship, not a tournament name. Yosef1987 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) I agree that Wikipedia is not a news delivery agency. But I don't see how that makes a difference.  (2) You've already stated your personal preference several times.  But then you throw in the logic argument without ever saying what makes the proposed table illogical.  Actually, there's nothing illogical about it.  (3) I've already addressed the maintenance issue, which is a red herring. (4) No where does the table say that a player "wins a tournament name."  Geez....  Tennis expert (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know it is over, but what does the "red herring" expression mean? and about the "wins a tournament name", isn't it the wins/runner-ups tables we are talking about? Tennis expert, through out the discussion I meant nothing bad and I know you are doing a good job to Wikipedia, like changing the names of the players to English letters, again thanks for your time Yosef1987 (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert, consensus is clearly against your opinion here. Several editors have voiced opposition to your opinion, presenting well reasoned arguments that both names are acceptable, but the latter is preferable as it is simpler. If you do not respect consensus, I will be forced to take this issue to some kind of higher body - rst20xx (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is a discussion and you're already threatening me with taking the "issue to some kind of higher body." What would satisfy you?  My shutting up and leaving the discussion?  Please let me know what would make you comfortable!  I definitely don't want to cause you Wikistress by just talking about things....  Tennis expert (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Several times have I pointed you to the fact that the ATP uses both types of name themselves, and yet you consistently ignore this, instead repeating your argument that only one name is "official". More recently you tried to demonstrate that several news agencies use the sponsor name, however I counterdemonstrated that those news agencies also use the non-sponsor name. That whole exercise was utterly pointless as you really should have checked whether they used both names or not yourself when you were initially constructing the argument.
 * This discussion has been going in circles for ages now due to your consistent refusal to acknowledge that the ATP and other bodies uses both names, and as a result I feel that the whole thing is becoming utterly pointless. So yes, if you choose to continue arguing for your position against demonstrated logic (the logic is simple: Both names are acceptable, one is easier) and also against consensus, then I will seek broader consensus, and leave it up to a higher body to decide which argument makes the most sense - rst20xx (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Go for it! The more people who participate in the discussion, the better the ultimate consensus will be.  And please cite me the Wikipedia policy which says that people are not allowed to make their arguments on a discussion page, even if their arguments are in the minority.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was more saying that I think consensus has already been established, and that you are refusing to acknowledge this - rst20xx (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Another reason in favor of the proposal is that it helps with sorting. The proposal would allow people to sort by official name or by tournament location while the status quo allows sorting only by location. This is especially useful in the career results tables (not shown above). Tennis expert (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a third possibility that preserves sortability and data that many of us would like to see:

ATP Masters Series singles finals (23) Wins (14) Tennis expert (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be willing to compromise on this, however only if the links are on the Tourney and not Sponsored Tourney names. After all, this is where the articles are - rst20xx (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And also I'd want the (3) s etc on the Tourney names as well (though I see no reason why they couldn't appear on both names) - rst20xx (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good! See above revisions.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think linking the sponsored tournament name constitutes overlinking, but this is minor and otherwise I would be happy with this compromise (or with not including the sponsored name at all) - rst20xx (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * a) I think this is too big a table. I think one title should be enough. And I would go with the "X Masters" name. The sponsored name need not be there (that can be read about in the tournament article; the table is about a given player's performance), and location need not be there either (that can be read about in the tournament article, and mostly it is a repetition of tournament name - except for the particular case of Miami/Key Biscane :-) ).
 * b) I have never understood why bios should be plastered with repetitive tables. A summary table with the Slams, olympics and Masters in terms of W, SP, and so forth is fine. But I never understood the need for having a special section for detailed Slam finals performances, Masters Series finals performances, in additional to one for all finals (where great care is made into singling out - yet again - slams from masters and so forth). A lot of repetitions. --HJensen, talk 19:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with relying on the sponsored name of the tournament being in the text is that the next proposal undoubtedly will be to substitute "X Masters" for wherever the sponsored name appears, which means that the sponsored name would disappear completely. That's not acceptable, in my opinion.  As for repetitive tables, I agree with you to some extent.  But I also believe that the consensus for including the various tables is overwhelming at this point.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean the text of the players. But only on the touurnament page itself. As for repetitions, maybe it has never been properly discussed? Sometimes consensus just grows out of passivity. I think it is silly when looking at it now: all those things being repeated.--HJensen, talk 10:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I do like the new table, the official and the sponsored names appearing is a good idea. But I think that the LOCATION column should be taken out, like:

ATP Masters Series singles finals (23) Wins (14)

But I find a problem with this: When Madrid masters place was taken by another masters and when Canada changes between Toronto/Montréal... But I don't think a location column should be there since in mostly case it's replicated information. 81.184.38.52 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The tournament location column is not repetition. For example, the Rogers Cup is held in Montreal and Toronto in alternating years.  Without the location column, the table would not say in which city that tournament was held.  Aside from that, not everyone will know that the "Hamburg Masters" is held in Hamburg, Germany or that the "Indian Wells Masters" is held in "Indian Wells, California". (How many people actually know where Indian Wells is?)  I still don't understand what you're saying about a Masters event "taking the place" of another.  As I have said before, there is a difference between a Masters tournament moving from one city to another and a tournament losing its Masters status at the same time that another city receives Masters status.  In the latter case, there is no "taking the place" of another.  And in the former case, it's merely a change of location.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think location is mostly repetition but also not needed for the purpose. If people don't know where Hamburg is, they click on Hamburg. That's the beauty of wikilinks. Also, when clicking on Canada Masters they will learn that it alternates between cities. And so forth. Nice information, but information that I think is secondary to the player whose results are being described.--HJensen, talk 11:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I really like this new table, but if I may ask a question, I was meaning to improve Nadal's article and maybe, just maybe, it turns out to be good, otherwise reverted, in the article itself (not tables), the name used would be the non-sponsor, right? Thanks everyone and I hope it was a helpful discussion for Wikipedia. Yosef1987 (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the discussion can be declared as over (as you almost seem to imply). This is about major changes, so some time should be allowed to pass, and other editors whould have their words.--HJensen, talk 12:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but atleast we are getting somewhere now, just a Q please, I do like the new table, because it has both names and thus solves problems, but, here's the catch, I am not a table editor, won't it be hard to modify all tables in case we settle on this? Yosef1987 (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * HJensen, the last table above does not have a direct link to "Hamburg, Germany". The links are all to the Hamburg Masters article.  So, anyone who wants to know something about that strange Hamburg (or Indian Wells) place would have to go through multiple links and possibly get lost in the vastness of Wikipedia.  That's why there should be a location column.  It costs nothing, really.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose the current table while the sponsor names are wikilinked, as this constitutes overlinking - rst20xx (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First you were OK with it: "I think linking the sponsored tournament name constitutes overlinking, but this is minor and otherwise I would be happy with this compromise...." Now, you're opposed to it.  Flip-flopping gets us no where.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and also, it appears this debate has spilled over to Talk:German Open (tennis). I'd appreciate if we could keep the discussion of that away from here, though, as otherwise things here are going to get even more complicated - rst20xx (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are the person that linked the two, through postings on that discussion page and a completely inappropriate and incivil message on my talk page. Now you want to keep that discussion over there....  Tennis expert (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Half joke
Or well, if you want we may have a completed info table (this is a half joke)

ATP Masters Series singles finals (23) Wins (14)

As you see, the info on the table should be minimal, otherwise we can put something like this. 62.57.197.139 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't you supposed to be blocked for a week? Tennis expert (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are u blind? I've answered that question 5 lines under this one. 81.184.38.42 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to break the news to you, but people who are blocked are not allowed to edit or otherwise contribute to discussion pages. Tennis expert (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally a solution? Maybe / No, "mistakenly saw something"
Check this out everyone, from from the french wiki, where tennis is a featured article, this is Federer's career, you'll need to expand the tables, it uses both names in the table, I like that, and I guess that's great for everyone, even Nadal is like that on wiki fr and everyone else, ha? What do you think everyone???

Leaves out the career details, which I guess we'd go for non-sponsor name, for all the reason's I've discussed Yosef1987 (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about, it only uses the the sponsor's names in the "Titres et finales" tables... rst20xx (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My bad, very sorry, I mistakenly saw something, forget about the above (sorry for the bold, doesn't mean shouting) Yosef1987 (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, I just read Spyder_Monkey's reply, that's what I have been saying, so what is it gonna be? Yosef1987 (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is even worse than tennisexpert table's, only the sporsorship names and even no location. I find perfect the first table tennisexpert put here and not the second one. But this is taking so long and a decision should be made. 81.184.38.52 (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, check this edit on the FR version of the page someone put there: http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palmar%C3%A8s_et_statistiques_de_Roger_Federer&diff=32724016&oldid=32697725
 * they changed the names to the sponsors this week............................ 81.184.38.52 (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't you blocked for a week? Tennis expert (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyways I'm able to edit on talk pages, but as ever, im kinda doggy to log in. 81.184.38.52 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where are we now?
Hey everyone, it is getting confusing now, where are we now please? Thanks Yosef1987 (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See below - rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll
Right, well I think the consensus is either to have both sponsor and non-sponsor names, or to just have non-sponsor. I'm going to set up a straw poll on this, as despite some opposing such a move, I think it would demonstrate clear consensus for one and not the other, thus concluding the argument; I think the fact that we haven't done this is part of the reason that this discussion has dragged on for so long - rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So, to be clear:

Survey
Please state your position below - rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: To be completely clear, the intent of this vote is basically just to see whether we should have just a "Sponsored tournament name" column, just a "Tournament" column, or both. Nothing more, nothing less - rst20xx (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Support for Candidate a)

 * Support a) - I wouldn't oppose b), but I think it's a bit too unwieldy, and all the information it provides can be found by clicking through on b) anyway. It's been demonstrated that the ATP uses both names, so any arguments that one is more legitimate than the other are, in my opinion, rendered moot - rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support a) - Sponsored names are superfluous info on wikipedia. And what's with all this "Key Biscane" nonsense from TennisExpert. Most everyone knows it as Miami and if you apply the same convention the Cincinnati Masters is held in "Mason, Ohio" but nobody ever feels the need to mention that. --Armchair info guy (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support a) - Vote from Wikitestor, I know unknown Ips doesn't usually count on a vote, but remember I was the one that started all this. There's no need to have the sponsored names. 81.184.38.42 (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC) / Wikitestor (blocked but im talking on the discussion I started).


 * Support a) - Same as rst20xx, but I suggest losing the location Yosef1987 (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also with Yosef1987's idea of losing the locations. 81.184.38.42 (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Support for Candidate b)
Support b) When I am looking up information about a tennis player, I find it very useful to be presented with the tournament they won and the name of the tournament at the time they won it. It would be possible to find this information using the wikilinks, but table b) displays the information I want at a glance. Coyets (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral/Comments
I realise that straw polls are not a substitute for establishing consensus through discussion, but I hope that support for a) will be so overwhelming that it will demonstrate that there is broad consensus, and that opposition is small (one?) but highly vocal vocal - rst20xx (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

62.57.197.139 kinda brought it up with the "joke" table, but I just don't see the need for separate columns for the tournament name and location. The only reason I can come up with for having two is for sorting separately, but the names and cities are usually the same. The exception is Montreal/Toronto, and sorting by city could cause confusion there, since they are the same tournament. Only one column seems just fine:

Another thing: is this only for the Masters table, or for the complete results table as well? Because most of the regular tournaments' articles are the sponsored names, do we care about putting the tournament name in that table, too?

Also, to raise a broader issue, do we need a separate table to Masters/Tier I events? The information in any of the tables discussed would just be repeated in that table. The Masters and Grand Slams are already highlighted in the full table with color and (in some cases) bold text. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)ç


 * I also raised that point above. It is silly to discuss the format of a table that just repeats a lot of information from the career tables. Masters and slams are singled out anyway at the end in the performance timeline. The table should be deleted in my opinion--HJensen, talk 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Those all sound like good ideas to me. The intent of the vote above is basically just to see whether we should have a separate "Sponsored tournament name" column, nothing more, nothing less. In summary: Delete the separate Masters/Slams tables, merge the name and location columns. To answer your questions, firstly I think for both Masters and other results, and secondly, for the name, I think generally we should use the space that the tournament is located at, in other words don't use any piping. Some tournaments don't have non-sponsored names, and so we have to use the sponsored. Most that DO have non-sponsored names are located in the non-sponsored place. As for those that DO have non-sponsored names but are in the sponsored place, I would like to try to move those one by one, but that's a subject for a later debate - rst20xx (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I still don't find the location necessary but anyways it would fit a lot like this table instead of a separate column. Btw the idea is to adapt this format for all the tables (MS+career) but Grand Slams, which is currently fine actually. 81.184.38.42 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to participate in a poll (straw or otherwise) that violates Wikipedia policy because it is being used as a substitute for and early terminator of discussion and the subsequent establishment of consensus. Plus, b) is not even my proposal; so, this "poll" doesn't allow people to choose from among all the available proposals. Finally, even if polling were a valid method, which it is not, 81.184.38.42/Wikitestor and all his sockpuppets are not allowed to vote because he has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Tennis expert (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Try to see straw polls just as a means to bring the discussion forward. I don't like a) and b) either. And I am certain that everybody discounts the "votes" of 81.184.38.42/Wikitestor (can't we get the guy kicked completely?). My general worry is that so few are participating in something that could have consequences for all (at leat male) tennis bios. Should be put out "alerts" on talk pages on player talk pages?--HJensen, talk 07:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't bring forward the discussion. Rst20xx has artificially limited our choices to a) and b) without bothering to explain that those are the two he finds most acceptable to himself.  This gives the totally false impression that the only two choices we've been considering are a) and b) or that somehow, we've already narrowed the possibilities down to a) and b).  Neither is even remotely true.  And no real consensus is going to be reached here given that only 4 or 5 editors have bothered to participate when there are hundreds of editors who regularly edit tennis biographies.  As for alerts, that would be fine so long as there is no canvassing in violation of Wikipedia policy.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we have both commented on this. So that is a step forward (big or small). I can't see that anyone could think that a) and b) are the "final contestants". Never mind, let's get more onto this issue. How can we avoid canvassing? Isn't it permissible to just write something like "On the Tennis Project page a discussion has been started on the tournament names and table formats for tennis player bios. Hopefully as amny tennis editors as possible will join in, so a broad consensus can be reached"?--HJensen, talk 09:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tennis expert: I shall quote what I wrote above, right at the start of the survey: "To be completely clear, the intent of this vote is basically just to see whether we should have a separate "Sponsored tournament name" column, nothing more, nothing less". These are not meant to represent what we are going to go with, this is just a poll on whether we should have a sponsored name column at all. I accept that most people wouldn't be happy entirely with either of the tables, but we're not picking the tables here, we're picking whether to have a sponsored name column. Once we have done this, we can move on to other parts of the tables.
 * Now, as far as I can tell, no-one has suggested so far that they would have just the sponsored name column, even you were in favour of both before. Hence my excluding just the sponsored name column as an option. If you think this is wrong, I would happily add it as option c), but to be honest, I can't help but feel you're kicking up a fuss mainly because the results are showing strongly against your positon - rst20xx (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No one can help you with your internal thought processes or what you infer from others. The fact is that your so-called poll does not show any opposition to my position because your poll does not reflect my position.  You left out my position when you unilaterally chose a) and b).  It's weird that you think you can somehow direct this discussion toward your predetermined outcome.  But that's the inherent problem with polling instead of discussion.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why can't you just assume good faith, since you're an experienced editor, and come up with your preferred suggestions instead of just saying that you don't like a) and b)? I don't support them either, and I will soon present my own suggestion. Call it a poll, call it a discussion, call it anything but get things going. That's my intention, and we are actually discussing here! (Did anybody care to invite others in? Cf. my proposal above.) --HJensen, talk 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tennis expert: But I explained how this is just meant to be about the sponsored name, not the rest of the design, and pointed out there are 3 positions on this: include both, include one, or include the other. And seeing as how you yourself were the one that proposed both, I didn't think that just sponsored was still under consideration. So you've completely failed to explain what's wrong with my poll, instead just saying that you "don't agree with any of the options", despite the fact that the only option it doesn't include is one that I had good reason to believe no-one would support. I have added option c) now, so vote for it if you like, but if you're still not happy then I can only assume that you do not understand the clearly stated intent of this poll. To state it again: To be completely clear, the intent of this vote is basically just to see whether we should have just a "Sponsored tournament name" column, just a "Tournament" column, or both. Nothing more, nothing less - rst20xx (talk)


 * I've already explained what's wrong with polling. But I'll WP:AGF and just assume you didn't read it yet.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. You have now told that you don't like the discussion here. Could you instead please state what your opinion the the matter discussed here is? You want the status quo, or?--HJensen, talk 07:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I already have stated my preference, here and here. Tennis expert (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (reset) Soooo... that's candidate c) then - rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I'm not participating in your poll that's in violation of Wikipedia policy and designed to short-circuit discussion and force consensus in the direction you want. Tennis expert (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Future (2009) changes on tennis players articles.
I mean the changes from the Master Series and International Gold Series to the new 1000series and 500series.

This will knock-out completely the info we actually have organized and I think we may do a line and make new tables for that. Please expose here your arguments. PD: please tennisexpert, don't post something similar to "It will be done like xxx article." because i'm not the only one tired of your prepotency here. Wikitestor (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess for 2009 the solution won't be hard, going from Master Series to 1000 Series won't affect the tables, even the singles performance timelines. "Hamburg has been displaced by the new clay court event at Madrid", so? The table might read Hamburg/Madrid Yosef1987 (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, the calendar is now out http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/calendars.asp —M.C. (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a big difference between a tournament moving from one location to another and a tournament replacing another tournament on the tennis schedule. Madrid is a completely separate tournament from Hamburg, i.e., the Hamburg tournament is not moving to Madrid in 2009.  Tennis expert (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Madrid is already a Master Series (like Hamburgo), moreover, Madrid will become a 1000 series and Hamburgo a 500 series... you said a obvious thing but you didn't said anything to solve this problem, your comments has not anything relevant, really. 81.184.38.161 (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of your comments? Please cool it down a bit. HJensen, talk 13:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The top level tournaments will be known as "Masters 1000" tournaments in 2009 according to the official ATP calendar. Tennis expert (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So? we are asking what to do when this changes not this small detail, and remember MS hamburgo will be a 500s not a 1000s so this will not fit. 81.184.38.161 (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll spell it out for you. The 1000 tournaments will still have "Masters" in their names, which is not much different from their names in 2008.  Tennis expert (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For the performance timelines, I'm sure we'll end up doing something like what some of the women's articles have - see this diacritic-named article for an example. In fact, generally looking at the women's stuff would be good: See also this - rst20xx (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? the giant blankspace with "No Tier I" on it? I am sorry to say it, but this is the worst option you could've used for that. Moreover its a chaos: half of the tennis women articles have that and all the tournaments on the same side and the other half has like 2 sections of the table. 81.184.38.161 (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

TennisPortal -> Hey, I fixed up to include on pages related to Tennis (for 2009) - Mjquin_id (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tournament tables
I suggest that we eliminate having separate Tennis Masters Series, Tennis Masters Cup, and WTA Tour Championships tables in all tennis biographies and instead have a "Career Finals" table with appropriate color coding. (The Grand Slam tournaments tables would remain.) Here's an example of what I am talking about using the data for Rafael Nadal:

Wins (31)

Tennis expert (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with eliminating the separate tables. They're just repeated information.  However, as above, I don't really see the need for two separate columns.  I also don't see the need for the sponsored tournament names in the player articles (I do think they should be added to the tournament articles), as they don't really add any further understanding to the player's biography.


 * (legend omitted for brevity)
 * {| class="sortable wikitable"


 * No.
 * Date
 * Tournament
 * Surface
 * Opponent in Final
 * Score in Final
 * 1.
 * August 15 2004
 * Sopot, Poland
 * Clay
 * 🇦🇷 José Acasuso
 * 6–3, 6–4
 * 2.
 * February 20 2005
 * Costa do Sauípe, Brazil
 * Clay
 * 🇪🇸 Alberto Martín
 * 6–0, 6–7(2), 6–1
 * 3.
 * February 27 2005
 * Acapulco, Mexico
 * Clay
 * 🇪🇸 Albert Montañés
 * 6–1, 6–0
 * - bgcolor="#dfe2e9"
 * 4.
 * April 17 2005
 * Monte Carlo, Monaco
 * Clay
 * 🇦🇷 Guillermo Coria
 * 6–3, 6–1, 0–6, 7–5
 * }
 * Granted, this is basically what we have now, except that the piped tournament link contains both the city and country. I think that adding the sponsored names here, in addition to not improving the quality of information, would be too hard to find and maintain, especially before 2000 or so.  It also may cut down on mistakes; for example, in the proposal above, the 2005 Barcelona event is named "Open Sabadell Atlántico", when it was actually "Open SEAT".  I'm not trying to call you out, Tennis_Expert, I'm just saying that those types of mistakes are easy to make and hard to find.  To wit: I spent about 45 minutes last night moving a bunch of "Next Generation Adelaide International" articles to just "Adelaide International", because the sponsor didn't exist before 1999.  If we do decide to go with sponsored names in these tables, I would favor something similar to how the French Wiki and my earlier proposal do it. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 🇦🇷 Guillermo Coria
 * 6–3, 6–1, 0–6, 7–5
 * }
 * Granted, this is basically what we have now, except that the piped tournament link contains both the city and country. I think that adding the sponsored names here, in addition to not improving the quality of information, would be too hard to find and maintain, especially before 2000 or so.  It also may cut down on mistakes; for example, in the proposal above, the 2005 Barcelona event is named "Open Sabadell Atlántico", when it was actually "Open SEAT".  I'm not trying to call you out, Tennis_Expert, I'm just saying that those types of mistakes are easy to make and hard to find.  To wit: I spent about 45 minutes last night moving a bunch of "Next Generation Adelaide International" articles to just "Adelaide International", because the sponsor didn't exist before 1999.  If we do decide to go with sponsored names in these tables, I would favor something similar to how the French Wiki and my earlier proposal do it. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with one column including both the name of a tournament and its location is that the location is no longer sortable. This is a huge hindrance, in my opinion.  And, no, it's not hard at all to find the sponsored names of tournaments before 2000, as I've said before.  But if mistakes are made, correct them.  That's what editors do on Wikipedia.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the sorting function is a nuisance that should be eliminated (when one sort under one criteria, one gets, by unsorting, often not back to the beginning; i.e., the chronological order). Maybe tournaments could be interesting to sort, but as long as the sort function also makes the table sortable for dates (in strange formats), results, I think it should be dropped. Does anybody know if it is possible to make only some columns sortable?--HJensen, talk 10:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When sorting messes things up for you, all you have to do is reset the table by sorting by number (the first column). Couldn't be easier!  Tennis expert (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For tables that do have the number that works. I think I was aware of that. For the others we are looking at here there are no numbers. In any case what is the argument of sorting on scores, dates and so forth? And to everybody else: Does anybody know if it is possible to make only some columns sortable? It is not a good thing to present a sorting option on everything in my opinion. I dare not say it, but I have reverted the sorting facility in many bios, and it was not challenged. Isn't it consensus then?--HJensen, talk 18:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My last suggestion includes the number column. I sort tables constantly by date, tournament name, tournament location, surface, and/or opponent for research and other purposes.  Having all these columns is invaluable and crucial to my work on Wikipedia and costs nothing to people who don't care about having all that sortable data readily available.  I simply do not understand the opposition, other than the "I don't like it" argument.  The French-language Wikipedia has got the sponsored name thing exactly right except that the tournament location needs to be in a separate column instead of combined with the tournament name.  By the way, sortable columns is everywhere in tennis articles now.  It appears to be the consensus to allow it.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Tennis Expert's Idea and am completly 100 percent behind him; however, I also think that I am against Spider Monkey's idea with only having the city it is located. I am pretty sure that most people will not realize what tournament it is if they only have the city and country there. I know that there are many tennis stadiums in Paris and it will be hard for newcomers of tennis to differ between French Open and the Paris Intl. Championships. Reply to my talk page for any more ideas or comments! Hurricane06 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC).

I like Spyder_Monkey's table, but would prefer to still have the (non-sponsored) tournament name visible, as it makes the tournament much easier to identify. So, in an ideal world, I would have this:
 * (legend omitted for brevity)

Note not Artois Championships, but Queen's Club Championships - rst20xx (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you do have sponsored names in there: Orange Prokom and Telcel. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I know, but as far as I can tell, those two tournaments fall into the small category of those with no clear non-sponsored name. There are some tournaments like that, and in those cases I feel that we have to settle for using the sponsored name - rst20xx (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hence, I think the simplest way to do it would be to make sure all tournament articles are moved to the non-sponsored name, if possible, and then we can avoid piping as much as possible - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's completely ridiculous! Let's have sponsored names for some tournaments but outlaw them for others.  And who exactly will determine whether a particular tournament has a "clear non-sponsored name"?  Oh, that's right.  You will.  See the Qatar Telecom German Open naming fiasco you initiated and have perpetuated.  Tennis expert (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, whatever consensus is, when there's a survey for each proposed move. Oh, and it looks like consensus is for German Open (tennis), not Qatar Telecom German Open, so maybe it wasn't me that decided after all, but the community :) rst20xx (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your proposal, Tennis Expert. Why do you mix sponsored names with non-sponsored names? E.g., in 2005 Nadal won the "Synsam Swedish Open", but you only write Swedish Open. Why is that? (I hope not that it is a "naming fiasco" :-) ).--HJensen, talk 18:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not my intention. The sponsored name should appear in the table whenever there is a sponsored name.   Tennis expert (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Table legend
(split from the above general discussion --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

Also I think the colours could be a little bit stronger, as they're hard to see on some monitors (except of course the Olympic colour). Not intrusive though, more like this: Chars, rst20xx (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Slovak Wiki has a dedicated template for this legend (sk:Šablóna:ATP legenda) and for each of the colors, e.g. sk:Šablóna:ATP legenda/ATP International Series, to place within the table. Check it out, and you'll see what I mean.  That would help keep the colors consistent across all articles.  We could add the number of tournaments to it as well.


 * Whatever colors are used should be commonized as much as possible across both men's and women's tables (e.g. the Masters Series color would be the same as Tier I). We should also consider Accessibility and Colo(u)rblindness compatibility. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a really good idea. It kind of mirrors what I recently did with Template:Draw key, but is even more sophisticated because of the colour thing - rst20xx (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The French Wikipedia already has one that integrates the number of tournaments: fr:Modèle:Titres simple joueur de tennis. So I think it should be gone ahead with - templates were made for this kind of purpose. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I see tennisexpert keeps IGNORING EVERYONE and just posting the tables with this style, I will post how the tables were BEFORE they started changing them all, like they are now:

This means, NOT SPONSORED NAMES, like we talked in the discussion above, the tournament names and the country, theres not more info needed. 81.184.39.254 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't you blocked for a week? Or does blocking not matter to you?  Tennis expert (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, look
It seems the sponsored names in tables thing is somewhat going in circles. My reading of the discussion so far is that every editor except Tennis expert would prefer not to have sponsored names, but have non-sponsored names instead, where possible. Tennis expert claims that the fact he opposes non-sponsored names means there's no consensus for non-sponsored names, but I think almost all editors would consider that one voice opposing something is not enough to override consensus in favour of that something, and that's really the crux of the issue we're having here - rst20xx (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion is ongoing. There is no consensus yet for anything.  And we need to get more people involved.  Four or five opinions are hardly enough for such an important and far-reaching decision.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, bloody Hell, can we at least stop changing pages whilst this discussion is ongoing?
Tennis expert is still going about changing the tables from sponsored to nonsponsored, citing the edit summary as "copyedit". Look at this edit he made today. I would expect editors involved in the above discussion to cease all changes directly related to it until its conclusion, and I think this is seriously disruptive behaviour - rst20xx (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean from non-sponsored to sponsored :S I dunno what to say Yosef1987 (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes, that's what I meant - rst20xx (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's work out a consensus here before changing articles. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. --HJensen, talk 10:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Tennis expert's edits are continuing, but he's changed tack slightly. Looking here for example, he appears to instead be (1) removing tournament locations and (2) carrying out the bizarre practice of linking to the French Wikipedia, where no English article is available. I still think these edits are somewhat disruptive - (1) is directly under discussion, and I think any changes to the tables at all now should clearly be brought about through consensus, which there is not for either (1) or (2). I have taken the preliminary step of notifying Tennis expert of this discussion on his talk page, here, and if his edits continue, then I feel we need to report him - rst20xx (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Bizarre? Hardly.  See this. It should be obvious to you that there is no consensus in this discussion about anything.  So, the pre-existing status quo about editing tennis articles still exists.  I didn't remove any tournament locations from the Manuela Maleeva article.  More misrepresentations of fact by you.  Was that intentional or just pure negligence?  Either way, stop doing it.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * While I think consensus is forming to be against your opinion, whether consensus is established yet or not is irrelevant, the fact of that matter is that while a discussion is ongoing, all activities related to the subjects of the discussion should be suspended, as they may end up to have been made in the wrong direction - rst20xx (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not the way Wikipedia works. Should consensus form, any edits not in conformance with that consensus can be reversed or changed appropriately.  No edit is irrevocable.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't get the point yet: he doesn't care about this discussion, he keeps doing the things he wants, look up: we have been like 2 days on the discussion and like everyone doesn't want sponsored names, and now he opens a new discussion for the general table with the same sponsored style again. He should be taken out of this discussion since he is not interacting with the other people. 81.184.39.254 (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't you supposed to be blocked for a week? Tennis expert (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Tennisexpert is changing all the old articles to his sponsored style
... even when we are trying to get a consensus and mostly everyone doesn't want his style.

I don't know if we can do anything about this because instead of being quiet and talk properly on the discussion, he is changing old players articles to sponsored styles (and probably later he will use this to reason to put the new ones like them). I think this should be reported since he is thinking that he owns the wikipedia or something, ignoring all the rest of us. 81.184.39.254 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Besides, aren't you supposed to be blocked for a week?  Tennis expert (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just know you've nothing to say because I can find the same thing 4 times on this page lol. 81.184.39.254 (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know but maybe it is rst20xx pointed to? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Courier&diff=prev&oldid=235782913 Yosef1987 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Masters Series tournaments
I think that there needs to be a project to create articles for each Masters Series tournament, in the same way as the concise Grand Slam articles. I have started to create articles for tournaments such as 1999 Indian Wells Masters but most only have articles stretching back to 2006. 03md (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea. We should make this a Masters and WTA Tier I project though. There are about 440 Grand Slams, and there are 9*19 = 171 Masters/Tier I events (obviously the events that aren't both Masters and Tier I won't constitute double the workload of the events that are both Masters and Tier I, as they're just single sex, so I think the 9 is still right). Having said all that, I'm not sure I'd have any time to help such a project - rst20xx (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One request: Can you tag the talk pages of any new articles you make with  ? Importance should be mid for e.g. 2006 Indian Wells Masters and low for e.g. 2006 Indian Wells Masters - Men's Singles. I know this project doesn't have a history of tagging its articles well but I'm in the middle of a bit of a tagging spree, and when I finish soon then hopefully all articles should be tagged. But any that have been created since I started, like those bourne out of this project, are liable to get missed - rst20xx (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and any categories should be tagged with  , and templates with    - rst20xx (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected Talk
Since semi-protection of Talk is rare, I'd like to beg your indulgence. An IP editor who has been evading his block is continuing to post here. His main interest is tennis articles. Please let me know (at User talk:EdJohnston) if anyone objects to a short period of semi-protection. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The World's Biggest Tagging Spree
Over the last few weeks I've been on the World's biggest tagging spree, tagging all tennis articles that I could find as being part of WikiProject Tennis. Further to just basic tagging, I also gave importance levels to all non-player, non-coach pages, and gave classes to lists and all other non-article pages.

The tagging spree took WP:Tennis from this: to this: And, additionally: and: I'd call that successful! 4652 articles newly tagged, and before I tagged the players, Unknown-importance was down to 327 articles, so I gave importance levels to most of the articles originally in there.
 * NA-importance = 0 -> 1918
 * Image-Class = 0 -> 56
 * Template-Class = 0 -> 343
 * Project-Class = 0 -> 27
 * Category-Class = 0 -> 1314
 * Disambig-Class = 0 -> 145
 * NA-Class = 70ish -> 0 (all went to Template-Class or Category-Class)
 * Portal-Class = 0 -> 36

Now, if the rest of you can just maintain pages as tagged in the future, I'd be most happy! (Seriously, if you creates a page, please tag it.) Also, if anyone wants to go on an assessment drive, now they can find all the articles to do so - rst20xx (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot: delinking solitary years and other non-autoformat dates
Many of you will know of the activities of Lightbot with respect to delinking dates that are not autoformattable, adding unit conversions, and other janitorial edits. It has touched over 160,000 articles with edits relating to dates and units. I've made a new request for bot approval that is largely a clarification/extension of two previous approvals. The wording has been revised to make it more explicit and easier to read and check by people who encounter the bot for the first time.

One editor from Wikiproject Tennis has already written opposing the revised approval. I would be grateful if other editors could comment at Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only will Lightbot not allow naked linking of years, it apparently won't allow the linking of a year to the corresponding year-in-sports, such as 2008 that is used in the Rafael Nadal singles performance timeline. See this discussion on Lightmouse's talk page.  Do we really want a bot to be doing this kind of editing without prior notice or discussion and without bothering to obtain consensus from tennis editors?  I think not.  Tennis expert (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the case; there's a separate function for the removal of "hidden" year-links that is treated very cautiously and not usually applied. That doesn't stop my believing that such links should be recast so that they're no longer hidden under what looks like a useless year-link to the readers. Tony   (talk)  07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the criteria for Lightbot to recast "hidden" year-links? Where and when was the general decision made to allow Lightbot to recast them?  Who makes the decision for Lightbot to recast the links in particular cases?  Is any advance notice given before Lightbot recasts them?  Why is a bot needed at all to do this when recasting essentially is a case-by-case decision?  Tennis expert (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

New WTA season
I think we are going to have some problems with singles performance timetable for women, because there are big changes in tournament categories (there are no Tier I, II, III, and IV). We have 3 mounts to design new disign for singles performance timetables! Does someone have ideas! :) --Göran Smith (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I have ideas (see sandbox), whether they're any good... obviously, looking at what I've done there, the "Premier" and "International" colours would have to be made a bit less abrasive. I added a link to WTA Tour, hopefully so that people can find out about the changes that went on (there's nothing at the moment). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, thats easy to add! I meant Singles performance timetable, because there are too many premiere tour., and only four "special" premiere tournaments. --Göran Smith (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess just the four get continuation in the 2009 column (with the rest saying NH or Not Held or nothing at all), and then younger players would only have 4 columns to start with. Maybe the four special tourneys should also get a special colour in the legend, too - rst20xx (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should wait until the points structure is issued, to see if the four mandatory premier events award more points than the other premier events. If those events award more points, then I would be in favor of singles performance timelines tracking the results of only those four events.  If that is not the consensus view, then the timelines will either have to track 20 events (ugh) or we will have to come up with criteria (original research?) for determining which events to track.  The following is my suggestion if we're going to track only the four mandatory premier events:

Tennis expert (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well broadly speaking that looks good, except for the all-too-predictable attempts to substitute in sponsorship names, and Key Biscane for Miami - rst20xx (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I've said many times before, the Sony Ericsson Open is held in Key Biscayne, Florida, which is a separate legal entity and is not part of Miami, Florida. For someone who is so squeamish about official sponsored names, I'm surprised that you are in favor of saying in an encyclopedia that this tournament is held in Miami.  Tennis expert (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't be surprised. On the WTA homepage (which you should refer to as the Sony Ericsson WTA page), they place the tournament in Miami (and don't call it Sony Ericsson Open): http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/PlayerActivity.asp?PlayerID=311710 So it is verifiable. I have said it many times before, but the defunct ATP tournament Copenhagen Open was not held in Copenhagen, but in Frederiksberg, a different legal entity. I would do WP:OR if I wrote that it was being held in Frederiksberg instead of Copenhagen. Because practically nowhere it says so. In this WTA case, many sources place Miami in Miami; so don't be surprised. --HJensen, talk 07:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Current consensus is Miami as well, and we all know how important that is to you, Tennis expert - rst20xx (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * HJensen, it's not WP:OR to reflect the fact, which is noted in countless news media around the world, that the Sony Ericsson Open is held in Key Biscayne, Florida. I have no idea whether the media is as factually correct about the Fredericksberg tournament.  Rst20xx, just because you say that consensus exists does not mean it in fact does.  Tennis expert (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was never mentioned to be held in Frederiksberg. So I would do OR if I changed that (I wasn't talking about the Miami tournament, just mentioning that WTA and ATP "place" it in Miami, Fl.). As for consensus, I guess we have all understood that we all have to wait for you to declare one. So I am pulling out of the Tennis Project in the meantime.--HJensen, talk 16:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This table seems appears to be the best solution. Points scoring may present itself as a suitable qualification, but I think that the wisest option would be to only include the mandatory events - they're mandatory to ensure a higher quality field, and removing five or six from this category will likely see a degradation in quality, or varying levels compared to the madantory four (And the main performance timeline is meant to show a player's performance at the highest levels of competition). There's also the much higher prize money (the $4.5m is an aggregate prize money with the men's, but so are most others that are $1m+). I assume the current Tier I tournaments, like the men's Masters Series, are mandatory (the Williams sisters always seem to have a reason to excuse themselves). If they aren't mandatory (I don't know, but think it unlikely) that would seem to show that players follow points and that that qualification should be continued. I'll strike this if I find out they are mandatory; are they? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a very complicated subject. Tennis expert (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Tennis
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement - Nicolas Kiefer
Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:Kikikiwi.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've uploaded an image from flickr to the commons. You can consider using it. LeaveSleaves talk 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Tennis ashes
This project has two FAs (both video games) and three GAs (one about to be demoted unless serious work is done (Sharapova)) - the football project has over 100 featured articles and lists. Is this as good as it gets? Can we please collaborate and start with saving Maria and then perhaps dare to push an article or two towards FA? I'm sure it can be done. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone out there? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't know if there's the manpower, or the will, to get many promoted to GA or FA status. Because the tennis project is much smaller than the football one, and because there's probably more to do in the way of updates, it's become more quantity than quality orientated. Maybe some fatalism has set in too: the Tennis and Roger Federer articles have both been suggested as potential good or featured articles in recent years and neither is there. I want to, but can't do, a GA or FA article on my own, and certainly can't contribute if there are conflicting forces. What does the Sharapova article need? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well User:Tennis expert seems to think there are plenty of active participants so I think a decent run at a GA should be easy. The whole project has two FAs (both video games) and two GAs (one of which is a footballer article) which is very disappointing.  Sharapova is at WP:GAR right now - there are many problems... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Total absence of tennis-related featured content, and current ineligibility
I sense that there's a lot of talent and diligence among the core of tennis editors at WP. This is why I find it striking that there's not a single featured item in the field, unlike the other major sports, which over the years have produced a stunning array of FAs and FLs.

My first question is whether there are plans to work towards featured content by this WIkiProject. By second question is whether people realise that under the current situation, tennis articles are ruled from of promotion because they would breach FA Criterion 2 and Featured List Criterion 5. This is because one of your number puts a lot of time into following and reverting the efforts of people who are trying to apply MoS, MOSNUM, MOSLINK and CONTEXT rules on the linking of chronological itmes to tennis articles. It's a great pity.

I can only offer my assistance (if my RL work permits) to editors who would like to identify likely candidates and polish them up for nomination. It's usually an exciting task. Tony  (talk)  15:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Record against the top players
Is this really necessary? I see nobody put that in Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer profiles, but I see there is in many other that info. Today, I opened Ernests Gulbis to see that giant table. What to do in this case? Do we have a consensus on that issue? --Göran S (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is OK for retied players, but for active, I think it's too much information. --Göran S (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove it. Excessive statistical information, and is violation of policy. LeaveSleaves talk 01:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There is quite a problem with tennis bios and WP:SUMMARY and WP:NOT.  Be bold and remove these kind of things.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The "record against the top players" is not a violation of policy and should remain in an article unless there is a consensus to remove it.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh well. It's gone since there's no consensus to keep it.  And WP:NOT.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, well, you are wrong once again. You have to have consensus to delete this information from the article because the information already was in it.  There is no such consensus.  Tennis expert (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with majority, and also for Notable matches... I think there are too many statistical information in the articles.--Göran S (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO it is absurd that a table that runs the risk of going out of date half the days of the year should be in the article of a current player. All of this information, guaranteed to be up to date, is easily available on the ATP Gulbis page we link to in the External Links. If we're searching for a consensus here, I'm on the side of the these tables not being given on the pages of active players.  almost - instinct 23:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There's clearly nothing absurd about information being included in an article that has the potential to go out-of-date. And no, the information is not easily available via the ATP website.  Tennis expert (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it appears that the consensus runs against you. Perhaps you would care to respect that rather than sneak the tables back in.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, nothing I do is "sneaky" and it is incivil of you to allege otherwise. Also, two or three people is not enough to form a consensus to delete information that many editors routinely add and maintain in tennis biographies.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Same old story I'm afraid Tennis expert. Look at what people here are saying, please. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Same old story, I'm afraid Rambling man. You presume bad faith when none exists.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

From the first line of the External Links section of Ernests Gulbis is which on the page reads "Ernests Gulbis at the Association of Tennis Professionals". The invitation to compare Gulbis "Head-to-head" with any other ATP player, not just a random selection, is quite clear on that page  almost - instinct 08:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The ATP allows only one head-to-head match-up at a time, which is far different from the Wikipedia table. Tennis expert (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we remember what Wikipedia is WP:NOT please? Not a collection of statistics... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we avoid jumping to conclusions, please? Just because Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics does not mean that the section in question is prohibited.  Aside from that, a more specific consensus prevails over a more general one; therefore, if editors for a particular article have formed a consensus for something to be in that article, then that consensus prevails.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid your information is wrong. Here's head-to-head between Gulbis and Djokovic. It further provides YTD stats of each player and stats of individual matches. LeaveSleaves talk 08:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you do not understand the relevant point here. The Wikipedia table shows at a glance numerous match-ups while the ATP website allows only one match-up to be shown at a time.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable matches
A number of bios have a "notable matches" section. Invariably, no neutral point of view set of criteria is provided for what makes the specific matches more notable than any other match. I believe we should remove these sections - what do the rest of you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, for the similar reasons stated above for player records. The truly notable matches, such as title winning or runner up matches can be covered in career statistics section. Plus there also the summarizing single performance timeline table present. LeaveSleaves talk 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. No particular factual item within an article has to satisfy notability criteria if the article itself is notable.  Consensus determines the facts that editors include in an article or exclude from an article.  It is not original research to include a description of a Grand Slam final but exclude what the player wore during that final.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh well, you failed to explain precisely what "notable" means. These sections are somebody's opinion of notability.  Thus they must be removed per policy.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, well, you are wrong once again. Tennis expert (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong that you failed to explain precisely what "notable" means? For instance, with Sharapova's article, you asserted the following terms were adequate for precise NPOV notability criteria : "defeated a heavily favored or much higher ranked", "upset by a much lower ranked opponent", "won a match after trailing badly or lost a match after having a big lead", "The match was long or very close, or both" and "The match was a final." - none of these terms are good enough.  They are all inherently POV except for the "final", in which case I'd have expected to see many many more matches there since you asserted a final implied notability thus inclusion in your list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tennis Expert, please provide the discussion or policy that establishes the consensus on keeping description of these matches. LeaveSleaves talk 20:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I, too, have qualms about the POV potential of these selections. Tony   (talk)  01:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * LeaveSleaves, whether there is a consensus for a description of matches to be in an article has to be determined by the editors of that article. Tennis expert (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So there still might be some prior instance of such discussion. Or was there none? Anyways, a request is made to editors to discuss this issue here and in light of the fact that this information has been added into multiple articles related to this project and discussing it on individual article is impractical, I think that a newer consensus be established based on this discussion. LeaveSleaves talk 07:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, we are all potential editors of that article, this is a wiki. We're forming a clear consensus here I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus here (yet). Tennis expert (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing impractical about discussing this issue on individual article discussion pages. In fact, it is impractical to discuss it here because so few editors participate on this page.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are plenty more editors here than on individual player's talk pages!! Unless you're referring to Sharapova which has slumped to losing GA status due to a number of issues being discussed here which you remain adamant have sufficient consensus to stay.  How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Then what is the use of this project? I think it's half expected for an editor interested in a tennis-related article to at least monitor (if not participate) discussions on this project and their absence here can't be an excuse for aborting this discussion. Discussing a single issue on every article talk page is a complete nonsensical suggestion. That would be a total waste other editors' time and resources and would lack coherence. LeaveSleaves talk 09:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a total waste of time to discuss an issue here only for a consensus to emerge concerning a particular article that contradicts the discussion here. As I have said many times, Wikipedia precedent clearly provides that a more specific consensus concerning a particular article prevails over a more general consensus.  Aside from that, the fact is that few tennis editors participate on this project page.  That's the reality, regardless of woulda, shoulda, coulda.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you therefore explain the purpose of this Wikiproject? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the group of editors that made the decision (there was none; I feel like you're being descriptive rather than prescriptive here) that there should be match-up results have a problem, they will come here. The fact that few come here is indicative of the general lack of adherence to Wikipedia policy on tennis articles: if some tennis editors are not aware of this page, then are even less likely to be aware of guidelines. If the datelinking thing should be down to the Tennis WikiProject (I personally believe that there should have been more consultancy with each Wikiproject), then this can be too, and particular discussions aren't necessary. After all, this could potentially affect all articles. Also, is there a problem with integrating it into the main career summary? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that you (Rambling Man) persist in denying that a consensus can be formed based on the edits that people actually make, not just on what those people say in a talk page. The number of people who edit tennis articles far exceeds the number of people who participate on this project page.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that you ("Tennis expert") persist in ensuring this project goes from weakness to weakness, guaranteeing from your various edits that it will never get a featured article. After all, what is the purpose of this whole project?  Not just the tennis wikiproject but Wikipedia?  To develop an excellent encyclopedia perhaps?  Do you want to achieve this?  It's notable that you refuse to discuss this issue which, after all, is far more important than just relinking dates which seems to preoccupy your expertise.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Project Template change?
I would like to help change the Project Portal to a template more like WikiProject_Microbiology; check them out.... - Mjquin_id (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

TennisMatch broken?
The template seems to work on the whole however, for tie breaks won 6–1 (i.e. 7–61) it doesn't seem to work - see here or here, for me they both display 7–60.99999999999998. I had a quick look at the syntax but couldn't figure out what was wrong (I'm no pro with it) so thought i'd refer it here to see if someone can fix it. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  09:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get that too. It's because of number precision issues with floating point numbers. This is a pretty stupid bug to be honest, it would seem just as simple to me to have extra parameters for tie breaks than to fiddle about with decimal numbers and would avoid these potential side effects. Anyway, using a bit of a hack (the ceiling function) I think I fixed things. If there are any more problems, give me a shout - rst20xx (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck
It seems that there's currently no interest and therefore no real chance of dragging the project out of the mire which it's stuck in right now regarding decent quality (i.e. GA/FA/FL) material. I'm looking forward to contributing to a real push for a featured tennis article in a few months time, I hope some of you will still be here to join me, with enthusiasm and interest in improving the Wikipedia. That's why we're here and why these WikiProjects exist. Good luck everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wider Input on Sponsored Names
'''As this page is under semi-protection, IP users may not be able to add their comments to this discussion. If you would like to, please feel free to place comments on my talk page and I will transpose them here (provided they're not from the offending user that caused the block.''' Gnowor (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have invited wider input, and notified all WP:Tennis members, and request that the conversation moves to this section.

To reiterate, this discussion is about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I shall now attempt to provide a brief summary of the arguments made so far: Thanks for any input you can provide - rst20xx (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pro-sponsored says that the sponsored name is more official, pointing out that it is the one the ATP uses in most cases, however anti-sponsored has pointed out that sometimes (e.g. here) the ATP uses the non-sponsored name, for simplicity and to avoid confusion.
 * On that note, anti-sponsored argues that using sponsored names makes tournaments harder to identify, and also that as sponsored names change regularly (e.g. see here), this further compounds the identification problem. They also point out that the name changes mean that editors are more likely to make mistakes when editing the tables.
 * Pro-sponsored has tried to argue that sponsored names are more common in the media, but anti-sponsored has so far been able to demonstrate that most media sources use both names.
 * For some tournaments there is no clear non-sponsored name, in which case, all editors agree that the sponsored name must be used.
 * One related thing worth thinking about is where these articles are actually located, for example, at Rome Masters, not at Internazionali BNL d'Italia (which is a redirect). It seems to me that most tournaments that have non-sponsored names are located at the non-sponsored name. I would imagine that most anti-sponsored people would advocate moving any articles that have a non-sponsored name to be located at that non-sponsored name (e.g. if Rome Masters redirected to Internazionali BNL d'Italia, they would want to see that reversed).
 * Both sides seem to agree that the articles being linked to should themselves mention both names (a la 2008 Canada Masters says: "The 2008 Canada Masters (also known as the Rogers Cup for sponsorship reasons)...").
 * There was a discussion about simply including both names in the table, but most seemed to agree that this made the table too unwieldy.


 * I'm going to have to vote anti-sponsored. This is based on standardization from other sports, i.e. the Bowl Championship Series of NCAA Football, as well as being more concise and easier to follow based on changing names.  I'd vote for Anti-Sponsored on player tables, Anti-Sponsored article names (w/ sponsored redirects) and a history (table?) on the tournament articles indicating sponsor tournament names/years.  I agree that sponsored sounds more official and may be what's used in some cases, but taking a page from someplace I can't identify, shouldn't a goal of an encyclopedia be ease-of-use/reading?(Debate this last statement on my talk page as I'm sure we won't have room here.) Gnowor (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The goal of an encyclopedia should be factual accuracy, based on verifiable, reliable sources. The problem with using any tournament name that is not the official sponsored name is the lack of verifiable, reliable sources for the unsponsored name.  Needless and energy-sapping disputes among Wikipedia editors would arise whenever the official sponsored name is ignored and editors are searching for an alternative.  There is no question that the organizations running the professional tennis tours for both men (Association of Tennis Professionals) and women (Women's Tennis Association) far more frequently use the official sponsored name.  There is no reason to ignore their usage, especially given that the news media also uses the official sponsored name most of the time.  Despite what others have said or implied in this discussion, the short-hand names preferred by them, such as "Indian Wells Masters", are not generic, either.  The word "Masters" is itself a trademarked, commercial term.  So, the opponents to using official sponsored tournament names are completely inconsistent in their reasoning.  They're willing to use "Masters" and similar commercial terms but balk at using the full sponsored names.  That is irrational and faulty thinking.  Aside from all these problems, many men's tournaments that are "Masters" today existed before tournaments started being designated "Masters" events, e.g., the Italian Open, now known as the Internazionali BNL d'Italia.  What should we call those tournaments?  The irrefutable fact is that tournament names change from time-to-time, just as their locations occasionally change.  There is no easy solution to this.  Ignoring official sponsored names does not fix this problem in the least.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See reply below - rst20xx (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * this issue annoyed me for quite a while and I'm glad there is some discussion raised right now, I certainly would prefer the name of tournament to stay non-sponsored as those names could constantly be changing and they are highly unfamiliar with Tennis fans and people interested in Tennis, I believe leaving the names as "Canada Masters" or "Rome Masters" is better and more encyclopedic IMO. Habibko (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "Masters" is a commercial term just like the official sponsored name of a tournament is. Why do you believe it is OK to use one commercial term but not another?  Tennis expert (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and so is "Wimbledon". It is the name of a commercial tennis tournament. I think the difference is that "Masters" is not closely related to a product I can buy. Neither is "Masters" a firm that produces a product I can buy. I cannot buy a Wimbledon either. But "Pacific Life", e.g., is the name of an insurance company that provides services I can buy. Indian Wells Masters is a commercial tennis tournament, but it doesn't sell products (aside from merchandise). So I guess there is a difference between sponsors and the name of commercial tournaments. Probably you can come up with borderline cases where the tournament name originates in a sponsor's name; in those cases I think common English usage should be the deciding factor. As for "Canada Masters" or "Rogers Cup", both are used by the ATP, and if we should chose only one, I would go with the first, as it indicates clearly what series of tournaments it belongs to. Also it is probably more stable than the sponsored name.--HJensen, talk 17:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can buy the product of a "Masters" tournament! When you buy a ticket to the event or a souvenir t-shirt, you are buying something from the tournament.  And "Canada Masters" is not a stable name for the event.  It's not even the name of the tournament.  The tournament has been a "Masters" event only since the Masters Series was started.  The tournament itself is far older.  Aside from those facts, on what basis do we choose "Canada Masters" over "Rogers Cup"?  In other words, what are the criteria that English-language Wikipedia should follow?  Are the criteria based on our squeamishness with commercial activities?  In other words, is it the "smell test" or "I'll know it when I see it"?  We appear to be OK with the official sponsored name of a tournament if that is the only name available.  But I guarantee that for every tournament that's ever existed, I can find (probably accidental) variation in the news media about how they referred to the tournament.  So, the "only name available" criterion will fail in every case.  The only viable alternative, to avoid endless debates, is to use the official names of tournaments.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rst20xx, there are several problems with your summary. (1) Your summary should include a very brief disclosure about your position on these issues so that people new to the discussion can determine for themselves whether your summary is accurate and impartial. (2) Please don't censor the request for discussion by prematurely denigrating one of the options, as you did in your last bullet. That option is still on the table. (3) A big part of this debate is whether the separate tables for Tennis Masters Series tournaments, the Tennis Masters Cup, and the WTA Tour Championships should be deleted in favor of having just one table that covers all kinds of tournaments plus one other table that covers just Grand Slam tournaments. (4) Your summary fails to disclose that the official sponsored names of tennis tournaments is already frequently used in English-language Wikipedia articles and is the standard in French-language Wikipedia articles. Therefore, the current consensus appears to be that whether official sponsored names is used in a particular English-language article is up to the editors of that article, which makes perfect sense to me and avoids widespread and unproductive edit warring.

Aside from the problems with your summary, I have the following additional comments. (1) The most directly relevant article to this discussion, List of tennis tournaments, has long used the official sponsored names of virtually all current tournaments and for most tournaments from the past that are no longer being held. An English-language Wikipedia ban on official sponsored names would require a complete rewrite of that article, which is one of the most useful tennis-related articles on Wikipedia. (2) See my previous comment here, which emphasizes how important official sponsored names are to some editors and how including them is costless. (3) See this perfectly reasonable suggestion. (4) I have said before, "The problem with one column including both the name of a tournament and its location is that the location is no longer sortable." That's a huge problem for frequent tennis editors. Tennis expert (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See reply below - rst20xx (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One addition to this correction of the summary. I have raised the issue that no tournaments should have special tables. I favor no repetition. So, Grand Slams should in my opinion also just be in the big tournament table. (They get special treatment in the infobox and performance timeline in any case.).--HJensen, talk 17:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true, I left that out though as I think it's unrelated to the sponsorship discussion and also no-one seemed to be arguing with it - rst20xx (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have said, there is substantial disagreement about whether Grand Slam tournaments should continue to have a separate table. Tennis expert (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm quite happy to see it decided on a case-by-case basis - I don't see the need for either a uniform endorsement or ban of sponsor names. In similar situations in football articles, sometimes the sponsored name is by far the most common (Veikkausliiga, Tippeligaen, Setanta Sports Cup, Emirates Stadium, FC Red Bull Salzburg) and in other cases it is not (Baltic League not Triobet Baltic League, Copa Sudamericana not Copa Nissan Sudamericana, CAF Champions League not MTN CAF Champions League, Premier League not Barclays Premier League).  Just pick which is the most common over all media in each case separately. Knepflerle (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that non-sponsored names are (without exception) more common, though no doubt Tennis expert would dispute that til the cows come home - rst20xx (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Knepflerle about there not being a ban on sponsored names. But I would go an additional step.  In all English-language Wikipedia articles about tennis, the current official name of the tournament should be used except in articles that are describing a particular historical period about a tournament (such as an article about the 1957 Italian Championships).  Whether the official name has a sponsor in it should be wholly irrelevant.  Determining the official name of a tournament should be based on verifiable, reliable, English-language sources.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And that's where we disagree with each other, and where your proposal disagrees with policy. There is nothing in policy to prefer official names over common ones if they differ - WP:NAME, WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:COMMONNAME are unequivocal that the single binding factor is frequency of usage if there is no ambiguity.  Any notions of officialness are deprecated. Knepflerle (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here I ask again, since the articles themselves here are non-sponsor named, why use a sponsor name to link to a non-sponsor named article? I am with the non-sponsored names. Yosef1987 (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that having both sponsored and non-sponsored names in the table would make it a little large. How about non-sponsored name being the standard for the "tournament name" and another column simply listing "sponsor".
 * Regarding the list of tennis tournaments, although you don't appear to be a "main editor" for that article, I do see quite a few of your fingerprints on it from back in February and previous.
 * Another proposed resolution I'd have is that if we go "non-sponsored" we drop a link at the bottom of the table out to this list, so people have a reference for sponsored name.
 * Final new proposed compromise would be to use non-sponsored names for Masters series (and slams of course), and use sponsored names for all other tournaments. It seems that all the articles on the masters series are listed under non-sponsored names, where-as sponsored names becomes much more frequent after that.  I'd also agree to this compromise.
 * I am definitely in favor of only having two tables per article (one for grand slams, one for all others). Hope I didn't bring too many more options to the table. Gnowor (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is really quite simple
I was pre-warned that this was "a long and muddled discussion", and I have to agree. The answer is very simple: Use the non-sponsor version, per WP:SPAM (we're not here to provide free advertising), WP:NOT (WP is not a commercial billboard, in this case), WP:UNDUE (the commercial sponsor has no direct relevance to the sport or the nature of the event), etc. And simply (per WP:SENSE) because the commercial sponsor can change again and again and again, in the space of a quite short span (see Premier League Snooker for a wild but real example), not to mention that many events have more than one sponsor. The only draft guideline specifically on this topic so far (initially written for cue sports but intended to eventually be genericized to an all-sports style guide, since we badly need one), WP:CUESPELL, spells this all out pretty clearly. The commercial-sponsor-name-of-X-time-period version of the event's name is not important in a table or list like those above. Simply enumerating the sponsor versions of event names in the event articles and making sure redirects exist from those names to the articles is entirely sufficient. PS: I am not watchlisting this, as the discussion here has been too noisy and circular to be productive, and we have guidelines for a reason; I don't see any WP:IAR-actionable reason to ignore them at play in this case, which isn't special. If I'm needed for a clarification of this rationale, please drop me a note at my talk page. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Tennis expert's point is valid regarding the name of some sponsored events being the only heavily documented name of those events. In talking about player performance tables, if we were to eliminate certain common sponsored names, people might miss the info they're looking for, as they might miss the tournament since they don't know the non-sponsored name.  I would think readers being able to easily find information they're looking for should be a reason to possibly ignore all rules if that's where consensus lies. Gnowor (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of a tournament with both a sponsored and non-sponsored name where the sponsored name is much more heavily documented? rst20xx (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The SAP Open, Mercedes Cup, Tennis Channel Open, and Heineken Open (tennis) are all tournaments for which I was unable to locate a non-sponsored name. My search was only cursory, but it's in situations like this where I think the above names should prevail. Gnowor (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Most tennis tournaments have only officially sponsored names. And for those tournaments that some editors here want to rename in English-language Wikipedia, e.g., substituting "Indian Wells Masters" for "Pacific Life Open", the problem is colloquialism and determining the most widely used name based on verifiable, reliable English-language sources.  More fundamentally, this would become an article-by-article exercise, which really is the status quo.  So, why are we having this discussion at all?  The reason is that some editors here want to ban officially sponsored names for tennis tournaments throughout English-language Wikipedia except for perhaps one sentence in each tournament article.  In tennis biographies and lists, they would prohibit officially sponsored names.  Why we would want to do that is beyond my comprehension.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(reset) Ah, Gnownor, I see what you're saying now and I'm sorry but you misunderstand the anti-sponsored side slightly. To quote my opening post: "For some tournaments there is no clear non-sponsored name, in which case, all editors agree that the sponsored name must be used." You just gave four examples of such tournaments. So, I repeat my question: "Can you give an example of a tournament with both a sponsored and non-sponsored name where the sponsored name is much more heavily documented?" rst20xx (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Was trying to keep this as civil as possible on my end, despite the general leanings of this argument. I apologize if my comments here start to stretch those bounds.  First off, I did understand your initial statement and had difficulty, outside of the masters series events, finding examples.  The reason why I didn't include the masters series events is due to the fact that for the most part, the masters series are already listed under the non-sponsored name, despite the fact that they are more frequently known by their sponsored name.  (See numbers below from Tennis expert.)  Additionally, from personal experience, I know that I hear and refer to the masters series tournaments by their sponsored names more frequently than the non-sponsored names.  If you feel that the ticket sites are the cause of the discrepancy, I suggest you get some numbers to that effect.
 * Regardless, I've input my two cents, and I'm going to leave this discussion for the rest of you all to duke it out. In the meantime, I'm going to actually start editing some player pages and finishing the succession box chains for the ATP Awards.  Oh, mind editing and correcting the spelling of my name above? Gnowor (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's assume just for purposes of this little exercise that "Indian Wells Masters" is the non-sponsored name of the tournament in Indian Wells, California. For the English-language only, Google shows "about 293,000" hits for "Pacific Life Open" but only "about 9,480" hits for "Indian Wells Masters".  Tennis expert (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's extend this exercise. "About 48,400" hits for "Rome Masters" versus "about 41,000" hits for "Internazionali BNL d'Italia".  "About 259,000" hits for "Sony Ericsson Open" versus "about 18,300" hits for "Miami Masters".  "About 42,700" hits for "BNP Paribas Masters" versus "about 43,400" hits for "Paris Masters". "About 509,000" hits for "Rogers Cup" versus "about 17,400" hits for "Canada Masters".  "About 126,000" hits for "Western & Southern Financial Group Masters" versus "about 181,000" hits for "Cincinnati Masters".  "About 77,200" hits for "Mutua Madrileña Masters" versus "about 65,000" hits for "Madrid Masters".  Tennis expert (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We both know that search engine tests don't necessarily work, for example in this case the sponsored names are the one used by ticket vendors, and ticket vendors make up about half the results of "Pacific Life Open"/"Western & Southern Financial Group Masters"/etc. And this isn't even looking at official ATP pages. But if you count just the news and fan comments then you'd probably get a different picture painted - rst20xx (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I know no such thing, and please quit speaking on my behalf. OK?  As for your "half the results" statement, what is your source?  Did you actually look at all 293,000 hits concerning the "Pacific Life Open" and 126,000 hits for the "Western & Southern Financial Group Masters"?  For some reason, I doubt you did ... but I could be wrong about that.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * &#91;Reply to Gnowor's "I think Tennis expert's point is valid regarding the name of some sponsored events being the only heavily documented name of those events...", copied here from my talk page&#93; If it's the only name, then it's the only name. The point isn't "hate sponsor laden names, for they are the work of the Devil", but rather, "prefer non-sponsor-laden names as more neutral and less likely to 'break' over time". Agree in part with the rationale in your final sentence; if an event is not commonly known by its generic name, then having the more common but spammy could arguably be good in the table. But I don't think this generalizes to an "always use both" maxim.  Partly for the same reasons you give yourself, in a sense: If an event has had 5 different major sponsors over the last two decades, it is a certainty that some subset of readers are familiar with it under particular names, but we should not include all 5 of them, plus the generic one, in a list of tabular data. The way out of this seems to me to remember that we have articles and links to them, so if something were known as the Marlboro Bowlin' Shootout for sponsorship purposes but was really the ABA Charleston Bowling Masters Tournament, there's no practical problem referring to it as the latter, or even a shorter version like Charleston Masters.  We can't account for every possible name someone might know an event by and have to trust that they know something about the event (e.g. where it is held), since it isn't realistic to include every possible name in a table.  If the reader has really no idea about any detail of the event other than "Marlboro", they probably wouldn't have gotten as far as they had already anyway, and would instead use the search feature for "Marlboro bowling", and found the article, at ABA Charleston Bowling Masters or whatever.  Short version: Don't try to navigate for the user in articles, especially summary list/table articles; we have categories and search functions for a reason. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is really not simple
No, it is not a simple issue. The bottom line is that this issue depends on what editors want to do. For many reasons, including verifiability and reliability of sources, the official sponsored names of tournaments should be used. This is common practice on English-language Wikipedia and appears to be almost universal practice on French-language Wikipedia. Also, I do not understand the squeamishness with using official sponsored names. Tennis tournaments are business enterprises that rely on sponsorship (and certain other revenues) to survive, which makes the sponsorship directly relevant (your criterion) to the tournaments. When we refer to a tournament's official name that includes a sponsor, we are reflecting real world facts. For example, it is an irrefutable fact that the official name of the tournament in Indian Wells, California is the "Pacific Life Open". To ignore that name in favor of something like "Indian Wells Masters" is unencyclopedic because that name is not factual. Do you also object to the name of the ExxonMobil article? If so, what should we call it? Something like Biggest oil company in the world or Corporation responsible for the big oil spill in Alaska? If you don't object, then what is your criteria for saying that business names are fine for some article names but not for others? By the way, no tournament has more than one sponsored name. We are obviously not talking here about listing all the sponsors for each tournament. Tennis expert (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is long. Tennis expert, in reply to your various comments: I think HJenson dealt with your comments about "Masters" sufficiently, but I'd add an apt comparison in that the use of the name "Masters" is like how it's called the "Premier League" nowadays and not "Division 1" (ironically this change happened around the same time, too). As for what to call the Masters tournaments before they were Masters, we should just call them by their non-sponsored name at that time. For example, 1987 Paris Open already does this. Yes, this does require a name change, but it is just one name change, and it is easy to know when the name change occurs as the Masters were started in 1990 and so that's the end of that. And hence using non-sponsored names is still a damn sight simpler than using sponsored names.
 * Right, onto the numbers. (1) (the first no (1)) Yes, okay, I do support non-sponsored, but if we're going to have full disclosure, let's look at exactly what everyone's opinions were in the discussion that occured before I invited wider input. Against sponsored names were myself, Armchair info guy, Wikitestor (admittedly banned at the moment), Yosef1987, HJensen and Spyder_Monkey. In favour of sponsored names was... you.
 * (3) Yes, removing duplicate tables was also being discussed, but my aim here in this "Wider Input on Sponsored Names" section was to separate out the issue of sponsored names, and deal with that first. I would rather we dealt with the sponsored names first, and then move on to the tables, and that was my intention with this section (I thought quite clearly, considering the name of it).
 * (4) You say that sponsored names are more common on en.wikipedia, but I would refute that, as I think the overwhelming majority of articles that have a non-sponsored name are at the non-sponsored namespace. Further, I would say that consensus can change, and that if there is an implicit consensus through repeated use in favour of sponsored names, then in that case, this discussion is looking to overturn that implicit consensus.
 * (1) (the second no (1)) The List of tennis tournaments article is a special case, and I think most editors would probably be in favour of seeing both sponsored and non-sponsored names being recorded there. It could actually become a good reference for how names have changed over the years, if we allow it. (3) and (4) See my reply to the last (3). On ExxonMobil: I can't believe I'm having to say this, but ExxonMobil is not the sponsored name of the company, it is the name of the company!
 * Right, to finish up: You say "The bottom line is that this issue depends on what editors want to do". Well, with the addition of opinions from new editors, I would say that consensus is turning against the use of sponsored names even further - rst20xx (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope I'm not trampling on toes here, but to put a little bit more concisely. The name of the company ExxonMobil uniquely identifies that company, and is a vital piece of factual information about that company.  The name ExxonMobil in the name of a sponsored tennis tournament, although factual, would not be the most important, nor a vital piece of factual information for most readers looking at that article regarding the tennis tournament.  Gnowor (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but, as has been pointed out above, "Wimbledon" is the official name of a tournament and no one would argue about that name being needed when readers are looking for the article about the tournament. So, we're apparently in agreement that many English-language Wikipedia articles should refer to tournaments by their official names (sponsored or otherwise).  Yet, some editors here would make exceptions for other tournaments and prohibit, Wikipedia-wide, the use of their official names, which often includes sponsorship information.  This would be completely illogical.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is simple. We are choosing the non-sponsored official name over the sponsored official name. Wimbledon has no sponsored name in the first place - rst20xx (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * However, Wimbledon is the trademarked name of the tournament, just as the "Pacific Life Open" is the trademarked name of that tournament. Whether a sponsor appears in the official name should be irrelevant.  What we should be concerned about is the official name, not colloquialisms that only lead to endless debate and confusion.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What was, for example, the official name of the Internazionali BNL d'Italia tournament before 1969? That's right, tournament names have changed (and tournaments have come and go) since tennis became an organized sport, not just in recent times.  What should be the name of the Wikipedia article for the tournament in Rome?  "Italian Championships", "Italian Open", "Rome Masters", "Internazionali BNL d'Italia"?  All these possibilities except "Rome Masters" have been the official name at some point.  So, why would an encyclopedia, which is supposed to reflect fact, choose "Rome Masters" over the others?  Obviously, "that's not the end of that".
 * (1) List of tennis tournaments is not a special case. It is a Wikipedia tennis-related article just like all the others.
 * (3) "I can't believe I'm having to say this, but", for example, the Pacific Life Open is the name of the tournament! As for duplicate tables, this apparently is a controversial issue as not everyone agrees on how many tables there should be, more particularly whether Grand Slam tournaments should continue to have a separate table.  So, this needs to be discussed now, too.
 * (4) This is neither a "vote" nor a "poll". See WP:POLLS.  Five or six people here cannot overturn the consensus of hundreds of tennis article editors.  And I would appreciate your not attempting to influence the outcome of this discussion with ongoing observations like "consensus is turning against" whatever.  You've repeatedly done this, and it's totally unconstructive, especially for someone who has professed to summarize what everyone has said already.  Also, the point of this discussion is to have a discussion about important issues, not to "overturn ... consensus".  Whether this discussion results in the overturning of consensus remains to be seen.
 * (5) Please don't reorganize this discussion again, i.e., do not move people's comments from one place to another. You are not the moderator, and your last reorganization has resulted in everything being hard to follow.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Rome Masters" is an official name, it is used by the ATP. It is also the common name, which is much more important. And finally, I would say the main article should be positioned at the current non-sponsored name, e.g. Rome Masters, and then the year articles at the non-sponsored name that year.
 * (4) I never said "vote", or "poll". And if you don't think this discussion is possibly going to overturn the consensus of articles, then why the hell are we even having it?!?!?
 * (5) Well I found my moving of two posts from one place to another made things much easier to follow, and you're hardly one to talk as you continuously change indents of other people's posts, and oh see too. But I'm not going to comment on this any more as it is completely irrelevant to the discussion and therefore should not be being discussed on this talk page - rst20xx (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you know that "Rome Masters" is the common name? What are your sources?
 * (4) I'm all in favor of ending this discussion now and pretending it never happened. It's pointless and, as you know, I didn't initiate it.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Quote from you: "...we need to get more people involved. Four or five opinions are hardly enough for such an important and far-reaching decision." So much for that, eh? rst20xx (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion is pointless because it goes around in circles, gets expanded, gets contracted, gets "summarized" by an editor who is advocating a particular outcome, gets reorganized by that same editor, etc. No one can keep track of it.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that you won't respect the result of any consensus that comes out of this discussion? rst20xx (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should spend some time studying WP:AGF. Tennis expert (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NAME seems to explicitly support naming Wikipedia articles after the most easily recognizable name, the commonly used name. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely correct. Knepflerle (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Expert, you write "Five or six people here cannot overturn the consensus of hundreds of tennis article editors". Where are all these editors? You appear to be saying that as long as you oppose something, then a new consensus cannot be formed. How many people would it take to make you accept a new consensus (as you know, consensus can change)? Well, for the record, I am not against sponsored names per se, and does not fall into a hypothetical group of squeamishness people having some inherent preference against sponsors. I just want to foster recognizability and continuity in tables. And in terms of the Masters Tournaments that started it all I find it unsatisfactorily and confusing for non fans that the same tournament (in terms of location, ATP-status) changes name in tables (Nasdaq 100 some years, Sony Ericsson the next, and so on). I am all for verifiability, and looking at the official calendar from the ATP for 2008, here, wee see that the ATP names the Masters Events by their sponsor (and, incidentally, they place Sony Ericsson Open in Miami ;-) ), but a Masters tournament held in Indian Wells doesn't have a name; what do we do there? In any case, for a given year the sponsor names will of course be used by the ATP. When they show results for players, however, they identify tournaments without sponsor names: (Nadal 2008). So by ATP logic, when presenting player results, we should use the non-sponsor name? I think it is a matter of choice, as both kind of names can be verified, and I would favor the way ATP presents the player's results (Google counts are particularly poor here; if they did not "favored" the sponsored name, it is time to find a new sponsor!). The performance tables would become much more easily readable. Moreover, I think a player should only have one table for wins and finals, with tournament types appropriately distiguished by color. No seperate Slam or Masters tables. And let us, in accordance with recent wikipolicy, get rid of the ugly wikilinked dates in first (or second) column. Whether there chould be a separate location column, I am indifferent towards. I can live without it, but it doesn't harm. --HJensen, talk 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with all of that (though see below) - rst20xx (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) I have no idea what editors are doing every second of the day. They don't check-in with me.  (2) It's absurd to infer from anything I've said that a consensus cannot exist without me.  But a handful of people on one side of an issue versus a handful of people on the other side cannot change or create consensus.  This leaves us with the status quo, however undesirable certain editors may believe that to be.  (3) You and I agree about wanting to foster recognizability and continuity in tables.  I also want to promote and preserve research tools for longtime tennis editors like you and myself.  That's vital for Wikipedia.  (4) Lots of things are confusing in life, and Wikipedia is not responsible for most of them and should not be in the business of trying to resolve them.  Sure, tennis is confusing because tournaments come and go or change names or locations.  And Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should reflect that state of affairs by recognizing the official names of tournaments at the time they were held.  This is what French-language Wikipedia does, for example.  There hasn't been a meltdown over there, to my knowledge.  (5) I'm glad you are willing to accept a separate location column.  That is very important to me (and probably others).  (6) I'm also glad that you believe this issue is a matter of choice, presumably decided by interested editors article-by-article instead of through some sort of cross-Wikipedia prohibition created here by a handful of people.  (7) I am happy to read that you would not support a cross-Wikipedia ban on sponsor names in tennis articles.  (8) I don't understand your point about Google.  It's an Internet indexer/counter that doesn't favor tournament sponsors.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On the Google issue: It is a high priority of commercial sites to design them so as to get noticed by Google search robots. So good sponsors are those who are good at making the product they sponsor visible on the internet; i.e., being picked up by Google bots. Others, like fans sites, often don't have those ressources, so they will often be lost by Google robots. Hence, all things equal, there will be more hits to terms involving sponsors than terms without (unless, as said, the sponsors are poor advertisers on the net).--HJensen, talk 14:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if what you're saying were generally true, you're making a big leap to say that this has had a huge effect on the Google numbers I've found for the tournaments I listed. You're merely assuming it has without citing any evidence.  Tennis expert (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On the "hundreds of editors": Sure you can't track them. Neither can or should I. My point was that some of them inadvertably "reach" a consensus as something they do are not challenged. Look at the Ferrero article. A fairly stable one. Note how the Masters are presented there: Juan_Carlos_Ferrero. This must also reflcet the consensus of hundreds of tennis editors of Wikipedia. Or? --HJensen, talk 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the tournament in Indian Wells, Pacific Life no longer is sponsoring the tournament beginning in 2009 and no substitute title sponsor has yet been found. That's probably why the ATP is not showing a sponsor for that tournament.  Tennis expert (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My point was that they don't show a name at all.--HJensen, talk 14:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what I said, HJensen, and I explained why nothing is shown. Tennis expert (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (2) Sorry, who else is there on your side apart from you? There are a couple down the middle, but I don't see anyone else for example advocating that Masters tourneys should be under sponsored names - rst20xx (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Unlike you, I don't attempt to summarize the posts of other editors. I let them speak for themselves.  I invite you to re-read what they have said so far.  Tennis expert (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) HJensen, you and I are pretty much on the same page. I'm also not against sponsored names entirely, just in the player biography tables.  If an editor wants to refer to the "Pacific Life Open" in the body of the biography, have at it.  I like our current naming structure for tournament articles, and I think each year's sponsored name should be added to the results page on the tournament articles (á la Français), because it provides context about the subject of the article (the event itself).  In a player's title summary, having a sponsored name for each tournament doesn't contribute to the understanding of the player's career; it provides no context.  I believe that sponsored names would be confusing to anyone who wasn't intimately familiar with the tournaments at hand.  To give an example: Agassi won Miami in 1990 (Lipton Int’l Champ’s), 1995 & 6 (The Lipton Champ’s), 2001 (Ericsson Open),  2002 and 3 (NASDAQ-100 Open).  If all of those, in addition to his many other titles, were in his title table, and one were to sort by the sponsored name, his 6 wins at that one tournament would be spread out all over.  If only city and country (linked to the tournament article, like here) were in the table, it would make it much more straightforward.  The fact that the ATP does it this way should carry some weight, too.
 * Also, as a general note to everyone, let's discuss the issues, not the discussion.--Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is that then there's no wikilink to the location, or if there is, it truly is just a repetition of the tournament. Hence, we should have location, and something else, be it sponsored, non-sponsored or article location (the last of which I am now advocating below) - rst20xx (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not see the evidence of "consensus" which "a handful of editors" are breaking. Tennis expert does not present any Wikipedia policies that favor his support for using obscure business-sponsored titles. Wikipedia is intended for everyday readers who usually has never heard of "Internazionali BNL d'Italia." Apparently the amount of edits that did not attempt to rename the article is evidence that the majority of users are in support of his idea. Well then I guess this means that editors should simply edit as much as they like to show their stance before discussing to form consensus to avoid edit war. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They're not "obscure business-sponsored titles," as the Google counts plainly show. Tennis expert (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Tennis Expert, frequently mischaracterizing debate opponents' views as extremist when they are not is known as a straw man fallacy. Repeatedly referring to editors who prefer that non-sponsor event names be used when possible as trying to "ban" or "prohibit" sponsor names in event article titles across the entire encyclopedia is precisely such a handwave exaggeration. Knock it off please. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I already knew what the straw man fallacy is, and it doesn't apply to anything I've said. The fact is that some editors specifically have said here that they dislike official sponsored names because Wikipedia shouldn't be an advertising vehicle.  Sorry that you missed those comments.  Tennis expert (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A simple proposal
Tennis tournament articles should in theory be located at their common name location. If they are not, they should be moved there. (Obviously, any such moves would have to be via formal proposals.) Similarly, the links in the tables should show the common name.... see where I'm going? Howsabout the links just reflect the location of the tournament articles? And then if any articles are located in the wrong place, we simply need to propose the moving of the articles, and then the links can be updated too. This would be a much more sophisticated way of doing things, as it would handle things on a case by case basis, whilst at the same time it would remove any need for piping - rst20xx (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the same proposal, just repackaged, and with the same problems we already have discussed. I oppose the ambiguous references to "common name" and I don't understand the opposition to piping, which is a normal procedure in Wikipedia.  As for moving tennis articles, are you willing to promise, without exception, that you will follow the "controversial moves" procedures prescribed by WP:RM?  And are you willing to undo the move of the Qatar Telecom German Open (and associated articles) as a good faith measure?  Tennis expert (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. In saying "it would remove any need for piping", I wasn't opposing piping per se, just raising the point that it's easier to edit when you don't have to pipe than when you do. 2. Yes, I am promising to follow the "controversial moves" procedure from this point onwards if you are. 3. No, I am not, as Talk:German Open (tennis) shows it's 3 to 1 against moving it back. Thus, it would breach the "controversial moves" procedure to move it back (and further, even if I did switch my vote it'd still be 2-2 and so no consensus, hence, it's out of my hands).
 * Now, are you against this proposal? I think it is very reasonable, as surely by the logic you have been applying thus far, you would also see the tournament articles moved, and I am simply deferring the decision to the location of those articles, with the decision to be made on a case by case basis - rst20xx (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (Sorry that this is response is out of date/time order, but putting it here seemed to make more sense given that you specifically asked me a question.) Of course I'm against your ambiguous proposal, Rst20xx, for the reasons I've already given.  And you are perfectly free to propose moving back the Qatar Telecom German Open articles, based on changed circumstances or whatever other reason you would like to give.  Your refusal to even propose it is telling, in my opinion.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am not free to lie and say it shouldn't have been moved, both due to my conscience, and also as any proposed move back would have to go through the controversial moves procedure, and like last time it would fail. I cannot believe that you are proposing I try to undermine the system in such a manner. And I don't see how proposing that there is no piping is ambiguous, but I feel that you are not going to change your mind on this so I shan't try to explain it to you any more - rst20xx (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that you lie, and to infer that I said anything of the kind is disingenuous, just like your repeated misstatements and mischaracterizations of facts in this discussion. I'm suggesting that you try to undo the damage that you initiated.  Obviously, if you don't try, it won't happen.  Tennis expert (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And eqaully obviously, as I was in favour of the move in the first place, so if I were to do this move back, it would involve me lying - rst20xx (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd hate to go down the same road that the French Wiki did (I sure do mention them alot) with their tournament naming. Everything is at sponsorless names like "Miami Open", "Amelia Island Tournament", "Indian Wells Open".  I think this just creates more problems than it solves (try to figure out, at a glance, which Tokyo tournament is which).  If we do go towards a naming scheme that uses names like these, it kinda removes the need for any separate tournament name column; "Indian Wells Open" would always be next to "Indian Wells, U.S.". --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposal didn't suggest doing that, it suggested deferring the decision to the location of the articles! rst20xx (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also no offence but that's slightly misleading. A slight clarification: They call them Masters for the men's - rst20xx (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to mislead anyone. I picked the women's tournaments because there were more of them.  They use separate pages for men's and women's events, even if they're combined.  IW and Miami could just as easily be "Masters" here, but I think you get my drift - the non-sponsored names there often have little to do with the actual tournament names and, in my experience trying to navigate those pages, only serve to make things more confusing, especially when more than one tournament has been in they city.


 * I guess I don't really understand what your proposal is. If the articles are at names like "Indian Wells Masters" and "Los Angeles Classic", the table would look like:

...or if using the two-column format:
 * Correct me if I'm wrong; that's how I interpret it. It just seems repetitive to me, and since we aren't referring to the city, but to the tournament, do we even need to link to the city/country? --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well take the Masters case in your table. How is that any different than using the non-sponsored name there, something you were earlier supporting? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your problem is more with their being a separate link for the tournament from the location, and the repetition that results from this. But I think the repetition that results is more visual than actual because the links go to different places - rst20xx (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A case-by-case evaluation based purely on predominance of usage in reliable sources is exactly what I and all our naming policies support. The predominant name should be chosen whether it contains a sponsor name or not. Knepflerle (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO, WP:COMMONNAME would seem to support using just the city. When talking about a tournament, I rarely find myself saying "He did well last year at the Western & Southern Financial Group Masters", or even "He did well in the Cincinnati Masters", but most often "He did well at Cincinnati".  Obviously we can't use just the city name as the article's title, but we could add some necessary identifier, like "ATP Cincinnati", "WTA Charleston", etc.  I would favor doing all the tournaments a similar way to keep things consistent and less confusing.  I'm envisioning 150 different arguments discussions on each article's talk page going on all at once.--Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dutch wiki did something similar. See this archived discussion. —M.C. (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Like another editor who already has posted here, when thinking of or talking about a tournament, I use the official sponsored name. That is the "commonname" to me.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the common name is the one predominantly used in a range of sources. As far as WP is concerned, the common name is not merely name which comes first to one particular editor's mind.   WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAME explain this unambiguously. Knepflerle (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to restate my proposal because I think it's got a bit muddled above. It's basically that the tables should in theory use the common name, and the articles should in theory be located at the common name, therefore the tables should be the same as the article location. And if anyone disagrees with any article location, because they think it's not at the common name, then they can request the article be moved through the usual WP:RM controversial moves process, and if the move is carried out, the tables can be updated to reflect the new article location. (Correct me if I'm wrong but) I think Spyder_Monkey finds for himself that the common name for most tournaments would just be its geographic location, but I think others disagree. As Tennis expert says, he sees the common name as the official sponsored name. I myself see it as the non-sponsored name, where one exists, and the sponsored name were there isn't one, and this isn't always just the location (at the very least, it would include "Cup", or "Open", or "Masters", or "Championship" or something) - rst20xx (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your proposal. Do it article by article, without any unneeded a priori notions of what the common name should or should not contain.  Common usage is varied and inconsistent with regards to sponsors and other matters, and the naming will reflect this per WP:NAME. Knepflerle (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And what exactly would you do with a tournament that does not have a non-sponsored name but that has gone through many sponsored name changes over the last 37 years? This is the ultimate flaw in your proposal.  It is historically accurate for the tables to reflect the name of the tournament at the time it was actually held, with piping to one (and only one) Wikipedia article about that tournament for the last 37 years.  This would be supplemented with a separate "tournament location" column in the tables to allow readers to sort by location (which has not changed) if they get confused by the tournament names (despite the uniform piping).  This is a simple proposal and far less complex than the singles performance timelines that are virtually impossible for inexperienced editors to edit correctly.  Those timelines get more complicated by the week, and arguments against increasing complexity based on editing difficulty or error frequency were rejected in that context and should be rejected here.  Tennis expert (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such problem. You use the most common name for the time-period in question.  Still no a priori assumptions about sponsors' names are required.  This is exactly the same as any other subject in Wikipedia where the naming has changed over time.  There is nothing special or distinguishing about tennis in this regard which means special rules running contrary to WP:NAME are required. Knepflerle (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, exactly - rst20xx (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Knepflerle. The women's tennis tournament in Los Angeles started in 1971 and has morphed through several name changes.  The most common name of that tournament in each year of the last 37 years is the official sponsored name of that tournament at the time it was held: Billie Jean Invitational, Virginia Slims of Los Angeles, Avon Championships of Los Angeles, Virginia Slims of Los Angeles (second time), Acura Classic, estyle.com Classic, JP Morgan Chase Open, and finally East West Bank Classic.  The results tables should reflect these common names.  As for the name of the one-and-only Wikipedia article concerning this tournament, that is something for interested editors to agree upon through normal consensus-making processes.  Tennis expert (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. Would anyone apart from Tennis expert have any problems if we declare this consensus that: If so, we can move on to other things, such as whether there should be a separate location column - rst20xx (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) articles should be positioned as per WP:COMMONNAME
 * 2) no piping should be used in tables, as WP:COMMONNAME should apply here, too


 * I would. For (1), I think we need consistency more than anything.  If each tournament is decided on its own, we're probably going to end up with a mish-mash of sponsored names, tournament names with the sponsor removed, names that closely resemble the tournament name, and maybe even something else.  It would just be a mess to try and navigate.  Further, I can envision 150 discussions similar to this one spread out across as many talk pages.
 * As for (2), I still don't see the need for having the tournament name in addition to the city, particularly if we go with some common name. It just seems too repetitive to me. But, if I'm alone on that point, I'll let it go.  Also, let me make my position on sponsored names clear: I don't think they should be used in the player bios (it doesn't make any difference who sponsored the tournament that that player won), but I do think the should go in the results tables of the tournament articles (as on the French Wiki), regardless of what the article is ultimately named. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But don't you see? (1) is Wikipedia policy, so we don't really have much choice in it, and with a few exceptions it's actually already implemented now! As far as I see it, this is effectively the same as the non-sponsored proposal, the results will be the same, the proposal is just reformulated to remove any inherent bias against sponsored names, i.e. it makes it clearer that where there is no non-sponsored name, the sponsored one is used. Arg, holding up the whole damn thing - rst20xx (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How does my proposal for consistency go against WP:COMMONNAME? Where in COMMONNAME does it state that each article in a series must be discussed separately?  Why do you not think we should strive for consistency?  And, I am terribly sorry about expressing my opinion and making you miss your deadline. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 01:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if we follow WP:COMMONNAME on each article, then there won't necessarily be consistency, will there? So consistency clearly goes against WP:COMMONNAME - rst20xx (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So, I guess my opinions don't count after all.... There is no consensus, Rst20xx, for your very ambiguous proposal that could have severe unforeseen consequences, as can plainly be seen by re-reading everyone's contributions to this discussion. By the way, I would still like to hear your solution to the naming of the Wikipedia article concerning the women's tennis tournament in Los Angeles. Tennis expert (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * East West Bank Classic for the main article, as it is the common name for the tournament at this time. The individual year articles should use the name that year - rst20xx (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A new issue
First off, I don't know why the persistence on the sponsor name with no strong reasons, but here is a new issue, the sponsor names like: Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid and Internazionali BNL d'Italia are not English names, I cannot even pronounce them, and that is for sure against some policy of the English Wikipedia and I guess from all my posts my English level is clearly not weak and yet English is not my mother tongue

We need a poll of 4 simple choices, not about the table format, but about the information it self
 * Sponsor alone
 * Non sponsor alone
 * Both names

...and some how we decicide on the location column (which is extra useless information) Yosef1987 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, those are not the only options. We don't have to pick unsponsored for all or sponsored for all - we can just pick the more common of the two for each article individually.  Which incidentally is exactly what WP:NAME and WP:COMMONNAME say we should do.  Quite fortunate really.  Considerations of ease of spelling or pronunciation don't come into it. The articles on Jászfelsőszentgyörgy and Chkhorotsqu are in exactly the right place; those are their names, and sometimes names are hard for speakers of other languages. Knepflerle (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ATP Uses "Common" City Name in Tables
The ATP site itself uses the City Names to refer to tournaments in tables: [Andy Murray's Ranking Breakdown Page at ATP Site] ShabbatSam (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we should use the non-sponsored name since many people watching tennis, including me, don't know who is sponsoring the tournament. Also, if the tournament is sponsored by a group, then they should be acknowleged in the commercials or even on the court itself (like the Australian Open (Garnier is one of the sponsored groups)) If anyone has more say to having the sponsored name on our tables, then we will need to find a way to communicate which tournament that one is since most people, if you say "Internazionali BNL d'Italia", they won't think "Rome Masters". Heck, I didn't even know that the tournament was even sponsored. The sponsored name will only confuse people. Hurricane06 (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC).

Colours
I don't know if you saw the new 2009 ATP Tour calender? ... it's full of colour, see :) For some time we had colours for WTA Tier tournaments, and not for ATP, so I think it's time to add some.

I propose, according to the ATP site, from this

to change to this:

And WTA Tour, to add two more colours for Premier and International Tournaments. I didn't use exact colours from WTA, because, I thnik they are to dark, and these don't so "standout" from original.

Does 500 replace International Series Gold, and 250 International Series? Do you like this colours? :-))) --Göran S (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of the colours for the men's. The tournament templates i.e. ATP 250 Series tournaments should be bordered with the same colour as the key, just to make everything more easily identifiable and interconnected. There should also be qualifiers as to what time periods these categories come from, as it's potentially confusing otherwise (maybe like this?).

Vote for new templates
Oxford St and I have a different views on this, so we ask members of project to have a last say on this issue. I hope that at least 5 people will vote. :-) --Göran S (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Option 1: One template divided into two parts.


 * Option 2 (not for 2009 season, but for tournament), type of template which is divided into two smaller templates.


 * Option 3: separate templates for each category

Votes

 * Option 2. My opinion is that all these tournaments are part of the WTA Tournament calender, so they all belong into a joint title The WTA Tournaments (from 2009), and from that, these tournaments are divided into two categories, Premier and International; and also, it is sooo easier to find some tournaments from one template, I hated that the most when we had four templates for each Tier category. --Göran S (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Option 2 (for individual, annual articles) and Option 3 (for each event's article, or articles about the different series). I agree with Göran S that something like Option 2, to be used on annual event articles like this would be much easier to navigate between different series (and it will be necessary next year for the WTA, where it will help to know who plays in the Premier series, and who plays in the International series). But for articles about tournaments (like ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament), I believe there should be a template exclusive to each series, in which could be included current and past tournaments, like this template:


 * I really think a template with all series and present and past tournament would be bloated. --Oxford St. (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just another word : the Option 2, if applicated to the current, past and future ATP/WTA seasons instead of having separate, yearly templates, would look like this:


 * Option 1 for 2009 season (seems less fiddly and crowded), and the same idea outlined by Oxford St. elsewhere. The issue was raised over past years -- would a template for each year, inclusive of all Tiers, then become standard for the previous seasons? I've raised a point on a similar issue at Template talk:ATP Masters Series/Super 9 tournaments if anyone wants to take a look. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - can we make it so there isn't a second level of shows/hides, or if there is, that shown is the default? Having to click "Show" twice to get to the contents really gets on my nerves - rst20xx (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would expect every player to have either the "WTA" or "ATP" "Navboxes" at the bottom. I would expect them to contain things like: MainPage, Tournaments, Players, etc... I would further expect any Tournament page to have a Navbox showing "Levels" of tournaments? Like Grand Slam, Masters, Sattelites, Exhibition, etc.? I would then even further expect the both the main article link AND a link to the current year's tournament Wimbledon (2009) Would this be an unreasonable thought pattern?Mjquin_id (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/Proposal - Navbox Heirarchy? or What would I expect (putting on my "User" hat).

Trivia
Perhaps instead of worrying too much about the template overloads on most pages, and the colours of boxes, ought this project not focus on attempting to get at least one article featured? Otherwise I am seriously beginning to question the purpose of a project whose major contributors seem content to say "well it's always been that way so that way it will stay" - 0 FAs, 1 GA in total. Very sad indeed. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking years
Tennis expert claims that the linking of standalone years (1991, 1992...) is permitted in tennis articles (against the Manual of Style), but I haven't seen a mention of it in the WP:Tennis archives. If someone could point me to a discussion, I'd appreciate it. - Dudesleeper / Talk  10:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lightbot indiscriminately attempts to change tennis articles against the pre-existing consensus for tennis articles. This is a longstanding problem.  It's also a problem that editors in other areas have noted about Lightbot.  This is not a simple bot that just goes around correcting errors.  Tennis expert (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Individual years should most definitely not be linked. Can you provide specific examples of what Lightbot has actually incorrectly edited please? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Editing against consensus concerning tennis articles is "incorrect". Tennis expert (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Where's this consensus? And linking dates now is deprecated per the MOS.  Please familiarise yourself with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. But I've already read it, and the issue is far from settled.  Aside from that, there is no consensus there to go around Wikipedia making changes in subjects for which there is a preexisting consensus to do articles in a certain way.  The consensus for tennis articles is demonstrated in the articles themselves, which there are hundreds of.  I invite you to take a look at them.  Tennis expert (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's rubbish, consensus is not inherent because everyone is doing it wrong. The MOS clearly states autoformatting is deprecated.  Job done.  So the unlinking of dates and in particular individual years should go on.  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not rubbish. As has been proven time and again concerning the naming of tennis articles (diacritics versus not using diacritics), a general policy like WP:UE can be overriden through a more specific consensus for particular types of articles. Maybe we should revisit the naming of those articles given that you are so convinced that a general policy always prevails, regardless of a more specific consensus. Tennis expert (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry once again but there are a number of inconsistencies within tennis articles themselves, as you are well aware, and in general they are poorly formatted in terms of meeting the WP:MOS. Quite why you feel it necessary to link individual years is beyond me.  It's counter to the MOS and is unhelpful.  As you know, the articles you are working on right now doesn't link the individual years.  I've seen plenty of articles which don't.  So there is no consensus as you describe it.  In this case it's best to follow the MOS.  And please do not breach WP:3RR again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Where exactly did I do that? (2) Tennis articles are, in general, poorly written, and I disagree with much of the consensus that is demonstrated in those articles.  But I'm not free to just go around changing them to my preference in violation of consensus, with a bot or without a bot.  Neither are you.  This is why wholesale changes need to be discussed first, preferably here.  Tennis expert (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, you made three consecutive reverts on Beverly Baker Fleitz, as I pointed out to you on your talkpage. Just be careful. Given the poor state of most tennis articles, I find it surprising that you feel you can derive some sort of consensus from them.  In these cases where it's unclear, you should follow the MOS.  Is there a reason why you think linking individual years is of any benefit to anyone?  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am always careful. In answer to your question, I do not unilaterally decide these things, and neither should a bot.  My purely personal opinion is that year links serve no useful purpose except when individual years are linked to something like "year in sport" or "year in tennis", which some people are trying to implement but it's going to take time.  I believe that deleting the current naked year links will not help this effort because the deletion makes it less obvious what needs to be done.  And before you say there are better ways to trigger reform than keeping naked year links, let me say that tennis is a very dysfunctional area and not everything we do on the road to making things better is necessarily the way Wikipedia should work generally.  Tennis expert (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The intro to the Manual of Style interestingly says this, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article." Tennis editors, therefore, are free to make exceptions by consensus.  Tennis expert (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And how does linking individual dates occasionally make "common sense" or "improve an article"? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it does. But, as I've said, one-person-does-not-a-consensus-make.  Tennis expert (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But nor does a bunch of half-baked, inconsistent articles either, right? In unclear cases, the common sense approach would be to follow the Wikipedia guidelines, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that wikilinking of dates and years should be abandoned in all tennis-related articles. The wikilinks serve no purpose, except for the autoformatting feature, which is irrelevant for most readers. So let us just get rid of those links—the sooner the better. --HJensen, talk 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

An example
Right now, Billie Jean King is a useful example of why this so-called consensus to link individual years is simply not working. You undid Lightbot's attempt to make the article uniform and in its current state it is itself inconsistent. For example, why isn't 1968 linked in the prose? And 1961? But yet suddenly, 1969 and 1970 seem to take on more relevance and are linked in the prose. And then from 1971 they're not linked. Then you have a few sortable tables where the years are not linked each time when they should be. And finally grand slam summary tables which go on and relink the years individually once again (in bold). If they were piped to say Year in tennis then I'd buy it, but not to just the year - what's the relevance? It's a mess and all Lightbot was trying to do was clear it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I undid it to preserve the status quo. That's all.  No one is claiming that any tennis article is perfect, are they?  The Billie Jean King article is very much a work-in-progress and has some significant faults, but it is much better than most tennis articles.  Tennis expert (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The status quo is inconsistent and unhelpful in the extreme. Making it more consistent is surely a good thing. The article is in a really poor state - it's surprising how this project could allow such a significant figure to have such a poor article. Work-in-progress but making little progress - half a dozen content related edits in the last three or four months. Unlinking the odd individual year was the right thing to do. I haven't heard a good reason why not. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just out of interest, I clicked on a few other tennis bios, including Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Nikolay Davydenko, David Nalbandian, Marat Safin and Andy Roddick, none of these have your "consensus" applied? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nor does Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Kim Clijsters, Ana Ivanovic.... am I missing something? There's no consensus.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Read Serena Williams and Andy Roddick more carefully. Andre Agassi and Ana Ivanovic don't have naked year linking only because Lightbot or Lightmouse (the owner of Lightbot) just eliminated it.  (How's that for circularity?)  And while you're browsing, why not take a look at just a few articles that begin with "C" or "D" to see naked year linking: Conchita Martinez, Coral Buttsworth,  Cedric Pioline, Dája Bedáňová, Daniela Hantuchová, Daphne Akhurst, Darlene Hard, Dianne Fromholtz Balestrat, Dominik Hrbatý, Dominika Cibulková, Doris Hart, Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers, Dorothy Cheney, Dorothy Head Knode, Dorothy Round Little.  But if that doesn't satisfy your thirst for exploration, let's pick another letter from the alphabet.  Let's try "M".  Yeah, that would be fun.  See Margaret Court, Margaret Osborne duPont, Margaret Scriven, Maria Bueno, Mariano Puerta, Marie Toomey, Marjorie Cox Crawford, Martina Hingis, Martina Navratilova, Mary Browne, Mary Joe Fernandez, Mary Pierce, Maureen Connolly, Michael Chang, Mima Jaušovec, Molla Mallory, and Monica Seles.  By now, you're probably canceling all your social engagements because this little exercise is so engrossing.  What letter would you like to try next?  You want "R", you say?  OK.  Enjoy: Records held by Roger Federer, Renee Schuurman, Renáta Tomanová, Richard Krajicek, Robby Ginepri, Rod Laver, Rosemary Casals, and Roy Emerson.  Everyone has their personal perculiarities, don't they?  One of mine is liking the letter "H".  I hope you do, too: Hana Mandlíková, Helen Gourlay, Helen Jacobs, Helen Wills Moody, Helena Suková, Helga Niessen Masthoff, Henri Leconte, Hicham Arazi, and Hilde Krahwinkel Sperling.  I can tell you're getting sleepy and need a nap.  When you're ready, give me your next letter of the alphabet.  Cheers (and always take care not to violate WP:3RR)!  Tennis expert (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering what list you're reading your script from that lists players alphabetically by first name. No need to reply, just wondering... - Dudesleeper / Talk  02:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm for articles, Tennis expert. One of the primary features of Wikipedia is articles should be changed. Can we work together to change the status quo? Lightmouse (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've asked for comment from the guys at WT:MOS. Knepflerle (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the primary features of Wikipedia is that articles should conform to consensus. Changing articles in violation of consensus is not a feature of Wikipedia.  You are certainly welcome to try to change consensus here.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tennis expert, perhaps you could, from all of the variety of ways these articles seem to approach this matter, explain precisely what the consensus is regarding wikilinking of individual years? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The consensus exists. Why, I have no idea.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What is missing from this debate is a clear statement from Tennis expert as to why s/he would want to take a stand against a long-standing movement in WP from scattergun linking to smart linking; the deprecation of date autoformatting is merely the most recent important change in practice that is part of this movement—not something that a few hair-brained editors thought up overnight. I certainly hope that our readers aren't having to put up with bright-blue blizzards of useless links in tennis-related articles. Tony  (talk)  16:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to WP:AGF and assume you didn't read what I wrote above. I am against naked linking of years.  I invite you to read what I've already written about this.  If you need further explanation, let me know.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I be slightly cheeky here, and refer the various very experienced editors now partaking in this conversation to the very long conversation above, spanning from section 5 to section 9? It is along much the same lines, only this time, it is about the use of sponsored names in player performance tables, instead of linking years. There, nearly every editor partaking in the discussion has come out against sponsored names (to some degree, often completely), and yet Tennis expert still refuses to accept that there is consensus against them, as he is citing the articles (which again, use a mixture of sponsored and non-sponsored) as his consensus - rst20xx (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet another misrepresentation of fact by Rst20xx. "Nearly every editor", huh.  But you're right about one thing.  There is no consensus in that discussion (yet).  Tennis expert (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a change in policies as explained clearly by Tony. So we need no new consensus. Just get rid of the links.--HJensen, talk 22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, but you apparently missed the points I made earlier. (1) The Manual of Style is a mere guideline, not a policy.  (2) The Manual of Style itself provides that exceptions can be made.  (3) As you and I have seen concerning diacritics, a general policy can be overriden by a consensus concerning a specific issue.  (This is the well-known concept of the specific prevailing over the general.)  So, consensus concerning tennis articles is completely relevant and should be respected (by humans and bots) until that consensus is changed.  Tennis expert (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "It's a guideline" not policy is a silly argument, especially in this context. The guideline is clear, Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context.  Don't link years that aren't relevant to the content of the article, just we don't link every non-relevant word in an article like sun or wind.  Please follow the guideline, and don't revert those who do. 2005 (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My advice to you is to respect this discussion (and pre-existing consensus concerning tennis articles) until this discussion reaches a consensus. And it is entirely valid to distinguish between a "guideline" and a "policy", especially when the guideline itself makes it clear that exceptions to the guideline are allowed.  And just to reiterate what I've said numerous times already, I am not in favor of naked linking of years.  But we all have to respect tennis article consensus until it changes.  Tennis expert (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My question to you is, when will you consider this discussion to have reached a consensus? rst20xx (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When the consensus happens. There is no deadline.  You apparently believe that 24-hours is enough time for a longstanding consensus to be overturned.  I believe that's completely unreasonable.  Tennis expert (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No prior tennis discussion matters, even if there was one. This is a clear, longstanding, plainly common sense encyclopedia-wide guideline supported by very broad consensus for years.  Please do not wikify meaningless dates or other words in articles.  It just makes ugly, worthless clutter for other editors to clean up.  Frankly your lone fanaticism opposing a common sense consensus is hard to fathom.  Wasting another second on something so wildly trivial is crazy.  Just move on. 2005 (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect. And apparently you have not understood anything I've already said.  I am against naked year linking but more importantly, I am in favor of upholding consensus until it is overturned in accordance with Wikipedia procedures.  The consensus for tennis biographies concerning naked year linking is quite clear, and I am not free to say here that just because I disagree with the consensus, it is OK for some of you to ignore it and bulldoze through your views about the narrow issue of naked year linking, tennis biography consensus notwithstanding.  Tennis expert (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This has all become rather silly. To contravene the MoS, you need to demonstrate "common sense" or good reason. But I see neither put up here as a reason not to nuke these frightful little year-links in tennis articles. Tony  (talk)  02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Contravening the Manual of Style guidelines can be done in either of two ways. First, demonstrate common sense or good reason, as you pointed out.  Second, through consensus for articles concerning a particular subject matter.  This latter method is supported by the recent precedent where WP:UE was specifically ignored in favor of a local consensus concerning the use of diacritics in the names of tennis biographies.  As I said then, it's an unfortunate precedent, but now we're stuck with it unless, of course, that issue is reopened and the result is reversed.  Silly?  I think not.  This whole issue is vitally important to how Wikipedia functions, especially concerning the interplay between general guidelines (or policy) and contrary consensus that applies only to a limited group of articles.  Tennis expert (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Enough of this. If you oppose naked year linking, stop doing it. Consensus is not to do it, period.  Honestly this is the silliest wikidrama I've ever seen, and that is truly saying a lot.  I don't edit in this area regularly so I don't know if you just being deliberately contrary, but naked years will continue to be delinked throughout the encyclopedia.  2005 (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you still do not understand the concept of a specific consensus regarding articles that all relate to a particular subject matter versus a general Manual of Style that itself says it is a mere guideline and can be overridden. I've tried to explain these important concepts in several different ways already.  Hopefully, you'll understand this slightly different explanation.  "Contrary", huh?  Perhaps you should assume my good faith.  You have no reason to doubt it.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've wasted enough time on this, but you are the only one talking contrary. It's true exceptions can be made, but wiki projects do not have the ability make a consensus that overides a general one.  The tennis project for example can't say every word and every, should be wikilinked.  here it's the same.  It's a nonsense idea to link unrelated dates.  Please stop beating a dead horse, and don't revert edits that follow widespread consensus, common sense, and your own strange insistence that you agree with the edits!  2005 (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am baffled as well over this thing. I think it is fair to ask Tennis Expert again, when you think consensus is reached? I acknowledge it is hard to define, but at least every editor must have a private idea about it. Here, we have a situation where as far as I can see nobody wants the links (including Tennis Expert) and a situation where they are against guidelines. In such a situation I think it would be of interest to know how long we should wait until you feel a consensus is reached? For me it has been reached on this issue. Very clearly indeed. I don't think we would be setting a dangerous precedent for fast decisions if we stopped the whole thing now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HJensen (talk • contribs) 09:56, September 7, 2008


 * We've all wasted plenty of time here. Tennis expert, can you answer one simple question - what is the consensus on linking individual years in tennis articles?  I can't see it.  Some articles link all instances all the time, some link all different years once, some link just the odd one or two and some link none of them.  Which particular consensus are you attempting to enforce by restoring articles to their former states?  I heard something about "maintaining the status quo" - now quite why would you do that?  I think this discussion here thus far has adequately demonstrated, as a minimum, that your idea of consensus is incorrect in this case.  So, can you answer the question posed above, since you're the only one who wants to "maintain the status quo" and the rest of us are aiming for a more consistent approach, at what point will you consider a (new) consensus to be reached?  Oh, and please don't patronise me with " I can tell you're getting sleepy and need a nap".  Resorting to this kind of childish remark doesn't do your viewpoint any favours.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The silence is deafening. Not much more can be added to this. - Dudesleeper / Talk  16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the rush? Not everyone has the time to be on Wikipedia 24-hours per day.  Real life interferes occasionally.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Rambling Man: (1) I've already gone through several letters of the alphabet concerning tennis biographies to prove that the consensus exists. What other letters would you like to see?  (2) I've already explained about 10 times in 10 different ways why the status quo should be maintained until consensus about tennis articles changes.  (3) If you can cite a Wikipedia policy imposing a deadline for consensus to be reached, then I'll be happy to accept it.  But I'm not aware of such a deadline.  (4) Sorry that you couldn't or wouldn't accept my little stab at humor in an otherwise dry listing of articles.  I promise to be more drab and serious in the future when responding to you.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you, for one final time of asking, tell me what the consensus is? All I can see is that it's a random distribution of linked and unlinked years.  Is that it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) There was no consensus (and probably still isn't given how short a time we've been discussing it) for delinking naked years in tennis articles. The consensus is for naked years to be linked the first time they are used in each section of a tennis article. (2) There is no consensus for delinking months-date-years (or any variation thereof) in tennis articles.  The consensus is for months-date-years (or any variation thereof) to be linked.  (3) There is no consensus for delinking a term the second or subsequent time it is used in a tennis article.  The consensus is that a term is linked the first time it is used in each section of a tennis article.  That covers many of the types of edits that the Manual of Style people have been making the last few days.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The consensus is for naked years to be linked the first time they are used in each section of a tennis article" - wrong. Several articles you have pointed to do this, several I have pointed to don't.  Several I have pointed to just link randomly.  You said a consensus could be achieved by some kind of existing status quo.  Clearly it isn't  the case in these articles as there's no consistency from article to article.  Until you can point me to a discussion between editors at this wikiproject which advocates either (1) what you're saying or (2) the actuality i.e. no consistent linking across tennis articles, it's clear to all here (except you it appears) that a consensus does not exist.  So, being sensible, non-controversial and with only the improvement of the tennis project pages in mind (and goodness do they need help), we should now do something which is clear for all i.e. follow the MOS.  And by the way, please remember this is a wiki and "your" idea of consensus is clearly not everyone else's.  Anyone can edit any of those articles - claiming an "invisible consensus" is inappropriate.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) As WP:CONSENSUS plainly says, there does not have to have been a "discussion between editors at this wikiproject" before the consensus I'm talking about could exist. I'm very surprised you would believe otherwise.  (2) You are very unfortunately confusing what I'm saying about a preexisting consensus with WP:OWN.  (3) At no time have I said that there is an "invisible" consensus.  The consensus is very visible, as I have pointed out already.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, I'm going round in circles now so this is all I have to say as it's abundantly clear that you, Tennis expert, are on your own. You say " I'm very surprised you would believe otherwise." re: consensus - once more I have to state that you have not adequately pointed out a consensus.  There is no evidence of a coherent approach to wikilinking in these tennis articles.  You are trying to own, not only these bios, but, it seems from the discussions of plenty here, this project.  It's a shame that you can't turn your "expert"ise to improving the poor state of the bios rather than go on a crusade which is only confusing and inconsistent (note, most important here - confusing and inconsistent for everyone - you're the only person here who seems to think there is a consensus).  As you've pointed out before, I'm now tired.  I'm now very happy to edit with the consensus that has clearly been demonstrated here, i.e. that your bizarre concept of a consensus which is not consistent from one article to the next, which is not recorded anywhere and which is in contravention of the MOS is incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On my own in which way? As for your highly conclusory statements, I'm not responsible for and cannot control what you believe, concerning my alleged "ownership" of tennis articles, this project, or anything else you want to allege.  As for everything else you've said, it's a repeat of things I've answered before (some many times).  Tennis expert (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Replying to Tennis Expert's call for discussion
Hi, I've been reading up a lot on the various discussions about wikilinking dates and came across your invitation to join the discussion regarding the linking of years in tennis articles. I'm a bit confused, as I came here expecting to find Tennis Expert giving examples why the linking of years in tennis articles is a good thing. Instead, all I can see is that a lot of articles have year links, that Tennis Expert agrees are redundant and don't refer to anything about tennis (if they linked to 2006, that is fine, but linking to 2006 is pointless. We all asgree on that. I'm just wondering whether anyone else from the Tennis Project supports the inclusion of these links, for reasons other than "I've seen years linked in other tennis articles, so thought I would, and assumed consensus". If the years do get unlinked and members of WP:TENNIS then think "hey - where have our lovely blue links gone", then this discussion can continue. It seems like Tennis Expert is standing up for editors (against his own preference - an admirable quality), regardless of the fact that a) the editors don't realise this discussion is happening, b) that the year linking is pointless and against the MOS guidelines, c) probably wouldn't notice the difference and couldn't care less.

I would suggest that delinking continues, until other WP:TENNIS members come forward, and that Tennis Expert hops off the fence, is WP:BOLD and tries to reflect his own views and wishes. If WP:TENNIS (not just Tennis Expert) can actually come forward and prove (or create) consensus (other than "this is what we've always done so lets continue without taking a look to work out why we do it") then this discussion will carry more weight.–MDCollins (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My answer to your question "I'm just wondering whether anyone else from the Tennis Project supports the inclusion of these links" is that nobody, including Tennis Expert, support the inclusion of years links. My opinion is that we are just wasting time here, and that the Tennis Project recently has come forward as looking particularly silly. --HJensen, talk 05:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC) (corrected years to links --HJensen, talk 11:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC) )


 * Yes, and it's a great pity for the readers of these articles, as well as a slap in the face to those who are trying to improve them. It's not for the good of our health that several people have been improving tennis articles WRT dates; I see that Tennis expert has run around reverting their efforts in quite a few cases—even to the extent of reinstating wrong date formats into Australian-related articles. Tony   (talk)  06:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Slap in the face? I'm sorry you take disagreement so personally.  And what "wrong date formats" and which Australian-related articles are you talking about?  Tennis expert (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks HJensen - so in fact "consensus" is likely to form in favour of de-linking? If so, this discussion is probably over.–MDCollins (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether a consensus is "likely" to form does not mean that the consensus actually has formed. Tennis expert (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing silly about honoring Wikipedia processes, HJensen. I'm rather shocked that you would claim otherwise.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think honoring Wikipedia processes are silly. I think it is this very process that is being silly in the sense that the lack of common sense is striking. I think we should follow WP:IAR and that you should adhere to Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Your insistence of keeping some vague status quo you don't approve of for some undefined amount of time is rather disturbing, and makes the Tennis Project appear, well, silly. You are effectively creating a situation where we should all sit back and wait for your acceptance on when to do things like everybody wants. --HJensen, talk 19:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Now you're invoking WP:IAR. I would accept that except that then anyone could invoke WP:IAR to reimpose naked year linking, etc.  Where should we stop?  (2) I am not trying to make a point, unless you believe that anyone (including yourself, I might add) who tries to uphold Wikipedia policy (WP:CONSENSUS) is violating WP:POINT.  Is that what you believe?  (3) Thanks for once again putting words in my mouth.  This has nothing to do with my "acceptance" of anything.  In fact, as I've said about 15 times already, I am opposed to naked year linking.  How many more times do I have to say it and in how many more different ways?  (4) The real silliness is the state of tennis articles and the misguided consensuses (plural) that exist for so many of them.  I am all in favor of improving them.  But this has to be done in accordance with consensus.  If the consensus is for the articles to continue to be substandard, there's not much we can do about it.  (5) Give this some time.  Why are you in such a rush?  24-48 hours is not enough.  There is no deadline.  Let the discussion continue so that the new consensus, if there is one, becomes clear and irrefutable.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering my invitation. But when did I ever say that consensus should stay the same and that we should never reexamine it?  The answer is "never".  However, I believe that when there is overwhelming evidence of a consensus and someone comes along and makes an edit that's inconsistent with consensus and then the edit is reverted, then there needs to be a discussion about the consensus and the edit to avoid needless edit warring.  See WP:BRD.  Lightbot and some humans that agree with Lightbot's actions have ignored the "discussion" part of WP:BRD and instead resorted to edit warring, threats, mind-reading, and other disagreeable conduct to enforce their conception of tennis article style.  That's unacceptable, in my opinion.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The parallels between this conversation and the one above about non-sponsored names are astounding. In both cases, consensus is against Tennis expert's point of view, but in both cases he is refusing to acknowledge that - rst20xx (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus there. And your unilateral and biased declaration of consensus (and other misrepresentations of fact) does not make it so.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to gauge current thinking
Okay, I think we're in a position now where we have (at least) two clear ways ahead. I'd like to understand who is in favour of which approach. Please indicate your support under the relevant summary. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming that this is an effort to develop a new or changed consensus concerning tennis articles and not an effort to make edits without the new or changed consensus. My comments below are provided under those assumptions. Tennis expert (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess your assumption to be correct. As per my opening sentence, I wish to understand who is in favour of which approach to take regarding the obvious confused minefield of erratic and inconsistent year, year-month and year-month-day linking from one tennis article to another, including those articles which you have worked on in the past week.  Hope that clears it up for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a "confused minefield of erratic and inconsistent year, year-month and year-month-day linking from one tennis article to another," as I already have demonstrated. Tennis expert (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. I've adequately demonstrated that there are many, many articles which do not follow your consensus.  Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (a) Status quo
 * To quote Tennis expert : "The consensus is for naked years to be linked the first time they are used in each section of a tennis article." and "The consensus is for months-date-years (or any variation thereof) to be linked."


 * (b) Proposal
 * To follow the WP:MOS guidelines, in particular Only make links that are relevant to the context.


 * Support (b) but Tennis expert won't like this, I warn you, as again, we tried this in the above discussion about sponsored names, and despite every single person voting against his position, he refused to recognise it as "polling is not a substitute for discussion" - rst20xx (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah I saw that. But in amongst this chaos, a decent summary of people's opinions is useful, to me at least.  Cheers for your time! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not surprising that you (rst20xx) are wrong again. Despite my saying this in about 15 different ways, I have never been in favor of linking naked years.  I was merely saying that naked years in tennis articles should not be delinked until the consensus for those articles is changed.  I am assuming that you understand my position now and that you will not continue misrepresenting it.  Thanks.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support it's clear to me that no viable and, most importantly, consistent and intelligible approach is to follow MOS while tennis articles are devoid of a unified way of dealing with date linking. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. See Proposal (c).  By the way, tennis articles are "not devoid of a unified way of dealing with date linking," as I already have demonstrated.  Tennis expert (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your demonstration was inadequate I'm afraid as I have already demonstrated. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I see no use of naked year links or naked links to any dates in whatever format.--HJensen, talk 21:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support(b). Standard WP:MOS should be just fine. With the caveat of linking certain year references to "#### in Tennis" articles. I would be willing to work on a template like .Mjquin_id (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (c) Proposal
 * (1) Do not link naked years. (2) De-link naked years wherever they already appear.  (3) Do not delink existing months-date-years (or any variation thereof) until there is clear consensus to delink them.  See the ongoing discussions elsewhere about the controversial delinkings that people are doing under an alleged WP:MOS mandate.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose (c)(3) I form an opinion (I fail to see a proposal in just saying: Do not violate consensus.): Delink months-date-years.--HJensen, talk 21:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question - why are you willing to poll this time? rst20xx (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose (c)(3) delink where appropriate for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Date Discussion
(a) the discussion around dates is very long now. (b) I rather think it relates more specifically to "Article Guidelines"; which has very few discussions. I also added an attempt at a comprimise proposal.Mjquin_id (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Total lack of featured content
Tony1 raised a good point a couple of sections ago - this project clearly has keen editors (as shown in the previous two sections) but has no tennis-based featured content at all. And only one GA (as Maria Sharapova is to be delisted soon if she hasn't already and one of the other two GAs is about a footballer who had a minor role as a tennis player). Most articles are wikilink statistical nightmares. There also seems to be a driving force to deliberately not follow the WP:MOS and other guidelines such as WP:TRIVIA, WP:SUMMARY, WP:LENGTH. What do regular contributors think? Is it worth trying for a Featured article? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I happen to know that many editors got frustrated and left due to the particularly long discussion above. I personally don't have time to help out more at the moment (University). However, as sad as it is to say, the first thing that I feel needs doing is an RFC against the editor who caused the aforementioned rift, and I think this is the primary reason this project has problems. I hope this comment is not deemed uncivil, but it is honestly how I feel, I just don't have time to express these concerns in a more formal avenue right now - rst20xx (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As an outsider, I have to agree that the statistics are excessive. Having tables covering her wins, runner-ups and all major tournament results is just too much for my taste. I actually think that these tables of ATP/WTA Tour wins could be good candidates to become featured lists with some improvements, though I'm unsure if they would be considered indiscriminate as separate lists. Just one editor's opinion.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that virtually all the biographies are overwhelmed with statistics. I have asked User:Tennis expert to join this discussion but he simply removes my requests from his talkpage.  I was hoping that this project could succeed in turning out some featured quality but currently there's too much momentum against it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My opinions on this issue: But I guess some will vehemently object to it, thus making it a dead end. But then we will never see a tennis player featured—only musicians and Pokémon characters.--HJensen, talk 12:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Most tennis players are not very interesting people apart from their sport, which make most comprehensive articles just a list of results. This will never stand a chance as featured article.
 * The only solution is to do as with musicians: Have a main article on the muscician/band, and then a seperate article on the discography. Think of the tennis player as the musician and his results as his discography,
 * Such a division will focus the project onto relevant stuff: Those wanting to write about the players as such (their style, their biography, the controversies, their legacy, etc.) can do so relatively undisturbed by those focused on presenting all the statistics in this and that way. It is the latter that has been plauging the project. Almost all discussions have been on tables etc. and nothing on the tennis players. And all discussions usually end nowhere as a fingerful of editor wait around forever for a new consensus to form. Those interested in fighting over such petty details (like the "dicographyphiles" in the music world) can then fight over it in the "results articles" while not intereferring with the main articles (those would also become much more stable)
 * Note that this division could much better foster out some featured content. Good results articles could be considered as featured lists as discographies are (as also suggested by Giants2008 above), and good "main" articles could be considered as featured articles. As of now, the articles try to cover everything, and as a result none stands a chance at a FA. (The Federer article was up for GA recently, but failed as it was—rightfully—noted that all the results made it way too long and boring.)
 * I was actually thinking just that the other day! rst20xx (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'd completely agree with HJensen. It might sound a nice idea to document excessive statistical information of select senior players who have had long careers and several wins. This might take the burden off the original article. But that can't be taken as an excuse for lack of featured content.
 * I don't agree primarily with his first point. It is obvious that a tennis player's article would talk about his/her tennis career mostly and I don't see that as a impediment towards creating GAs or even FAs. If that would have been true, none of the sportsperson article would have been recognized as exceptional by WP. But the articles in other projects such as WP:FOOTY, WP:CRICKET etc. definitely belie that. You'd find number of sportsperson articles under these projects that mostly talk about their sports career, with a short section dedicated to personal life. Some even have long statistical information included in them.
 * I think the real problem stems at the fact almost none of the articles follow guidelines and criteria set for featured content. Instead certain editors are set on defying policies set by wider WP community and boasting their own believes. Even going as far as to render this wikiproject useless. That should be the concern to addressed, to get articles in line with featured criteria. This would eventually address issues regarding statistics etc. LeaveSleaves talk 02:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're both right and wrong, LeaveSleaves. The articles are undoubtedly in very poor shape, but you're wrong with your comparison to footballers and cricketers - footballers and cricketers play as part of a team! Do their teams have separate stats articles? Often, yes - rst20xx (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, perhaps my comparison with other sportspersons wasn't the best one. In any case, the point I was trying to put forward there wasn't about stats. The point was, it is no hurdle if the article deals mostly with player's tennis career. Anyways, that put aside, we clearly have an agreement on need of steps to be taken towards improving articles and I guess we can tune out the finery about stats when we get there. Is it possible we could make a start somewhere? Choose a particular article (much like WP:SPOT) and improve it singularly into a better article. That would (1) help us choose the areas that should be covered into an aricle (2) set a precedent for other articles if we can promote the article to FA or GA. LeaveSleaves talk 01:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 1107 articles are assigned to this project, of which 133, or 12.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:



If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I added this, I don't see that it could hurt. The result should appear at WikiProject Tennis/Cleanup listing - rst20xx (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the redirect problem, give it a few more days :P - rst20xx (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, there we go! rst20xx (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Useful! if slightly depressing. I recently cleaned up Guillermo Canas, an article I thought was pretty bad, and that page, somewhat ominously, wasn't tagged. I'll try cleaning up the Youzhny (someone mentioned this one below) and Myskina articles; if we clean up the articles of highest importance first, the ones lower down will follow. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I know this is pretty old, but I am performing an AWB General cleanup of these (and most) pages connected to the Tennis Portal. NOTE:This does NOT include any date unlinking... Please holler, if you see issues. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Tennis expert
By now I'm sure you're sick of me banging on about the poor quality of pretty much every single tennis article here on Wikipedia - almost all have some maintenance tags or [citation needed] added to them and they fall very very short of even GA quality. I've come up against a brick wall in the aforementioned user who suggests that a "current consensus" overrides the need to improve articles to meet with GA or FA criteria. A recent example was when I removed spaces between citations which the editor in question re-inserted. I've been trying to advocate the WP:MOS which is mandated for featured quality articles but instead the editor in question is adamant that an existing "consensus" (which is nebulous at best) overules all other editors. That was, until, he was overuled by another tennis editor. I've asked Tennis expert to contribute to this discussion as he now seems 100% dedicated to removing all edits I make to any tennis articles, despite his own edits, in part, resulting in Maria Sharapova being delisted as a GA. He does not even have the courtesy to reply to me, either personally or on Wiki, simply removing my note without comment as he has every right to do, but which is hardly the behaviour of someone collaborating in an attempt to improve every article in the tennis project. I would appreciate some advice from other project editors how best to handle this situation. Not wishing to blow my own trumpet (so I will), I've managed to successfully have 11 featured articles, 18 featured lists and two featured topics promoted in the past couple of years so I have a fair idea what is required. Unfortunately right now I don't seem to be allowed to help. All the best to you all from week one of my journey! The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I must say that I have given up on this user. I just don't understand his actions. I have done some delinking of naked links to dates per WP:MOSNUM. After I had made this edit, he reverted without comment, which additionally made Mats' picture appear twice in the article (the old, and the new picture I had inserted). So, it was a blind reversion without much thought behind. This is just one example. A notification about the need for edit summaries on the user's talk page of course didn't survive long. On the Sharapova article the same thing has happened, and there I have been asked (kindly) not to override long-standing consensus by a newly registered user: diff who also reinserted naked links without justification. I have responded here but don't expect much. I have no idea as to what to do. To these users, consensus is what has been going on for ages, and as long as one of them oppose a change, even one forstered by a change in Wiki-guidelines, they revert casually and systematically. Bummer. No featured content in sight with such attitudes. (I have only one FA to my credit, but I also know that stubbornly ignoring MOS is not a good starting point :-) .) Have a nice trip. Enjoy it, and stay away from these petty things with stubborn people. Enjoy yourself instead! Cheers.--HJensen, talk 13:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a lost cause. If his disruptive edits counter to consensus and WP:MOS continue, I'll instigate an WP:RFC.  He's single-handedly keeping WP:TENNIS in the dark ages and refusing to discuss anything or a possible way forward.  It's his way or the highway.  But thanks, HJensen, I'll keep enjoying my trip, I'll pop in from time to time to fight the fight, but I will focus on the real world!  The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just got through two rounds of critiques on the 2002 NFL Expansion Draft list, trying to get it to FL status. I was eventually successful, but one thing that I had to learn is that the larger editing community does not care about Project-specific editing consensus if it conflicts with the MOS. Over at WP:NFL, we had a draft template that included links within the initial bold text of the article name when it first appears in the article text.  As in: "The 2002 NFL Draft was the procedure by which..."  That format for draft pages was clear, debated Project consensus.  And yet if we had stuck to it with the tenacity that Tennis Expert is holding on to bare date links in the tennis articles, the article wouldn't have passed the review process.  One thing we learned, and it's why we are now getting the draft pages back to FL status after a lot of them lost such status due to new FL standards, is that a project doesn't own articles anymore than any individual user does.


 * Not that there is any consensus within the Project to retain the date links, it is pretty clear that all but one or two editors agree with removing them. Tennis Expert claims that there is consensus because the bare date links are already there.  If bare date links weren't a problem, and didn't already exist, then we wouldn't have several policies that specifically address them:  WP:OVERLINK, MOS:UNLINKDATES, and WP:EGG specifically exempts infoboxes and also specifically mentions sports articles but only for piped dates.  --User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 05:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you absolutely. I've worked on dozens of featured quality articles and lists and you're spot on - the overwhelming consensus at both WP:FAC and WP:FLC is to follow not just the policies but also the guidelines, most significantly WP:MOS.  Tennis expert's continual relinking of dates contravenes this approach and therefore prevents any article he continually relinks from improving to the point of FA/FL.  Which is a shame.  The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Linking in tables
Hi,

As an outsider to WP:TENNIS, I'm not going to join in your tables/sponsorship discussions, but I feel that the links in the tournament tables discussed above should be present in all rows of the table, and not just the first occurrence. I'm thinking mainly the tournament names - whether the sponsored names or non sponsored names are used. (Personal preference would be to pipe the Sponsored name . WP:CONTEXT supports this by saying that
 * "(Table entries are an exception to this [only link at the first occurrence]; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own.)"

This is particularly important if using sortable tables, where the first occurrence might not be the first displayed reference/link.

&mdash;MDCollins 23:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Platform tennis
The article Platform tennis has unfortunately had to be deleted, as it was from its creation pasted from external sources. Although the copyright was not addressed during the standard week of investigation, I'm presuming that this article may be of interest to your project. I bring it to your attention in case someone would like to create at least a stub on the subject to turn resultant redlinks blue until a more complete article can be constructed. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I could try and take this on. I know nothing about the topic. How do I get a copy of the original page (so I do not duplicate the mistake)? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

External link www.informationtennis.com
This user has taken up the issue of using the aforementioned link as a genuine external link. You may find a background of this discussion at my talk page. Since he feels that my intentions of removing these links is biased, I'm hoping that a discussion here, with multiple editors, should help clear some air on the issue. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's funny, User:Tennis Expert5 has exactly the same editing pattern, and I swear I've seen a third. Get them checked out at Requests for checkuser, they may be sockpuppets. And while you're at it, also get them checked against User:Lman1987, almost every other "User:Tennis..." account was registered by him. Oh, and err yes, I agree that those links are basically spam - rst20xx (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have raised this question to the user. The point is s/he hasn't exactly done any sock-puppetry action. LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's true - rst20xx (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this site is a valid source for tennis bios. Yes, this site does solicit and apparently displays advertising, although I can't see any. But it also has good biographical information, as far as I can tell, more information than is in the WP articles. However, User:LeaveSleaves thinks that the information is out of date and not updated. I don't see that but maybe LeaveSleaves can show us how inaccurate it is. And I don't see how much different this site is from Internet Movie Database which is certainly a commercial site and solicits advertising and yet is linked in every actor, director and film article around, and even having its own template. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The links fails WP:EL on multiple counts. It has outdated information regarding player records. It has no known affiliation with any of the tennis related associations. The primary objective of the site is towards marketing and player representation. There is no indication as to how the information available on the site has been sourced. There is no current consensus on addition of this link in tennis articles.
 * User:Tennis Expert5, whose edits include few other than addition of these links in different articles, is falsely purporting that this is an official and approved link when it is neither. LeaveSleaves talk 17:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I view the informationtennis link in Stanislas Wawrinka as providing supplementary biographical information. None of the other links to "official" sites do that, at least that I can see. It's those sites that provide the up-to-date latest player records. The page that's being linked is primarily biographical, and the information looks accurate and is more detailed than the article itself. If Wawrinka had his own official website, then that would certainly be listed as the first external link, regardless of how commercial his site was. One can view this site as a substitute for an official website because it contains supplementary information.
 * A site doesn't have to have an official affiliation to be included: IMDb certainly doesn't have an official affiliation with the movie industry, unless you somehow count amazon.com. If the primary purpose of this site is commercial, it doesn't show that in general and it certainly doesn't show it on the particular page that's being linked. If the criterion is to avoid all links to commercial sites (i.e. that are advertising or promoting something) then I would estimate that more than 90% of Wikipedia links would have to go. And IMDb would be among them.
 * So the question ultimately rests on sourcing and accuracy of the information. I think this argument needs to focus on the particular link in question (to Wawrinka's bio), since we are not linking to the entire site. The information appears to be complete, up-to-date and accurate. The material appears to be well controlled: it does not appear to contain any trivia or nonsense. So is the material reliable? It seems to be, at least in my opinion. In comparison, is the material in IMDb reliable? Generally yes, but there are errors I've come across. But apparently that's good enough for Wikipedia.
 * Another comparison: suppose I came across a great biography of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, or say, a great list of his quotations. Suppose that site also had lots of ads and wasn't terribly scholarly so you couldn't tell whether the collected quotes were accurate or where they came from. Should such a link be allowed? If not, then we'd better start removing all such links.
 * Regarding consensus about including these links to tennis biographical pages, that's what this discussion here is trying to reach. Ultimately I think the question is whether the articles are improved by these links. I think the answer is yes. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Addition of an external link to an article should evaluated based on the guidelines given under WP:EL, not on how it fares compared to other external links which are unrelated to current subject of interest. Based on the reasons stated above, the site in question clearly fails WP:EL on multiple counts and and hence shouldn't be added. If you feel appearance of reliability is a sufficient condition for addition of an external link, then there are multiple tennis related sites on the web which may be considered valid external links. Should we add all of them to the articles then? LeaveSleaves talk 05:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) LeaveSleaves, you've said several times that this link fails WP:EL on multiple counts. I must be dense because I don't see exactly where it is failing. I thought I had answered each of the points you have raised but apparently not. So could you enumerate those counts explicitly for me? You asked "Should we add all of them to the articles then?". No, only the best one or possibly two. Do you know a better link that has extended biographical information? Is there an official web site for Wawrinka? --EPadmirateur (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The link provided includes information of two kinds: (1) Biographical (2) Statistics. I hope you agree with me when I say that in terms of statistics, the link is clearly outdated and has very limited information. There are far better sites, viz. http://atptennis.com and http://sonyericssonwtatour.com which provide extensive statistics for each player.
 * Now the biographical part. WP:ELNO#2 clearly indicates that sites which contain "unverifiable research" should not be included. Further, if you read WP:EL it states that links of this sort should have highest standard and should contain information of highest quality from verifiable sources. More explicitly, it should be in spirit of WP:BLP.
 * Also note that this issue does not concern a single article but is about addition of this link to multiple tennis related articles. LeaveSleaves talk 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say I still disagree with the substance of your arguments: the statistics on these pages is very minimal (weight, height, titles won), so it's hard for them to get out of date. The biographical information is essentially a detailed match-by-match narrative of the player's career, and that part appears to be up to date. My interest in putting the link in the Wawrinka article is that it adds more detail than is in the WP article. If you are a fan of a particular player, that additional information is great to have. That's all. The detailed statistics are in the more high-powered links that are listed earlier in the EL section. WP:ELNO#2 states "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." In this case there doesn't appear to be any misleading or factually inaccurate material. It all matches the facts of the WP article, as far as I can tell, and the additional information looks quite credible. Are you aware of something inaccurate that is also obviously misleading in these bios?


 * Also with respect to WP:BLP, it states "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles." Again this career narrative, biographical material appears to meet this standard -- high value, nothing derogatory but actually appears to be written in a sympathetic and engaging style.


 * Finally, I am arguing only for this particular link. Every link should be taken on its own merits, so we are not giving a free pass to link to all pages from this web site. Frankly some of the site's links are just not good enough, for example links to the hall of fame players. But some of the regular players' bios are as good as Wawrinka's as far as I can tell, like Gael Monfils.


 * I get the impression that a major unspoken concern here is that these links are being put in by a particular user (who apparently uses multiple user IDs) and that this user may have a WP:COI or at least strongly gives the impression of a conflict of interest (single focus editing, etc.) I agree that this might be the case here. But I think WP:EL gives the proper way out: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it." So if this user has a COI, he/she should not add such links directly to a page but make the case on each individual talk page that the link should be considered. Then another, independent user like me can add it. Also, the link should be directly to the player's bio page, that page should have useful, accurate information beyond what's in the WP article and the link entry should not include a link to the home page of the informationtennis site.


 * If you still think this particular link on the Wawrinka article should be removed, then the next step probably ought to be WP:RfC or WP:3. Thanks. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot see how a link to that bio is improving the Wawrinka article. If the bio contains valuable and reliable information, it should be used as a source for material, which should be added to the Wawrinka article. We shouldn't just link to it so that fans can get additional info (fans can always search the web to find additioanl info).--HJensen, talk 22:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Gael Monfils bio, it reads disturbingly as the Wikipedia article in many instances! How can we know that www.informationtennis.com is not getting their bios from Wikipedia? It would not be the first time I have seen people link to something that is just an earlier version of a wikipedia article. This makes the whole thing very unreliable (some sites are good at crediting wikipedia, others are not). Let us by all means drop links to this site. --HJensen, talk 22:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Good God, their Nadal article has many chunks more or less lifted off Wikipedia. Or, alternatively, the Wikipedia article is one big copyvio, but this I don't think.--HJensen, talk 22:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * From statistical point of view, when you say "player statistics" you look for wins, runner-ups etc. and not trivial details such as height or weight. Quite frankly, with illustrative and detailed information available on official sites, there is no need to add any other such site for statistical purposes.
 * I'd like to point out one more thing. Addition of an external link is not a solution to lack of content in an article. The real solution is to improve the article itself. Like you said, the Wawrinka link details his matches etc. Please note that this information can be easily described in the article itself and is done so for most decent articles on tennis players. This isn't some exclusive information that cannot be accommodated in the article and needs to accessed externally.
 * I'd welcome third opinion on this issue. Mostly because the lack of participation in this project is disappointing. However, you should notice that our motives are entirely different. You are arguing addition of link on a single page and I'm contesting addition of such links altogether on any tennis article. My argument is against overall quality of the information on any of the links connected from this site and not that link particularly.
 * As with the concern in terms of COI etc., the said user has been blocked for spamming. LeaveSleaves talk 22:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So, do people still think we should link to a site where bios (with no authors) appear to be "heavily inspired" by Wikipedia articles? It introduces an uncanny circularity, that I have encountered many times before: Trying to find sources for some statement in a wikipedia article on the net, you just find the statement several times, but in all cases in bios that are lifted off Wikipedia. This is why citing sources is so extremely important. Many take, without knowing it, unsourced speculation on Wikipedia and publish it, thus eventually make it "true" as more and more repeats it. Comments anybody? --HJensen, talk 12:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd consider linking to such sites our failure as Wikipedia editors. Instead of providing more succinct and detailed information on the player, we are resorting to potentially unreliable resources as a getaway. LeaveSleaves talk 14:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. So could all please read the wiki entry on Gael Monfils and compare it with his bio on informationtennis.com. There are too many similarities for my taste. Likewise with Nadal. As this site do not credit any authors, I think we just not link to it, as it is like using Wikipedia as a source, which is not allowed.--HJensen, talk 15:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another user has started adding these links. I have now removed links from most of the articles until this issue is resolved. LeaveSleaves talk 15:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is you can't tell which text came first, unless you talk to the editors involved. One of the similar passages in Gael Monfils for his career in 2004 and 2005 was put in by User:Kinda crazy on 2 February 2006 here. The Archive.org does not have any entries for informationtennis.com (it appears that the site is not scanned) so you can't tell when these pages were written. So Kinda crazy may have adapted the text from informationtennis, something many editors do, and not the other way around. It would be ironic to eliminate a link to the primary source because it was an alleged copyright violation of Wikipedia. If you look at more recent text (for 2007 and 2008 for example), I can't detect any copying from one or the other. They both look to be independently written. There are similarities because the two articles are reporting the same information. Again, I would support adding links to this site only for biographical career information that clearly adds more information than the article itself. In the case of Gael Monfils, it doesn't appear to do this. --EPadmirateur (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you then agree with the fact that the information present in the link isn't particularly exclusive and such information, editors willing, can be quiet neatly included in the article, all with necessary reliable sources? LeaveSleaves talk 17:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. If you compare the Gael Monfils article to the corresponding informationtennis page, I think you can see that the WP article is more detailed in most respects. The same is not true of the Stanislas Wawrinka article but could be made so. That would be fine with me, provided we are using reliable sources and not violating the site's copyright. My main issue was that removing the link removes access to interesting additional information. Perhaps we don't want this level of information in all the tennis articles, I don't know. But if that level of detail is acceptable then it would be better to have it in the article itself. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Describing significant matches from the players career is definitely acceptable. Such matches may include Grand Slams, Masters series, tournament wins, wins over major players, major losses etc. What should probably be avoided is describing each and every match and tournament proceedings. As for sourcing, most of such results can be cited thorough major news sites, local or otherwise. LeaveSleaves talk 18:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

After being invited to discussion of this 'subject' by LeaveSleaves following an incidental addition of an Information Tennis Link my views are that it is a duty of a Wikipedia editor to source those links that contravene the rules, Wikipedia is a not a link farm afterall. However, I as a sports journalist myself and covering a range of sports, I have used Information Tennis as a resource tool myself. I would suggest that the fact the website itself does not source its information should not prove to be a sticking point, since the site to my knowledge is factual and does not include any errors, which I must say I have noticed on many Wikipedia articles in certain key facts such as dates.You would need to take the website on the face of what it is, which appears to be a non-bias, independent site, removed from fansites which have particular motives and bias and adding no value to Wikipedia users. When looking at the subject of credible and professional tennis sites there of course the official ATP and WTA websites, other than that there are little if any sites of creditability. This is why i feel Information Tennis offers a good external link and if anything should maybe be embraced and used more commonly. I have also read the discussion above and have noticed that the issue of 'old content' has somewhat changed in recent months on the site with a new approach to player profiles. This gives both important statistical and biographical information, many far more detailed than those of the professional body sites such as the ATP. I recently cleaned a few players external links up on Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick which I feel Wikipedia editors have neglected, with external links to fansites and other very poor quality websites. It is important for these discussions to take place and to have a spectrum of views on board. I wonder Leave Sleaves where your issues are? The Wawrinka one for example for me adds to the experience of a Wikipedia user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SportsJournalistEditor (talk • contribs) 20:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that the issues are that the site is unofficial and anonymously written, and also appears to take lots of information from Wikipedia, thus making it a useless source according to rules (wikipedia cannot use wikipedia as course). The argument that many wikipedia articles have errors and that this site, according to your experience has not, is not so relevant in my opinion. So, I would say that when in doubt, one should exclude the link. I think sufficient doubts have been cast regarding the site as a reliable wikipedia source, and thus also as an external link. --HJensen, talk 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On Wawrinka at Information Tennis:

At the age of 14 he began playing international junior events and entered the satellite circuit the following year.

''In August he represented Switzerland at the Olympic Games in Beijing where he played in both the singles and doubles competition. In singles play he made an early second round exit to Austria's Jurgen Melzer, but in doubles he teamed up with world number one Roger Federer to win Olympic Gold. In the semi-final they faced the much favoured American Bryan twins, Mike and Bown which they defeated in straight sets 7-6(6), 6-4. In the final they defeated Simon Aspelin and Thomas Johansson of Sweden to take the title. At the US Open he reached the fourth round, losing to eventual finalist Andy Murray who was eventually defeated by countryman Roger Federer.''
 * On Wawrinka at Wikipedia:

Wawrinka started playing international junior events at age 14 and entered the satellite circuit the following year.

''In the 2008 Olympics, he teamed with Roger Federer in the men's doubles. On 15 August, they beat the favoured American Bryan twins, Mike and Bob, 7-6(6), 6-4 in the semi-finals. They defeated Simon Aspelin and Thomas Johansson of Sweden in the finals, 6-3, 6-4, 6-7(4), 6-3. He also reached the 4th round of the 2008 US Open, where British player Andy Murray defeated him in straight sets (6-1, 6-3, 6-3). Fellow Swiss player Roger Federer would eventually defeat Murray in the final.''


 * Somebody is copying somebody here. But as mentioned above, it is difficult to assess who is plagiarizing who. But as long as we cannot be sure, we should, in my opinion, not use this site as a source.--HJensen, talk 21:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the whole notion of whether extacts of plagerism do not stand up. I think looking at the site overall many of the profiles are different and of course people who use that site are gonna naturally 'lift' sections into Wikipedia. I have found in other player profiles that sections are very similar to that on sites of ATP/WTA so people writing naturally source from other sites. Im not trying to over complicate things here but i think some perspective is needed. To block a site on the notion that you cannot prove or substantiate where certain sections come from, when in my opinion it is a very good site, is a poor one to make. You could make a valid argument about that of the ATP or WTA. Where do they source there information from, some of their sections are very similar to that in player profiles on here, which one is the first source, impossible to say. Also on subject of external links there are still profiles i go to with fansites and other links like to tenniscornetnet and yet these are poor links which seem to go under the radar and for some reason (maybe a bogus Wikipedia user link spamming) this site is picked up on when the others who are full of bias and offer no value go undeteced.--User:SportsJournalistEditor, talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC).
 * If you find other sites which may violate WP:EL or are poor quality fansites, please do remove them. Or at least bring them to other users' attention. As for this link, I'd ask you the same question I asked earlier in this discussion: Do you think it is possible to to develop the article by including whatever information is present in the external link, keeping in mind Wikipedia policies such as WP:COPYVIO and WP:RS? If your answer is yes, then the solution to the problem is not addition of an external link, no matter how good it is, but to develop the article itself. LeaveSleaves talk 12:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Poor state of articles
The quality of many of these articles are extremely poor. So many people treat the articles like a news service, putting every single match result on there, using tabloidese language and occasionally, even using the tennis player's first name - and these terrible changes have often stayed for months and months. On the occasion that a user (myself and numerous others) has tried to take a tennis article by the scruff of the neck, giving it a scrupulous clean-up, re-writing some particularly poor parts of the article but retaining the essence of the original article, User:Tennis expert has waded in in almost every case, bullying the "daring" user into submission.

I have been working on the Maria Sharapova article since the beginning of the summer, the article has improved from C-Class to being seriously considered for Good article status. However, Tennis expert did not take kindly to having his work changed and edited, and therefore, ever since, has been embarking on a mission to try and restore his preferred version of the article, reverting hundreds of edits, and employing gutter tactics to get his way - his bringing up my past errors to discredit my present work on Sharapova despite my legitimately exercising a clean start. His trying to get someone who disagreed with him on wikilinking years banned on a petty technicality is another example of the tactics he regularly employs.

Not that Tennis expert's bizarre behaviour is limited to the Sharapova article. The Serena Williams article is another prime case - that article is poor, mountains of unreferenced statements, poor writing in many places, and most crucially, a complete misweighting in terms of the material for each season - 2002-2003 (when Williams was absolutely dominant in women's tennis, winning five of the eight Grand Slams during this period) has just a few lines each, whereas 2007 (when Williams was ranked just #7 at the end of the year) has about four times as much, listing every single tournament she played in. So, myself and numerous others tried to give the article a radical change, to make it more accessible to the average user... but each time, Tennis expert came in and tried to shout them down, reverting and reverting. When a discussion was held, Tennis expert again bullied people into shutting up, citing an apparent consensus despite himself being the only person in favour of the previous version [...]


 * Just to interrupt this paragraph momentarily, I followed the piped link above and noticed that I had chipped in with a similar argument to TE's, so he cannot truthfully be called "the only person" in this particular instance.  almost - instinct 08:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[...] In particular, take a look at Dinara Safina, the current world #3 and who is moving close to #1, and honestly tell me that is up to Wikipedia's standards. I would try and give that article a cleanup, but I am under no illusion that Tennis expert would not once again try and revert me incessently. There was a similar situation on Rafael Nadal (a dispute I was not involved in) - see here. On the rare occasion that someone does not give into Tennis expert's intimidation, he scrapes the bottom of the gutter in an attempt to get his own way, as I have already shown.

I have always believed that apparent "consensus" should not get in the way of improving the very poor quality of many of these articles. However, I have now personally lost patience and am not willing to just sit around putting in good work just to have it incessently reverted by Tennis expert. Wikipedia is obviously a great project, and the tennis articles have a massive potential. What a shame that that potential will never be realised, due almost entirely to the bizarre, bewildering and frankly rather disturbing overpossessiveness and control-freakery Tennis expert exercises over these articles. Musiclover565 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears from your post that you primarily have issues against a single editor. The intention of this project is improvement of tennis articles and not monitoring user behavior. I would suggest that you take this issues personally with said editor through constructive discussion. If you feel that such a discussion hasn't been fruitful, you can use other places such as WP:RFAR, WP:ANI etc. LeaveSleaves talk 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The disruptive, dishonest, bizarre, bewildering, and frankly rather disturbing overpossessiveness and control-freakery behavior over articles is entirely your own, Musiclover565, as your edits, edit summaries, and discussion page posts prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. And who did I try to get banned, Musiclover565?  Either provide evidence of my supposed efforts in this regard or retract your erroneous allegations.  Tennis expert (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree that this is not the place to discuss issues with individual editors. However, if this really a project which seeks for the "improvement of tennis articles" then it really ought to work harder collaboratively.  For such a hugely important topic to not have one single featured article is astonishing.  A lot of regular editors here need to get up to speed with current FA criteria and work together to improve articles, not soapbox or stonewall.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't really about my personal issues with Tennis expert - I'd like to think I would've made this post regardless of whether I had clashed with him or not. It is about what effects Tennis expert's actions have - they severely cut the quality of the tennis articles, imo. Like I said, whenever someone has tried to revamp a poor article, Tennis expert has, this year, almost always come in and reverted it back, citing an apparent "consensus" even if the revamp had vastly improved the quality of the article. In fairness, he is not responsible for most of the very poor material on some of the articles (he is atleast capable of constructing proper sentences, even though I personally find his writing style quite stilted), but he is very instrumental in the prevention of this poor material being removed. And in particular, he is extremely overpossessive of articles he has put a significant amount of work into.
 * My main point was that I believe that the regular editors of tennis articles should agree here that, in the case of a very poor tennis article (and, like it or not, that covers a lot of articles), an editor should be permitted to take it by the scruff of the neck and make significant changes (provided they don't make completely ridiculous changes, like reducing it to like a paragraph for each season) without fear of getting their work reverted purely on the basis of an apparent past consensus, by Tennis expert or anyone else. Having said that, I personally probably won't be sticking around either way. Musiclover565 (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well not sticking around won't really help. I've seen the "expert" at work with his magical "consensus" - you've just got to crack on and improve articles, regardless.  It seems that, on the whole, this "consensus" demands all tennis articles remain the same forever.  Which, as we know, is nonsense.  Let's get on and improve things.  I've done some work on Sharapova - there are plenty of facts which need resolving there so let's get on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is though, I and others have tried "just getting on with it" before, and it hasn't worked. After Tennis expert has brushed off someone who "dares" to make a significant change to an article, they are often either too intimidated or do not care enough to carry on pursuing instating their edits, meaning potentially great work is lost. Even if they don't, they will usually face a long, drawn-out battle before Tennis expert even halfway accepts a significant change. For instance, I submitted a fairly radical edit to Sharapova way back in June (an edit that elevated the article from Start Class to consideration for Good Article); TE has never been happy with it purely because it meddled with "his" work, and therefore, has constantly tried reinstating his preferred version, most recently last Wednesday (mindlessly reverting hundreds and hundreds of edits, which should really be considered vandalism), and now has managed to make his edit stick. That shows the kind of lengths anyone needs to go to to dispute with Tennis expert, and therefore, that will probably put off many, many potentially valuable editors from giving these articles the significant improvements they need.
 * What I am proposing is that a good number of regular editors of tennis articles agree here that fantasy "consensus" should not alone be enough of a reason against a significant edit (because like I've shown, "just getting on with it" will probably not work). Of course, if an edit is so clearly garbage, or chops the article down to a ridiculously short length, or is almost universally detested, then of course it could be reverted, but I do not think past apparent "consensus" being against it should be enough of a reason to revert a good edit. Musiclover565 (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So, as I've said before, "Let's GO GO GO GO GO!" - start with Sharapova. Start fixing those fact tags. Let's reduce the overlinking.  Let's improve the prose.  Keep things inline with the WP:MOS.  Do something to get WP:TENNIS out of the doldrums.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) You guys apparently do not understand WP:CONSENSUS. If there is consensus for the current version of an article, then you can change the article only if you get consensus for the changes. One editor cannot simply announce to the world that "my edits are an improvement" and then use edit-warring tactics to force his changes to stick. This is one of many tactics, including outright dishonesty and misrepresentation, that Musiclover565 and his many sockpuppets have used for the last 4 months. (2) Your edits of the Maria Sharapova article in June, Musiclover565, were considered for GA status only because you requested it. The request was denied. Other regular editors of the article not only disagreed with GA status, but downgraded the article to "C" class precisely because your edits made the article worse. This is another instance of your constant misrepresentations of fact. (3) The Sharapova article before your unilateral edits in June was not "my" version. It was instead the work product of many editors over many months. This is another instance of your constant misrepresentations of fact. (4) Any edit can be reverted, including an edit that you (Musiclover565) believe is an improvement. See WP:BRD. Tennis expert (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I likewise have been disappointed with some of the tennis articles on Wikipedia. Some of the basic and core facts of some players are wrong and have been poorly referenced. It is naturally hard for the editors to proof read every article and maybe in time these will be rectified. I also agree at the state of how some users treat the profiles of players as news articles, describing every match in detail which I believe is no benefit either. I have seen the occasional edit by Tennis_Expert at times which I would question whether it was valid or appropriate to do so in addition to the discussion above. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC).

Archiving
I will be trying to get archiving working again on this page. Not sure whay it is not working. Probably set it to 30 days? Any other ideas? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no auto archiving. You'd have to do it manually. LeaveSleaves talk 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we just keep doing it manually? We can maintain it well ourselves, and it seems a bit arbitrary to set a date. I find it easier, and more helpful, to look at a large contents section than blindly clicking through loads of archive pages. This page should certainly be archived soon. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Archiving SET; using User:MiszaBot_II - I moved it from 90d to 180d... -- Mjquin_id (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

About the Singles Performance Timelines for 2009
I've posted this on Rafa Nadal's discussion, but usually there's not much activity there, so I make a c&p here:

Isn't the new timeline performance table erroneous?
-

As we see here, Nadal hasn't won any Shangai. Which is false, he has won one (Since he won Madrid before). He also will have 1 Madrid now (the Hamburg one). They actually are SUBSTITUTIVE! It should be like this:

'''IMPORTANT: Notice that for example, on the Shangai line, the links until 2008 have points to MADRID still! on 2009 they will start linking to Shangai.'''

This should be commented before changing all the players timelines... 62.57.197.191 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Korlzor, you say we should comment before changing the tables yet you do it without having obtained an answer first . Anyway, you're wrong here. The changes you want to implement would mean that Hamburg moved to Madrid and Madrid to Shanghai. This is not the case. Hamburg will continue to exist as the German Open Hamburg, taking place after Wimbledon, the Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open will move from its spot in the fall to Hamburg's spot before the French Open, and will change its surface from indoor hard to clay, and Shanghai is a brand new tournament. --Oxford St. (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah ok, then I was wrong, excuse me for my edit (I just thought it would took days to get someone to answer me so seeing my edit will make the things go fasters (like they went). 62.57.197.191 (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the future, if you are interested in gaining wider opinion, please put only a link to the ongoing discussion on this page. Those who are interested will join the discussion. Pasting the entire table here unnecessarily crowds this page and obstructs the reading. Leave  Sleaves  05:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Attention Needed
Here. Yosef1987 (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 Tennis Masters Cup - GA review
I'm GA reviewing this and have been told that the main editor of the article, Oxford St., is having a wikibreak and the duration is unknown. Would anyone like to get to work on the article? It would be a shame to have to fail it on lapse of time. --Philcha (talk)
 * I'm willing to work. Leave  Sleaves  22:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look forward to meeting you on (not in) court. --Philcha (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment on the review page. Leave  Sleaves  22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can help a little too, I was cleaning some and putting the images side by side the other day, still need to do it on the doubles section. Keita24 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Leander Paes under GA review
Hello there, the above article, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Futures F1/F3
Just looking at Fernando Verdasco and noticed reference to Spain F1 and Spain F3, to what do these refer ? GrahamHardy (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Want to get consensus on "Rivalry with X" in tennis bios
Some background info:


 * I've made many edits to the Federer-Nadal rivalry article since last summer. I also appended brief "Rivalry with X" subsections to each man's page under the "Career" section and added a wikilink to the "See Also" section as seen here and here. I did so following the precedent in the Sampras article. I noted these changes in each talkpage here and here. As I wrote then, the reason for doing this was to link to the main rivalry page.


 * I haven't been watching either Fed or Nadal's pages for a while, and when I looked at them today I noticed the subsections have been moved. The content is still there but in different places in each guy's article. For Federer, it was moved to its own main Section. There's also a brief wikilinked mention of the rivalry in the intro. For Nadal, the section was eliminated but the content was moved to a full paragraph in the intro.


 * And to see how even more articles treat it I did a quick google search and found two other articles: Agassi and Laver. The Agassi page mentions his rivalry with Sampras in the article but no special sections. It also wikilinks to the Sampras-Agassi rivalry page in the "See Also" section. Laver's rivalry with Rosewall is treated the exact same way that the Sampras article does it.


 * It's also important to note that their are currently only 4 stand-alone tennis rivalry articles: Fed-Nadal, Sampras-Agassi, Borg-Mac, and Graf-Seles.

So, I'd like to get consensus on where we should put this "Rivalry with X" content in tennis bios.

My preference is to revert back to the way I originally created it as a subsection at the end of "Career". Obviously the rivalry is part of a player's career. Plus, the precedent is already there with Sampras and Laver.

Another possible decision is would we want to apply any agreed upon format to all tennis bios where a notable rivalry is mentioned? This would include all 8 of the bios with their own stand-alone rivalry articles, Laver, and anyone else whom I'm unaware of.

I look forward to everyone's feedback. Thanks. --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me from a Japanese "wanderer". I found a discussion in French Tennis Project. One user proposed to make "Federer-Nadal rivalry" in French, but some users opposed, three "Contre"s -- he gave it up. I said my opinion in France (!), my clear opposition to "rivalry" articles. «Sometimes, quite controversial like Graf vs. Seles. Anyway, such sort of "rivalry article", it's very difficult to keep NPOV -- praises after praises, subjective analyses by Wikipedia editors, and so forth.» I'll never admit in my homeland Japanese WP, if some user (maybe Nadal fans) get such an idea. --Hhst (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Retired : Active
Could anyone here explain the actions of Ambassador Dunlop? I've already asked him/her to use the edit summary and explain what they're doing, to no avail. Is there any agreed use for this field in the infobox? As it is Ambassador Dunlop seems set on adding it to every tennis player. My understanding of this field is it should be added when a player retires, specifying the date they retired from competitive tennis. Adding it to current players, IMHO, is about as pointless as adding a "Died: living" field to every BLP article. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with your logic here. I have left another note to the editor requesting him to comment on the issue and to pause addition of such field until the issue is resolved. Leave  Sleaves  17:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Masters Series project
I am well on the way to creating the Masters Series articles I talked about (see this template) but I was wondering whether anyone was willing to do the singles draw pages and some of the lead sections on main articles (details on top seeds) as I only have time to create main pages. Some of the 1990s articles are given their sponsored names (e.g. 1998 Eurocard Open) and others their original name (e.g. 1998 Monte Carlo Open). Let me known on my talk page or here if you can help. 03md (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone? 03md (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm kinda interested in doing this, where can I start? MbahGondrong (talk) (MbahGondrong (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm also interested to help - I'm actually just starting to add draws to grand slam articles like f.e.2005 Australian Open - Women's Singles. I'm a real newbie, but I keep it safe by copying existing draw templates, feedback is appreciated. I'm sure I'm gonna keep running into articles to add simple draws or seeds lists for some time to comeSwirlingblacklilly (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)