Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 6

Fastest recorded tennis serves
I was wondering if this article should only name each player once with their fastest serve, rather than attempting to list all serves? If the men's section was accurate (my searching suggests it isn't, because Taylor Dent, Mark Phillipoussis and Greg Rusedski have other serves which could appear in this table but are only listed once), it would repeat the same names several times. This may entail a rename changing serves to servers. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No it is a record or all serves for men that are above 140mph and if it has one player multiple times then it is to be. The women I have not looked at, but it must have a minimum speed. BLUE DOG TN 20:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Was there an existing consensus about this? Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No consensus was reached in the past about this article or anything of the sort. BLUE DOG TN 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit to the article - "Note: All serves must be recorded over 140mph to get on this list, and if it happens multiple times for a player then the others' they have recorded must stay to be in comparision of history not just one random one that they hit the highest speed." - that's going to look strange to someone reading the article. Cassandra 73 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to something else go look. BLUE DOG TN 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

We can work on developing some sort of consenus right now between the two of us, since you are interest in this article, and what about other tennis articles are you interested in joining this project. Thanks, for pointing my attention to this article, since I am an Project Manager here, which in no way applies WP:OWN like I own this forum, and did not even know about this article. So, what do you think? We'll work it out! BLUE DOG TN 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'll consider that, this is an area I'm interested in.


 * I'm thinking it would be difficult to keep this article accurate and source it in it's current format; my searches didn't turn up a source compiling this information on the same basis. Each serve can probably be verified, but that doesn't guarantee that the ranking position on the list is correct because of possible missing entries.


 * If a player beats their previous best serve that's likely to feature in match reports, but if they serve below their previous best (eg Roddick serves in the low 140s) that might not get a specific mention as it would be nothing new. Even if considerable time was spent looking at past match reports, I don't see a way of being sure it's complete? Cassandra 73 (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the format and sourcing, so what would your recommendation be on behalf of this article? I don't know what to do! Thanks. BLUE DOG TN 21:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't either (first suggestion was the only idea I had), so I think I'll tag it for accuracy and put a note on the talk page of the article so other editors can consider if they want to. Cassandra 73 (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Navboxes on Singles/Doubles pages
Articles like 2009 China Open (tennis) have navboxes like 2009 WTA Tour. Articles about singles and doubles events like 2009 China Open - Women's Singles have no navboxes. This makes it hard to navigate from there to other Women's Singles articles. I suggest adding a navbox like 2009 WTA Tour - Singles which is based on 2009 WTA Tour but links to the singles events instead of the main articles. Similar navboxes could be made for doubles and ATP Tour. A downside would be a lot of red links to later tournaments during the year. Alternatively there could be a larger navbox with links to both main article, singles and doubles. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My proposal is to combine links to singles/doubles/mixed draws into a single template. I have tried this out on Template:1996 WTA Tour and Template:2009 WTA Tour. What do others think - I feel it makes it easier to navigate without being imposing. 03  md  20:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean Template:1997 WTA Tour and not 1996. The small S, D, X links are practical without dominating the template. I like it better than my own singles only version which is now here while the former 2009 template is here. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 03md's version of 2009 WTA Tour can be seen here. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think 03md's proposal is the better one. I would like to point out that I can be able to assist 03md when it comes to altering other templates, something I have understood that he's interested in. Sirvola1 (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong details
Vitalia Diatchenko stats and wins are all wrong. I've no time to fix them. Can someone help me to do it? Thanks Arteyu ?  Blame it on me !  18:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of scores in prose
I want to give people one more chance to weigh in about score in prose; as I am about to start removing them; especially from some of the larger articles. - Just to re-iterate, I am working on recording a number of articles, but reading scores just sounds terrible. They are in the tables, often in the same article, but always behind a link; so they really are redundant. Please bring coherent reasons for the scores to exist within the prose. -- Mjquinn_id (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view, the score is frequently the key fact to understanding the related text. I wouldn't support wholesale removal of scores from prose. For what it's worth, it doesn't sound odd to me to hear that "Player A defeated Player B, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3." GreenGourd (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with GreenGourd. I've read it this way in papers and magazines all my life. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I'm late to the subject, but I think scores within the writing are important. It's one thing if an article has every single match score of every single grand slam written into the article, that just gets idiotic in my opinion.  However, if it's a significant tournament of their career, I have no problem with scores.  Also saying 'so-and-so won a three set match' could mean that they won a 6-0, 6-1, 6-0 match or a 7-5, 6-4, 7-612 match.  The point is, scores certainly add character and needed perspective in most cases.  I'm sure you've read plenty of tennis books, articles, records, and to my knowledge almost all of them include match scores, therefore, I certainly think that they have a rightful position within prose. Captain Courageous (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about player statistics
Hi. Under a lot of articles I see tables for how players are doing in grandslams, ending in "Career win-loss". Sometimes these numbers don't seem to add up to how players have done - e.g. Elena Baltacha, which says she's 3-3 for the Auz Open. Does this only count games in the main draw and not qualifying or something? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Elena Baltacha adds up to me with only main draw counting. Her Australian Open main draw results are 1R, 3R, 2R. This means she lost in 1st round (0 wins), 3rd round (2 wins) and 2nd round (1 win). But I have seen other statistics that didn't add up because tournaments were added without updating totals. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that below the table it says: "The career record is only for the players main draw participation". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. Is there a MoS or something that says win-loss should mean that? Or just convention? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Fan page?
Please see Talk:Katie_O%27Brien --Dweller (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Andre Agassi
I'm planning on bringing the article to GA or at least B-class. I think it would be too big to go year-by-year so instead I will do a few years at a time. Like in the mid to late 90's he didn't have very much success at all. What do others think? Because Federer is too big because of the year-by-year info on every tournament he participates in.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )   02:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. First, I suggest using this cite maker to go back through all the references currently in the article and making sure they're all uniform.  This article I worked into GA-class, and I think there is definitely potential with Agassi's article.  I think summarizing the career section is a good idea; it's better to write about the important matches and not go into so much detail on minor tournaments.  Hm, maybe adding some sort of heading for the years would be a good idea, like 1986–1993: Beginnings of a career... or something better if you can think of it.  Haha,  I can probably come up with other ideas, but I think as you work on the article and find more sources, you'll probably come across interesting tidbits to add.  Maybe there could be a section on his image... "Image and playing style"?  And how he was really wearing a wig; some of the things he mentioned in his book about it and the psychological issues he faced with keeping up with his image could be included too.  He seems pretty interesting and it should be a fun article to work on.  Cheers,  on  camera (t)  02:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Grand Slam Charts
I didn't know what to call them, but this is what I'm referring to, for example from the 2009 Australian Open:

I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, and appreciate what this is trying to accomplish, but is this really necessary? It's interesting to see when certain people went out in the tournaments, but isn't that what the bracket is for? And not only that, the bracket does a better job in showing who they had beaten and who they lost to. And the Singles Seeds section provides the information of who seeded players lost to directly on the grand slam's page.

Frankly, I believe the table is cluttered and uninformative (at least in the sense that there are multiple places within the article that show the same information). At the very least, the placement before the prose of the article is perplexing. I should think that the title page of the tournament (e.g. 2009 Australian Open) should have the least amount of clutter and be prose in the sense of a tournament summary, plus day summaries, along with details of important events. I don't think it should be a bevy of cluttered charts. The chart in question, honestly, does nothing for me, especially when I can get the information elsewhere in the article. Maybe it's just different strokes for different folks and it really helps some people visualise the tournament :) If so, there's nothing wrong with that, and we could focus on reorganisation.

However, that said, since the information in the chart is easily discerned elsewhere in the article, or the bracket pages, is there really a point in having that, and could those charts just be deleted? Captain Courageous (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, YES, I agree! Can anyone else, please for the love of God, come to some consensus and remove this unsightly table to the article. It's so unnecessary it's unbelievable. Was there even a consensus before it was added? I'd really love to hear other people's thoughts on this. Feudonym (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think they are unnecessary, and they should be removed. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  15:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree, this needs to be because it provides a knock-out table for the whole field not just the seeded player, which is a good thing for researchers to have when doing grand slam results tables. BLUE DOG TN 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well you can go to the knockout bracket for each individual event to see who got knocked out when. Seeded players are easier to identify, yes, but that is the Seeds list you are referring to not the draw/knockout bracket, which displays pretty much exactly the same information as the above table, except with scores and who knocked out whom, therefore far more informative.
 * I still fail to see the use of such a table, especially when researching such an event one is most likely to click on the event article anyway. Frankly it just makes an already overlong article even more bloated in my opinion. Feudonym (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd have to say these charts fall into the realm of too much information. We are always looking for ways to get the vital data out there without making an article too bloated and overly long. Since it's already in the Aussie Open bracket article why does it need more wiki space? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can take and make it hideable if you all want? I thank that is the appropriate compromise! BLUE DOG TN 01:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Who came up with the bright idea of putting past champs first in the grand slam bracket articles?
This just does not make since to put the defending champion before the winner of the slam on the article, and if it is standard usage it needs to be readdressed to put the winner first and the defending in the second sentence! Tennis Authority  21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC
 * I believe this is resolved. -- Mjquinn_id (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Burwash
Hello tennis fans & workers. I wonder if anyone can help with the above article. Since the summertime an anon user has blanked a couple of sections of this article over forty times! It looks as though that's all they have done, but that is more persistence than i would expect from a casual vandal. So, what i wonder is, is there any controversy or question about this player that would make this, maybe, the action of him or someone with a relationship to him? I mean, we want to be encyclopaedic, but we want to remember BLP too, don't we? Alternatively, if all the info i'm about to restore is accurate, i'll just keep it on my watchlist.... Cheers, LindsayHi 04:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your watching that page. I have submitted the page for semi-protect and also reported the user. -- Mjquinn_id (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Pier
Hi tennis folks. I'm doing some sleuthing about Lisa Pier, about whom a new article was created today. The article claims she is the world number 31 after playing in the fourth round of the 2008 women's open in France. I can't find any sources to verify this claim (or her existence). I've traced her addition to the 2008 French Open - Women's Singles article to a series of IP edits yesterday that completely transformed the content of the article: diff here. Is this just straight-up vandalism? Does this player exist? Gonzonoir (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was straight up vandalism...weird grab for fame... -- Mjquinn_id (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Updating of Infobox before Grand Slam is over
On the Andy Murray article we currently have, yet again, a tussle about the updating of Grand Slam results on the info box before they are actual results. Can we have something documented here on the project pages that makes guidelines about this concrete? It has always been my understanding of usual practice on tennis players articles that this should not be updated until after the player has exited the tournament, thus ensuring that the info box stays in agreement with the rest of the stats on the article. It is also the case that a 'result' isn't a 'result' until it is final, Wikipedia isn't a running scoreboard. Can we get agreement on this? Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's a day or two before the actual result, does it really matter? I see your reasoning about it not being an actual result until it's over, but it wouldn't really make sense to the average user to have last year's result, when clearly he is in the final of this year's. Feudonym (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point. But that leaves situations like yesterday where editors were changing it to say 2010 semi-final.  Does that mean he got knocked out at the 2010 semi-final?  The reader would be forgiven for thinking that a result means that. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No results can still be IN Progress or Pending while the tournament is still going on, just go look at the 2010 Australian Open for a pending event that is written about. BLUE DOG TN20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.120.81 (talk)
 * But the point is that the reader may not know if the tournament is still going on for Murray, or not. They may not even know if the tournament itself is still ongoing.  Either way, there is nothing on the info box to indicate "In Progress" or "Pending". Perhaps something can be added to the template to indicate this? -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely that is due to the ineptitude and ignorance of the reader, should wikipedia always cater to them? Feudonym (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Relatedly, what about "current rankings"? People are madly updating provisional rankings based on current results, before any official change to the ATP listing, regardless of whether they have a source (even for the crystal-ball-gazing, much less the official ranking), and in some cases, outright wrongly. (Such as "demoting" Nadal to #4 before Murray'd beaten Nadal.) I've no objection to noting in the body text what changes to the ranking there will be (with an appropriate source, of course). But surely seeing "current rating (1st February)" in an infobox, in January, is rather silly. Smartiger (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing should be updated until it is published. It is common forpeople to assume a player's ranking when they exit the tournament, butuntil it is publish (by an authoritative source) it should not beplaced here.

Same with "current rankings"; until they are published (at least on the ATP or USTA websites) they are only educated guesses. We do not publish those. -- Mjquinn_id (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Roland Garros Scores and Winners 1941-1945
The scores for Roland Garros and winners are not reported by the slam website, ESPN , Grand Slam History , and CBS Sports. There is a user who says these are to be included, but cites very obscure sources, which I believe if the slam does not report them and three other source two very credible, they should not be included at all. BLUE DOG TN 01:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The following discussion is CLOSED: The two editors have reached a consensus on this issue!


 * I'm the one and I'm searching right now for a few more sources. Here's the thing... the Roland Garros website has lots of missing facts. That's why the articles are written from multiple sources. The tournament was played in 1941-1945 but was held under German occupation from 1941-1944. 1945 was under a free France. Now, are those tourneys recognized by the Roland Garros authorities...no. Are they recognized by some other sources...maybe. USA Today [] has the men listed as does []. So do several books whose names elude me right now but that I will look up. The women played too and there were doubles also. The names have been in the wiki charts for quite awhile and perhaps they should have a separate chart on the page to acknowledge their existence but illegitimacy. We do it for the pre-1925 French winners in the slam charts even though it was not an international slam. We do it because to have a separate page on the subject really doesn't make sense. It is better to show it existed on the main page with winners and losers but asterisk it some way to also show most sources do not recognize the champions. No way should any of these winners victory totals be included in any other charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But even they say "Not Held", which is what I am reporting here for historical fact that it is not held in 1941-1945, and that is correct. I will allow you to create a separate table without saying anything on the Men's and Women's pages right below the statistics charts if you want to, but making them apart of the main charts is erroneous at best.  I will be looking at the introduction to this section you will create though BLUE DOG TN 02:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But it was held. One other thing... you cited CBS sports so I'm guessing you like that source. They also have this listed []. It's the Men's list which includes ww2 winners but the women also played and should not be biased against just because cbs missed them. It's would be easy to go back and forth and weigh the merits one way or another but I agree that they are dubious winners. That's why I included them in a different color in italics and a note that they are not usually recognized. You said never recognized and I wasn't going to argue that point. But then you removed them and thus I am needed here to make sure they are not lost to history. As we originally talked about I have no problem with a separate chart. I do think that the term you listed under ww2 as "not held" is also erroneous. I would have said "not recognized" or "held under German Occupation" though 1940 was not held and 1945 was held under a Free France but not recognized. I'll say one thing though... the number of players and countries allowed in the war years was more than those allowed in the pre-1925 years. It's all in perspective I guess. Later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fyunck(click), when are you going to listen to the sources even you are providing, which is saying it is NOT HELD, which means exactly what it says it means! BLUE DOG TN 03:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Then, other users will want to put them in the statitics sections of these pages, which is wrong to do if we include them on the main charts. I will accept going below the stats section with a big disclaimer! BLUE DOG TN 03:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you not read the link I gave to CBS Sports? It does not say "not held" for the men... it gives their names as legitamate. Would you like another... say the NY TIMES? Try this excerpt from their encyclopedia: []. There are sources that accept these men's and women's champions however most do not. As I said originally I had no problem with disclaimers within the main chart or in a separate chart... I only had a problem with removing them completely. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Question?
Hello Fyunck(click), I know now why you faught so hard to include the 1941-1945 winners in the table, which is because of this [EX], [EX2], and I would love to know your original source for putting this information onto wikipedia? I think you need to find a more reputable source such a a slam or a sports source like ESPN or Tennis Magazine in order to add them back. I don't even know if these results are even true? I need an explaination, please? BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 03:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, you did not even provide a source to begin with, WHY did you do this? BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 03:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your other editing by the way, but this is one mistake! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 03:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I originally added those scores when talking to tennis experts in a live forum. Several were tennis authors and historians. I simply added things back then to make the charts complete. The men's have a source at http://mcubed.net/tennis/m2champ.shtml but the women's are from a book whose title I will retrieve in the next few days. All those tournies were played and the scores accurate. They actually split the French Championship into two sections (north and south France) to keep travel down during the war and then had the championship at Roland Garros. French player Simone Mathieu actually was sentenced to death by the Nazi's but escaped to England. I'll find the source and re-add it back later. You'll notice in the women's link you supplied that the pre-1925 French champions aren't even the French champions.... I had to correct that as well. So it's not a mistake... saying there was no tournament is a mistake. I just need to dig up the sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If we site them we will be going against the slam website, and many others', which means wikipedia would be lying, and I am taking this conversation to WP:Tennis, so we can develop consensus for these two pages! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 01:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would we be going against the slam website? We made it clear that they are not counted as slams and that 1941-1944 were under German occupation...in 1945 France was Free. That's why we listed them in a different color. The Roland Garros website is not the ultimate authority in everything French Open... most of the stuff written in wiki on the French Open come from a multitude of sources. I'll make sure I have the source(s) when I add it back in maybe a completely different chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is, and if you do not think so you are not going by the most reputable source on the subject and the mcubed source you are taking of the roland garros one is quite inadequate at best. It needs to be substantiated by another more reputable source.  It is like you are saying the slams cannot decide the nationality of a player competing in a tournament like with Navratilova or Kriek.  So the AELTC and Wimbledon websites are not the ultimate authority on their champions, the USTA and USOpen are not the ultimate authority on their champions, the TennisAustralia and the AustralianOpen are not the ultimate authority on their champions is rather absurd, which is in fact what you are saying when it comes to French Tennis Federationa and RolandGarros(French Open). BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 02:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agreed that I want more sources also. I disagree on you thinking the Roland Garros site is omniscient on the subject. They also say the pre1925 winners are slam winners when no one else does. They cannot be considered objective when it comes to their own tourny. I'm sure they think their the best Major around... that doesn't make it true. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Then, I guess by you own measure, we have to double count Navratilova wins for both the USA and Czechoslovakia on all the slam pages since they are not omniscient on the subjects? This does not hold water like your's on the winners does not hold water and the best major is just a rhetorical flourish.  Pre-1925 their is multiple sources which calls it into dispute, which is WP:V. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 03:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Careers and article lengths (issues)
This is something that has always irked me about tennis biographies--the need to write about every tournament they're in for the year. I know it's important, or whatever, but most of that information is included in their results tables. If one compares Roger Federer's 2009 to comparable articles... like the Chicago Bulls, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods you will notice (one example) the Chicago Bulls article doesn't go into so much detail for their seasons. 2009 was a great year for Federer, but isn't there some way cut back on the information and stick with only the good/interesting stuff? I think a manual of style for tennis biographies in regards to their annual seasons could be beneficial!  on camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  02:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sports teams often have whole season articles, for example 2009–10 Chicago Bulls season, but I see your point. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe something like that could be done for whole seasons regarding the top or elite players? More comprehensive details could be added to those sorts of potential articles.   on  camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  03:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I fixed it Roger Federer career biography. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 21:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I also would like the same action on Rafael Nadal, since it has the same article length issues.  Feel free to drop a comment off at his talk page!   on  camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  01:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I will do this! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 00:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have done Rafael Nadal and Venus Williams and Serena Williams, which I will do Justine Henin and maybe Novak Djokovic if you want me to do those two? BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 01:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Plus, I have created a category [Category:Tennis career biographies] if you would like to go look at it! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 01:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the idea of creating these career biographies articles to really cut back on the tennis biographies sizes. It's a good solution (and the category); I say go for it with other articles with length issues!  on camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  02:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Major splits have been put into effect with the support of only two editors. No split templates have been placed on the articles and no attempt has been made to alert people of this discussion. The edits creating the splits have also been marked as minor. This is not the way to do this. Polargeo (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have said that I am sorry for the minor thing, so quit trying to rehash that out again and again on numerous talk pages Polargeo, which I click on it in my prefs months ago without notice. I have fixed it now!  I have put them on their, but I will leave the five trial ballons for right now! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 08:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy to leave it as stands. It is good that you are making an effort to inform people. Polargeo (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It'll be interesting to see what other "solutions" other new interested editors might come up with, but as it stands, there doesn't seem to be another obvious way to cut back on the article lengths without making the splits. This has been done before, with career statistics (ex: Rafael Nadal career statistics), to cut back on length with the main article while allowing for further development in its separate article.  I think a lot of people would be upset if deletion of text was the solution... and leaving the articles as they were meant some main articles would just grow more massive with each new season.  The point of not marking the edits as minor, I can understand the concerns there.   on  camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I normally don't comment using such strong words as I'm about to, but I think that this splitting of the Roger Federer article has been very poorly done and as of now, is a complete mess. Why do I think so? Just look at the current version of the main Roger Federer article following the split by Bluedogtn. The only photo remaining in the entire article body (outside the infobox) is one of Rafael Nadal!! And no photos of Federer outside the infobox?!?! Meanwhile, ALL of the photos from the article body are now sitting in Roger Federer career biography, along with a lot of important career information which really MUST be in the main article in order for it to have even a semblance of completeness. The article still has a ton of info about his rivalries, but almost nothing about his career beyond a few meager sentences. The article now gives major undue-weight to minor topics like the rivalries and "Equipment, apparel, endorsements", while omitting a huge amount of essential info. It went from being a good-article candidate to barely C-class because of that split. Not good. Properly splitting an article requires a lot more thought and work than just cutting an entire section and pasting it into a separate new article.

If there is a consensus that the article is too long, then fine, go ahead and create a separate "full career biography" article, while still leaving a nice career summary in that section. But don't simply cut ALL of the career info and ALL of the photos out of the main article. That just ruins the main article, and leaves it as an amputated incomplete wreck. That's what is there now. I do not think that most readers would find that the changes made in the split were an improvement or a positive contribution. Most readers would react as I did, when I happened to revisit the article for the first time since the split (I had previously read it many times over the past few years). My first thought was "WTF happened to the article and all the photos???" The massive amount of deletion almost looks like a vandal hit it. At least now there is a split template informing readers of the situation. But most casual readers don't read our templates, they just use Wikipedia to get useful info. Remember that we are writing an encyclopedia for an audience of readers, and they'd much rather have a long but reasonably complete article, instead of an amputated torso with multiple links to sub-articles which contain the real info and photos.

Sorry if my comments seem harsh, but I really wanted to write them immediately to reflect the reaction of disgust I felt upon seeing the mangled Federer article, with only a single Nadal photo left within it. And then finding out that such a split had been done with almost no prior discussion or consensus-building attempts. I took a quick glance at the Rafael Nadal article, and the problems after the split are almost as bad there (although at least the only remaining photo in the text is of Nadal, instead of someone else like Federer). I assume your other splits have been done the same way and share similar major problems. Please stop splitting any more articles in that way, until you learn the proper way to do it (see below).

So how to fix this? The easiest and best short-term solution is to simply re-insert the entire deleted career info and photos back into that section of the main article. That would at least give a complete article again for readers to enjoy. Then those in favor of the split (such as Bluedogtn) could carefully take the time to write a nice condensed career section for the main article, with 3-4 paragraphs including major career highlights and a selection of photos (perhaps a section 10-15K in size, versus the 60K which was cut in the Federer split). That would be a positive contribution and improvement, and the main Federer article would still retain the necessary degree of completeness. See the Barack Obama article for a good example of how to properly split an article into numerous sub-articles, while still leaving the main article complete. Each section and subsection has some essential info remaining in place, along with a link to the subarticle. --Seattle Skier (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This sounds like you can easily solve this by just adding a little more detail back to the career sections. Feel free to add a little back, but I strongly disagree with reasserting the entire contents back.  I suppose a couple of paragraphs going over the slams / injuries etc of the years would keep the casual reader entertained.  The photo issue?  Wikipedia isn't a gallery of images, and some people complain there were too many useless pictures of Federer on his article anyway, and we should use the best ones foremost to illustrate the article.  People can use Google or whatever if they feel images are that important--they don't need Wikipedia to entertain them like that.   on  camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  02:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, the Roger Federer article looks terrible now. Hardly anything about his entire career in the whole article which seems rather absurd and the lack of pictures is also extremely annoying. This career biography split was executed very badly in my opinion. On that note, I see a split suggestion in the Andy Murray article. I would implore anyone to kindly not to go ahead with it, especially seeing as his career section is not overly long/detailed, and is summarised rather well. Feudonym (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted and deleted all five of these articles, which we can come up with a way in order to deal with them right now to deal with the splitting, which I think Seattle Skier has provided a path forward, but I prefer some other editor to take the lead. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 22:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Staying out of the general discussion (because I was just an innocent New Page Patroller when I came across this) but, this group needs to note Roger Federer juniors years by Bluedogtn, I see the previous article s/he created on Federer's career stats was deleted, so not sure if this one should stay or go, but figured I'd hand off the problem to those who care, because I really have no real interest or stake in the topic.  Montanabw (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

ATP Grand slams & Masters Singles champions
I have started an article containing details of all singles champions in GS, masters & masters cup from start to the present. Please review the same and comment me if you think the same is not suitable.Thanks -- User:Fahidka(talk)  15:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

Tiebreaks in Slam Champions Articles
Hello, Rambo's Revenge and Armbrust, please have your discussion here on the fact of the tiebreak presentation on these articles List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions and List of French Open Men's Singles champions. We need to get to the bottom of this right now, and not put this off because I am sick and tired of having to adjust to you two, which Rambo's Revenge wants it like 7–6(7–3) and Armbrust wants just 7–6(3). Come up with a solution or a compromise to this now! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 14:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should use the "7–6(3)" format like in every results table we have. Why should this be different from the other article (like the ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament). Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  14:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The point was that the notation you implement is ambigous. Previously tie-breaks have been first to 5 and 12, not just 7. One cannot expect a reader to know this. The reader must also know the convention. i.e. 6-7(7) means they won 9-7 in the tie break, while the bracket next to the 7 would intuitively suggest that 7 would be the second persons score (i.e. 7-5). Conversation discussed this at a previous FLC involving myself, Don Lope, and The Rambling Man. It was decided that an less ambiguous version would be better. I've copied the conversation directly into a collapsible box below for ease of finding/reading. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  15:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is just observation, and probably doesn't have the backing of WP:TENNIS but I'm interested in some discussion. To me 6–7(10) is completely ambiguous, unless you know the convention. I think the confusion is added because in 7–6(9) the bracket refers to the opposition score (i.e. won 11–9) and in 6–7(10) it refers to overall winner's score (i.e. lost 10–12) yet the bracket is in the same place. This is confusing to a newcomer: Wouldn't 610–7 7–69 be clearer. I notice this is what this years tournament bracket does.
 * This is what the bracket does, but we would not use the "sup" thing in prose, and we wouldn't have the tie-break score after the "6", as in your "610–7" example. 6–7(10), 7–6(9) would be the format used in all articles, and, as far as I can tell, in every reliable source. I don't think wikipedia should come up with a way of writing score different from everything readers could see in sources, so the best I can propose would be to link the "Score in the final" column to the Tennis score article. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the Wimbledon RS uses the whole tie break score in parenthesis following the set score. My point is someone could easily think that in AvB, 6–7(10) would mean B got 7 sets and 10 points in the tie-break. But it doesn't, the parenthesis following players B score is actually player A's score. This is quite unnatural so would be confusing for those unfamiliar with the system. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, the Wimbledon article writes things differently. So let's say most sources would use 6–7(10), 7–6(9). I completely agree with your point, this system can be confusing if you're unfamiliar with the convention - but that is true of many, if not all types of sport scoring systems. Using 6–7(10), 7–6(9) is still the most common form of writing TB scores in sources and on wikipedia so I believe we should keep that. I saw that the List of The Open Championship champions FL had a link to par so that's why I proposed having the "Score in the final" header linked to Tennis score to help readers. What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, a link to Tennis score might help, however if you adopt the Wimbledon source method, and give the complete tie break score that would eliminate any ambiguity. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep the current score system. Doing otherwise would probably create inconsistency within the tennis project. I've linked the column header to Tennis score. --Don Lope (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I think being unambiguous is more important than what the Tennis WP uses, as lets face it, WP:TENNIS doesn't have any existing featured content to set a precedent. Again if consensus is against this I'll back down. TRM do you have a view on this, because I know you review featured content and are active at WP:TENNIS? <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  14:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. I thought we should follow the tennis project's most common practice, but if we can go against it then I guess wimbledon.org's option is the best. I was looking at a USTA document about US Open champions yesterday and saw that the early 70s tie-breaks were not stopped at 7 w/ a two-points diff, but at 5 w/ a two-points diff, and I realised that the List of US Open Men's Singles champions had "2–6, 6–4, 7–6(2), 6–3" for the 1970 final score, which could lead a reader to think the 3rd set TB was won (7–2), when it was actually won (5–2). So perhaps full TB scores is the best option. --Don Lope (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would be best. I've asked The Rambling Man to comment, but in the light of your revalation about tie-breaks previously going to 5 that makes me more against the existing format and in favour of full tiebreak scores. Also, as the first (potentially) featured tennis content I think we should set a precendent for these things. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  14:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's set a precedent then. I've written all TB scores the way it's done on the Wimbly website. What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always been concerned by the assumptions tennis articles make with non-expert readers when it comes to tie-breaks. I think the current solution is by far the best.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I hoped you'd say. Striking this and, to Don, keep going because there is some really good progress being made despite the mass of comments. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't even remember the last time I saw the notation in a magazine or newspaper or almanac that was different than 7-6(8). What is so hard to understand for the general public? If they know little about tennis they may not know what 7-6(10-8) is either. And if you have an (18-16) tiebreak you still won't know whether it was a 5,7 or 12 point tiebreak unless you make a note about it. I would go with the simpler (8) because it's pretty much industry standard but if it winds up going (10-8) can we make the notation in smaller typeface? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I realise that notation is very commonly used but actually it is by no means the only notation. Looking at Slam sites, US gives single bracket notation "76(3)" but doesn't even hyphenate scores, Aus neglects tiebreak scores, Wimbledon spells them out "7-6 (7-5)" and French doesn't bother with scores at all! Taking on your point about smaller typeface I know which of 6–7(10) or 6–7(10–12) I think is clearer. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  23:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's funny but the no hyphen looks ok to me, but it breaks down when you have double digit scores. I guess I'm so used to mostly seeing the single number I'm probably biased on this issue in that it should be good enough. But I'm forced to admit that if someone really knows little about tennis, the 6–7(10–12) is easier to understand and quicker to grasp on the fly and makes it tough to argue against... so I won't.:-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm used to the "Wimbledon" way, but I've been reading the end of this discussion, and only now realised that 7-6(8) means 7-6(10-8) and not 7-6(8-6) - I'd assumed that the bracket figure was the winner's points, not the loser's. To that end (admittedly entirely basing this on my mistake), I feel that no-hyphen is ambiguous. This seems concurrent with User:Rambo's Revenge's arguments above.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also felt the same earlier as winners points if above 7. But after comparing the same with some of the matches the doubt went off. I feel it is better to put hyphen as the same does not provide any scope of ambiguity. User:Fahidka(talk) 03:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I like what Fyunck(click) has done here and must say I think consensus is forming. As for tie-break scores in prose, as this WikiProject says, "It is normally unnecessary to include the actual score of the tie-break [in text]". <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  13:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the smaller text looks quite neat - there's something nagging in my mind that superscript causes display issues, but I might be confusing it with something else.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't maybe your confusing it for this guidance about not to use the special unicode characters like ² but using superscripting instead 2. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  15:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could well have been that. That's fine then. I think consensus isn't far away...&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are going to go this way, I would prefer that we take out all commas because that looks hideous with the new smaller superscript text for the tiebreaker, and it would make it look much cleaner and crisper! My preference is to just put a space in their instead in the table and in prose! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 00:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I already took and done it here, which make it look better! It is the page of List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 00:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC). This is the source, which I am working off of AO Men's Singles Champions BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 01:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't think the commas looked hideous but I have no problem either way on this one. I'm not even married to the superscript, I just wanted to throw it out there for discussion since we were already talking about how best to display the tiebreak. Whatever is good for readers, young or old, knowledgeable or not, should be what we strive for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure about the commas, but just wondering whether the brackets are necessary with the superscript; examples:
 * 6–4, 7–68–6, 6–74–7, 4–6, 10–8
 * 6–4, 7–6(8–6), 6–7(4–7), 4–6, 10–8
 * 6–4 7–68–6 6–74–7 4–6 10–8
 * 6–4 7–6(8–6) 6–7(4–7) 4–6 10–8


 * &mdash;MDCollins (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I put a wikitable of those options alongside your edit as I think there scores use will be predominantly used in that context. As for my opinions. I don't feel strongly, but I quite like the commas. For that reason I dislike option three as the lack of brackets and comma give no break between set scores. I like either of the first two options. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  11:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of choices Rambo has provided, I like the last two without commas, but I have come up with more solutions to the problem, which are the following:
 * 6–4, 7–6 (8–6), 6–7 (4–7) , 4–6, 10–8
 * 6–4, 7–6 8–6, 6–7 4–7 , 4–6, 10–8
 * 6–4 7–6 (8–6)  6–7 (4–7)  4–6  10–8
 * 6–4 7–6 8–6  6–7 4–7  4–6  10–8
 * Thanks, BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 21:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I like none of the last 4 choices using "small" typeface. Something looks inherently wrong with it. Of MDCollins first 4 examples I think only choice 3 is bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

These are some more that I could think of! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 22:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What about these two:
 * 6–4, 78–66, 64–77, 4–6, 10–8
 * 6–4 78–66  64–77  4–6  10–8

I can really only agree with these two, but that is just me because the commas look like junk when they are forced over because of the (7-5), which I dislike the sups in the first place. I am willing to go along with it if we take out the commas. And by the way, there's no standard for displaying tennis scores or else everyone would agree and use them across all sources. Here is the two I could go along with:
 * 6–4 7–6(8–6) 6–7(4–7) 4–6 10–8
 * 6–4 78–66  64–77  4–6  10–8


 * Not sure I find the split sups easy to follow, as in your latter example. I see your point about the comma being split. What does this look like (comma before the sup so it may be less intrusive):


 * 6–4 7–6,(8–6) 6–7,(4–7) 4–6 10–8
 * Actually, not too keen on that.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have anything particularly against any format as long it is widely use, and not just on the Grand Slams champions article. The format which will chosen should be aplied on every article. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  23:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 6–4 7–6,(8–6) 6–7,(4–7) 4–6 10–8...hate this one.


 * 6–4 7–6(8–6) 6–7(4–7) 4–6 10–8... 6–4 78–66  64–77  4–6  10–8... these both look ok to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I know Rambo and them use the Wimbledon one as and example of a Tiebreaker display, but that is because they were doing a Wimbledon FLC at that time. Even the slams don't agree on the matter on how to display scores such as the US Open does not even use dashes and displayes the tiebreaker (3) to Armbrust side of the Argument. On my side of the argument, which is to leave all tiebreakers out of all tennis articles events the brackets and lists is the Australian Open, and by the way the one I suggest is used by the as well in Match Scores AO and US Open Scores. By the way, the French Open agrees with my suggestion of score presentation, which is FO Scores]. So, just by citing wimbledon discussion does not prove consensus or consensus amongst tennis sources in its entirity. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair the examples you gave that agree with you are not totally true. The scores are in an up and down boxed format in all three examples and not read left to right as we do here at wiki. At least the ones I saw. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, when new editors come along in two or three years and want to change current consensus then that will make for a huge undertaking, I was citing them because all sources disagree with how to display scores. So, even what we are presently discussing is wrong to some reputable outlets, which we have to go by WP:V for how people are going to have to read the scores.  The four slams agree on this type of scoring methodoligy.  I am just trying to raise all doubts before we procede with a change that will be 'IN 'STONE! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN'' 00:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I said that I can go along with anyone that does not have commas! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 00:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can agree only on this one, because it goes by the MOS for spacing in the presention on HTML on wikipedia.


 * 6–4 7–6(8–6) 6–7(4–7) 4–6 10–8
 * I think this one is the best and most correct one to use! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 23:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can agree on the two Fyunck is advocating for as well, which even [Wimbledon Scores goes along with this scoring in the one that I suggested, which I think if all slams can agree on that we need to seriously think about using it here on wikipedia![[User:Bluedogtn| BLUE ]]<sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 23:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the wimbledon article you've just linked to, as pointed out, is read top-to-bottom, and is the only way really of showing the tie-break scores. If you look at a prose example it has " 5-7 7-6 (8-6) 7-6 (7-5) 3-6 16-14 ". The fact that the four slam websites don't agree with each other doesn't matter. Each site is consistent within it's own house style. That is what we've got to decide for en.wiki. Our own house style.


 * Can you elaborate on the fact that it "goes by the MOS for spacing in the presentation on HTML" - why do the others not? Not arguing against the point, just would like further information.


 * From what I can surmise (correct if wrong), the only options that are still kind of under discussion are:


 * 1) 6–4 7–6(8–6) 6–7(4–7) 4–6 10–8
 * 6–4, 7–68–6, 6–74–7, 4–6, 10–8
 * 6–4, 7–6(8–6), 6–7(4–7),  4–6, 10–8
 * 1) 6–4 78–66  64–77  4–6  10–8


 * Is option 1 in the lead by a nose? Either way, the syntax is very clumsy and is open to lots of mistakes: "6&amp;ndash;4&amp;nbsp;7&amp;ndash;6(8&amp;ndash;6)&amp;nbsp;6&amp;ndash;7(4&amp;ndash;7)&amp;nbsp;4&amp;ndash;6&amp;nbsp;10&amp;ndash;8 ".
 * I think a template could best be used to make the editing easier to display the 5 set: 6-3, 4-6, 6-73-7, 6-4, 3-6 ; with the required &amp;ndash; and &amp;nbsp; etc. Or


 * &mdash;MDCollins (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

New Proposal
I think we need to set three standards for tiebreaks in types of wikipedia articles, on the subject of List articles I hate the sup idea in its entirity. For all List articles it should be 6–7(2–7), 7–6(13–11), 6–7(8–10), 7–6(7–5), 16–14, needs to be the standard! On the subject of player articles, it needs to be listed in prose as 6-7(2), 7-6(11), 6-7(8), 7-6(5), 16-14, which is much easier to write in prose and read in prose. Now onto bracket articles, I think the tiebreak of both should be recorded in sup /sup like it is done on slam sources! That is my proposal, which I could live with! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 01:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

For the players that lose the score goes first like 7-6(2), 6-7(11), 7-6(8), 6-7(5), 14-16 in the pose and on player articles. In the charts on player articles as well! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 01:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Who wants to put that Template:Tennis in prose, not me at all! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 02:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want you to misunderstand that template. That was only an idea, and would only display the format we agree on, whether in prose or in tables etc. The formatting in the box is simply that, the formatting/syntax. It is far less complicated to new members/other editors than having to understand when to use an &amp;ndash; or an &amp;nbsp; etc.
 * I disagree that we need three seperate formats for three different types of articles. As we discussed, the full score is hardly necessary in prose at all, and so we should choose the one agreeable format to use in tables and prose. I thought we'd agreed to rule out the "losing score in brackets" version as it is ambiguious at first sight. We don't need to think "Is it prose? Yes. Did they lose? No. Therefore I need option format 2c". "Is it a table? Yes. Did they lose? Yes. Have they got scores written in the prose? Yes. Ah, that's format 2b." Too complicated.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, for the frustration you and you all have taken from me! If we do use a template then it must be a one with commas and without sups or with sups and without commas, which I have never seen in any tennis articles it presented in a sup fashion at all, which we would be going against Mark-up that is unnecessarily tedious.  I think we have come a long way, which I would love a debate about the tennis brackets scores because if we are going to present the scores of 13-11 in the Lists and in Prose with the Tennis Score template.  Then we need to go back and fix all bracket articles with the sup scores of both tiebreaks in the set boxes, which would make it all uniform, and take a look at 2010 AO Men's Singles.  This article only presents the losing tiebreak score, so if we are going to make the one consensus then all bracket articles must be changed to be in uniformity.  So, before we go and create consensus about this, we need to have some serious thoughts about the time it is going to take to get this done! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 20:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For reference to the uniformity of presenting both tiebreaks in a bracket sources like we have here go look at the score links that I provided above, which is even consensus amongst the slams! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 21:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:DEADLINE! Obviously any template, if deemed necessary to make editing easier, will conform to what ever format is chosen. The format will obviously be decided first, then a template can be discussed if it makes the "mark up" simple, as you point out. Obviously the formatting needs to avoid browser and access complications, but as Rambo pointed out, superscript doesn't cause these issues. Yes, all articles need to conform to uniformity, but they don't at the moment, and there is no deadline in changing them. Establish consensus (which obviously didn't exist previously, as we wouldn't be having this discussion now!, then work gradually to make all articles conform. For articles such as the Aus Open you cited above, in "competition grid" layout, for want of a better term, I think we just need to include box winning/losing scores in the tiebreak, as agreed above. The formatting under discussion is mainly for the "inline" version, in prose or tables. Let's get format agreement from all who have participated in this discussion, and others if necessary, then plan on how to proceed.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you actually create the code for the template you are suggesting? If you can we will proceed to put them apart of the List articles only and the Tounament articles that have wikitables.  I will let you decide, but I want it to have commas and no sup code or it could have the sup code without commas, which I have no beef with either one now!  The argument for the commas without sups is it is written about in popular sources, but on the other hand, the one with the sups and without the commas is telling the reader that the tiebreak is not equal to the set, which was just how the set was decided.  On the behalf of prose, I think we can put the full tiebreaker in or leave it out in its entirity, which we can use the template if more editors than just yourself approve of it to be done in the prose.  I do feel firm that we still must address the bracket articles with both tiebreaker scores in a set reported like the slams do because if it is consensus for them it needs to be consensus for us, as well!
 * By the way, it might be two broad a title for the template to be called just tennis, I would want it to called tennis score! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 20:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at all the examples I'm not finding a big deal in whatever way we choose to do it but if we go with 6–7(2–7), 7–6(13–11), 6–7(8–10), 7–6(7–5), 16–14, for charts... the prose should be the same way. It keeps things uniform and easier for editors imho. I'm not with the program that "all" articles have to follow the exact same coding because there might be some charts that simply work better in a different style... maybe because of room to fit on the page for example. We should endeavor to be consistent but making it iron-clad might not be the best way to go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fresh summary

 * Okay I've been asked to revisit this and I can see three issues.
 * How this works in pros?
 * About markup being complicated?
 * What format seems to have consensus?
 * Answering these points individually.
 * I think we should follow exsiting guidence on this and not use tiebreak scores in prose (it isn't important enough, as 7–6 still shows it went to a tie-break.)
 * WP:DASH overrides any concerns about ndash code. As for the nbsp's. Why are they necessary. As far as I can see they are not and the change to sup or whatever is not different in spacing to any format that presently exists.
 * The consensus? I think sup "6–7(2–7)" trumps bracket "6–7(2–7)" for the reasons Fyunck gives of not confusing it with the set. Personally I like "6–72–7 less because there is no obvious, non-sup indication of it being distinct from a set. I think "6–7(2–7), 6–7" or "6–7(2–7) 6–7" seem to be the ones left. I prefer commas but I seem to remember someone arguing against them. Can you explain why?
 * The commas are inverted over and provide no real break, and are rather needless when the dashes shows, which sets are which by linking them together! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the sup version, but without the commas! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 23:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope this is a fair assessment. Let me know if you disagree with it. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable summary. I've taken the liberty of splitting off this summary so we can see where we are. &mdash;MDCollins (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Point 1 (omit in prose), yes, leave it out completely.
 * 2) WP:DASH does say that the en dash needs to be used (point two, example 4–3 win). This does need adhering to. There are two methods of input, one by typing &amp;ndash;, the other by clicking the first " – " symbol on the insert or wiki markup box below the edit summary. I much prefer the former (typing the html) as the symbol looks identical to the hyphen key when viewing in the edit box. NB: A hyphen, must not be used. As it is not going to be used in prose, the non-breaking space &amp;nbsp; does not need to be used, as the scores won't line wrap. That is probably my mistake in propagating that idea when copying things earlier in the discussion. To that end, a template may not be necessary; useful in a 5-set, 4-tiebreak match, but pointless in a 3-set, 0-tiebreak match. Maybe an option but not a "wwe must use this..."
 * To respond to this point. I agree we must use ndash's. What I meant was WP:DASH (i.e. using ndashes) overrides any "keep syntax simple" stuff. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  19:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I think that the sup version with the brackets is my favourite. I too prefer the commas, but BlueDog doesn't like the split between the big numbers and the comma.

Consensus
Comment below if I am wrong with these. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) So far we have reached the sup form as consenus, with or without commas is to still be debated, which I am on the side of removing them as unnecessary. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) On belhalf of prose, NO Tiebreaker to be included, which I agree. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) On behalf of brackets, leave them as is. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) On behalf of list, unless going to be FL or GL if their is a GL it needs to include the sup tiebreak score. If not going for this status then the (3) is still appropriate for all other tounament articles such as the ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament, which it is fine to use the sups, but are not required. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments: &mdash;MDCollins (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) We need to also bear in mind how this looks without any tiebreaks (6–3, 6–4, 4–6, 6–1) with or without commas.
 * What do you mean by this sentence? BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 23:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean, if for example we choose the no-comma version (taking for example your argument that the comma is distanced from the set score), are we sure that removing the commas still looks ok where there are no tiebreaks (as above, or 6–3 6–4 4–6 6–1) - it does look different.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am just opposed to commas for visual purposes, but it is not a deal breaker on forming consensus if the whole community wants them! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 02:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I think the existing guideline is that scores in full aren't used in prose either, not just no tiebreaks. There is no need to change this, I think.
 * I agree. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 23:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, I think we are leaning to using brackets
 * You mean parenthesis. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 23:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean parentheses (we've called them brackets up to now!).&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I disagree with this, don't think we've discussed it, but a guideline on style is just that and should be applied across all articles and lists. The focus on conversion should be to the FA/GA articles/lists first, but it would need doing to all articles. Of course this would be a gradual process.
 * I would have to say, I somewhat disagree with this! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 23:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are we establishing consensus, only then not to use it on all suitable articles/lists in the same format?&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering are we going to use it on all tounaments wikitables, which is fine? I would not want to have to go and fix say List of Federer's ITF and ATP matches. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 02:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? Surely we're aiming at consistency. I'm not saying it should be done immediately. I was heavily involved in created Template:Infobox cricketer biography, to standardise all cricketer infoboxes. 2 year's later and we're still only half way through!&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  17:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Implementation
Okay, now we have to decide on the commas, and then go forth and implement the new scoring standards. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 02:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's do a Support or Oppose section to see what the majority opinion is on commas: I will refrain from voting, so others vote below but above Agreements. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 02:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Support commas:
 * (Although Polling is not a substitute for discussion)
 * I know that, but we have discussed this Ad nauseam, which is I want to know where the majority is and go with it! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 20:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that, but we have discussed this Ad nauseam, which is I want to know where the majority is and go with it! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 20:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose commas:

Agreement(s):
 * 1) No scoring allowed in prose.
 * 2) In all wikitables on tennis articles the sup formation with parenthesis for tiebreaks and the ndashes will be used to split scores up.
 * 3) Bracket articles leave with the loser tiebreak score only.
 * So, Bracket articles are suppose to have the scores of both of the tiebreaks in the set?

 BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 02:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was assuming that Rambo was seconding that this should be used on all articles, meaning that we're not in agreement about point 3.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is indeed what I meant. Consensus should be implemented on List of Federer's ITF and ATP matches and the like. Can you clarify what you mean by "Bracket articles" please. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  16:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Like this one 2010 Australian Open – Men's Singles. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 20:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Commenting on that specific article, there are two methods of scoring. The first sentence ("...but retired due to a right knee injury trailing 3–6, 6–7(2), 0–3 in the ...") I would expect to be changed i.e. the tiebreak parenthesis removed (per point 1) or spelled out in full per new consensus. For the actual bracket there I see two options that would clarify the situation. The template is already slightly clearer than "6–7(2)" because the losers score is always sup'd next to the losing tiebreak score. I think the best options is adding a hatnote explaining how the system works in the relevant Tennis . This way provides a quick fix for clarity and, if someone thinks a clearer tennis tournament bracket is needed long term, then that can be made and implemented slowly in the hundreds of articles it would affect. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your idea of putting in a note on those articles in the lead or in a notes section like on the FL stuff. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 21:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, those type of articles - tournament round-by-round grid articles (I wouldn't call them "bracket" as that gets confusing, especially in this discussion - can't think how I would refer to it though!, "draw layout"?) - no, you're right, I would leave them as it is, I think both the winner and loser tie-break scores should be present, next to the corresponding box. like this. That makes it perfectly clear, just needs the brief explanation as part of the "key".&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that way too. Clarity was one of the reasons this question and answer period came about and it certainly is clearer in the MDCollins example. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Rubric

 * 1) No scoring allowed in prose.  Just report the round and whether the player won or lost the match, and whom they played.
 * 2) In all wikitables on tennis articles the sup formation with parenthesis for tiebreaks and the ndashes will be used to split scores up, with commas.
 * 3) Bracket articles report both tiebreak scores.

I think we are ready to start on this endeavor, or if you disagree voice it below. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Although I think we can allow the occasional scoring in prose (for example 2009 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles probably needs it). Just don't report the tie-break score. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  12:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Second that! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 21:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion about commas for scores should be moved to a more appropriate wikispace since it is related to other racquet sports as well (squash, badminton, ping pong). Users also should be notified about the discussion so that a concrete consensus can be achieved. By the way, I agree with the usage of commas for scores. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 12:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this. It's really hard to get a consensus on just one sport let alone every racket sport. Plus while I have followed tennis for over 40 years I have no idea of nomenclature/scoring of other racket sports such as table tennis, badminton, squash, Racketlon, Stické, Pickleball or Matkot. Heck in tennis you usually have single digit scores while in table tennis (if I recall) you play to 21 and don't even have tie breaks or sets. I think each discipline should find its own way through wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe in what Fyunck said and we can go forward with putting this scoring methodoligy into practice. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 04:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it!&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've created a shortcut WP:TENNIS/scores to link to the updated article guidelines section. probably best include it in edit summaries for a while. I've updated 2009 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles as an example page.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum
We could also make it like this:
 * I'd oppose that. Seems like unnecessary wrapping onto multiple lines. Especially when it comes to large(ish) lists that contain scores. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  16:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Tennis
Portal:Tennis need to be updated especially for the selected biography section. It is outdated. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 12:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  23:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Table text size, sorting, etc
User:Bloom6132 has been changing pages to something that should probably be talked about here. His intentions are surely good but he is removing the sorting, bolding winners, squeezing the ww1/ww2 years down into a single line which can make for some problems in sorting, and making the text smaller. I reverted a couple of these but waited on his last change (wimbledon) to get some input here. The pages in question right now are... List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions, List of US Open Men's Singles champions, List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions and many smaller tourney pages. I worry about several things which i mentioned to him on my talk page. The smaller text will make it harder to see for older screens and older eyeballs, the bolding makes the table less attractive to me, and I use the date sorting a lot in research. Any other viewpoints? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Caroline Wozniacki article and match results
I know this issue was discussed somewhat in a section above, but looking at the article for Caroline Wozniacki, the number of match scores in the prose strikes me as over-inclusive. The article is so detailed as to be a running ticker of every result she plays. I suppose I should applaud the energy with which the article is monitored, but does the Tennis project have any standard set for limiting the practice of keeping running tallies of every match played? Townlake (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At the moment, all the guidelines are set out at WP:TENSCR. Basically, the scores are unnecessary. A match-by-match "she played World No.14 x and won, then met World no.62 and lost" account is not the best way to go about it either as it simply ends up with too much clutter.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I cut a bunch of scores out of the article and cited WP:TENSCR in the edit summaries. Townlake (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim Seals
Greetings. I'm not sure if this tennis coach is notable, but I'm also not sure where to find reliable sources in this area. The article is being heavily edited by a new user who is very unfamiliar with WP policies. I keep fixing issues, but the user re-adds inappropriate links, makes edits contrary to MOS, etc. I don't want to step on the 3RR, so it would be helpful if others editors could take a look at this article. Efforts to communicate with the new user on his/her talk page and the article talk page has not been successful. Regards, PDCook (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I noted on Time Seals talk page there must be people on the sports side of things better than I to determine notability. He's a successful USTA coach and good poker player (which I don't follow). Maybe he's not really notable but I've seen worse here at wiki. But his external links... those are pathetic. I expect 2-4 external links that lead to a full biography page, or maybe a newspaper article praising Tim Seals achievements, even a major fan site with his historical background. Instead it's his high school's website that lists people who went to his high school, a poker site where he won $829k dollars, his "pokerstar" profile from Bluff Magazine, someone's blog where he made one comment, and a strange non-professional looking page that says he's the director of the Oaks Club tennis staff. These "might" be able to be used as a source for minutia info within the article but as external links they are pretty much useless imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree those links (which keep magically re-appearing) hardly demonstrate notability. Unless some reliable sources are found, I think the page should be sent to AfD. PDCook (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability
There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Can anyone point me to where you have a notability guide for tennis-related articles? I've attempted to create the beginnings of one at Notability_(sports).  I could use some help, though. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sebastian Vinatoru
Hi, folk. Would you have a look at this Sebastian Vinatoru, an unsourced biography of a 15 year old Romanian tennis player, please? Some of the claims, as well as being unsourced, seem a bit over the top to me. Cheers, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 41. The creator User:Sverev is clearly a new sock continuing this hoax. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite elaborate. Edits like this from 89.123.48.93 also appear (PDF) to be hoaxes. The IP seems to belong to that user judging by later linked edits. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  18:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 92.82.232.104 seems to be linked into this. As is 79.113.145.174 <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  18:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All IPs blocked for 6 months. Please let me know if you see any more Vinatoru hoaxery, and I'll deal with it.  Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons
The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at WikiProject Tennis/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 113 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Debenture (sport) needs expert attention
Hey folks,

Debenture (sport) is in need of some expert attention. Please drop by and help to bring the article up to scratch. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

List of nicknames used in tennis‎
Have created this article (split from the List of sportspeople by nickname article), but it neede aditional citations. Armbrust <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  10:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Wimbledon champions why is this page here?
I keep looking at this page and it seems that everything in it is covered in other articles, and covered better in other articles to boot. Why does it exist? I attempted a deletion proposal but it was removed by user:Mike_Cline because he thought I wanted to remove it for lack of proper sourcing. I actually wanted to remove it for uselessness. Any thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not saying it is the greatest article or even the best place for it but, I believe, it is the only list of Wimbledon junior winners (excluding the navboxes). <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  17:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well not the only as it is also here, List_of_Grand_Slam_Boys'_Singles_champions. And there are similar pages for all the junior champions linked to the bottom of that. I guess it does consolidate all the Wimbledon winners but since I find the actual article more concise this one seems useless to me. Just my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will just add they compile the open era champions of each tournament together to make it a one stop shop, so you don't have to go to nine different articles, but I have lost my passion for wikipedia! So, you all decide this amongst yourselves, nice life! Bluedogtn69.137.120.81 (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't the name be changed at least to reflect that limiting factor? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be changed to List of Wimbledon Open Era champions or List of Open Era Wimbledon champions.00:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tennis player
I have changed the way the HOF displayes the url, since they re-did their website, which now it is not a numerical value like 243 it is pete-sampras for the ID in the infoboxes, but I just don't have the time to do it anymore or the will! I did Boris Beckers and Martina Navratiova for examples! Good Luck!69.137.120.81 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ALL DONE!69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Chart Change
Rambo's Revenge recently made a major chart change in List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions (I reverted it) that I thought we should discuss before implimenting. It was done to condense several previous charts and the new single chart is neater, table-ized and sortable. The problem I have is that it is busier, hard to intersect fatcs and, for me at least, more unusable. The old charts which I restored are used in several tennis articles here on wikipedia and at a glance you can find what you want. The new chart takes me 20x longer to dig the information out of it. I don't really like it. Other thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I like both, I am an inclusionist by heart, which means both are great additions to this page, don't delete things, I say keep all! Good Job on both part, I say add Rambo's back and keep Fyunck's as well!69.137.120.81 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rambo's should be called Most Grand Slam winners breakdown chart and leave the hierarchy chart like Fyunck should be called.69.137.120.81 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Commented at Talk:List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions and I suggested others do the same so that discussion doesn't become fragmented. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  12:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

anon contribs
I reverted this blokes edits thinking they were vandalism or spam; however, this editor says he did this per this project? Does anyone know anything about this? Though, I may have made a mistake. Cheers,  Aaroncrick  TALK 07:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What a stew that was before. Most of that info is in archive number 5 and archive number 4 and it takes up lots and lots of arguing space. The last thing I recall was that the final say was change references of the Miami tennis tournament to "Key Biscayne (near Miami)." That (near Miami) wording seemed to be some sort of a compromise to appease the most people. The most vocal opponent (who only wanted Key Biscayne, was a guy named "Tennis expert" who to my knowledge has been banished from wikipedia till the end of time. It was one of his big pet peeves and he was vandalizing many tennis articles under bogus anon names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is Tennis expert, so I've blocked the IP, he's been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Folks, keep your eyes peeled for further abuse from this banned editor.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, way to catch this one RM. I don't envy you if he's popping his head up again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. Seven IPs today alone.  I've notified various folks, what it probably does mean is that he'll never edit legitimately on this site ever again.  What it also means is that we're now saddled with a disgruntled editor who will continually IP hop and sockpuppet to, basically, annoy us.  It takes two seconds to undo the rubbish, mind you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am afraid like Chidel that Tennis expert is using Striving4 to be the same type of disruptive account, which it needs to have more scrutiny like look at the date created and look at recent IP usage by the editor!69.137.120.81 (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sponsorship
Why do you use the sponsored name for tournaments and such? Christopher Connor (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes we do, sometimes not. The sponsored name will usually be the official name. Another name may or may not be more common. See Article titles. This policy is often a judgement call and isn't always followed. Some tournament articles have the official name but are often referred to in other articles by an unoffical name, for example the host city alone when it's clear from context that a tennis tournament is being referred. Do you have a more specific question? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I reckon we should name all tournaments by their normal city name as it is much more common and easier. Nobody says or uses Western & Southern Financial Group Masters except for sponsorship purposes. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You picked a mouthful as your example. I get 1440 Google hits on and 1370 on  which I guess would be your choice, but among independent sources the latter may be the majority. Shorter and better known sponsor names may be more commonly used. I get 4,300,000 hits on  and 60,900 on . I see you know Requested moves. I think a requested move of 2010 Sony Ericsson Open to "2010 Miami Masters" would meet some opposition. And I think it would be very controversial if WikiProject Tennis attempted to declare a general ban on all official tennis tournament names with a sponsor in the name. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Striving4
This user is moving way too many pages, but I did not want to get you involved, which now I have to. I found s/he move the 2010 Wimbledon Women's Singles page, and s/he is decaptailizing the W in Women and S in Singles, which I think we have to stop it before the user goes to far look. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 04:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Go to WP:Tennis to talk it out! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 04:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. No talking, no discussing, just wholesale re-writing and page moving. He's a brand new user and it's as if the tennis articles were hit by a bomb of edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, so he's a new user but what is with the WP:Biting. Aren't the edits conforming with policy, namely WP:LOWERCASE? <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Rambo here. While I know the project can be a little sensitive, especially with the recent anon IP return of a indefinitely blocked user, let's try not to read too much into this.  After all, WP:TITLE does say that only proper nouns should be capitalised and that, on the face of it, appears to be mainly what this editor is doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I had already looked at the titles changing and I have no problems with that. The problem is that he changed a hundred of them with no heads up in tennis project. But that's minor compared to the re-writing he's doing, 90% of which is not summarized in any manner. When he does so many with no summary I'm inclined to instantly revert them out of hand. You should remind him he "must" summarize unless it's a minor punctuation/spelling edit, otherwise we're left to read through it word for word to understand why he is making a change. There are plenty of others who also fail to summarize but with the vast amount of changes Striving4 is doing it's really critical. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone can add the summary template. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've notified the user of this discussion, first out of courtesy, secondly to try to encourage use of edit summaries. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, there's a lot of hostility here (and elsewhere by Fyunck(click) and Bluedogtn and his associated IP account (69.137.120.81) - why does he use both?). I won't be spending much time on this page! I didn't know that conforming article titles with WP:Title required advance notice to any person or project. If Fyunck and/or Bluedogtn were concerned, they know how to contact me on my discussion page instead of going around posting negative stuff all over the place about me, without even telling me. Makes one wonder if change is a four-letter-word with these two editors, particulary concerning articles they watch. Anyway, I'm done on this page. Won't be coming back. Thanks for the warm and compassionate welcome, guys. Striving4 (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your page, Striving4. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, if you'll note I did do as Striving4 asked. I asked him "please" on a related item on his own talk page. His answer was a brusk no. And he's not being honest if he's thinks I'm posting negative stuff about him all over the place. It was brought up on my own talk page and I answered. I saw it was brought up here and I answered and asked someone to tell him about needing summaries since, with the previous "no" I got from him before, I felt writing on his talk page was going to be unwelcome. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, who are you talking to? I didn't say you "didn't" do as he asked, did I? Anyway, let's see how it pans out. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. I was really replying to the post above by Striving4 and should have stated so or moved it up an indent. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Who is this banned editor you are referring to? Christopher Connor (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been suspicious, that is not a crime at all on wikipedia to be suspicious, but I never said anything that is banned by wikipedia policy at all with respect to Striving4. I am highly curious how you know show much about policy around here? I use the bluedogtn account only on other networks or to do things, which requires an account, but I point the IP to my account.  I just jump on here an do work, that's all!69.137.121.17 (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Renaming articles?
I request the opinion of other editors on this topic, which is in regards to the tennis naming conventions, which were made consensus in 2007 here and here. I think striving4 is doing a great job in his or her work, but I think past consensus should reign on this subject, which look at all CBS Sports and Grand Slam History, which one is a general and one is a tennis publications because the capitalize Men's Singles and Women's Singles, and I think this common usage of Men's Singles by the Grand Slam Tournaments and other media outlets favors the readers not some [[WP:Title rule like is cited by Striving4 is constantly citing in his or her edit summaries, which can be overriden by common usages. I just want to get the thoughts of the whole community before this goes any further, so we can achieve consensus. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 04:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

2008 Wimbledon Men's Singles final
After a couple users noted on Talk:Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships that if we have an article on the Isner-Mahut match, we should surely have an article on the Federer-Nadal Wimbledon 2008 final, I have started the article at 2008 Wimbledon Men's Singles final with a fair-sized write-up, focusing on background and significance. Please come help expand it, especially with details of the match itself! —Lowellian (reply) 18:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This just means we're now going to have to have articles on every single grand slam final. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I likeeee!69.137.121.17 (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Federer-Roddick from 2009 Wimbledon Final is a well deserved article to create!69.137.121.17 (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Nadal-Federer 2009 Australian Open Final is a well deserved article to create, too.69.137.121.17 (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think del Potro-Federer 2009 US Open Final is a well deserved article to create, as well!69.137.121.17 (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Federer-Nadal 2007 Wimbledon Final is a well deserved article to create, additionally.69.137.121.17 (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Serena-Henin 2010 Australian Open Final is a well deserved article to create, also!69.137.121.17 (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * These are just to start of all I can think of!69.137.121.17 (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Maybe there should be a main article for these matches, such as Memorable matches at the Wimbledon Championships (but not that lame title, but for each slam), with a brief summary for each match that is worthy of an article.  Good, bad?  And in regards to the 2008 Wimbledon final, why isn't the book Strokes of Genius: Federer, Nadal, and the Greatest Match Ever Played listed in there somewhere? :)  on  camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  01:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you know oncamera that you can put it on the article if you are inclined to want it bacause anyone can edit! GOFORIT!69.137.121.17 (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei at Wimbledon
Does anyone know which flag is used to identify Lu Yen-hsun? The page Chinese Taipei flag illustrates several. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In current articles we have been using "flag|ROC" ROC or "flagicon|ROC"  depending on if it's a first use or not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of those would be the Chinese Taipei flag, and at Wimbledon he's indicated as representing Chinese Taipei, not Taiwan/ROC. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No but it's the flag he was born under and lives under. The Chinese Taipei flag is only supposed to be used when representing the country in an international event like the Olympics or world cup, not an individual event like wimbledon. When in doubt I'd stick with his passport/citizenship. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The official website uses Chinese Taipei, the flag looks kinda like the Olympic version... but the quality is low so I might be mistaken. Either way, it's not ROC/Taiwan's flag. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * None, if there's any ambiguity. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned editor Tennis expert is lurking
Be on the lookout for posts by banned editor User:Tennis_expert. Right now he is using the ip's 70.253.75.221 and 97.77.159.243 but there will surely be more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should ignore him and revert all of his edits. Don't feed him or make him feel he is noticed.--AM (talk)

[[undefined|UKGBI]], 🇬🇧 [[united kingdom|GBR]], [[undefined|UK]],  [[undefined|BRI]]
It was brought to my attention recently that the flag icon BRI is being used in many wikipedia tennis articles to signify the time period up to 1922 with the term GBR used afterward. GBR links with the proper wiki page but BRI does not. After talking with a few editors I changed the BRI to UKGBI to link with it's proper wikipedia page. I did this in two articles, List_of_Wimbledon_ladies'_singles_champions and after seeing no catcalls List_of_Wimbledon_gentlemen's_singles_champions. Today someone challenged and reverted the change and wanted to debate it here so here we are. Any preliminary show of hands? I thought it a relatively minor change for the better of the article and another editor thought it would help with those who try to change the flag to Ireland, in that they could see/read why that would be incorrect pre-1923. Thoughts? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My reasoning behind my disagreement is that I think there should be some type of discussion before a change, BRI also seems to be how the players were classed when the tournament took place and think it would in part be an inaccuracy to class them as UKGBI. Afro  ( DontTazeMeBro ) - Afkatk 20:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Disclaimer: I think I was the one that raised this problem so may be biased) I have three points. Firstly, the icon. This is not an issue as the pre-1922 flag is identical (the same file link) to that used in the current one. Secondly, the abbreviation. I think the problem with using UKGBI is that every other country has a three letter abbr. so having UKGBI looks odd incomparison. Thridly, the link. This is the only thing that really matters, in my opinion. The link/hover of the flag and/or the link of the abbr. pre-1922 should be United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland not United Kingdom. The reasons for this are that I have seen problems of trying to indroduce the (post-1922) Irish flag for these persons which is inaccurate but is probably due to the link being to the UK. Although visually similar I believe the different entities should be made distict. The solution? Not sure. I'd personally have no problem with something along the undefined lines. What are others' opinions? <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b>  <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not everything needs discussion before a change, but if it gets reverted (like this was) then certainly a discussion is warranted. I had mentioned to RR that BRI was how the tourney originally marked the players but times change and the fact is that BRI in wikipedia links to the wrong article. We could always try to change what BRI links to but that might have more opposition. The full name of the country is unneeded and takes up too much space imho. In actuality, per wiki rules, only the first use should use the term flag and all the rest should be flagicon so you'd only have to see the 3 letter abbr one time to reduce redundancy... sort of the letters or the icon but not both. I'm not married to the change I made but after weighing RR's post and a couple emails correspondences I thought it worth changing to at least see what others thoughts were. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that there is no such "wiki rule". The rule (MOS:FLAG) is that "name of a flag's country should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon" and that "nearby uses of the flag need  (my emphasis) not repeat the name". This is not to say they should not, only that they need not. There is a big difference. It is perfectly acceptible to use both. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  23:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction. Maybe the wording has changed over the years. The first sentence seems to be first choice to me but both are acceptable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

ATP Challenger Tour Help/Advice
Hey I created this template yesterday.

I went around and added all of the pages listed in the ATP Challenger Tour and added them into this large template banner of some sort. My question is would someone would help me to see if this list needs to be broken down further or something? I would really appreciate the help on it! I only broke Europe down into subgroups because Italy hosts so many tournaments and then France, Germany, etc...I was thinking maybe I should make a separate one for each continent or country...or I'm not sure. Whatever your suggestions are will be nice. Let me know! :D T amer_of_Hope   talk  21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't really break it down into continants it's not like you have loads of series going on, what you've done is fine. KnowIG (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, well it's all in one category from the best I understand. It's different matches that go on around the world through different months but somehow they are all lumped together into one large category. Thanks! :D T amer_of_Hope   talk  17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

setting up good guidelines for tennis player notability
a talk on this has been started here - please feel free to join in Mayumashu (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment
The following Afds about tennis players needs input: Viktorija Rajicic, Anna Wishink, Jade Hopper and Mark Verryth. Armbrust <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  12:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Colors of tournament types in WTA articles
The colors for the new tournament types (and some of the old as well) are way too flashy. It's not so bad now with only a few tournaments at most per player, but in a few years when they start racking up titles it's going to look very ugly. I think it will look better if we use more neutral colors like in ATP articles, and don't distinguish between the old and new types. Maybe something like this.

For reference, this is how it currently looks:

Olympic medals only appear if they were actually won by the player.

Tbellum99 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good idea. It looks fine to me. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  22:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I like it but the Olympic gold could still be turned down a bit for my tastes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made some drafts with more ATP-like colors. See User:Tbellum99/Draft:New_WTA_colors

Still some problems with it though. Premium tournaments aren't really the same as Tier III, and grouping them together with International does them a disservice. Perhaps we can group Premium 5 / Premium together and then take "Tier III and up" as equivalent of International. Or keep it as is and add another color (like my original idea, but that didn't look as good as I imagined). Tbellum99 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You do realise that these colours need to go along with WP:ACCESS - colour-blind people will not be able to easily distinguish between these particular events. We need to add symbology too, to ensure it's accessible to all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the current colors aren't that friendly either to the color-blind. The black text on the relatively dark backgrounds (especially for Premier and Premier Mandatory) is probably difficult to read for some people. It is quite challenging to come up with an attractive and functional color scheme. Perhaps another column would be nice with GS/T1/T2/PM/P5/Pr/etc. abbreviations (or symbols like you suggest) but the table is already pretty wide. Tbellum99 (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the colour scheme needs changing. The current colours are very harsh. How about something like this? I've grouped the Premier 5 and Premier tournaments with Tier II, and grouped Tier III, IV and V with International. I've also used to same layout and colour scheme used on ATP articles. Boddefan2009 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I like this color scheme. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Any other ideas? Caroline Wozniacki's is starting to look really untidy. Boddefan2009 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Goodness her page at Caroline Wozniacki career statistics looks terrible. Try the softer colors immediately above and see how that looks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this? User:Boddefan2009/Sandbox3


 * Looks really nice! Everything is very pleasing to the eye yet you can tell at a glance the different tournaments. If I have any worry, and it's a minor one, it's that the first thing my eye notices is the "runner-up" category instead of the winner, so it might be a little dark. However I tried a lighter color like FFCDB9 and it still catches my eye. I think reddish colors simply do that and there's no way around it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Tennis_statistics
A proposal has been put forward to replace Tennis statistics with User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTennisStats and name it List of non-Grand Slam tennis statistics and records. Thoughts, comments and/or votes are encouraged.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Longest matches
Anyone got any idea what the longest women's match in terms of games is for Longest tennis match records? Francium12 17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wasn't it that Kerry Reid match from '72? It seems I've heard it announced a few times on tv as the longest. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Tennis infobox change?
I noticed today that editor User:Ksnow or User talk:98.117.96.118 is changing every single infobox on tennis players. Specifically the section left-handed;two-handed back hand to left-handed (two handed backhand). My understanding is that one uses the paranthesis for related info like height 1.8 meters (6ft 2inches) or prize money 7.2 million (4th all-time). Hitting with a two handed backhand is not related to what hand you use to swing the racket so it seems to me it should remain with a semi-colon. Example of edits (of which there are dozens) is []. Maybe there is a wiki policy on this I'm not aware of? Thanks Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ons Jabeur
Could someone please take a look at the new article Ons Jabeur.

It needs some copyedit, and in particular, I'm confused by the '2010' part; I don't know much about tennis, so it is a bit difficult for me to fix this myself. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 16:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Naming question
How should the Qatar Open articles be named? With or without sponsor, and if with, which and in what years? Can someone knowledgeable please comment at Talk:1996 Qatar Mobil Open? Thanks.--Kotniski (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Flags
User:P. S. Burton has been removing flags from the info box of several tennis players citing Manuel of Style. Is he right to do this? KnowIG (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed the same thing and when I read the mos I didn't see anywhere that we "need" to remove those flags. It said no flags for birth/death, only for playing nationality. It did seem to give the impression that they weren't needed, not that they had to be removed. I kinda like them myself as you immediately get hit with a photo (usually), the players name and the country they represented while playing. Then you can read all the trivial info afterwards. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

P. S. Burton (talk)  19:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, discouraged because like most general biographies wiki doesn't want the flag to represent where a person was born or lives. But in tennis you also represent a nation and sometimes a national team or squad as in Davis Cup/Fed Cup. The very next sentence in your link takes care of that aspect and why it is not a bad idea to leave it in the tennis infoboxes. All the Major tournaments and the Olympics require and list your country in their records. MOS does not ban it's use regardless. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox tennis biography
Hi everyone. Please see my comments at Template talk:Infobox tennis biography regarding grip and weight for further discussion. P. S. Burton (talk)  19:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mayor Tournaments
what are mayor tournaments? i will add a money box, but there's a gap called "Mayor Tournaments", wondering what it is, maybe GrandSlams?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you saw "mayor tournaments" Perhaps you mean Major tournaments? The Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open are also called the Majors and have been since long before they were called slams or grand slam tournaments. It is in common usage by announcers and writers and players. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

yes thx-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Which sport is this
Idly Clicking the 'random article' link I ended up at 1995 TVA Cup – Doubles. No-where on the page does it actually state the sport in question is tennis, though I guessed it might be. Such an omission is only going to be obvious to someone who is not deeply familiar with tennis, like me. But I guess that it's in the interests of your project that someone who knows checks that each page in the project states which sport it refers to. The Yowser (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added 1995 TVA Cup which renders:


 * This is how tennis draw articles are usually handled. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nicolas Coutelot
The article Nicolas Coutelot is currently an unsourced BLP. Actually the corresponding article on wp:fr was deleted because it failed to meet the admissibility criteria. I'm not too familiar with the accessibility criteria here. Could somebody have a look and take necessary actions if necessary. Many thanks! --Anneyh (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Meets notability as he has won matches at Grand Slam level and was in the top 100. But it's a stub with no info. This could take a while to sort. KnowIG (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're obviously quicker than me! I'm trying to sort out unsourced BLP related to the project France. Could that be used as a source for this article? --Anneyh (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly think any pro player should have an external link to their ATP/WTA profile and we have templates for the purpose. I have added ATP. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for photographs and images
To help address the many requests for photographs People-photo-bot has moved article talk pages from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of tennis people if it contains the templates WikiProject Tennis WP-Tennis WPTennis WP Tennis Tennis. Members of this project are invited to address the requests for images listed. Please note that some articles may now have an appropriate photograph and that the need-image flag has simply not been removed, this can also be checked using the Image Existence Checker link on the category page. If a page has been incorrectly moved please inform me on my talk page.--Traveler100 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WCT Finals
I would like clarification from a group member regarding the season ending World Championship of Tennis Finals. I was told they are not significant enough to list. I would like to challenge this assertion and await a response thank you.--Wales63 (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did you hear that? Because on wikipedia we already have World Championship Tennis and WCT Finals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A contributor on here indicated to me that the reason the WCT Finals don't appear as a major season ending event is because they were not that important. This contradicts articles about the WCT Tour. I feel players including nine former world no1's who won those finals should have them listed within their info boxes alongside the Masters Cup (Wales63 15:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC))

--Wales63 15:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wales63 (talk • contribs)


 * It appears from your edits elsewhere that your suggestion is that Template:Infobox tennis biography should have a parameter called for example WCTFinalsresult for WCT Finals result like it currently has MastersCupresult with the piped link Tour Finals which is also used for years where it was not called Masters Cup. The WCT ended in 1989 and is little known today. I think it would be confusing to include both the WCT Finals and the Tour Finals in the infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree it is historically inaccurate to only represent the ATP (former Grand Prix) Tour finals as the sole tour finals and exclude the other. The corrects facts must be stated. As they both co-existed together. And allows readers to be given a balanced view. --Wales63 (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you might as well stick the Grand Slam Cup in there as well, you see how far you can take this.KnowIG (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I simply fail to see why not, who ever designed the templates not to include major season ending title for an event that ran 19 years is beyond belief. eg: In Golf there are different professional circuits the USPGA and the European PGA with Golf Major's on both tours these are acknowledged see: Professional golf tours. --Wales63 (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why not to allow some type of optional parameter in the template. Afro  ( Say Something Funny ) - Afkatk 00:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Outline of tennis
The Outline of tennis is under construction, and needs editors familiar with the subject to add missing subheadings and missing topic links.

For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.

For a relevant discussion see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 40

Here's the outline they created: Outline of birds.

The Transhumanist 20:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Afd Nomination
has nominated 2010 Bank Austria-TennisTrophy – Singles for deletion. This AfD could be very important for this project, because the project has hundreds of such (draw) articles, which may be targeted pending on this AfD. Armbrust <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  14:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Playing style" sections
I just removed an uncited Playing Style section from the Caroline Wozniacki article. Such sections seem semi-prevalent on popular players' article pages; the sections seem to consist primarily of observations that someone might make after watching a player on television. Are there guidelines on what these sections should include, or how well they should be sourced? I didn't see anything relevant in the article-specific guidelines, and the only place I could find this topic discussed in the archives was here. Townlake (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Mahut Isner
Yep I'm talking about that match. Yep it has an article but I have a new book, in which Bud Collins refers in dedicating the book to this match as the endless match. Has anyone else heard this as an offical title for this match. And should 'The Endless Match' replace the current title? KnowIG (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've seen some articles that also refer to it as the Endless Match, gacksports.com, 10sballs.com and Bud Collins but other articles also called the Federer-Roddick wimbledon match the Endless match Wall Street Journal article. It might be iffy to use such a common term as endless as a title especially when other matches have been called endless but I have a feeling that in this case whenever someone says the words "the endless match" and "tennis" in the same sentence only one match will come to mind...Isner-Mahut. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You can add mention of this to the article so it can be found on searches on "endless match" but it doesn't appear to be a very common name and I don't think it should be the title or a redirect. The most common topic for Google hits on is apparently Super Street Fighter IV (the term is not currently used in the article which only mentions Endless Battle). PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Status report
Outline of tennis is coming along nicely, but still has a ways to go.

Other sports outlines currently under development include:


 * Outline of kayaking and canoeing
 * Outline of basketball
 * Outline of running
 * Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling
 * Outline of cricket

Can you beat the other Sports WikiProjects to completion?

For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.

Here are some examples of developed outlines:


 * Outline of forestry
 * Outline of cell biology
 * Outline of meteorology (weather)
 * Outline of Iceland
 * Outline of Japan
 * Outline of anarchism
 * Outline of chocolate
 * Outline of sharks

The Transhumanist 23:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

US Open redirects to disambiguation page
I went through and fixed all the "YYYY U.S. Open" disambiguation pages so they're consistent from 1968 to current (similar to the main "U.S. Open" disambiguation page). However, there are several pages that use the redirect from "YYYY US Open" instead of linking directly to the actual article. Because of this, these links now go to the disambiguation page instead of the intended tennis article. I'm in the process of going through and fixing them to directly link to the expected page, but may take awhile. Feel free to fix them as them come up, thanks. Starwrath (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Tennis articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Tennis articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI - upon the recommendation of KnowlG we are using a later revisionID of Juan Martín del Potro. More work was done on the article, so we picked this version from last month.  Please let us know if there's a problem with that.  Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mass Blanking
Unfortunatly User:Darius Dhlomo has been a very naughty boy by copying and pasting large amounts of material and not putting the reference in. He has violated copyright rules but as I say he has done this on so many articles that no one quiet knows what he has done. Therefore a bot has been created to blank any article that he has created. This affects the tennis project as several pages have been blanked. They seem to be OK and just standard tennis tournament articles, but if he has done a player article please check that he hasn't copied and pasted from somewhere, if he has please edit what is written. Thanks. List of articles blanked KnowIG (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Marián Vajda was balnked but I reverted it, since it's present state doesn't resemble in any way to what has been created by Darius Dhlomo. Also I rephrased it to go for 100%.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  16:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Michel Kratochvil has been aslo "saved".  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  22:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Non Copyrighted free WTF pictures
title is correct they can be found here, would be thankful if someone else up loaded, don't trust myself :) Although I may have a go if no one else does it. KnowIG (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal in 2010 and Roger Federer in YYYY at AfD
Rafael Nadal in 2010 and eight "Roger Federer in YYYY" for 2003 to 2010 have been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

ATP Tour Finals - 1970-1990
Have added a couple of pages for singles and doubles based on ITF information and indicated as such by external links. There is not much information @ITF other than drawsheets/results. Singles and Doubles have separate main articles in the current design which I have followed. There is a suggestion to merge singles/doubles. Using that suggested style, the later years would perhaps become unmanageable. Thoughts? Loner t (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the The ATP World Tour, or ATP, wasn't formed until 1972, those titles from 1970 and 1971 in the article ATP World Tour Finals seem really out of place. The wiki page ATP World Tour records doesn't include pre-atp records because pre-1972 had nothing to do with the Association of Tennis Professionals. Perhaps the page name should be changed to something like "Tennis year end finals" or "Tennis tour finals"? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really since the WTF or masters or whatever was originally an ITF tournie as they ran the show, hence why in 1990 we get the Grand Slam Cup, so those two years are not at all out of place. Anyway back to point one, the singles and dubs do not need to be merged as these are draw pages. Tennis is apparently one of the most neglected sports on here, and it's rather hard work trying to make sense of what each tournament was called etc. So creating a decent article may not be on our minds right now as we are trying to cover the basics, but you are more than welcome to try and make the pages like the modern articles. KnowIG (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Search for 'ATP Tour Finals' returns the list from 1970-2010 (irrespective of the governing bodies involved). I am just following the tree and filling respective linked pages. Will continue this way, till a re-organization pages is deemed necessary, if that is acceptable to the community of Tennis editors. Thanks for the constructive feedback to Fyunck, KiG. Loner t (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger Federer and Rivalries?
I have a questions for others to respond to. Does Federer have a rivalry with ....


 * Andy Roddick?
 * Lleyton Hewitt?
 * Novak Djokovic?
 * Andy Murray?
 * David Nalbandian?

Thanks for your response! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 23:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you do answer yes to the above questions. Which ones deserve or merit their own page like Federer–Nadal rivalry? BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 23:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say no. The press tried to do one with Roddick but it fizzled miserably. Murray has potential but it will take some time to mature into a rivalry. Others here might disagree though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also say no to all five. The Federer-Nadal rivalry is much more notable than the others, and really, do those five even come close to challenging Federer so much that they are his "rivals"?   on  camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  01:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say Murray does actually because he has beaten Federer eight of the 14 encounters they have played in, but Federer has won all their final appearances in the slams. So, I would say Murray could go against your argument, but the others no way. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 05:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * When I linked it to the main page all of them had a seperate page, well Roddick and Hewitt did but it's since been deleted. But it was mostly onesided, so maybe just a mention on RF's page is enough KnowIG (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * He obviously has a rivalry of sorts with Djokovic and Murray as they have beent the top 4 players in the world for the past few years. But I think Nadal-Federer is the only rivalry notable of a page - I think they have won something like 16 of the last 18 Grand Slams between them (Djokovic and Del Potro are the only others to win in this period). 03  md  03:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am loving your opinions so far, but might I advise you consider removing them from the Federer page and the other players pages if they are not truly in fact rivals. I think we need to watch out what in fact we put down as rivals, even if they don't merit their own pages because we have to make sure the articles reflect fact not our opinions. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 04:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on the definition of rivalry of those who use it so easily. Obviously those players listed are all rivals of Roger but when I look at that list it looks no different than your standard players in Laver's era, Borg's era, Lendl's era, or Sampras' era. Nothing special. There's a big difference between a rival and a rivalry in my book. I'd scrap every one of them except Nadal. By scrap I think I would have one paragraph that lists the main rivals that Federer had to deal with during his tenure at or near the top. The press made a HUGE deal of his non-existent rivalry with Roddick and that could be mentioned but the rest is simply filler. Good to see you Blue... I thought you were a maximalist and would want them included? :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I have went away and changed or matured, but for the most part I am still an inclusionist, but we must have these satisfied first and foremost WP:V and WP:N. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 07:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Davis Cup (Important!!)
Did you realize that the official Davis Cup page being renewed by ITF thus making ALL of the referring Wikipedia links dead not to mention the templates such as Template:DavisCupteamlink for example? It ruined a bunch of articles and left them uncited! I can only hope the old data got archived somewhere, but the question is what to do with these articles? Their updates would take months if possible...Is there a bot for that? What did other projects do when their main official site got restructured?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have fixed them all! Thanks for notice, so that I could fix them. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 13:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You fixed DavisCupplayerlink but Special:LinkSearch still shows 316 links to http://www.daviscup.com/teams/ from articles not using the template. Other parts of http://www.daviscup.com also have dead links. This may be a job for Bot requests but my only experience there (also fixing dead links after a site restructure) was bad. Maybe somebody else will have better luck. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I suggest we fix them as we can get to them, which it is rather easy. It may be time consuming for one editor to have to do them all, which I will take and do about twenty a day manually converting them over to the templated version to avoid this fiasco in the future.  If we do that, it will enable them to all be change if the Davis Cup people redue their site url's and links.  Thanks! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 16:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we have a copy of the list here so others contributing can tick out what they have fixed just like it was done at the Darius Dhlomo scandal.?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Article listing

 * 1.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/ is linked from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis
 * 2.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?Player=10000126 is linked from Jay Berger
 * produces


 * 3.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?Player=10002153 is linked from Bob Lutz (tennis)
 * produces


 * 4.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?Player=10002234 is linked from Matt Doyle (tennis)
 * produces


 * 5.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?Player=10002262 is linked from Peter Feigl
 * produces


 * 6.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?Player=10002273 is linked from Phil Dent
 * produces


 * 7.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?Player=10003106 is linked from Karl Behr
 * produces


 * 8.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?Player=10003349 is linked from Umberto De Morpurgo
 * produces


 * 9.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?Player=10003948 is linked from Lorne Main
 * produces


 * 10.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?Player=10004048 is linked from Dragutin Mitic
 * produces


 * 11.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?Player=10004280 is linked from Friedrich Wilhelm Rahe
 * produces


 * 12.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?Player=10007858 is linked from Jonathan Erlich
 * produces


 * 13.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?Player=100130047 is linked from Genci Cakciri
 * produces


 * 14.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?Player=10015693 is linked from Jan Frode Andersen
 * produces


 * 15.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?Player=30012264 is linked from Andy Ram
 * produces


 * 16.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000047 is linked from Jan Apell
 * produces


 * 17.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000105 is linked from Anastasios Bavelas
 * produces


 * 18.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000110 is linked from Boris Becker
 * produces


 * 19.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000156 is linked from Gilad Bloom
 * produces


 * 20.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000161 is linked from Stéphane Bonneau
 * produces


 * 21.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000204 is linked from Darren Cahill
 * produces


 * 22.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000211 is linked from Omar Camporese
 * produces


 * 23.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000246 is linked from Albert Chang
 * produces


 * 24.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000251 is linked from Arafat Chekrouni
 * produces


 * 25.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000274 is linked from José Luis Clerc
 * produces


 * 26.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000274 is linked from Talk:José Luis Clerc
 * produces


 * 27.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000274 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 28.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000288 is linked from Grant Connell
 * produces


 * 29.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=100003032 is linked from Talk:Juan Mónaco
 * produces


 * 30.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=100003032 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 31.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000350 is linked from Bruce Derlin
 * produces


 * 32.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000371 is linked from Talk:Ctislav Dosedel
 * produces


 * 33.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000371 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 34.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=100003797 is linked from Horia Tecau
 * produces


 * 35.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=100004087 is linked from List of tennis stadiums by capacity
 * produces


 * 36.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=100004087 is linked from Talk:Novak Djokovic/Archive 2
 * produces


 * 37.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=100004087 is linked from Talk:Novak Djokovic/Archive 3
 * produces


 * 38.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000445 is linked from Wojciech Fibak
 * produces


 * 39.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000459 is linked from Ken Flach
 * produces


 * 40.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000523 is linked from Shlomo Glickstein
 * produces


 * 41.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000536 is linked from List of athletes from Maryland A - M
 * produces


 * 42.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000536 is linked from Brian Gottfried
 * produces


 * 43.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000564 is linked from Magnus Gustafsson
 * produces


 * 44.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000570 is linked from Mauricio Hadad
 * produces


 * 45.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000608 is linked from Jakob Hlasek
 * produces


 * 46.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000651 is linked from Martín Jaite
 * produces


 * 47.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000654 is linked from Talk:Anders Järryd
 * produces


 * 48.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000654 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 49.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000713 is linked from Talk:Robbie Koenig
 * produces


 * 50.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000725 is linked from Talk:Gábor Köves
 * produces


 * 51.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000725 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 52.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000733 is linked from Aaron Krickstein
 * produces


 * 53.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000735 is linked from Ramesh Krishnan
 * produces


 * 54.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000745 is linked from Zoltan Kuharszky
 * produces


 * 55.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000777 is linked from Rick Leach
 * produces


 * 56.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000779 is linked from Henri Leconte
 * produces


 * 57.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000800|Mark is linked from List of alumni of St Peter's College, Auckland
 * produces


 * 58.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000800|Mark is linked from User:Rick570/St Peter's old boys list (20 February 2009)
 * produces


 * 59.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000855 is linked from Amos Mansdorf
 * produces


 * 60.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000864 is linked from Talk:László Markovits
 * produces


 * 61.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000864 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 62.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000948 is linked from Michael Mortensen
 * produces


 * 63.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000978 is linked from Talk:Ilie Nastase
 * produces


 * 64.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10000978 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 65.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001001 is linked from Talk:Sándor Noszály
 * produces


 * 66.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001001 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 67.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001002 is linked from Talk:Karel Novácek
 * produces


 * 68.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001002 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 69.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001010 is linked from Talk:Joakim Nyström
 * produces


 * 70.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001010 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 71.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001030 is linked from Menno Oosting
 * produces


 * 72.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001048 is linked from Veli Paloheimo
 * produces


 * 73.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001080 is linked from Shahar Perkiss
 * produces


 * 74.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001130 is linked from Jim Pugh
 * produces


 * 75.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001144 is linked from Eyal Ran
 * produces


 * 76.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001219 is linked from Talk:Javier Sánchez
 * produces


 * 77.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001219 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 78.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001244 is linked from Gilbert Schaller
 * produces


 * 79.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001257 is linked from Florin Segarceanu
 * produces


 * 80.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001258 is linked from Robert Seguso
 * produces


 * 81.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001275 is linked from Jan Siemerink
 * produces


 * 82.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001288 is linked from Horst Skoff
 * produces


 * 83.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001289 is linked from Talk:Tomáš Šmíd
 * produces


 * 84.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001289 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 85.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001307 is linked from Talk:Milan Šrejber
 * produces


 * 86.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001307 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 87.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001317 is linked from Carl-Uwe Steeb
 * produces


 * 88.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001327 is linked from Jason Stoltenberg
 * produces


 * 89.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001344 is linked from Henrik Sundström
 * produces


 * 90.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001349 is linked from Jonas Svensson
 * produces


 * 91.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001353 is linked from Andrew Sznajder
 * produces


 * 92.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=100013626 is linked from Ergün Zorlu
 * produces


 * 93.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001365 is linked from Talk:Balázs Taróczy
 * produces


 * 94.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001365 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 95.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001457 is linked from Talk:Pavel Vízner
 * produces


 * 96.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001457 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 97.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001541 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 98.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001541 is linked from Talk:Slobodan Živojinovic
 * produces


 * 99.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001671 is linked from Eliot Teltscher
 * produces


 * 100.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001715 is linked from Tom Vanhoudt
 * produces


 * 101.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001764 is linked from Noam Behr
 * produces


 * 102.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001785 is linked from Orlando Lourenco
 * produces


 * 103.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001856 is linked from Leander Paes
 * produces


 * 104.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10001874 is linked from Dumitru Haradau
 * produces


 * 105.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002102 is linked from Harold Solomon
 * produces


 * 106.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002148 is linked from Steve Krulevitz
 * produces


 * 107.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002161 is linked from Paul McNamee
 * produces


 * 108.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002178 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 109.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002178 is linked from Talk:Raúl Ramírez
 * produces


 * 110.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002178 is linked from Talk:István Gulyás
 * produces


 * 111.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002189 is linked from Talk:Pavel Složil
 * produces


 * 112.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002189 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 113.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002248 is linked from Rolf Gehring
 * produces


 * 114.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002258 is linked from Talk:Björn Borg
 * produces


 * 115.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002258 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 116.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002270 is linked from Erik Van Dillen
 * produces


 * 117.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002278 is linked from Tom Okker
 * produces


 * 118.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002285 is linked from Ross Case
 * produces


 * 119.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=100022952 is linked from Paris Gemouchidis
 * produces


 * 120.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002304 is linked from Adriano Panatta
 * produces


 * 121.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002309 is linked from Jan Kodeš
 * produces


 * 122.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002310 is linked from Talk:Jirí Hrebec
 * produces


 * 123.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002310 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 124.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002344 is linked from Charlie Pasarell
 * produces


 * 125.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002347 is linked from Réjean Génois
 * produces


 * 126.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002358 is linked from Ray Ruffels
 * produces


 * 127.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002361 is linked from User:RStephenK/Brian Fairlie
 * produces


 * 128.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002361 is linked from Brian Fairlie
 * produces


 * 129.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002371 is linked from Dick Crealy
 * produces


 * 130.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002372 is linked from Ion Tiriac
 * produces


 * 131.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002372 is linked from Talk:Ion Tiriac
 * produces


 * 132.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002372 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 133.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002433 is linked from Talk:Nikola Pilic
 * produces


 * 134.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002433 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 135.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002445 is linked from Ulrich Pinner
 * produces


 * 136.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002616 is linked from Yevgeny Kafelnikov
 * produces


 * 137.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002721 is linked from Mike Sangster
 * produces


 * 138.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002741 is linked from Nicola Pietrangeli
 * produces


 * 139.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002745 is linked from Bobby Wilson (tennis)
 * produces


 * 140.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002748 is linked from William Bowrey
 * produces


 * 141.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002756 is linked from Allen Fox
 * produces


 * 142.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002759 is linked from Ramanathan Krishnan
 * produces


 * 143.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002760 is linked from Bob Maud
 * produces


 * 144.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002773 is linked from Keith Carpenter
 * produces


 * 145.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002775 is linked from Roy Emerson
 * produces


 * 146.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002780 is linked from István Gulyás
 * produces


 * 147.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002801 is linked from Ken Rosewall
 * produces


 * 148.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002816 is linked from Albert Costa
 * produces


 * 149.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=100028691 is linked from Karlis Lejnieks
 * produces


 * 150.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002986 is linked from Mahmoud Alam
 * produces


 * 151.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003004 is linked from Akhtar Ali
 * produces


 * 152.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003023 is linked from Felicisimo Ampon
 * produces


 * 153.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003050 is linked from Talk:József Asbóth
 * produces


 * 154.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003050 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 155.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003094 is linked from John Barry (tennis)
 * produces


 * 156.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003194 is linked from Geoff Brown (tennis)
 * produces


 * 157.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003215 is linked from Peter Burwash
 * produces


 * 158.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003283 is linked from Wilbur Coen
 * produces


 * 159.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003310 is linked from Willard Crocker
 * produces


 * 160.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003427 is linked from Adli El Shafei
 * produces


 * 161.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003470 is linked from Herbert Flam
 * produces


 * 162.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003488 is linked from Frank Froehling
 * produces


 * 163.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003490 is linked from Otto Froitzheim
 * produces


 * 164.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003544 is linked from Grant Golden
 * produces


 * 165.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003593 is linked from Syed Mohammad Hadi
 * produces


 * 166.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=100036002 is linked from Talk:Juan Martín del Potro
 * produces


 * 167.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=100036002 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 168.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003618 is linked from Rex Hartwig
 * produces


 * 169.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003634 is linked from Henner Henkel
 * produces


 * 170.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003732 is linked from Boro Jovanovic
 * produces


 * 171.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003738 is linked from Teimuraz Kakulia
 * produces


 * 172.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003742 is linked from Jun Kamiwazumi
 * produces


 * 173.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003743 is linked from User:Hhst/Japanese Tennis History Database
 * produces


 * 174.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003837 is linked from Franjo Kukuljevic
 * produces


 * 175.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003840 is linked from Naresh Kumar
 * produces


 * 176.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003876 is linked from Harry Lee (tennis)
 * produces


 * 177.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003935 is linked from Brendan Macken
 * produces


 * 178.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10003952 is linked from Gene Mako
 * produces


 * 179.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004000 is linked from Ken McGregor
 * produces


 * 180.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004006 is linked from Chuck McKinley
 * produces


 * 181.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004025 is linked from Brendan Menton, Sr.
 * produces


 * 182.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004050 is linked from User:Hhst/Japanese Tennis History Database
 * produces


 * 183.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004081 is linked from Martin Mulligan
 * produces


 * 184.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004118 is linked from Kurt Nielsen
 * produces


 * 185.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004160 is linked from Rafael Osuna
 * produces


 * 186.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004169 is linked from Dinny Pails
 * produces


 * 187.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004170 is linked from Geoffrey Paish
 * produces


 * 188.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004255 is linked from Dale Power
 * produces


 * 189.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004259 is linked from Daniel Prenn
 * produces


 * 190.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004284 is linked from Cotah Ramaswami
 * produces


 * 191.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004325 is linked from Henri Rochon
 * produces


 * 192.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004384 is linked from Jiro Sato
 * produces


 * 193.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004386 is linked from Guy A. Sautter
 * produces


 * 194.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004388 is linked from Dick Savitt
 * produces


 * 195.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004388 is linked from Frank Shields
 * produces


 * 196.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004415 is linked from Frank Sedgman
 * produces


 * 197.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004419 is linked from Vic Seixas
 * produces


 * 198.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004444 is linked from Bill Sidwell
 * produces


 * 199.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004455 is linked from Orlando Sirola
 * produces


 * 200.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004476 is linked from Eduardo Soriano
 * produces


 * 201.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004510 is linked from Andras Adam-Stolpa
 * produces


 * 202.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004516 is linked from Eric Sturgess
 * produces


 * 203.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004579 is linked from Manny Tolentino
 * produces


 * 204.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004690 is linked from Géza Wertheim
 * produces


 * 205.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004725 is linked from Jack Wright (tennis)
 * produces


 * 206.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004731 is linked from User:Hhst/Japanese Tennis History Database
 * produces


 * 207.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10004948 is linked from Lucas Arnold Ker
 * produces


 * 208.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10005201 is linked from Mahesh Bhupathi
 * produces


 * 209.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=100052372 is linked from Thomaz Bellucci
 * produces


 * 210.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10005756 is linked from Talk:Marcelo Ríos
 * produces


 * 211.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10005756 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 212.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10006125 is linked from Borut Urh
 * produces


 * 213.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=100063887 is linked from Grigor Dimitrov
 * produces


 * 214.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10006408 is linked from Gastón Etlis
 * produces


 * 215.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10006597 is linked from Adli El Shafei II
 * produces


 * 216.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10006614 is linked from Talk:Sebastián Prieto
 * produces


 * 217.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10006614 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 218.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10006643 is linked from Talk:Jirí Novák
 * produces


 * 219.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10006643 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 220.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10006690 is linked from Nenad Zimonjic
 * produces


 * 221.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10007698 is linked from Talk:Xinhua Road Sports Center
 * produces


 * 222.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10007827 is linked from Talk:Tomáš Zíb
 * produces


 * 223.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10007827 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 224.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10007836 is linked from Harel Levy
 * produces


 * 225.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10007911 is linked from Noam Okun
 * produces


 * 226.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10008521 is linked from Gustavo Kuerten
 * produces


 * 227.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10008911 is linked from Ivaylo Traykov
 * produces


 * 228.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=100097179 is linked from Mirza Bašic
 * produces


 * 229.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10009853 is linked from Talk:Attila Sávolt
 * produces


 * 230.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10009853 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 231.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10009922 is linked from Talk:Dominik Hrbatý
 * produces


 * 232.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10009922 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 233.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10010018 is linked from Justin Gimelstob
 * produces


 * 234.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10010094 is linked from Ivo Heuberger
 * produces


 * 235.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10010094 is linked from Articles for deletion/Ivo Heuberger
 * produces


 * 236.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10010094 is linked from Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 13
 * produces


 * 237.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10010104. is linked from Vladimir Voltchkov
 * produces


 * 238.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10010877 is linked from Christophe Pognon
 * produces


 * 239.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10011926 is linked from Talk:Guillermo Cañas
 * produces


 * 240.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10011928 is linked from Talk:Martín García (tennis)
 * produces


 * 241.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10011928 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 242.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10012908 is linked from Talk:František Cermák
 * produces


 * 243.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10012908 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 244.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10012931 is linked from Talk:Gastón Gaudio
 * produces


 * 245.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10012931 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 246.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10013682 is linked from Nicolás Massú
 * produces


 * 247.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10014592 is linked from Bob and Mike Bryan
 * produces


 * 248.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10014593 is linked from Bob and Mike Bryan
 * produces


 * 249.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10016576 is linked from Talk:Leoš Friedl
 * produces


 * 250.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10016576 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 251.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10017365 is linked from Slimane Saoudi
 * produces


 * 252.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10017942 is linked from Wing-Luen Wong
 * produces


 * 253.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10018551 is linked from Jarkko Nieminen
 * produces


 * 254.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10020465 is linked from Mohammed Ghareeb
 * produces


 * 255.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10022602 is linked from Dmitry Tursunov
 * produces


 * 256.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10024192 is linked from Bangalore
 * produces


 * 257.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10025788 is linked from Talk:José Acasuso
 * produces


 * 258.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10025788 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 259.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10026144 is linked from West Nott
 * produces


 * 260.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10026225 is linked from Conor Niland
 * produces


 * 261.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30008460 is linked from Jocelyn Robichaud
 * produces


 * 262.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30009139 is linked from Amir Hadad
 * produces


 * 263.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30009139 is linked from Jim Grabb
 * produces


 * 264.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30012264 is linked from Andy Ram
 * produces


 * 265.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30015743 is linked from Longest tennis match records
 * produces


 * 266.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30019224 is linked from Lu Yen-hsun
 * produces


 * 267.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30019702 is linked from Talk:Lukáš Dlouhý
 * produces


 * 268.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30019702 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 269.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30020538 is linked from Benjamin Balleret
 * produces


 * 270.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30021045 is linked from Mario Ancic
 * produces


 * 271.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30021285 is linked from Wang Yeu-tzuoo
 * produces


 * 272.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30021771 is linked from Jan Hájek (tennis)
 * produces


 * 273.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30022327 is linked from Talk:Ivo Minár
 * produces


 * 274.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30022327 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 275.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30022339 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 276.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30022339 is linked from Talk:Tomáš Berdych
 * produces


 * 277.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30022466 is linked from Ross Hutchins
 * produces


 * 278.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30023215 is linked from Talk:Janko Tipsarevic
 * produces


 * 279.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30023215 is linked from Requested moves/Tennis
 * produces


 * 280.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30023216 is linked from Victor Crivoi
 * produces


 * 281.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=30023230 is linked from Dudi Sela
 * produces


 * 282.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/players.asp is linked from Ronald Holmberg
 * 283.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/players.asp?player=10003109 is linked from Mike Belkin
 * 284.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/players.asp?player=10003109 is linked from Dead external links/404/m
 * 285.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/playersearch.asp is linked from User talk:Spyder Monkey
 * 286.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/playerwinloss.asp?team=CAN is linked from Jack Wright (tennis)
 * 287.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/playerwinloss.asp?team=CAN is linked from John F. Bassett
 * 288.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/playerwinloss.asp?team=CRO is linked from Croatia Davis Cup team
 * 289.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/playerwinloss.asp?team=GRE is linked from Talk:Taki Theodoracopulos
 * 290.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/playerwinloss.asp?team=RSA is linked from Talk:Stan Harris
 * 291.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/playerwinloss.asp?team=RSA is linked from Stan Harris
 * 292.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/playerwinloss.asp?team=pak is linked from Mahmoud Alam
 * 293.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?btnStatus=submitted&team=BRI is linked from Featured list candidates/List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions/archive1
 * 294.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?btnStatus=submitted&team=BRI is linked from Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2009
 * 295.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?btnStatus=submitted&team=ALB is linked from Articles for deletion/Genci Cakciri
 * 296.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?btnStatus=submitted&team=ALB is linked from Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 26
 * 297.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?team=ANZ is linked from Talk:Davis Cup
 * 298.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?team=BEL is linked from Jacques Brichant
 * 299.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?team=CRO is linked from Mario Ancic
 * 300.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?team=GBR is linked from Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 6
 * 301.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?team=HKG is linked from Talk:Wing-Luen Wong
 * 302.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?team=IND is linked from Leander Paes
 * 303.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?team=IRL is linked from Talk:Nations Cup (football)
 * 304.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?team=IRL is linked from Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 9
 * 305.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?team=KUW is linked from Mohammed Ghareeb
 * 306.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?team=PHI is linked from Felicisimo Ampon
 * 307.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/team.asp?team=SIN is linked from Singapore Davis Cup team
 * 308.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/teamstats.asp?team=HUN is linked from User:Lajbi/Sandbox
 * 309.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/teamstats.asp?team=HUN is linked from Hungary Davis Cup team
 * 310.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/teamwinloss.asp?team=CAN is linked from Mount Royal Tennis Club
 * 311.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/teamwinloss.asp?team=CAN is linked from Toronto Lawn Tennis Club
 * 312.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/teamwinloss.asp?team=ISR is linked from Eyal Ran
 * 313.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/teamwinloss.asp?team=LAT is linked from User:Gragox
 * 314.http://www.daviscup.com/teams/teamwinloss.asp?team=VIE is linked from Vietnam Davis Cup team

This is it! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have collapsed the list and formatted it as a wikilinked list. I used an ASCII program so a few page names with special characters have broken redlinks. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a programmer but not a bot operator. I have added some code which may be useful for copying into articles. Note that "WikiProject Tennis at Davis Cup" in the list will automatically be replaced by "PAGENAME at Davis Cup" when the template code is placed on PAGENAME. I suggest we only update links in mainspace articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the pagename has a disambiguator, for example Matt Doyle (tennis), then add the parameter name=Matt Doyle.
 * should be and produce
 * PrimeHunter (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A little help. I don't know if this list includes inline citations or references in reflist section within an article but for tie details, I found that Daviscup.com exchanged http://www.daviscup.com/ties/tie.asp?tie=100014710 to http://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie/details.aspx?tieId=100014710, which means that the [ties/tie.asp?tie] part of the URL has been converted into a [en/results/tie/details.aspx?tieID] leaving the identification code intact. I will easily change a whole page with an "exchange all" command of a text editor. A bot could be easily written for that as well.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A little help. I don't know if this list includes inline citations or references in reflist section within an article but for tie details, I found that Daviscup.com exchanged http://www.daviscup.com/ties/tie.asp?tie=100014710 to http://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie/details.aspx?tieId=100014710, which means that the [ties/tie.asp?tie] part of the URL has been converted into a [en/results/tie/details.aspx?tieID] leaving the identification code intact. I will easily change a whole page with an "exchange all" command of a text editor. A bot could be easily written for that as well.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)