Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 7

Bot request
We definitely need a bot for replacing the dead links. The problems I encountered so far are with inline references in all (!) [year] Davis Cup articles and subarticles (World Groups, Zonal Groups), because all of them uses Template:DavisCupbox with embedded DC reference or http://www.daviscup.com/results/[zonal code].asp as external; [nation] Davis Cup team articles if they have References section (99% chance it will be a dead daviscup.com link); and occasionally players' pages with statistical Davis Cup information within their biography.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 59 results for dead links starting with "www.daviscup.com/results".
 * 90 results for dead links starting with "www.daviscup.com/ties"
 * 39 results for dead links starting with "www.daviscup.com/news"
 * 10 results for dead links starting with "www.daviscup.com/about"
 * 3 results for dead links starting with "www.daviscup.com/shared"
 * 2 results for dead links starting with "www.daviscup.com/ranking"
 * some double listing of "www.daviscup.com/teams" (one converted from the template - that is fixed, but one dead as inner reference)
 * Note that team statistics/all time records are gone forever (or it is just me unable to find its equivalent)

I think that's all.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bad "news". The news articles are unexchangeable. They're not using articleIDs anymore but the article titles connected with hyphens, thus it can not be replaced (there's also a news archive missing so older articles are unsearchable).  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  12:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good news: http://archive.org still has the news archived so these links have to to be replaced manually. Also I put up a bot request here  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  23:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any more lists? As far as I can tell, we are now done.  Fixing the links to the news articles is more tedious, but has been possible in most cases.  Basically, you grab the title of the article from the Google cache, then search for the title on daviscup.com.  It appears the article IDs have been remapped to URLs with the title of the article (spaces replaced by dashes).  The bad news is that not all of them exist.  I have been tracking down alternative sources in those cases, or just using archive.org. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed the same thing about the news articles. Thanks for helping out. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  03:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Rivalries
This seems to be a hot topic at the moment, especially with Armbrust tagging loads for deletion (note this has nothing to do with his actions). So after Blue Dog floated the idea of what consitutes a rivarly and after I saved one from deletion (basically the created page had nothing written on it and they had met 40 times and both players were in the top 3 of the world. Armbrust had it tagged for failiure of notablity), I propose that we come up with some guidelines of what make a rivalry notable for Wikipedia. Since the meaning of the word means anyone or team who playes each other. Meaning that rather insignificant rivalries such as Ivanovic and Jankovic by that definition rightly have a page. So what makes a rivalry notable? Here are some ideas just to get the ball rolling, none of which I am proposing. Is it that the pair of them are top ten players at some point and have played a significant/sufficent number of matches. Is it notable just because they meet in the semi and finals the whole time. Or is it notable based on experts opinon of the quality of the matches? KnowIG (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are 34 articles on rivalries at the moment. I think the ones with a head-to-head table and a picture should go. Actually I must say at most 3-4 articles of such topic are necessary the others are just "fillers". The must-haves are the Agassi–Sampras, Graf–Seles, Borg–McEnroe, Edberg–Lendl, Federer–Nadal and maybe the Williams Sisters rivalry. Regarding the future of creation of rivalry articles I suggest that both players should be inside the top five at the time of the rivalry, should have at least 10 matches, and should have met in at least two GS final or 5 GS semifinals (olimpics ,year-end, Davis Cup final also count). That would sort them out. A national rivalry like Ivanovic-Jankovic has a basis as well, but it could start a flood of such articles (imagine a Roddick-Isner rivalry e.g.). So a rivalry on nationalities, serves (aces), court type specialists, "hero of this or that" and such should be left out.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And I almost forgot what is obvious : the head-to-head must be close. Just to prevent a Söderling-Federer page.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How close though, mean for example Graf-Sabatini rivalry, exclude the 1st 8 and the last 7, I think and you'll find that it's 11-10 to Sabatini but it doesn't look at all close due to the lopsidedness although many of the matches went to a final set. KnowIG (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point KnowIG. Also it fails to show that some of those 1st 8 or last 7 matches may have been 3 set barnburners. I do disagree on your definition of rivalry though. I checked and have also seen the term "keen contention" being required. There are CERTAINLY more rivalries in tennis history than the ones Lajbi has mentioned. Evert-Navratilova and Laver-Rosewall would be at least as big a rivalry as any of the previous mentioned pairings. And the press has a lot to do with whether it's a rivalry because they stoke the fire and make it bigger and bigger. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's say the GS criteria overrides the head-to-head and then it easily qualifies. Otherways I would say a 29-11 is quite insufficient. Although narrowing to their Grand slam/Olimpics/WTA Ch. semis and finals results in a 10-2 H2H to Graf, which is also bad. It is only my opinion but I say that in this case time makes past champions and matches brighter and it isn't more than a nowdays Federer-Djokovic rivalry article, which has been deleted recently...
 * And yes, Evert-Navratilova and Laver-Rosewall do meet the notability. I just ran trough the list to pick out some and these slipped out of my "scan".  Lajbi   Holla @ me  •  CP  20:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sidenote:WP:SPORTS compiled this short (!) list List of sports rivalries. Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  20:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Er how is Santoro Safin rivalry, Safin only one once and they played less than 10 times, and skeptical about the Agassi Rafter rivalry as well just to pick a fault with the list, but really it backs it up the point know. Yes Safin and Santoro had a rivalry should it be on here no in my opinon. KnowIG (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Upon my logic they simply fail. That's why I put an accent on short and not the quality or importance (Djokovic's rivalry is also listed on it, which I excluded in my previous comment. I just wanted to emphasize that we need only a few articles on this topic.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  20:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 As I look at that list for the first time my first impulse would be to dump Federer/Hewitt, Nadal/Djokavich, Federer/Nalbandian, Rafter/Agassi, Safin/Santoro, and add Court/King, Stolle/Emerson, Borg/Connors (or have it a 3-way of Borg/McEnroe/Connors because that's what it really was), maybe Perry/Crawford or Perry/Vines. Anyway that would be my inclination. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Colors of tournament categories in ITF articles
The colors for the money categories in the ITF tournaments are quite flashy in my opinion. If the 10k, 25K and 50K may be OK, the 75K and 100K are simply too colorful. The 100K is simply wrong. On a tennis player's article for example, if that player let's say, plays a 100K final and his/hers opponent does not have an article on Wiki you simply can't see that player's name (red background, red font since not having an article). My suggestion is to lighten them up a little bit or something...

From this:

to this:

Suggestions and modifications are welcomed. Thanks ( G a b i n h o >:) 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC))


 * I can say I've never been one for color categories but since most people around here like them, your choices are much much better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. The colouring seems a bit superfluous, but if we must have it, please do improve the contrast. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  03:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Still if the second (new) version will be used, I suggest differentiating 75K from 10K a bit more. They have quite pale shade in their current form to mix up (or is it just my display?).  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhh. I changed my mind. It's fine like this. My eyes are still morning blurry.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes i agree with your colors, i like them better then the current colors. Keroks (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking to differentiate 100K from 70K a little bit:

G a b i n h o >:) 09:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I like your first modification much more. That 75,000 is way too harsh. Maybe a pale yellow would work but the FBCEB1 was just fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Like both as it tones it down. Perhaps the second version you came up with would be less conterversal as all you have done is done a different shade, but happy with what ever the outcome is KnowIG (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A lighter tone for yellow and it's perfect The Thumbs-up position.jpg  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My final suggestion. If you have another please add it. Thanks for the feedback. G a b i n h o >:) 19:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Tremendous..  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  19:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW according to Google about 150 pages use the current ITF table. Do you plan to replace it with a bot or one-by-one? (if the latter then a helping hand could be useful) Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought about replacing them but I do not know how to work with bots. If anyone has the ability to replace those with a bot then she/he should do it. If not, I guess we have to replace them one by one... ( G a b i n h o >:) 20:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC))


 * its better and more pleasing to the eye, here is a suggestion on how you can do it faster and not do it one-by-one, you copy the whole text and replace the color on word or notepad, then it will be faster. Dencod16 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I think what he means is that there are 150 other pages on wikipedia that use the old color scheme. It's not just 100x on one article. Unless he uses a "bot" that goes through all wiki pages at once he'd have to edit 150 articles separately. I'm bot clueless so I'm no help there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think about 10k color? It had none and I added this shade: #f0f8ff. Should I keep that category with no color? ( G a b i n h o >:) 22:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
 * #f0f8ff is the original 10k shade on Timea and Riske article, and to many other articles that I've edited or started (eg. Vitalia Diatchenko, Elina Svitolina) and I think it should remain as it is. Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 12:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Have no idea about this discussion until I see the table colours on Alison Riske and Tímea Babos been changed. Overall, I like the proposal, but next time please do mind to add in an edit summary like "per discussion on WT:TENNIS" while making changes to articles to avoid future confusion. Thanks. Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 12:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose creating WikiProject Tennis/Tables for reference and for ease of usage in future. Appropriate WTA, ATP, GS and ITF table format can be added into it. Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 13:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rremark: I saw user Dencod16 changed the shade for blue and added a legend like this one on the 2011 ITF Women's Circuit article:

Shall we use thid version with the lighter tone for blue as the FINAL version? ( G a b i n h o >:) 14:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC))
 * I don't like it. It's too flashy.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason that i changed it to lighter tone because the former one is darker to the other colors and don't blend. And if you put it with the yellow it makes the yellow pop out so much. And as you can see as the original one who thoguht of the concept of creating colors for the tournaments rather than just blue and white. There was a unison in the colors that they are all bright and blends with each other. Dencod16 (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your version more! We should keep it as the final one! G a b i n h o >:) 15:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like the third more than the other one. Good job!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 Davis Cup
This page is currently a collection of tables, not an encyclopaedia article - we're almost in statistical almanac territory in its current state. For such a high-profile event, the coverage is very disappointing; is there any chance of some sourced text? Analysis, background, context, discussion? Any insight that could be brought to this article (and others in the same series) would be very welcome. Knepflerle (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you want. If you look at all the other Davis Cup years in wiki, this year has more prose than pretty much any other. All the articles would need to be augmented. Analysis would be personal research and not allowed but perhaps there are magazines that have given detailed analysis that could be used. Discussion sounds kind of blog-like (not allowed) but certainly background could be expanded by those who follow this event much more closely than I. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Consistency is no argument for being consistently poor! If any article can be improved independently of the others, then so be it.  Events can be discussed and analysed using reliable sources without original research.  But a bare list of statistics is not an article, and far from the best we could offer. Knepflerle (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll put my two pence in here as well. All of the sub pages e.g. world group, apart from 2010 and 2011, I bet you most of the pages are unsourced, which is a complete joke considering the DC website! So if the basics are not being met, how can one state that the article should be improved etc. By means you are more than welcome to do what you want to the 2010 article, I just thought that I would mention the bigger issue! KnowIG (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go into a deep argument here but I was thinking on the same in general for a while when I checked the accomplishments of the our project. We have two featured articles, which I guess is one of the lowest number among all projects. The two are Wii Tennis and Mario Power Tennis those I suppose give the credit to WP:GAMES more than to us (both are low-importance on tennis scale). On the other hand we have three featured lists (quite well-written) that means that tennis articles resemble more to lists than to articles (almanac comparison). I was wondering in the past 10 days or so if we can put up a common task focusing the improvement of one article (could be the 2010 DC) to improve it together to a status worth to nominate for FA. I agree that these areas are quite difficult to reference (in English) but at least we can try. If we find a Serbian contributor for example he could surely provide us with a full coverage of almost every event if in none other than Serbian (at least on Serbia's way to final). Any ideas on this?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic abbreviations
Hi, maybe someone here could make sense of this? Check out Alisa Kleybanova. I have no idea what 1R, 2R, 3R, 4R, LQ, QF, and SF mean. Could someone here decipher? Thanks much, -- Ja Ga  talk 06:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's pretty standard tennis nomenclature. That's the round the player lost in. 1R=First Round, LQ=lost in qualifier, QF=quarterfinals, etc... Certainly there should be a key as there is at Tennis performance timeline comparison (women). Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks! -- Ja Ga  talk 07:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I created a template for that.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  12:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your version is too detailed, and a section heading will often make the perfomance table a part of the "Key" section. I suggest briefly showing what the abbreviation stands for so it's easier to remember:

Won tournament, or reached Final, SemiFinal, QuarterFinal or Round 4, 3, 2, 1.
 * Key

Lost in Qualification, or Absent from tournament.
 * PrimeHunter (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's better. Actually I'v just converted what  Ja Ga  talk created (and shortened a bit that one as well, but it's fine to do it further).  Lajbi   Holla @ me  •  CP  21:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooh damn. It's already existed Template:Performance timeline legend!  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I like performance key better. -- Ja Ga  talk 04:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How to add a category?
I've not done this before and I didn't want to mess it up. There are tennis categories for hard court, grass, etc... but how do I add the category for wood? In following the protocol for the other surfaces I want to add the following: "Category:Wood court tennis tournaments". Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There might also need to be an addition of wood to "Category:Tennis_court_surfaces". Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Figured it out Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal in 2011
While checking Special:Uncategorized pages for uncategorized football articles, I stumbled upon Rafael Nadal in 2011. Indepedent of how this project handles these articles – the content of said "article", if at all, should be included into Rafael Nadal, shouldn't it? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 22:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010 closed as no consensus so Rafael Nadal in 2010 is still here. Nadal is the world number one so a 2011 article was expected. I have added categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Five qualifying draws at AfD
Five qualifying draws have been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Right lets get something to good article or featured article or list status
Righty. I've had a go at the 2010 Hopman Cup and have sent it for a peer review please add comments to the review. The 2011 Hopman Cup is coming along nicely as well. So as I say lets get these two to good aritcle or featured list whatever is more appropiate. KnowIG (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have referenced 2009 Hopman Cup which should almost be ready. 03  md  02:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I really find the text very short.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the 2009 hopman cup article the lead fails the article and the references all are first party, I'll work on the refs. Afro  ( Talk ) 20:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Files to be renamed
Can anyone help with these two file renames? and ? I have nominated them for rename on their talk page but I guess they are hard to spot. Thanks! ( G a b i n h o >:) 22:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC))

Fed Cup team statistics
While reading the article Great Britain Fed Cup team, I noticed that Sarah Borwell was credited in the 'Current and former player information' table as having played 5 matches in 6 ties, and I could not find any explanation of this curiosity. Now, I have taken the time to look at the Fed Cup statistics on the Fed Cup website, and I have found that the tie in which she is credited as having played in without having played a match was a doubles match partnering Melanie South against Mandy Minella and Fabienne Thill of the Luxembourg Fed Cup team which Great Britain won as a 'w/o'. Unfortunately, I do not know whether this is an error or whether this is the way statistics for Fed Cup teams are consistently presented in Wikipedia. If it is an error, it simply needs to be corrected. If this is the way the statistics are presented, these tables need some explanation to that effect. Coyets (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Just noticed something, when looking at naming conventions of lists. "Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" are articles that primarily consist of a list or a group of lists, linking to articles or lists in a particular subject area, such as a timeline of events or people and places. The titles of these articles usually begin with "list of" or "timeline of"." This means that articles such as Roger Federer career statistics, Andy Murray career statistics and Serena Williams career statistics etc fail naming conventions as they are mainly a list of finals and prize money won. And therefore should be called List of Roger Federer's tennis career finals etc or something similar, with the H2H with the top ten removed and placed somewhere else. Rather than what is presented at the moment. Any arguements of why it should stay how it is not a list? KnowIG (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A list article usually has similar entries throughout the page. Roger Federer career statistics and the others have different sections with different types of content, for example finals, performance timeline (all results in large tournaments), head-to-head results, and career earnings with season statistics. Each section may be a list in table format but that doesn't mean the whole page should be named as a list article. Something like "List of Roger Federer career statistics" would be an unnecessarily convoluted name. And if we made "List/Timeline of Roger Federer's tennis career finals" then some things wouldn't logically belong there, but keeping the career statistics together in one page seems sensible to me (especially for all the players who don't have as many finals as Federer). Also note that lots of list articles don't have "list" in the name. See for example Category:Featured lists which presumably have names considered appropriate. I support the current naming "X career statistics". PrimeHunter (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many FL's which don't start with "List of (...)" including the ongoing nominations by User:KV5 with the Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster series of articles which he plans to bring to the FLC recently promoted lists of his are the A and B with the ongoing C. As far as I'm aware the naming conventions haven't been a problem with any of the nominations, and since these are of the standards all lists should strive to be I don't see a problem with the name. Afro  ( Talk ) 23:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

For those who update Templates for Top ten *** tennis players
The actual ATP rankings lists show that there were no positions moved but in reality they did as you probably noticed from the update of2011 ATP World Tour table. But those who missed it, it would be nice to get the navboxes to the latest rankings till the Australian Open begins.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  12:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Malou Ejdesgaard
The infobox about Malou Ejdesgaard says that she is currently ranked 717th on the world ranking. Very well possibly, but the infobox also says that her highest ranking was 755th. One of the two rankings is incorrect, but I can't find which one. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the issue. Afro  ( Talk ) 09:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Trouble in Grand Slam Land
I'm having a wee bit of trouble conveying things to a MrMarble (and his alias 99.192.xxx.xx) in the Grand Slam (tennis) article and I thought maybe we could use some help. Could others here take a look at the article and my suggestions under talk and see if they can help us out. It mainly springs from differing opinions on what constitutes winning "The Grand Slam" and the ITF bylaws vs ATP, WTA, The slams themselves and wikipedia consensus, etc. We disagree for the most part and I don't want the article wrecked where maybe others here would have some valuable suggestions. I'm getting tired of tweaking things over and over again. Thanks Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought it was me who was having trouble...
 * Anyway, just wanted to say that I have no aliases. 99.192...is a different poster, as you probably know fuynck. I most likely won't be checking this page so I hope further discussion about the matter is happening on Grand Slam discussion page. Thank you.--Mrmarble (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My bad on the 99.192.xxx.xx. There were two edits right in the same bunch of reverts that I thought were you. Sorry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll take a look tomorrow KnowIG (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Men's First Names in lists
I went back through all the archives and couldn't find talk on the subject of what names to use for men in tennis lists. There have been a few reverts on pages I've worked on lately and I'd like some opinions. For instance, let's look at Don Budge, Bill Tilden, Bobby Riggs, Bill Johnston and Tony Roche. Those are names everyone knows and the names they were pretty much always called in the press so a good point for keeping those versions in the lists. Those are also the names under which wikipedia has their articles. But another good point would be listing them under the names the official major tournaments have them listed. Looking at Wimbledon that would be John D. Budge, William T. Tilden, Robert L. Riggs, William M. Johnston and Anthony D. Roche. Now while I have heard and read articles that occasionally write William Tilden and William Johnston I've not seen any write Robert Riggs, John Budge or Anthony Roche. There is also their "actual" names that we could use which would be - John Budge, William Tilden II, Robert Riggs, William Johnston and Anthony Roche. Of course if we decide on "actual" names then we would need to change Ken Rosewall to Kenneth Rosewall, Rod Laver to Rodney Laver, Vitas Gerulaitis to Vytautas Gerulaitis and Pete Sampras to Petros Sampras.

So no one way is a perfect fit and I wanted some other tennis fan's thoughts. And don't even get me started on the ladies side of the field with their maiden or married names :-0. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as other WP:Biography articles standards go they list names in their most common form (e.g. artists upon their stage-name) immediately followed by an introduction with their real (full) name in bold and birthdate and place in brackets. The case with women is the same. Their commonly used name (which gives a better search result in Wikipedia) is the basis of naming convention but the introduction can list their changed or full name. Courteney Cox is listed as this and Courtney Cox Arquette redirects there while Courteney Bass Cox is in the introduction. He ran under the maiden name in the first five season of Friends and with her married name from the very first episode of sixth season to the end of tenth. That would give an 50-50, but fans recognized her as Courtney Cox so it gives her the title of her article. As for main draw tables the official form is what tournament scorecards use. E.g. Alexandr Dolgopolov was listed Oleksandr Dolgopolov Jr. until the day he had changed his name in mid 2010 and thus half of the wikipages on tournament draws list him with the latter but redirects to the actual. Renaming isn't ex post facto. Considering this John D. Budge should be the correct one but with redirect to John Budge, but for Pete Sampras I can't imagine an ATP tour event calling him Petros Sampras (maybe on Junior level, but that doesn't belong here).  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  12:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the redirect with John D. Budge would be to Don Budge since that's the wiki article and the only name I've ever heard of used. There is still some problem with using what the "official" tournament draw uses. Wimbledon used only first initials and for the ladies often only under the husband's name i.e. Mrs Frederick Clauson. So I have a feeling there will be many exceptions to the tournament draw rule you are suggesting. The other thing would be in a list of Major winners where each of the 4 Majors may have used a different form of the player's name... which do we use? And for many older tournaments we don't have an "official" draw sheet in hand, just something printed in a magazine or a book author. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well to be fair for Tiden I've seen both used. Either on Queens or LA Will and Bill are definatly both used within the same list. I see the problem as people think they are seperate people but have never seen a discussion on this before, but I think we should use the more common name e.g. Bill Tiden with a William redirect if one doesn't exist to Bill KnowIG (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Day-by-Day Summaries
I wanted to alert you to the fact that KNOWIG constantly reverts these on the 2011 Australian Open. It has been consensus ever since 2009 Australian Open. I just wanted to alert you that [|consensus] was to merge them back into the articles. So, let the community decide rather than two editors in an edit revert war.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about you see Wiki size meaning that it should be a daughter page. But since that page has been deleted then it shouldn't be there at all. Look at Wiki size. KnowIG (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you are clearly in the wrong here because size alone is not justified in removing past consensus about article structure, composition, and components. So, if you want to go look to 2009 Australian Open, 2009 French Open, 2009 Wimbledon Championships, 2009 US Open, 2010 Australian Open, 2010 French Open, 2010 Wimbledon Championships, 2010 US Open.  I would love to discuss the merits of these for inclusion in the main article.  These give a good day-by-day covering of the slam on the main courts where the great matches takes place during the tournament.  If you take these away you will be leaving out the key aspect to any encyclopedia a when of what happened during a tournament.  So, it is not clearly cut and dry as you want to make it KnowIG.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those tables are not encylpedic and in history we don't care when things happened. And all your doing is regutitaing shite and repeting what has already been written in the events section. BTW the men's dubs section you wrote is poor. Full of Americanisms and totally unsourced, just like anything else you've written. KnowIG (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would advise to keep this discussion civil. Please, do not go after someones writing style as being nationalistic, and mine was just the facts of the seeds and what rounds they got knocked out. The only argument you could make is they were unsourced.  The only national thing I put in was to call the Bhupathi and Paes team an Indian duo and that would be correct.  By the way, you have violated the 3RR on here, which means you need to watch out or else risk a block by an admin.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No I haven't you did three revisons in a row of the same thing. And btw a threepeat is an americanism go and learn something KnowIG (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I never gave my two cents on this issue but in reading it today this "day by day" prose was talked about when it was a daughter page and the consensus was "not" to remove, it was to merge it. To be honest I think it was better as a separate article since 2011 is way too long even without it. My own opinion on merit is unsure but it doesn't really matter now as the consensus was to keep it in some form, either separate or merged (with merge preferred). I guess you could make a new page for it as a daughter with a slightly different title but unless/until some mediated cabal is brought together it needs to remain in some form, by consensus. Maybe those talking merge didn't realize the size of the main article was already quite large? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Till its resolved I re-added the info from the blanked page and linked to it from the main article. Consensus, good or bad, was to keep it in some form. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for the record : The three-revert rule is counted from reverting (=deleting) Zwilson14's merge when ab initio he brought the consensus into force.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  12:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I know I only did it twice, so I did not break the rule, and I am glad you went back and looked at the edit history of the page in question. I fixed the Americanism in the sentence with threepeat and put three title steak or something to that effect per KnowIG suggestion.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No you did it 3 time. once to revert me, then you deleted, then you put in and then reverted me = 4 on the same thing smart arse, you are guilty of 3RR KnowIG (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But you are as well. It would have been nice if you had posted the debate here earlier since you are the more veteran editor in Wiki. Please stay calm : it doesn't matter who did it (unless an admin recognizes it), but to learn that next time don't overrule each other and ignore the guidelines! Neither of you.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I never denied that I did. I was mearly pointing out SWWWWWH faults as well as I am a hot head but I am fair and doesn't want to take 100% blame. I do appolgies for my actions I am still very young so I live and learn with whole timing of talk page use etc. KnowIG (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the page back to the way things were, and it did not increase the page size much because we are just mirroring another page to the 2011 Australian Open page. I think that's a fair compromise to make on this matter.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry as well, and would hope that others would forgive me when I err! So, I accept it and give it to KnowIG!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's a fair compromise so I changed it back. There is already an edit war going over it so I believe the best course of action is to discuss it here or the 2011 talk page before messing with that particular item. If the two of you agree, after talking, then change it... otherwise I would leave it as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Lilian Watson
Lilian Watson's (1884 Wimbledon finalist) page spells her name Lillian. Both 100 Years of Wimbledon by Lance Tingay, and Wimbledon - The Official History of the Championships by John Barrett, spell her name Lilian.Rmallett (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also the USTA spells it with one l. Afro  ( Talk ) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AP and ESPN have articles with Lillian, CBS sports with Lilian. The sonyericssonopen website has Lillian while Sports Illustrated uses both spellings. The UK Independent uses Lilian while the UK Telegraph uses Lillian. What a mess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At the very least, they should both be link destinations, with one redirecting to the other, as is done with Harold Mahony/Mahoney, and many others.Rmallett (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Portal
The tennis portal is a mess. Lets set a team up to sort it out. KnowIG (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you give me a link to the portal, and I will see what I could do to make it better, please?!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's at the top of the page the little box with a yellow ball saying tennis portal. KnowIG (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry too much I've worked out how to update the content but I am not going to touch the layout. KnowIG (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The news section is really one year old?? OMG! It definitely needs some update.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All Done!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Un-Wiki-link in ATP Challenger articles
I noticed that the player names in Challenger draws are unwikilinked (because the player is not notable for the moment). My concern is: if that player let's say wins a Challenger or takes part to a main draw on an ATP World Tour tournament and becomes notable, all those articles with his name on them would not link to him. I propose to wiki link any names in a tennis draw because they could become notable and the "What links here" tool would not be useful for them. What do you say? ( G a b i n h o >:) 18:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC))
 * Terrible idea, to link everyone, just 'incase'KnowIG (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Terrible? Reconsider your words please. ( G a b i n h o >:) 21:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC))
 * Why should I it's not offensive. KnowIG (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My meager opinion would be no. Many, if not most, of these players will never become notable... then we have red links to nothing, forever. If they do become notable enough for an article there are enough editors that things get taken care of, or if one makes an article the name can be searched and found and linked at that time. Maybe some other editors will give us their thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can always go back and link all the articles he appears in, if/when he becomes notable. I think the ATP and ITF gives a pretty good tournament history of the players, example. Afro  ( Talk ) 23:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I found this policy by searching the wiki. The link is Red link and what it is about. Go read all!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it looks ugly and temps mugs to create articles which we then have to delete. KnowIG (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey it's pretty specific, "create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic" and "articles should not have red links to topics that are unlikely ever to have an article". So if one thinks an article should be created for the link go ahead and red link it. I've done this myself hoping a page would be built. This shows someone they should be creating an article for that link. However it does not say to create links to something that "could become notable." That would be putting the cart before the horse and should not be done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A simple Google search will list the articles mentioning the newly created name. It is quite a short work to do the job as I've done it a few times with this method. There won't be a hundred of them since a sole ATP main draw first round can qualify someone to be notable so a couple of Challenger articles could possible link to it at most.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Davis Cup table following the Finals section pattern
I've "invented" something like this : Michael Venus (tennis). Any ideas/comments on the general introduction of such scoreboards?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The colors used to define groups could be more specific and someone who's uneducated in the subject will have no clue about the arrows signaling the outcome of the match. Afro  ( Talk ) 21:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Some tips to improve it? I would like to leave as simple as possible e.g. that's why I chose the arrow intead of a more detailed description. Also I'd rather focus on the player than on the whole Davis Cup match. Maybe expanding the sidenote arrow key will help. And for the colors : it's up to you, there are just initial ones go fetch here what you'd prefer to have.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  21:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Example
This looks better and allows people with color blind issues to get the correct information out of the chart. I put in symbols to do that.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * indicates the outcome of the Davis Cup match followed by the score, date, place of event, the zonal classification and its phase, and the court surface.

{|
 * style="width:33%; vertical-align:top; text-align:left;"|
 * style="width:33%; vertical-align:top; text-align:left;"|


 * The colors are fine but the extra characters indicating the group they compete in is unnecessary. That is what the colors are for. And thanks for the feedback of course.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would just say go and look at this guide, and see what it says about color issues.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it goes for the symbols than we got two choice : transform every ATP tour tables to use symbols instead of colors OR make that new table match the already existing ones (I vote for the latter as the ATP scoreboards worked just fine until now). If you linked it for the colors (I really don't know what was your purpose to embed it) what you've posted is acceptable for me.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  20:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really excited with the colors or the complexity of the chart for novices. Too harsh imho, especially the pink. If the colors scattered throughout an article are too bright or have too much contrast the article starts to take on the look of a coloring book which drives the eyes to the colors more than the well written prose or information in those charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But introducing a symbol-based outlook along with the color-coded ATP-tour tables will unnecessarily force the leader to learn a new abbreviations key while the only thing he did is scrolling down from the previous table. As for the colors : what do you think of the original ones (the link in the first sentence below the header)?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  23:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ACCESS reasons each color in a table needs to be accompanied by a symbol so that it isn't the only thing distinguishing the information. Afro  ( Talk ) 01:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At least move it to the Rubber coloumn. It still looks superfluous to me though.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The symbol usually goes after the name or number, which in this case it is the number in the rubber column. This goes by the policy, so I don't recognize or get what is so superfluous about this if we are in fact actually following Wikipedia policy.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is simply practicism and functionality : The ATP scoreboards worked fine with the colors for years not even one reader complaining about its comprehensiveness. It is the same table (just for the Davis Cup) or otherwise following this logic we can jump back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis and attribute them with random characters as well, which I will also find superfluous (I can easily do so since it's my opinion). The guidelines are suggestions not orders, so if an article works fine with colors it isn't a must to raid it with a symbol hailstorm.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually is says "do not use colored TEXT unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll apply the new colors but if anything other sides with the symbols apart from the guidelines (which is obiously not the case here) I will omit them unless a horde of complaints flow in saying the colors are confusing)  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  22:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed it it this version (see above)  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To correct Fyunck it says "Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels." Afro  ( Talk ) 15:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't correct me you simply added the ambiguous part of the sentence. Colored text you need symbols... colored anything else will depend on its importance which, because this is wikipedia, will have to be argued about endlessly lol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am posting the full Wikipedia guide to using color and making it identifiable "Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." Did you all read it!  It says the Davis Cup chart is not made to Wikipedia policy, which means it must adhere to the policy.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. I've expanded the table with a special column for handicapped readers or printer, fax machine, scanner users.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  20:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, I like the column to the left that you did! I did not see that in the previous revision, so what you have going on right now is good.  Thanks, for addressing my point(s) of consideration.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But once again, color can be used in minor information without the need for symbols. I'm not saying this chart in particular but if let's say some chart uses color to signify whether a player is left or right handed that is not important information and would not need anything but the color. Or one could say a few words in prose after the chart saying something like "the years 1968-1972, 1978-1979, and 1990" were played in Michigan, but have the chart show that in blue with no symbols at all. Just so we're on the same page here.

And in looking at the chart I do notice the incorrect nomenclature for showing the tiebreak score. Remember it's not 7–66, it's 7–6(8–6), as vetted out here awhile back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I might miss that then but is this apply for all the articles? Just for intance 2011 ATP World Tour still uses the one-number formula. Can you link the aforementioned discussion here for me please?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * All articles, it's just a slow process of converting the ones that don't follow protocol. The discussion was at []. Wikiproject synthesized the agreement and has it listed at [], however I was under the impression it was agreed at with brackets around the tiebreak so my bad there, and I know that &ndash has been supplanted by simply using the ndash character "–". Hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll follow that in the future.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  21:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Example 2
We already have this on Nadal's Rafael Nadal career statistics subpage. I don't know what the colors are for in this piece. Any ideas on this compared to the above one?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At first sight it is overlinked, flag icons are overused, the titles of coloumns Against and Win/lose are not too official.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Example 3
From Gustavo Kuerten's main page... Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  19:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

QF – Quarterfinal | SF – Semifinal | QR – Qualifying Round

* During the Doubles match, the star of the Austrian team, Thomas Muster, got angry over what he claimed to be disrespectful Brazilian fans, who were allegedly insulting him from the stands. The match umpire did not recognize his claim, so Muster walked off the court, throwing the match. He then convinced the entire Austrian team to defect the confront, which led to the cancellation of the two singles matches on Sunday and the automatic demotion of Austria to the European Zonal Group I.



Synthesis
Please give me feedback on these as its current unsystematic appearances are more like chaos.
 * Example 1 :
 * Maybe I should narrow the place description to town/country and rearrange the blocks.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Example 2 :
 * Some renaming and recoloring would fix it, as I guess the colors are for clay/not clay, which is really a one-sided point of view.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Example 3 ✅:
 * Some addtions (as marking the outcome of the Davis Cup match) and it would be suitable as well.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I picked the third one and will inculde it in the article guideline as well. If anyone oppose to this let me know.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  00:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bold markup for rank numbers
I haven't seen any guidance regarding whether or not rankings should be bold, as seen in this example with "World No. 65" and "No. 65". Is anybody aware of any prior discussion about this? If not, can we establish what should be done about ranking numbers? — LOL T/C 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bold text should be used in conformance with WP:MOSBOLD. I see no good reason that prose should be bold in these cases. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. That's really unnecessary. Definitely not in prose and to bold the highest ranking in the infobox is just illogic considering that the "Highest" is always is the most achievable ranking no need to further highlight it (it is placed next to the current ranking so it's quite obvious that is is his best - if not equal).  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree with my fellow editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too ( G a b i n h o >:) 21:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC))
 * I think you all have come to the appropriate conclusion on this matter, no further opinion needed by me!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quite usual trhoughout the tennis biographies : I accidently ran into one recently and changed it back to normal and I encourage everyone to do it as well, if they'll come upon one.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Coaches?
I've noticed that the project article guideline page has a separate section for coaches (and a dead template for it). So I've arbitrarily expanded the notability criteria for them. I would happily accept comment from you on this:

Since these are very rare article types, the most common case is when a player chose coaching after retirement. In all other cases reveal the coach's background to see if he/she notable. It is important as it could easily happen that a child player is coached by a non-proffessional or non-tennis-affiliated relative and cotton to him during his career (see Toni Nadal). The minimum requirement that can obviously qualify without doubt for coaches of players are: These also ensure that the notability of one-hit wonders' coaches doesn't automatically granted with his/her coachee's success. (See Roberto Carretero for example) This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players. Junior players' coaches are to be omitted otherwise it has to be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  12:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's a coach :
 * The player has reached the final of or won one of the major professional tournaments.
 * The player has entered to ATP top 10 for a week at least.
 * The player was member of a champion team competing in a Davis Cup, Fed Cup, Hopman Cup (reserve players and team captains don't count).
 * The player won and reached the final of another ATP Masters 1000 event.


 * Although I'm a bit sceptical on coaches' role in Wikipedia (if they have any in tennis), but there must be a line drawn. The above "rule" still allows the creation of Dick Hordorff (some sources list him Dirk Hordorff ), who is currently coaching Janko Tipsaeric (Davis Cup champion). The main thing is that the problem would still exits if I changed the rule to "multiple terms must be fulfilled the same time" as he was also Rainer Schüttler's coach when he entered to the top 10 (and became a major finalist). So I'm really out of bullets on this topic.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it would be a "three-players-rule" he would be still in : He is coaching/managing Olivier Marach (top 8 in doubles) . Maybe my ideas are not enough to sort out or is he truly notable (I must note that he is also the president of the Hessian Tennis Association)? Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've created a template for them. Please take a look : Infobox Tennis Coach biography.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  16:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I would suggest a player/coach box as well. Just use the existing tennis bio and your coach bio temp and merge them together. Obviously removing certain bits. KnowIG (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be too long? I saw articles with multiple different biography templates in case a player changed profession. Like in Bob Sapp. So if he/she starts to coach then a new section is dedicated to it within his Career and an infobox could be placed there.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It most certainly would take up less space than the example you've shown. For example benefits, no need to write personal info twice, in different boxes. So no personally it wouldn't be too long. KnowIG (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely feel the need for a solution as most of tennis players become coaches by time. As you can see the current coach infobox has a section for the coaches' active years. What about expanding that further with optional parameters? What would you require to have in it?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I was implying. Simple soultion just merge the tennis player box with the coach box. KnowIG (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Copy here from Template:Infobox_tennis_biography/doc what lines do you prefer to have in the merged version and I cut it into the current coach infobox.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All of it cause Annacone, Cahill and Gilbert, all of that box is applicable to them. KnowIG (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've updated Paul Annacone. Is it really that bad? Give it a try.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  00:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (also I can easily transform it to have a collapsible parameter so it won't appear on the page unless the reader clicks "Show". Just for cases when two infoboxes are present).  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  02:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's good but IMO only works for Annacone, because it's got a separate coach section and player and coach prose is big enough for it to fit nicely. On Gilbert and Cahill I don't think there are separate sections which are big enough. Could get messy IMO. Refinement maybe needed as I think that collaspable although a good solution is not the best way to go, but if you do an example then we can evaluate the viablity of it. KnowIG (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm done. You can test it on Template:Infobox Tennis Coach biography/doc.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  12:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could work with a minor change. I will point out that the change is nothing to do with the template. I'll try it on Gullickson later. KnowIG (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added it to Galo Blanco as well. Try to spread it through Wiki. Thank you for helping me out with that .  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  14:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Recently updated Zoltan Kuharszky and planning to do Marian Vajda but I was wondering that we should compile a list of articles needing coach infobox to gather a task force for that. I presume there are far more coach-oriented articles, than I first thought.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this Tim Gullikson all personal detail removed to avoid repitition with box above :) KnowIG (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you leave the Paul Annacone coaching career in it?  Lajbi   Holla @ me  •  CP  09:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fraid so. Don't know enough about poor Tim and Pete to be definative. Should go and get so bios and check it out lol KnowIG (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob .  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Partial list of articles needing (updating to, expanding with) coach infobox
Some of these people are more notable as coaches than as players, and also their article is expandable with prose based on it:  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Add

Richard Williams (tennis) ✅

David Macpherson (tennis) ✅

José Higueras

Larry Stefanki

Roger Rasheed

Luis Lobo

Bob Brett

Hernán Gumy

Morten Christensen (tennis) Replace

Juan Luis Tati Rascon

Carlos Cuadrado

Srinath Prahlad Expand

Joakim Nystrom

Peter Lundgren

Eric Winogradsky

Karel Nováček

Rick Leach

Francisco Roig

Andrei Pavel

Fernando Vicente

Heinz Günthardt

Updating the Guideline page is needed
Observing the recent discussions here I came to the decision we might update the WikiProject Tennis/Article Guidelines as it contains various obsolete information and it should be also expanded a bit more regarding scores, colors, rankings, notability and other fixes. For example even the example articles don't follow the tiebreak upper index directives (2008 Queen's Club Championships – Singles under the Draws section) and it offers a template for coaches that has been already deleted...

The example for a perfect(?) player article shows Pete Sampras' though his highest ranking is in bold within its infobox, which is unnecessary. I found three bolded rankings in biography pages just today (not counting Sampras') by randomly browsing through player's articles so it has to be definitely included in the guidelines. I would also add an example infobox to show how it should look next to the player infobox section and some more FAQ on free pictures (linked to the appropriate WP Help page).

The colors principles (for color-blinded people and monochrome monitor or black and white printer users) are omitted in all ATP titles/runner-ups tables. I guess it all could had been prevented if it has been an example table in it. Also if we can agree in a Davis Cup pattern I would also recommend indicating it in a separate section as well.

The notability criteria for tennis players is also needed (it is easily expandable from Notability (sports)). The whole article is just too "general" and not specified to tennis itself.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  21:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * yep...wiki is a living breathing entity and unfortunately pages frequently get left out of updating. You'd think that wikiproject tennis would be at the head of the update list to keep us all informed, but as you just pointed out it's a victim too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of things need to be tightened on here. Such as do we use sponsor names or non sponsor names. And looking on the archieves here it is very much inconclusive, but at naming conventions they seem to go towards the non sponsor names. I personally vote for non sponsor so we know where to find the article where possible, etc but obviously we all need to agree and then impliment on all articles. I will have a think about some other bits and bobs. I am also trying to expand the wheelchair tennis stuff at the mo, so if we can come up and tighten the guidlines then all of this section will look good and uniformed. KnowIG (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the non-sponsor names also if at all possible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll begin the updating by adding example excerpts from articles into the Lead, History...etc sections, correcting the reference articles at least to match what is recommended for them. And I am planning to add an example infobox in accordance to the guidelines with some arrows on it pointing out which row is for what purpose. I just wanted to make sure that you aware of that and follow the updating. As for the sponsor links, I guess we can have a overwhelming majority in favor of non-sponsor here, so I'll include it (a warning on avoiding it or redirect it) in the example links right at the top of the introduction.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's difficult because when I first started creating articles for tennis tournaments, I used generic names but these were gradually moved to the sponsored name of the tournament. Most tournaments are known officially by their sponsored name e.g. the AEGON international or BNP Paribas Open and I think that is what we should tell our readers. I have created articles for every WTA tournament in 1983 and 1984 and have used sponsored names where available. 03  md  01:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See you point 03md and is very frustrating. But I think non sponsered is the way to go, as that was what it was traditionally on here. Wikipedia is not a commercial operation and it has gradually changed to sponsored names which is wrong. Unfortunatly (No offence Lajbi and any other reading this) too many random IP's and non English speakers have done what they have liked and so we end up just chasing our tales all the time. In the past few months I've chipped away at the articles with out importance and literally every single draw sheet was uncatagorised even though it's clearly low on the scale. Also with joint challengers I've finally got people to do the women's draws as well. It's not the fact that you have to tell people. Just changing it and being consistant is enough of a nudge in my experience to get people to conform (and do the women's draws as well in my example above).


 * I know it's been a while since I contributed anything significant on this front, but I felt I had to comment on something that, in a way, I helped to start (Stella Artois Championships etc.). When I started working on tennis articles on Wikipedia I used generic names too. Then it occurred to me that that didn't necessarily make sense – tournaments had sponsored names, so why not use those for article titles? This formula was later backed up by reference books using sponsored names, and so I went along with it. The only reason that generic titles might not work is how they are written – long-running tournaments in particular have never described themselves as said location, then Open. The Next Generation Adelaide International, for example, was never known as the Adelaide Open – it was the South Australian Open, then the Australian Men's Hardcourt Championships, then the AAPT International and so on. Nor has the BNP Paribas Open been called the Indian Wells Open – it has, however, used titles such as the Newsweek Champions Cup and the Pilot Pen Classic. That is the only problem with being generic with article titles – even non-sponsored tournament articles would have to indicate changes to their endings (i.e. Indian Wells Cup, Indian Wells Classic etc.) over time, so generic titles still wouldn't be accurate enough to reflect their actual names. The best compromise I can think of is to use non-sponsored titles but the correct endings, such as the Internazionali d'Italia for the Internazionali BNL d'Italia. Even then, a lot of work would be required on that front. I do not necessarily agree with the generic format, but if it must be so, it must be so. Totalinarian (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe it was not called the Indian Wells Open but it has certainly been called The Indian Wells Masters and the Indian Wells Championship, and to this day many magazines/papers call it as such. Miami the same way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Other quick examples to back up the one above; Miami Open, Auckland Classic (the WTA's ASB Classic), or the Washington (Tennis) Classic. Totalinarian (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've long been advocating for more people to get involved in the creation of archived tennis tournaments and draw articles. Perhaps it is the fact that only myself, Totalinarian and KnowIG (and Oxford St. when I first began editing). have really made headway that has led to problems - other tennis editors may not have noticed these developments. It would be good if more people could get involved once we have sorted this issue out to fill in the vast gaps. A look at the yearly templates for men's and women's tennis indicate the amount of redlinks that need to be turned blue. 03  md  04:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually when I just looked at WikiProject_Tennis/Templates most names in the templates are not red so you must have done a pretty good job. Sure something like Template:Australian Open girls’ doubles champions has lots of red names but it should...most are not notable enough to warrant their own article. Either that or they should be unlinked so as not to show red. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. However I was really meaning templates such as Template:1980 WTA Tour which I would like editors to help fill in. It is not important to find loads of refs for each tournament to begin with but we want to start with creating stubs for all open era tournaments (WTA, ATP, Grand Prix, Virginia Slims, WCT etc.). I have recently created stubs for every tournament on these two templates. 03  md  23:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Matches Tennis daily
Can someone help me to find out what are these?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  12:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * commons:Category:Matches Tennis daily
 * Category:Matches Tennis daily

Hello!

Frankly, I mean to clarify the idea until you're doing a project to develop a daily page is where all the tennis matches that are played

Just like the site http://www.livescore.com/tennis/

But I did not mean to better clarify what I think

I hope to work on this project because I am sure it will Succeed on Wikipedia

Thank you محمد البكور (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WTA color schemes
Is there any reason why the color scheme below isn't used for the calendar pages (2009, 2010 and 2011 WTA Tour) ? These are the colors used in the Clijsters, Wozniacki, Zvonareva, Serena and Venus career stats articles, and many other player pages. I think this scheme is easier on the eyes than the one currently used, plus it matches the ATP colors. So, using these colors, the pages would look something like this. --JMDP (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your version looks great, colour scheme is much easier on the eye. Boddefan2009 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

ATP Qualifying Draws
I know that there is a new trend for putting these up, so this is a quick heads-up regarding archive qualifying draws if anyone is interested in creating articles using them. It is still possible to find draws from 2001 and onwards on the ATP's website and an example article can be found here in due course. Totalinarian (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And on a similar vein, archive doubles qualifying draws – because qualifying for doubles draws on the ATP Tour seems to have existed until the 2001 Wimbledon Championships – are also available as well, and an example article for those draws can be found here. Totalinarian (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying nominated five singles qualifying draws. It was closed as no consensus so they were kept and people now seem to be making them for all current tournaments. Doubles qualifying draws have not been at AfD as far as I know but they might get less support than singles. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think they are notable but we should look at creating main articles for every WTA and ATP event (as I have been doing) in history before worrying about qualifying. 03  md  14:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Website changes
Just a little heads up. The WTA have changed it's website address again! Cause it was soneyericssontour this time last year! Anyway the latest change sees wtatour.com changed to wtatennis.com. Links should be fine but just be aware if you find any duffs as this is what has changed. Also any articles with links to the LTA website need to be changed as they had a revamp a few weeks ago. KnowIG (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

ATP Grand slams & Masters Singles champions
Hello, not sure what you all think about this article. For me its a step too far down the WP:LISTCRUFT route, but then I think that about quite a few of the articles on tennis on Wikipedia. Anyway, I thought that I'd draw attention to it as if nothing else it needs clearing up by someone with more time on their hands than I have; I'll let you tennis people decide what you want to do with it! --Pretty Green (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At least it should be moved to List of ATP Grand slams & Masters Singles champions otherwise one might think it's a "readable" article (like I did). On other hand it could be likewise better if we transform it into a collapsable template, and place it at the bottom of referred articles. It will serve the purpose of summerizing those who has won the series, but won't occupy a whole page. I must say it also needs to be cleaned up. I know the masters series is a subject of modification all the time, but to simplificate them to master1, masters2 is kinda strange.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The solution of having it at the bottom of pages is nul and void. Already have boxes for that. KnowIG (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed this article before and my first impression is it's useless and should be deleted. We have pages for the majors, Atp finals and masters events already. The masters winners on the chart are only for masters wins in yearly order...not for a particular masters event... a useless stat imho. The title says "ATP grand slams and masters singles" yet it includes the ATP finals. It also only has the titles since 1990 when the "ATP Tour" started but the ATP and Masters have been around since 1972, so the title would need to be changed to reflect that. Something Like "ATP Tour singles Grand Slam tournaments and Masters events." Heck those little asterix links are also very hard to hit correctly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It says ATP in the title. Why would you need to add the other stuff when ATP did not have a tour until 1990. Nonplussed whether it is deleted or not. KnowIG (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's confusing without it. There have been plenty of atp sponsored masters events before 1990. The title says nothing about atp tour that started in 1990 so by adding the word "tour" it clarifies what this page is about. It's also not about grand slams it's about Grand Slam Tournaments or Majors so that could use clarifying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think that it wouldn't stand the test of Afd. It is senseless. I came up with the ideas above just to save it. It's not a common article, it's a list at most, but generally there's no need for it. As it has been said list of grand slams already exists, the masters have templates so having a separate article is totally useless in my opinion.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  22:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Playing devils advocate to be fair... maybe I would think differently if it was by masters events instead of timeframe, the article title fit the content, the colors were better and had a key, the links in the table were bigger than an asterisk and that it was sorted by oldest to newest. The olympics are just as important also so they might need a column. There would also need to be a list at the bottom of maybe the top 5 leaders in totals for all of these events. Something to note that Federer leads with 38 victories, Sampras is 2nd with 30, Nadal has 27 and Agassi has 26. Just some thoughts since a nice comprehensive article, even with overlap, can be helpful to readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The creator asked for comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 6 but got no replies. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Boy he sure did. It was squished right in the middle of Roland Garros ww2 winners and a big decision on tiebreaks so I unfortunately missed it. It's certainly no fault of his since he asked and did so in the right place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice catch. We can still PM Fahidka to join the discussion here. Maybe we are a year late but reviewed it. BTW only two conventional pages link to it, so it's a reason to remain hidden so long. About the format : I would also recommend to have the masters enumeration changed to the location it was held if it changed then a new row should be inserted as a new header with the new venue. The same for the changes in their chronology. Otherwise it would need a ton of sidenotes.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the healthy discussions & thanks KnowIG for pinging me on talk page on this. My intention on this article is that there was no single page available from where we can monitor the real dominance in tennis over the years and I was particularly interested on the mens singles circuit. I believe there are 3 types tournaments really mattered for all the tennis players - GS, year end masters and ATP Masters / 1000 event and by comparing performances in these we will get the real dominance in tennis ckt over the years. I could not come up with a proper naming and I thought some one will suggest me a better name for the same. I intended it to go beyond 1990 & should be complete. Hope all of you can contribute on the same and make it better but I prefer this article stays without delete as lot of information is provided on the same which makes the users to really compare the dominance in tennis over the years and go to the selected tournament wikilinks available on the same. Fahidka  (talk) 15:57 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I fixed a bunch of things that were of concern and moved the article. Not sure what to do about the asterisks so I left them for the time being. I'm not sure if this is the best remedy but it is a remedy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Performance Timeline Tables for ATP Players
I have noticed that the performance timelines for ATP players have been changed in recent weeks. Editors have begun including players' results from the ATP World Tour 500 Series, ATP World Tour 250 Series, Davis Cup etc. I was just wondering if this is really necessary as it makes the table quite lengthy. Furthermore, they have introduced a new colour scheme along with it for headings such as Grand Slams, ATP Masters Series 1000 etc. I for one would like to see the old format restored, but would like to ask what you guys think about this first. JayJ47 (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It really is getting stewy isn't it? The rule of thumb seems to be that you can never have too much info here on wikipdedia. I only looked at Nadal and Federer career statistics... did you have other examples to bring to our attention? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Fyunck. Here's a list of players pages whose timelines have been changed to the new format (that I know of).


 * Rafael Nadal career statistics
 * Roger Federer career statistics
 * Novak Djokovic career statistics
 * Robin Soderling
 * Juan Martin Del Potro
 * Tomas Berdych
 * Bernard Tomic
 * Fernando Verdasco (just the new colour scheme)

But I'm sure there's a whole lot more. So what should we do about it? Leave it as is or change the tables back to normal? My suggestion is that we should keep the original format as it is easier to understand because it only lists a players achievements from the major events e.g. Grand Slams and Masters tournaments, and it is far less lengthy. JayJ47 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverting tables back to the old ones
I'm going to start changing the tables back to what they use to look like. So if you guys could help me do so, that would be great. JayJ47 (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Doubled points in ATP rankings
Do any of you know why the Indian Wells Masters points have been doubled for the qualifiers? All of them, Devvarman, Young, Harrison, Russel, etc received double points apparently without any reason (no it's not the point for qualification nor it is the 2010 IW points, it's simply multiplied by two). It would be useful to include the concerning rule to the 2011 ATP World Tour Finals (as the one with the actual race) ,in ATP Rankings and all articles containing a point distribution table (ATP World Tours). An example for it from Somdev Devvarman's ATP point breakdown : And he really got 212 points in total for his performance. He earned more points than a quarterfinalist. He moved a bunch of places in the top 100 as a consequence. I'm a bit confused.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  19:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that he really got 212 points? Manually adding all the points at Somdev Devvarman's ATP point breakdown gives 789. As you say, 106 is listed twice, but his total is only given as 683. This indicates to me that only one of the two listed 106 is actually counted. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I did that just moments ago. I couldn't post it since you've posted yours (edit conflict). I was wrong. I make my above comment null as ATP just shows as double but doesn't count it as so (the total equals by adding the IW pts only once as you've said). Still it looks misleading.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  04:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree it's misleading to have two 106 lines, and I guess it's an error which will be fixed at some time. 07.03.2011 he had 585 points. 21.03.2011 he had 683. 8 points from 2010 expired. 683-585 = 106-8, so this confirms that 106 is only counted once. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

New template Template:Student athlete
Feel free to help fill in Template:Student athlete by adding new articles or creating articles for redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your opinions and advice
A recently discussion WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's Sport. Your opinions and your advice are welcome. bon week-end à tous --Geneviève (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Oscar Wegner
I've nominated Oscar Wegner for deletion. You'll see why when you visit the page and read my comment on the AfD entry.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  19:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * lol...The guy who started the page has only that article to his editing credits. Me thinks Eztennisswing=OscarWegner. Pretty much all the googling hits lead to his own pages or his published books on Amazon. The Scientologist arena seem to have written about him also. That said, he is published and is in a couple tennis forums...he has talked on espn and "says" he has worked with major pros. It needs references and it's not like it's a massively long self bloating article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Oscar Wegner page should have been deleted as it did not comply with Wikipedia rules for writing a biography of a living person. However, Oscar Wegner is a notable person in the tennis world and there should be a Wikipedia page on him. The comments of Bushranger, MLA, Armbrust, Undertaker, MBelgrano and Fyunck are inaccurate or inappropriate. Mr. Wegner would like to write the text for his own page but I have explained to him that this is strongly discouraged, so I volunteer to write an unbiased, accurate, referenced article about him. As I am new to Wikipedia I need help in how to do so correctly and also need guidance on how to contact others and be contacted here on Wikipedia. Thank you for your help in this regard.Operalives (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't feel my comments were inappropriate or inaccurate and I searched for quite awhile to verify notability. What I wrote is what I found. You'll note that what I wrote here played devils advocate and mentioned some good things too. No rules I know of against him writing his own bio but with a living person the references should be plentiful and ironclad. They need to be printed or internet references that can be easily verified. Your best bet is to create it in a subpage called User:Operalives/sandbox. There you can edit, experiment and do whatever you like until you think it's ready. Then ask others here to check it out and make comments and suggestions to help out. I always found it easier to start an article by finding someone similar already in wikipedia. I would then edit, copy everything, and paste it into your sandbox page. Then tweak it and rewrite it to work with the new person. When you think it looks pretty good that's when you would again copy it and create the official page. Other help can be found at Biographies of living persons. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. The main problem is that there must be a third-party publication about him (e.g. interview). Still some claims that makes him notable has to be said within it. For guidance please look up WikiProject Tennis/Article Guidelines where you'll find the notability criteria as well.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  09:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I thank you, Fyunck and Lajbi, for your suggestions. Question: Is there any way to correspond privately with those of you who are editors and/or administrators, or are all discussions "out in the open"? Operalives (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some have private mailing available... I don't. You would mention the article here but ask for answers on the article's talk page. That way everyone who wants to can comment and help. You would do that when you think it looks reasonably good. So you would write the query on the article's talk page and let people know about it over here to begin with. Once comments start flowing on the talk page some/many will comment and click the "watch" tab on top of that page to keep track of followups. Some wiki people will be very critical, some will be very friendly and helpful, and some will write a lot but not say very much. :-) That's the nature of the beast around here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Fyunck. I am starting to get t he hang of it.Operalives (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

List of non-Grand Slam tennis statistics and records
I think this requires major modifications. It does not contain list of most number of ATP singles titles (only given details of Jimmy connors with 109 but does not list top 10 in the list) which is much important. There should also be a separate section on most number of ATP match wins. Also detailing is needed on all the sections. I think the same should be arranged in the following way


 * ATP Wins / Titles
 * Most Number of ATP singles titles
 * Most Number of ATP singles match wins
 * Most Number of consecutive singles title wins
 * Most Number of consecutive final wins


 * Winning Streaks
 * Longest Match Winning streaks (all surfaces)
 * Longest Match Winning streaks on Hard-courts
 * Longest Match Winning streaks on Clay-courts
 * Longest Match Winning streaks on Grass-courts


 * ATP Masters 1000
 * Most number of ATP Masters 1000 titles
 * Most number of ATP Masters 1000 match wins
 * Most number of consecutive ATP Masters 1000 titles


 * Year End Masters
 * Most number of Year end masters titles
 * Most number of Year end masters wins
 * Year End winners who does not loose a set


 * Tournament Stats
 * Most number of titles in a particular tournament
 * Most number of consecutive titles in a particular tournament
 * Most number of consecutive wins in a particular tournament

I think Player records can be moved to separate page. Please let me know ur thoughts before proceeding with the changes. Fahidka (talk) 15:34 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The ATP records I disagree with. There is already a page with much more detailed info at ATP World Tour records. There are also now 2 masters 1000 articles. And while we could have a singles titles list it should not be limited to the ATP years... it should be historical. I also happen to like the players records here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thimking the same recently when I looked for a specific record and found this...  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  15:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I missed out the same. What a great article is this ( ATP World Tour records )!!!. I can found all which I was looking for. Tennis WikiProject team is doing great work here. I have added ATP World Tour Records to Template:Tennis records and statistics. Fahidka  (talk) 14:58 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This might help. It can also be helpful in List of ATP Tour Grand Slam tournaments and Masters singles champions. Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes to make it more user friendly - giving flag icons in all, changing the arrangements etc. Please check the same. Fahidka (talk) 10:26 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that wikipedia frowns on "flagicon" but that if you do use it.... the first time a particular flag appears you should use "flag" instead of "flagicon." Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that wikipedia frowns on "flagicon" but that if you do use it.... the first time a particular flag appears you should use "flag" instead of "flagicon." Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Longest match winning streak - match wise details
I think it is good to have a separate page containing match by match details of longest match winning streaks, especially for the top 10 winning streaks listed here. Let me know your opinion so that I can create separate page containing the details. Fahidka (talk) 16:40 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume one page per winning streak? I see one major problem with it. As an article it is noteworthy ONLY because it's a top ten winning streak so if someone new comes around and knocks them out of the top ten the old article would need to be deleted from wiki. If all on one page it seems like it would be an incredibly long set of charts for men and women. It would need to be linked to the player's career statistic page and I would think each would need the two losses listed... the one that started the streak and the one that ended the streak. Actually it it might be better to make the chart and plop it into the player's career statistic page rather than make a separate page for each streak. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it would be too much detail to list all matches in these winning streaks. I have linked the Federer years to existing articles where the streaks can be seen. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Added Federer's winning streaks under his career statistics. Please let me know if you have any comments on the same before proceeding to other winning streaks.   Fahidka  (talk) 07:54 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The tiebreaks are done incorrectly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I fixed em up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Conforming to current accepted MOS
Would it be worth me going through all of the old tennis tournament draw articles and changing the draw templates to the ones currently in use? For example, 2011 Grand Prix Hassan II – Singles has the tennis3-v2 template with a top and bottom half, and also a finals section at the top, where the finals draw has full names, and the main draw has first initial, then last name. However, 2006 Grand Prix Hassan II – Singles has a different and inconsistent layout. I'm perfectly happy to go through all the old main draws, as a majority of them are simple to fix, but I just want to clarify that we have the tennis3-v2 layout as the preferred. Sellyme Talk 00:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * They both look ok to me though only the 2006 Grand Prix Hassan II – Singles gets the tiebreak notation correct for wikiproject tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So adding both scores is correct? I'll go around and do that then. Sellyme Talk 08:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct Sellyme. It was decided that many readers would not understand tennis notation so both scores are required for simplification, even in the draw brackets. They should be in superscript format. For me it's a pain to do because a lot of the notation is different... did they use "&ndash" script or simply "–", if there are hyphens I have to change them too and of course the tables are filled with "|-" so you can't change those hypens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Tennis event Template for Multi-sport events
I've created a template for tennis events at multi-sport events like the Olympics, PanAm Games, etc., called Tennis event MSE. It's similar to the tennis event boxes at Masters 1000 events, with the addition of the mixed doubles event (in preparation for the 20122 Summer OGs and the 2011 PanAm Games). But, the links to the other events below the champion information are repetitive if the events have an infobox with links to the other events (see Tennis at the 2011 Pan American Games – Men's Singles for an example). Also, some previous tennis events' singles and doubles competitions are named differently than the ATP/WTA events are (i.e. Men's singles instead of Men's Singles. Should they be capitalized or not capitalized? Thanks! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone identify this tournament?
Check this out:

I personally think it's a hoax... ( G a b i n h o >:) 10:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Check out Section 4 and Section 5. It has Gréta Arn twice and it changes flag color from the actual Hungarian to Indian. And it also a draw with a size of a Grand Slam with only women singles as "It was a singles only tournament. Many top players took part as it was a big tournament". Sound childish, isn't it? And most of all Google finds the Wikipedia page only. It IS a hoax. Must be deleted.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like a hoax to me too plus we now must be suspicious of everything Saihimesh has attributed to wikipedia. I'll ask him/her about it nicely on their talk page and also ask if they've made any other hoax edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a hoax. Bally was nowhere near LA on that date. She came home after losing in Miami to prep for the clay |Oh and Venus is injured —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.216.40 (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have deleted it as a blatant hoax. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fred Hagist
I nominated, but then withdrew my nomination for deletion of Fred Hagist after further consideration. He lost a Cincinnati Masters final back in the 1950s before it was a Masters (was known as the Tri-State Tennis Tournament), before the Open Era and the well organised ATP tour. The question comes down to how does the WP:NTENNIS apply to pre-Open era tennis players? Does criterion #3: "The player has competed in the main draw in one of the major professional tournaments" also apply to the amateur precursors of the current major tournaments, or not? You're opinions would be appreciated. The-Pope (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we need to be flexible on the pre-open era notability. To be honest I do think the list is already too liberal...just being in the draw of a 250 tournament is notable? I think not and I don't know who put that in the requirements. But back to Fred Hagist, he also played in several US Opens, making it to the third round in 1952. Being in a slam draw and being notable is debatable... but if you are notable for it in 2002 then you must be notable for it in 1952. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, and I don't want to appear to be canvassing, but you really need to add it to the article and the AfD to make your opinion count. The-Pope (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ on both AfD and the main article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Lilian Watson
The spelling of this player's name was discussed before, but no conclusion was reached. In addition to 100 Years of Wimbledon, by Lance Tingay, and The Official History of the Championships, by John Barrett, her name is also spelled Lilian in the 2010 Wimbledon Compendium, by Alan Little, published by the AELTC (who should know). I would submit that these sources carry greater weight than 21st. century newspapers, which seem to be the only source for the spelling Lillian. Rmallett (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Short tennis
I came across the article short tennis, and I was wondering, since the article states "it is recognised as a common training method by the ITF", why there were no interwiki links. So, I looked around, and found fr:Mini-tennis and de:Kleinfeldtennis, but I am not sure whether they are the same or a different variant on tennis. Please could someone clarify this? All three are played on a smaller court than normal, and are designed to be helpful for beginners and small children. Coyets (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I speak all three languages and what is common in them that they describe the sport as having a smaller court. Only the German version mentions the metric parameters, while the two others mention a softer ball too. Neither the French nor the German have references, while the English has four but none of them is significant. While Google translator translates Kleinfeldtennis as Mini-tennis in French as well as in English, I assume it's the same as short tennis. But with such few information available so far it could happen that these "training" tactics differ although they are all designed for children education. Maybe we should ask Pretty Green the creator of the page for clarification.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  16:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Or you could look on the ITF website. never seen any mention of it there, seems to be something that could be attributed to the new tennis 10s thingy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.252.47 (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response, I've been away for the past few weeks. My comment that 'it is recognised as a common training method' is based entirely on the source here, in which the ITF endorses a couple of books on short tennis as ways of teaching the sport. 'Common' could perhaps be removed - on reflection that's probably my own addition and isn't necessarily supported in the source. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

10-and-under tennis was mandated by the ITF in August 2010 ITF RULE CHANGE and is practiced in countries around the world ITF PLAY AND STAY Other names for this program include QuickStart Tennis, Mini Tennis, Little Tennis. This is a huge development in tennis teaching worldwide (especially in the USA) and there are copious amounts of data available on it.Operalives (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Tournament names
Should we begin to name the articles of tennis tournaments by their common name. In F1 articles, we don't use the sponsored names, just the common names, eg. we don't use name Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix, we use Malaysian Grand Prix. Hardly nobody speaks about BNP Paribas Masters or Heineken Open, instead we talk about Paris Masters or Auckland ATP tournament. --August90 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed many times most recently here.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Seems that generic names are recommended. But what about the report pages? E.g. Queen's Club reports don't have the sponsor's name whereas e.g. Miami Masters reports have. IMO the sponsor's name could be used in report pages especially if the tournament has no own name, like in BNP Paribas Open and AEGON Championships' cases. But if the tournament has an 'own' name, then the sponsor's name could be dropped, e.g. SkiStar Swedish Open -> Swedish Open. --August90 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume by report pages you mean the links to something like 2010 Queen's Club Championships – Singles? I would think the sponsor name could be used in these cases. It's a specific year and a specific tournament. There will always have to be some exceptions but it will need to be case by case. Heck Queens was always the "London Grass Court Championships" for me and the world saw it that way for 90 years. No one called it the Queens Club Championships before that because it housed more than one tennis tournament. But it has slowly morphed into the Queens Club Championships in today's lingo. So while generic is recommended we will need to remain flexible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should mention both the sponsored and official name on the tournament reports. I think this article should be edited.


 * 2010 Queen's Club Championships


 * Here's how it starts:


 * "The 2010 AEGON Championships was a tennis tournament played on outdoor grass courts. It was the 39th edition of the AEGON Championships..."


 * I think the generic name should also be mentioned. There hasn't been 39 AEGON Championships, instead there have been 39 tournaments at Queen's Club in the open era. IMO the article should start like this:


 * "The 2010 AEGON Championships was a tennis tournament played on outdoor grass courts. It was the 39th edition of the Queen's Club Championships..."


 * Another thing is naming these pages. I think that generic names could be also used in the names of tournament reports, as we never speak about e.g. 2010 AEGON Championships, we speak about 2010 Queen's Club Championships. But the first bolded name in the article should IMO be the official (sponsored) name. --August90 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully support using a mix of the two. For article naming, I recommend that if the sponsor is well known and has been sponsoring the tournament for a long time (e.g. Sydney Medibank International) then the sponsor's name can be used in the lead, whereas otherwise the common name would likely be the original name of the tournament, where one exists. Sellyme Talk 01:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be better but also incorrect. It was always the "London Grass Court Championships" held at Queens club. In '79 it got sponsored and in '08 it got sponsored again. So saying there were 39 Queen's Club Championships is also incorrect. Queens Club has held other championships besides this particular tournament. It would be better written as "The 2010 AEGON Championships was a tennis tournament played on outdoor grass courts. It was the 39th edition of this tournament, held at Queens Club, in the open era." Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Still, if you say "Queen's Club Championships", everybody thinks about the Queen's Club ATP tournament, not other tournaments hosted by Queen's Club. I haven't seen the name "London Grass Court Championships" anywhere else than in Wikipedia. In Queen's Club Championships' discussion page one argument is that BBC uses name "Queen's Club Championships".


 * Anyway, in most cases generic name is the best option for the article title. Sponsored names are IMO OK if it's the common name of the tournament. And IMO the the title doesn't necessarily have to be the former non-sponsored name if it's not used in common speech. In some cases a good system is just naming articles like ATP Buenos Aires. --August90 (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that everyone calls it the Queens Club Championships and I have no problem with that being the generic name, but there have not been 39 Queens Club Championships just as there have not been 39 Aegon Championships. If you had grown up in the 60's and 70's you would have talked about the London Grass Court Championships at Queens Club, or the London Covered Court Championships at Queens Club. The name should be the Queens Club championship here but we need to be careful and accurate how we word the sentences within the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your point. There is not and has never been a tournament called "Queen's Club Championships". It would be interesting to know the name of the trophy. If it's London Grass Court Championship trophy, then we could call the tournament with it's old name "London Grass Court Championships". --August90 (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This site calls 2010 AEGON Ch'ships as Ch'ships of London. The history of London Ch'ships is explained here. So maybe the 'formal name' of this tournament is 'London Championships' or 'Championships of London'. But maybe we should also take into account the editions of this tournament held at London Athletic Club. --August90 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I checked two books I have, one of them the "Encyclopedia of Tennis - 100 Years of Great Players and Events" by Max Robertson & Jack Kramer. They call it the "London Grass Court Championships." However I think most call it Queens Club Championships today so maybe that's where it should stay for now. I emailed Queens Club to see what the trophy is named and I also asked what the tourney is officially named minus any sponsor. We'll see if they get back to me with a response or give me a link. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Queens Club just emailed me with a short answer... the name of the trophy is called the "The Queens Cup." I tried to find a source by googling the name but came up dry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So would it be a good system to refer to a certain year's tournament with its official sponsored name and to refer to a tournament in general with its non-sponsored/generic name? --August90 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's pretty reasonable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Another tournament whose name I've been wondering is Canada Masters/Rogers Cup. Its article calls that tournament with three names; the title is Rogers Cup, the first bolded name is Canada Masters, and the title of the infobox is Canadian Open. I don't know whether that tournament is anymore even formally the Canadian Open ch'ship, or is it just the tourny that used to be the Canadian Open. If it can still be considered to be the Canadian Open, then it would be relevant to talk about that tournament as Canadian Open. But if it's not anymore the Canadian Open, then I think the generic name should be Canada Masters. Of course, women's tournament isn't a Masters event, but Canada Masters would at least be a non-sponsored generic name. --August90 (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

attention on Oscar Wegner
As you can see the Oscar Wegner article has been recreated by Operalives. After having a first look on it I've easily found a dozen errors regarding its references and fetched a dozen tags on them. I follow the good faith principle, and assume that the creator lacks enough Wikipedia experience, otherwise I would nominate it for deletion for the second time though. I'll give it a grace period for a month or so and see if it improves but if not, AfD will be inevitable. In its current form the article is so gappy in its references that it equals as almost having none of them. Please read it for yourself because I'm afraid I'm too bold with a newbie.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  08:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Lajbi for your attention on the new Oscar Wegner page. It is intended to educate readers and to counter the previous suggestions that Mr. Wegner is not a notable person in tennis. Having spoken personally with or been privy to conversations with many of the greatest names in tennis regarding Mr. Wegner there is no doubt that he is very significant as both a witness to and participant in the pre-open era international circuit as well as a keen observer of the open era and major contributor to the development of modern tennis teaching techniques. The problem lies in published sources to validate statements of people such as Rod Laver, Charlie Pasarell, Ray Moore, Bud Collins, Butch Buchholz, Patrick McEnroe, Jose Higueras, Cliff Drysdale, etc. Since I do not have such material in writing I have used whatever I could find to substantiate events and opinions regarding Mr. Wegner. I appreciate any and all help in improving the page's content and citations as it deserves to remain on Wikipedia for the edification of readers. I am a newbie so I want to learn from you all through this. Please be specific in your comments with solutions, not just problems with the article. This is a learning experience for me, and hopefully for you as well.Operalives (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Radarsnobles
Keeps conterversally merging the ATP International series and series gold pages into the 250 and 500 series articles. This has not happened on the WTA side i.e. tier 1 and 2 haven't been merged into the premier pages. He also had the cheek to say that he had discussed this somewhere, which he had not. I checked his contributions, the talk pages of said article the tennis page and this page and there is diddley squat of this 'so called consensus' So it's really a heads up keep an eye on him please 194.66.216.40 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Women's tennis in the United States
I created Women's tennis in the United States. It is very much a stub. Would love some help improving it. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Djokovic-Nadal rivalry
Do you all think this has become notable enough for an article?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a tough one. I hate to jump the gun since these things can rise and fade rapidly... and public perception is everything in this. They have just become number one and two in the world and Djok may surpass Rafa after the French Open. They have met 27 times with Nadal leading 16-11...They have recently played what, 4 matches, all in Djokovic's favor. They are about the same age. What if Djok and Rafa meet for the French final and Rafa wins in 5 tough sets, snapping Djoks winning streak? It would be hard to argue against an intense rivalry in the making at that point. Are people talking about it right now where they would very likely want to look up their head to head details? I think they might be. Maybe you should be bold. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since they probably change place on the top, I think such an article has matured to come alive, but we need to be very careful with the references. As I remember it existed earlier and has been deleted in AfD with many reasons saying that the ATP-related refs are hypeing up the situation for advertisment purposes and thus are not reliable. So unless we find third-party publications that it is an actual rivalry we shouldn't jump in and wait for references to later come by (and so we can't name it a "rivalry" based on the many encounters, because that's an original research). But anyways I support.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By what both of you are saying, I think time is the better part of discretion here on this subject. I just brought it up to see if it was correct to create the article again.  Thanks for the great feedback.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Tennis event template for MSEs
Since there has been no reply to my previous post after a month, I am asking that someone from WP:TENNIS comment on the design for Tennis event MSE. More information is available at the previous post here. Hopefully someone cares to answer this before the tennis event at the 2011 PanAm Games rolls around. Thanks. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying! Someone from the MSE WikiProject brought up the fact that the Tennis MSE template makes the infobox for tennis at MSEs redundant. Because this issue will probably come up later on with other MSEs, I wanted to put it up here so that WP:TENNIS would be aware of it. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Tennis articles in breach of MOSFLAG
It appears that tennis articles are in breach of MOSFLAG in that they are using flags in infobox and also to show the birthplace of the players. Is not the goal of wikiprojects to promote their article to featured article status which can't be done as long as they are in breach of our style guidelines. Mo ainm ~Talk  11:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you per MOSFLAG (except for the place of birth, which is indeed unnecessary). Since a tennis player will become notable if he/she represents his country in the Davis Cup, it is inevitable to include it his infobox as flags are allowed in representing the mother country in the Olympic Games. As Davis Cup hasn't got an bottom infobox extension on its own and it would be highly inadequate to add one so the nationality flag applies for his ITF affiliation as highest governing body as per "Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with.". See Michael Venus (tennis) for example who became notable when he switched nationality and thus played in an international level. For tennis events the exception mentioned here applies to us as well (FIFA World Cup equals the Davis Cup, they both are dedicated for the same purpose).  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  12:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The page you linked to is a prime example of why flags shouldn't be used in an infobox, I know nothing about tennis players but when I look at that infobox the 2 flags do not explain anything to me. Did he represent the USA in the Davis Cup and now represent New Zealand? And what extra information is added with the flag that the text doesn't convey? Also I would say the exception you also link to would do for articles on the Davis Cup not on individual tenni players. Mo ainm ~Talk  13:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Oh my word. Talk about interpretation of the rules. Just because YOU think that it doesn't add anything does not mean that it shouldn't be there. Every sports person page has a flag for identification of the nation they repersent in their info box apart from snooker which doesn't include them for an entirely different reasons. 194.66.216.40 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Calm down IP take a chill pill, don't make statement that are incorrect no every sports person do not have flags in their respective infobox. Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Example which isn't snooker then. 194.66.216.40 (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cristiano Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney, Ronan O'Gara, Geoffrey Boycott, on a quick look need I get more? Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem none of those boxes have parameter for nationality as you play for a national team, now go and pick people with boxes which have the nationality parameter and stop taking the piss and bending stuff to your view. 194.66.216.40 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So you admit you are edit warring to insert a flag to represent someone's nationality? What about the reverts you did on 2009 SAT Bangkok Open – Singles and 2009 Internazionali di Tennis di Bergamo where are the nationality fields in those infobox, if that is the criteria you are using to make your judgement or are you jut following my edits and reverting? Mo ainm  ~Talk  14:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah! Someones throwing their toys out the pram cause they can't get their own way! Bless. How about you respond to my last edit. And perhaps if you didn't go I@VE GOT CONSENSUS when you hadn't then you wouldn't get reverted. But I see you just want to ban me so you can have your own way. But I ain't going to go through your edits so I guess your going to have to work harder to get rid of me. 194.66.216.40 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would I want to get rid of you? You are responsible for your own actions and nothing I could do could get you blocked only you would bring about that situation. You made a statement which I showed to be false, now why did you revert the two articles I listed above when they don't have the "magic" nationality parameter that you are using as your defence? Mo ainm  ~Talk  14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah! now your moving the arguement from biography pages to tournaments. Be consistant in your arguement what are you exactly saying. But I see that you felt you couldn't be BOLD on any recent article and had to go to 2009 articles which no one is looking at cause you knew you'd get shouted down that your wrong. pathetic. 194.66.216.40 (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My stance hasn't changed no flags in infobox is my stance according to MOSFLAG, I see again you are trying to deflect away from my question to you obviously you have no reasoning why you reverted or I'm sure you would have shouted by now also the articles I removed the flags from came up when I hit the random article link. Mo ainm  ~Talk  14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop deflecting you changed the arguement from biblography to tournaments so fail yourself. One man campaign jog on son your a joke 14:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I will not be responding to you any longer, and will wait till someone who at least can put up some rational argument for the stance of the project. Mo ainm ~Talk  14:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my God what's going on here? I'm sorry Mo ainm, it isn't the style were are commonly using here on WP:TENNIS. So getting back to the infobox flag problem as his article says Michael Venus didn't play for the USA and thus wasn't notable as per Notability (sports). When he switched his nationality he played for New Zealand and became notable. So nationality does really count in the field of tennis. Yes text would be also nice, but the rule you linked allows the usage of flags in these cases because he represents his country so why not include them. And yes the other link I provided is for cups/tournaments not for players, but I don't know exactly which articles are you complaining about.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  17:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No need for apologies IP was a little annoyed, I can understand the point you are making with regard to the Tennis players sporting nationality but that is not what the field in the infobox is showing, it is Country now the assumption that can be made from that is it is the birthplace of the player. Why is the USA flag being used in the article you linked to? Mo ainm  ~Talk  17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the point: He was playing as an American citizen but not for their Davis Cup (he wasn't notable because he hasn't won any titles), but as being born in NZ he returned and began to play to them thus he qualified for Wikipedia. So if you check any tournament table before 2010 they indicate Venus as an American player. Ian Thorpe has a flagicon in his featured article infobox because he played for his nation. As I said Davis Cup hasn't got any infobox plug-in but the players affiliation does count (not in his birth date data, USA member states and other stuff are agreed to be avoided) as WP:Notability says:"The player has competed in the Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or similar international competition". I know that based upon my reasoning the USA flag might be deleted, but it's kinda awkward, isn't it?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So why then should we ignore the manual of style in such flags should not be used to emphasize nationality without good reason, or flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field? Mo ainm  ~Talk  18:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hold on just a second all of you The rule is clear and is not about who is interpreting the rule correctly at all, which I wish you all would get over yourselves on that matter, pronto.  I would say take the tennis player Andy Murray because he would be a better example of this rule.  I am not going on interpretations at this point nor will I ever.  Andy Murray clearly was born Scottish, yet he competes for the Davis Cup and Olympic team of Great Britian.  So, go and look at his page and tell me what you all think is the solution because I already know what it will be.  Try to work it out amongst yourselves, but I will be their if you all can't see the light of day.  Good day to all and to all a good night.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there is a better way to write this than what SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow said... it was a little harsh by my standards. MOSFLAG is both pretty clear and pretty vague. It is clear that in tennis infoboxes, flags are there ONLY for the nationality the player plays or played under. That's it. It's vague on whether they should be there at all. It says try not to use them but it also says it's fine in things like fifa or the olympics which are international contests. In some respects tennis is like Fifa and the Olympics. It's international and to play one of the 4 Majors you MUST be a representative of a nation or you can't play. I'm not sure about the lower tiers and eligibility but Davis Cup is like the 4 Majors. Now I really don't care whether the flags are there or not but if they are they must not indicate birthplace... playing nationality only. Also by wikipedia standards on first use in a table or article the country name or abbreviation should be visible next to the flag. Usually by using "flag" instead of "flagicon." Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that's my point as well. I can't see any difference between Ian Thorpe (featured article) and Andy Murray, so both of them can have the flag based on the nation they represent in international level. That's all.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Solution: Nationality should not have the flag, but they should create a new section of the infobox called National team or National representation, and list Andy Murray's nationality as being Scottish and his National team or whatever as being Great Britian.  You all did not need to go on needlessly debating this out, when the solution was staring both of you right in the face.  By the way, I was being abrupt with both of you all so you all can get done with this nonsense.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you would be reading this as a solution "staring them in the face." Nationality certainly can have a flag and changing wiki rules of infobox templates requires some consensus with others. It might be able to be done but it is certainly not obvious nor in their faces. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is a minor concern that even you Fyunck are blowing up to immense proportions. This could be easily and readily changed by adding one small thing to the infobox, which is a national team section.  This would go in line with Andy Murray, which country would be Scotland, and that is more correct than to say Great Britain.  Also, the national team would be Great Britain because he plays for them in the Davis Cup and in the Olympic Games.  Consensus is not always talked about because it is done through multiple changes by various editors on an article, infobox, or a template.  So, someone needs to change the infobox to mirror the rule, and see if others object to the matter, or put a wait and see while it is debated on the appropriate page.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have another solution to this problem come up with one you all, lets not fight over rules because they are here to guide us in editing. They need to be debated and re-intrepreted on the rule pages not on some WikiProject about a sport.  This is why, I get massively frustrated seeing this get done here and would like a solution not rule debating.  This rule has to be debated on the appropriate page not here because it effects multiple projects like golf, tennis, and swimming just to name a few.  I would be glad to see it debated on the rule page, which I might just in fact join in the effort.  So, it is all about place here, which this is not the place.  This debate if it goes forward needs to be notified on all other sports project, which may have a stake in the matter.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... If you want to debate and add an international event nationality section to the infobox I have no problem with it at all. National team won't really do because Wimbledon is not a national team event yet mandates a national sponsor. So the wording could be tricky. And while you could have a flag icon for the international event line in the infobox you couldn't for the birth country or country one lives in as that would be against policy. You are correct that this is a multi-sport argument that could use multiple inputs but it is tough enough to work out the kinks in one sport let alone multitudes. Flag issues have been a pretty big concern from the arguments I've seen through the years... some real knock-down-drag-outs have happened... the tiff above seems very cordial compared to the whoppers throughout wiki. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I just want solutions not endless frustration of arguing. I am a solutions based guy, and what to find out what things mandates and get them over and done.  Debating helps when an idea or something is vague or not workable.  I think you are right on again about the wording issues involved here.  I think we could do a wait and see before we go forth with our solution or we could use it as an example, you pick.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I flipped a coin and.... of course it stayed up on its edge. :-) I really don't know the best way to do it. I have no problem the way it is now and if it gets changed I'm fine with that too. I try to pick my battles on items I'm more passionate about than flags so when people have trouble agreeing I simply point to policy. I guess I'm usually a wait-and-see person. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I take a step and edit the tennis biography infobox and add a collapsible team event affiliation line at the bottom (if I have enough time to do so). Then we "do" the waiting stuff... (Grand Slam problems will be resolved later). Agreed?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  06:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are making it extra hard on yourself. I suggest all you do it put right below country or above your preference a new attribute with national team or NOC/ITF Team or something you decide on that, too!  I will support you in doing just something that simple because you are trying to make it difficult on yourself.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So the solution, for your example of Andy Murray above, is to show the Union Flag instead of the Saltire, in the infobox of someone who very publicly self-identifes as Scottish rather than British. Brilliant. Daicaregos (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well now that wasn't all that helpful. I think you fail to understand the infobox... we can change it to possibly say he is Scottish while also still saying his international affiliation is UK. The flag, if used, MUST only be for the UK to signify his national sports affiliation... it can not be used per wikipedia for citizenship acknowledgment. I don't think there is anything about words but flags can not be used that way in an infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the infobox was that it should summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. Have I misunderstood? One of the key aspects of Andy Murray is that he is Scottish. I don't think he would thank members of this project for enforcing a rule requiring the Union Flag to be shown on his Wikipedia article, instead of the Saltire. I'm sorry if you feel that wasn't all that helpful, but don't you think Wikipedia has some responsibility towards the subjects of its biographies? Daicaregos (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just use the MOS and do not put any flag in the infobox, they add nothing to the article as the name of the country is beside it. Mo ainm  ~Talk  11:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's one option. However, at the risk of repeating myself (as the issue hasn't been addressed at all): "my understanding of the infobox was that it should summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. Have I misunderstood? One of the key aspects of Andy Murray is that he is Scottish." If there is a nationality field in this infobox, I couldn't find it. And I do not agree with you that flag icons add nothing to an article. They are easily recognisable symbols, which was, after all, their original purpose. Daicaregos (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some flags are instantly recognisable but far from all and in an infobox they give undue weight to one field also flags should not be used to denote someones nationality. Mo ainm  ~Talk  11:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So, at the risk of repeating myself: "However, at the risk of repeating myself (as the issue hasn't been addressed at all): 'my understanding of the infobox was that it should summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. Have I misunderstood? One of the key aspects of Andy Murray is that he is Scottish.'" You may have missed this. Daicaregos (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All the more reason not to add it as flags shouldn't be used to represent the current, birth or death place of someone per MOSFLAG. Mo ainm  ~Talk  12:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy Murray self-identifies as Scottish. The Saltire would denote his nationality, not his current, birth or death place. His sense of nationality is one of the key facts of the article and should be noted in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He is Scottish by birth and the addition of the flag is to show this, which is against MOSFLAG, for the record if you don't already know I oppose all flags in all infobox they ad nothing that the text doesn't already say in it. Mo ainm  ~Talk  12:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy Murray self-identifies as Scottish and he is Scottish by birth. Nevertheless, a nationality field would denote wait for it ... yes, you guessed it his nationality, not his current, birth or death place. So your contention of it being against MOSFLAG on those grounds wouldn't apply. And for the record, MOSFLAG does not oppose all flags in all infoboxes. Daicaregos (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Granted there are some exceptions but this isn't one. Mo ainm  ~Talk  12:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. However, the problem is yet to be resolved. I will try to set it out clearly. Please let me know if you don't understand. Infoboxes should summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. One of those facts about Andy Murray is that he self-identifies as Scottish. His infobox currently shows his 'country' as Great Britain. With or without a flag, that can't be right. What can be done to improve this? Daicaregos (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the article but IMO if he is Scottish then that should go in the field marked nationality. Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I find myself in the unusual, but happy, position of agreeing with you Mo ainm :) However, as I said what seems many hours ago, but was actually at 11:47 (I checked) there is no field marked nationality in this template. Daicaregos (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any of you actually play tennis, of have the slightest interest in it at all? If so, maybe point us to the tennis articles you've edited; really edited, I mean, not just removed flags from. LevenBoy (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Break
Goodness. Once again, for sports people per wikipedia "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." For Murray that would be Great Britain. Now this is only flags, not words. I see no reason that a player's non-sport nationality can't be there without a flag although that info is usually right in the first sentence of the article above the infobox. You'll note that Murray's is a tennis biography infobox and it summarizes pertinent tennis info about the man... e.g. he plays for GB in tennis events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if, when quoting policy, the relevant policy is linked (or at least noted). Would you mind? I see no reason why a player's nationality is not in the infobox either. Are you sure the last sentence is accurate. How often, or for what percentage of his tennis events does he play for GB? Daicaregos (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not made clear in the infobox of Murray the field is Country so it wouldn't be to far of a stretch to assume that it is talking about his place of birth, if the field said sporting nationality then it would be a hell of a lot clearer, but still shouldn't have a flag in the infobox. Mo ainm  ~Talk  22:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Daicaregos. Are you purposefully trying to be difficult here? Are you reading all of this thread or only some of it? The relevant policy is linked already in this thread. It's even in the header put up by Mo ainm MOSFLAG. And then Lajbi put up MOSFLAG. I read what they posted and the links they posted and I assumed that you did too before you continued on with your argument. As far as I know all Murray's tennis events are played under GBR. In doing a quick check at the official websites for Maimi Masters and Canadian Masters he is playing under GBR. It looks like there was already an argument on this under Murray with people unsure of whether he was listed under GBR or UK. Consensus wound up with GBR. Exhibitions may be different though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No editor has given a reason why the MOS is ignored by this project, yes on certain limited occasions tennis players represent a country but the majority of the time they are not representing anyone but themselves, so could someone explain why we should ignore " flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." Example look at 2006 Wimbledon Championships now that is IMO a disgrace of an article with flagicons taking over the page never mind the infobox, what encyclopaedic value is the addition of the flags to that article considering it isn't an event were international teams are represented? And has every single person listed actually played in Davis Cup? Mo ainm ~Talk  23:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * MOSFLAG is not being ignored imho. For the most part it discourages flags in infoboxes but makes exceptions for sports people's representative nationality. The page you link to I see nothing wrong per-say with the infobox flags... that infobox would be a stew, flags or no flags. And Davis Cup is only part of it... look at Alex Olmedo. He was a Peruvian citizen yet played under the US flag for all his Major tennis events along with Davis Cup. Murray plays under the flag of Great Britain and that shows up as a flag icon on the main websites for all these tennis tournaments... not just wikipedia. We have incorporated the playing nationality in almost all articles and tables and that's a good thing. I really don't care if there's a flag icon in the infobox or not, my point being only that "if" there is a flag icon in the infobox it must only represent playing nationality... in Murray's case, Great Britain. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Were in MOSFLAG does it state that exceptions are made for biographical sports articles? I agree with you that the flag when used must be their sporting nationality but at present the field were most flags are beside is Country not Sporting Nationality. On the article I linked to an editor who is not very familiar with Tennis will assume that the tournament was won by Switzerland with Roger Federer representing them Mo ainm ~Talk  01:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In tennis articles, which have so many tables, the flags represent sporting nationality not country. When you see a list of US Open winners with flags beside the names it's the player's sporting nationality. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But that isn't conveyed if an new editor were to look at any tennis article do you really believe that they will now about "sporting nationality" and not just the tennis players nationality? As to my question above do you really believe an editor not familiar with Wimbledon would think that the tournament was won by Switzerland with Roger Federer representing them? Mo ainm  ~Talk  08:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy Murray
Andy Murray is Scottish. Country should be listed as Scotland or if nationality is used it should be Scottish, so that must be listed as his country/nationality. The ITF (Davis Cup) and IOC (Olympic) games will not allow him to compete on the Scottish national team, since his Davis Cup team and NOC in the Olympic games is Great Britain. By wikipedia rules it would mandate no Scottish flag to be utilized, and says that for teams the flag of Great Britain is to be used. By the way, tennis players are defined by their nationality in every event they play. By the way unless a player plays the requiste number of matches in Davis Cup/Fed Cup they are prohibited from being allowed to play in the Olympic Games, which if injured they can get a waiver, but I don't want to go their. Also, the ITF governs the grand slams in tennis, which mandates national affiliation to compete in the slam, and they are the biggest event on the calendar in tennis and takes place four times in a year. I just think we should add one little tiny label to the infobox to comply with the spirit of the rule.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is more of an issue for the template than a MOSFLAG issue. Mo ainm  ~Talk  01:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, all that has to be done is to add an additional field to the infobox, which would say national team, and that would solve it. All you would have to do is say on the Andy Murray page for example.  After the template is fixed, would be to take Great Britain and replace it to Scotland for the country field, and for the national team field put in 🇬🇧 Great Britain.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer to use nationality instead because we would be able to say Scottish. I will go and try to work of some examples of this for other players.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But your missing the point of this thread it is about the ignoring of the MOS and putting flags in the infobox. Mo ainm  ~Talk  01:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am coming up with solutions guided by the MOS because use of flags for sportspeople is the guide. You all are debating the rule, I am trying to work within it to the best of my abilities.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It sounds like what you are suggesting would work just fine and still fit within the rules. It would show he is from Scotland and also show he plays for Great Britain as far as tennis events go. The flag no-flag issue would still go on and on and on and on but the infobox would give more complete details. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be against the addition of another field (and the possibility of another flag) in the infobox. Look at Jackie Stewart and Jim Clark, two of the most famous Scottish sporting personalities ever. The opening paragraph identifies them as Scottish but the infobox shows that they competed under a British flag. Bjmullan (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep... and it seems perfectly fine to me too. As long as no second flag is introduced (I'm against that 100%) I can live with either way.


 * I would be all for it because an infobox purpose is to summarize the key concepts in an article, which means without nationality and/or national team it would be rather incomplete at best, so it merits inclusion of both based on policy. Regardless your view on flags.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be silly to put a Scottish flag next to Andy Murray's name, when every WP:reliable source I've seen lists his country as "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom", and all show the Union flag only. (e.g. ATP, Australian Open, Roland Garros, etc.) Remember, this is an encylocpedia—we report what external reliable sources say, not create new synthesis of information. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, then we must take country/nationality out for tennis players anyways because he competes for Great Britain in the Davis Cup/Olympics. So, I believe we should just go with national team alone, and leave in flags like the rules say to do, which would put these in link with MOS.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does this depend on the Davis Cup or Olympics? Tennis is a sport where "country" is prominently shown in reliable sources (complete with flag), so there is no issue with following those reliable sources. The flag MOS was originally written years ago because some editors were popping flag icons onto any biographical infobox, but for sports like tennis, there is no controversy. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, go and tell mo_anim that. I agree with your sentiments as well on this issue as it presently stands is fine.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For what its worth I am Welsh born in Wales but I am British as neither Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales exist as individual Sovereign States under International Law they are United (Kingdoms) held together by various acts of union/treaty in 1284, (Kingdom of England & Principality of Wales) to form the Kingdom of England & Wales. 1707, Kindom of England & Wales & Kingdom of Scotland) to form ( Kingdom of Great Britain). 1801 (Kingdom Great Britain & Kingdom of Ireland) to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland. 1922 year of Southern Ireland's independence to form the Republic of Ireland or Eire finally in 1927 (Great Britain & Northern Ireland) to form (the United Kingdom Great Britain & Northern Ireland so unless Scotland recently have broken away from the United Kingdom Andy Murray is born in Scotland is Scottish by birth but is British Citizen. The only time these countries play any sport individually at international level are at the Commonwealth Games, Rugby, and Football (soccer).--Navops47 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you are. That's why your user page says you originate from Chester and that "An ancestor of this user was born in Wales". For what its worth I have two Nobel prizes, one for Chemistry and one four Litrature. So that trumps your claims and original research about sports. Daicaregos (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it changes anything but tennis.com, which is obviously a reliable source lists him for Scotland : .  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  01:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hockey example
Hockey infobox has it done correctly by the rules because they use national team just look at Ryan Kesler, and they link it to the national hockey team. I could do this for tennis players to the Davis/Fed Cup and Olympic teams, which would be well within the policy like the Hockey player are right now.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It would need to say more like "Nation Represented" or "National Affiliation" instead of "National Team" since at Wimbledon they might represent the US but be from Peru yet not be part of a team. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Flags in an infobox is against WP:MOSFLAG. Mo ainm  ~Talk  21:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No it is not for national team/squad, which you are confusing with nationality. They are allowed for the use to represent a national team an athlete plays for, which you are sorely missing the correct passage on your own policy page you are citing.  Go read on down, then come back here and make that comment again.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Go read second sentence here!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing existing Wimbledon draws pages
Now that I have nearly finished adding draws and scores for the early Wimbledon tournaments (in singles anyway) I see that (at least) the early 1920s Wimbledon pages that already exist are slightly different :-

a) the first set of draw results on the page only give semi-finals and final. Would it be better to give the quarter finals here as well ?

b) only the players' surnames are given. Would it be better to add first names where known ?

c) players are always linked to their (usually non-existent) biographical page. Would it be better to display their names in plain text if they don't have a biographical page ?  I seem to remember that this was discussed before in another context, but can't find it now.

And, regarding Andy Murray, AFAIK he has never represented Scotland at any international event, so (until Scotland declares independence) the saltire should not be used.Rmallett (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My opinions are:

a) quarter-finals should be included if we want consistency across the board b} add surnames where known (or initial if not known), again for consistency c) link them to the pages even if they are redlinks - this should hopefully encourage people to click and create stubs for missing players. 03 md  05:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Quarter-finals should be included, yes. And each players full name should be included in every scenario. However, redlinks should always remain there, any player who has played at an ATP World Tour event (Or any of the predecessors) is inherently notable, and should be linked regardless of the existence of a relevant article. Sellyme Talk 07:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Tie-break scores.
We need a comment in tennis draws mentioning that the winner's tie-break score has to be included, as I've added them in to about 25 articles, and every week a majority of them are reverted. It's normally a fairly simple exercise to revert and undo these edits, but a simple comment such as  Sellyme Talk 00:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I keep trying to put them back but I may not be watching all the same articles as you. It's usually one or two people who keep messing with them and I try to let them know on their talk pages. I guess it's just one of those things we have to stay on top of to the best of our ability. You're doing a good job and I'm not sure those that revert you will bother reading the comments. :-( Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've seen you comment on talk pages of users I monitor as well. Another issue is people adding redundant and  codes, when the new parameter makes them redundant.  Sellyme''' Talk 00:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice that. Is that now standard wiki policy to not include the ending and ''' ? I always add them out of habit but if it's now advised against I'll change my tune. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not needed, and causes less accidental mistakes so I generally remove them to lessen page size when I'm adding tie-break scores. Sellyme Talk 00:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked out Manual_of_Style_(superscripts_and_subscripts) and it says to include the .  It obviously works in some tables not to use it (as you've shown) but they tinker with wiki code updates and html updates all the time. What happens if wikipedia make a change "assuming" the code has been written in traditional html and now those draws turn into something funky? Before I change my ways of doing it I need to see something that says it is now correct per MOS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It says nothing about tables and places where it defaults though. However, even with the  there, almost every tennis article on the site uses only a starting bold, not an ending, so I'm presuming removal of redundant code is the general consensus. I'm fairly sure the people in charge of the code would know the consequences of their actions before deciding to change the entire site.  Sellyme Talk 01:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So, as per WP:TENSCR, how does reporting tennis scores in regular text work? I know it says something about reporting scores in prose, but it's not too clear. I see scores everywhere reported like the following: 7–5, 6–3, 7–6(4). I've always reported scores in that fashion because I've always seen them written in that fashion, whether in tennis player biographies, results pages, day-by-day summaries, etc. Does this mean that all scores must be reported like the following? : 7–5, 6–3, 7–6(7–4)? Because that makes for a lot of work in changing pages upon pages of already-written tennis results and, in my opinion, it is a little confusing. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My recollection was that recording the tiebreak score in prose was not necessary... leaving it at 7-6 was just fine. However we should not record it as just 7-6(4) because many people read these articles (not just tennis fans) and not everyone understands what that (4) means. More and more pages are being slowly converted (you're right, it is a lot of work) and no one expects it to be done overnight. However newly created pages and draws must conform. When I see it done incorrectly I make a note that I'll have to go back and fix it... just like hyphens and ndashes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 7–6(7–5) is preferred to 7–6 alone, for obvious reasons, but 7–6(5) and 7–65 are wrong. Why don't we try to get the word out regarding this, while getting it all done at the same time with a little mini tiebreak-drive? We'll all spend a week or a fortnight fixing as many articles as we can. I've been meaning to find the motivation to keep going. Sellyme Talk 05:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A daunting task my friend. Well I just ripped out the following tonight. fixed all the ndash/hyphen problems and tiebreaks. I'd done all the singles pages of the Majors long ago.
 * List of Australian Open men's doubles champions
 * List of Australian Open women's doubles champions
 * List of Australian Open mixed doubles champions
 * List of French Open men's doubles champions
 * List of French Open women's doubles champions
 * List of French Open mixed doubles champions
 * List of US Open men's doubles champions
 * List of US Open women's doubles champions
 * List of US Open mixed doubles champions
 * List of Wimbledon gentlemen's doubles champions
 * List of Wimbledon ladies' doubles champions
 * List of Wimbledon mixed doubles champions Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So, what do you think about actually creating a mini wiki-drive? Sellyme Talk 09:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd do it but it's pretty tedious stuff so I'm guessing it won't be number one on most people's hit parades. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, would 77–65 be an acceptable substitute for 7–6(7–5)? The latter just seems rather messy to me, and either the former or the latter would make for a lot of clutter, especially in regular text in recaps or in biographical entries. And if we just use 7–6 in regular text, those who know a little bit about tennis would not really want to have to search up the results if they read 7–6 on a biographical entry, so would it be acceptable to place a more informal tiebreak entry (such as the aforementioned 7–6(5) or 7–65 or even 77–65) for those? It seems like it would make it hard to read if we omitted the tiebreak scores or if we included both tiebreak scores with the superscript parentheses. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The 77–65 style was ruled out in previous discussions. I'm not sure what you mean by hard to read...it simply adds an extra dash and number. And why would leaving out the tiebreak score make it harder to read in prose? Most of time the actual tiebreak score isn't needed in prose unless something fantastic happened. I think the other thing that was given consideration at the time was 7–67–5 Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So I guess 7–6(7–5) is still our best option? Also, I will organize a mini wiki-drive starting June 1st, so keep your eyes out! Sellyme Talk 23:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the superscript parentheses is how it was said to be, then I don't think I can argue... I still think some form of the tiebreak should be included in prose, since I've always believed in documenting things as completely as possible. But, since it seems that the format is set at 7–6(7–5), I'm not sure... I just don't think that 7–6 is very satisfactory. Perhaps to the general public, but I would still argue for the maximum amount of completeness in articles. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that 7–6(7–5) is really our only realistic option. Any others don't work for me.


 * Actually it's pretty clear per wiki tennis scoring... unless one is talking specifically about a certain tiebreak, the tiebreak score is NOT to be shown in prose at all. It's just not needed. In charts and statistics, yes... prose no. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, no idea how I missed that one. I for one debate against excluding all scores from prose, tie-break or no tie-break. It seems to be too simple without scores to me, especially in a player article. "He beat x, beat y, then lost to z" isn't very informative or encyclopedic, for that matter. Sellyme Talk 08:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a guideline but one we should strive to follow. Most of the time full scores aren't needed to describe things. "He won in a marathon 12-10 in the fifth set." You wouldn't need the other scores. With major players a lot of those scores will be under their stats so you don't need doubling up on info either. Now in an article on the 2010 Australian Open I could see the final scores being mentioned in prose. Certainly in a Bjorn Borg article you would think you'd have a score for his memorable 1980 wimbledon final... but it's actually not laid out in prose for some reason. However in that same article imho you have about 10x as many meaningless scores as necessary. QF loss scores against Arthur Ashe is ridiculous. I will agree that no scores in prose is wrong but it does say "unless necessary." I would take that to mean exciting finals of a Major or masters type event and if it's one of the great players with a very long prose section perhaps a super semi-final or two from a Major. That's how I read it. But unless it's the culminating match or two of a career no tiebreak scores in prose should be what we strive for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So we have in prose, and in standard tournament templates, any other uses we've forgotten? Sellyme Talk 01:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)