Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines/Archive 2

Maiden names
I'm sure this has been discussed before but I have been unable to find any kind of definitive answer on the subject.

What is the common practice when it comes to women's maiden names? (Specifically, on event pages, champions list pages, and when being referred to on other players pages, in text or in tables). I seem to be coming across a number of different ways that this is handled.

I will use Sylvia Lance as the example. She had already established herself using her maiden name (winning two major titles in 1923, 1924) before she was married. Sylvia began playing under her married name - Sylvia Harper - in early 1924 and won another major title in 1925 using that name.

Here is how she is currently listed on the List of Australian Open women's doubles champions:

One possible solution would be to list the player only by the name used at the actual events:

I think the reasonable solution would be to list the name as follows:

There will, as always, be exceptions (i.e. Billie Jean Moffitt, once married, does not need to be listed as Billie Jean (Moffitt) King because she is so well known)  or if the player did use both maiden and married names together (i.e. Ann Haydon used Ann Haydon Jones after her marriage or Chris Evert began using Chris Evert-Lloyd). There definitely needs to be a standard here because the current rules on this are muddled, pages vary widely and my attempts to create a clearer picture have been met with resistance. Thank You. Tennisvine (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can tell you what I recollect the decision to be (without doing the search to find the discussion). If a player went by a certain name for most of (or all) their careers, we use that 100% of the time in lists. Problems will always arise when it's closer to 50/50 such as Helen Wills. Half her matches she was Helen Wills and the other half she was Helen Wills Moody. We went with Helen Wills for all her charts so readers understand it is the same person. Usually article titles work the same way... but this is wikipedia so there are always exceptions. With Helen Lance Harper, she won 4 Majors prior to being married, and one afterwards. But she was also in six major finals afterwards. "Sylvia Lance Harper" is her article title. That's how I would put her in all charts. It also makes linking easier since Sylvia Lance Harper takes you to the correct place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, that makes no sense. You can't list a person by an incorrect name just for the sake of convenience. How can Sylvia Lance Harper be used as her name, in any of her listings, when she never actually used that name herself (especially before she was married). My question is not whether we should use a women's maiden name for events that took place before her marriage (of course you should - because it is historically accurate). My question is, once a women is married AND is using only her married name (that is the name that should now be used - again, because it's historically accurate) how does a writer reasonably make the connection between the two names without giving misinformation or causing confusion for the reader? What I'm proposing is that by using the format of Sylvia (Lance) Harper - you are giving her correct name - Sylvia Harper - while also indicating to the reader that this is the same person who previously played under the name Sylvia Lance, and thus you are giving the reader historically accurate information - which is what Wikipedia is all about. Thank You. Tennisvine (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt many readers are interested in whether a player was married when they are reading a results table. Those readers that are interested in a player's personal life are more likely to read the biographical article (Personal life section), which should be the primary place to provide information about exactly when a player was married, to whom, how many children they had, etc. Personally I see a name more like a label to establish identity, and I'm fine with using the player's name as it appears in the bio article title almost everywhere, like e.g. Justine Henin is used in List of French Open women's singles champions even though she went by Justine Henin-Hardenne during most of her wins (but the latter is used in event articles like 2003 French Open – Women's Singles). That said, I'm not necessarily against using technically accurate names (in combination with parentheses when needed), as long as clarity surrounding identity is never compromized. Gap9551 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Listing how it is in the title probably helps our readers understand it's the same person. Plus when we number wins it'll be with the same name. The French Open list looks about right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't about trying to inform readers about a players personal life, it's about trying to provide clear and accurate information. The Justine Henin example is a good one because it shows that her name is not listed accurately on a consistent basis across Wikipedia pages. Justine Henin, to my mind, is actually an easier case than what I was trying to discuss here, in that she used both names during the time she was married. So, it simply goes from Justine Henin to Justine Henin-Hardenne, no further clarification is needed. But if she is incorrectly identified as Justine Henin on portions of the List of French Open women's singles champions and a reader does further research outside of Wikipedia where she is being correctly identified as Henin-Hardenne, that is potentially hindering the reader rather than aiding them, and I don't think that is what we are aiming for. Bio article titles are a separate issue, and if you blindly use the bio article title in all cases than you will be simply mislabeling the player in some cases. Tennisvine (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We try to be consistent in the name we all agree on. It links back to the bio article for further clarification. Another case would be Chris Evert-Lloyd. For 7 years she was Chris Evert, for 9 years she was Chris Evert-Lloyd, and then for two years she was Chris Evert again. We use Chris Evert for everything. As for "Sylvia Lance Harper" not being used, you are misinformed. It's used by the International Tennis Hall of Fame in their article on Daphne Akhurst. Also by the gov't of Australia. The ladies would often be written that way in newsprint so as not to confuse readers. It's probably a carry-over (using my genealogy experience here) where prior to 1900, women often dropped their original middle names and used their maiden names as their middle names. It also happens that players get married more than once. The charts really look scrambled then. Another problem arises when you are at a tournament article that lists all the champions. We often use a (2), (3), (4), etc. after names that win more than one title. If it's not the same exact name and spelling it can confuse readers. I've seen it happen numerous times in tables that were not uniform, where editors change the number of wins because they didn't realize it was the same person. And then what version of the name would you put down for the gal that won the most Antarctic Opens? You can't use both so you use the most common version (which is almost always what her article title is at). Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In time sensitive articles, such as an edition of a tournament or a listing of tournament winners, we should use the name of the player as she was known at the time; anything else would be anachronistic. The Manual of Style on biographies (MOS:BIO) clearly states "If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention." That is why the article on the 1929 Wimbledon Championships mentions "Helen Wills defeated..." while the 1930 article states "Helen Wills Moody defeated...". The Wimbledon website uses the same principle:
 * * Helen Wills (1929), Helen Wills-Moody (1930)
 * * Kitty McKane (1924), Kitty Godfree (1926)
 * * Margaret Smith (1963), Margaret Court (1970)
 * * Sarah Palfrey (1932), Sarah Fabyan (1938)
 * * Evonne Goolagong (1974), Evonne Cawley (1975)
 * If a player is married the same rule applies; we use the name which she was using or which she was known by after her marriage. If there is a discrepancy between the two we choose the version that is most commonly used by reliable sources (see MOS:IDENTITY).--Wolbo (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In articles such as List of Grand Slam women's singles champions we use the same throughout. Helen Wills name, from what I can gather from newspapers, was not Helen Wills Moody. It was Helen Wills or Helen Moody. The tennis world seems to have simply used the wills-moody moniker for the public. It's why, for ease of use for readers, we shouldn't be using Charlotte Cooper or Charlotte Sterry. Since she was known by both in her career in charts it should be Charlotte Cooper Sterry. In an article within a single time period, like a draw, it's no problem since her name would remain the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , there is no disagreement between us regarding the importance of putting our readers at centre-stage but their 'ease of use' should in my view not take precedence over encyclopedic accuracy and important guidelines like MOS:BIO. The List of Grand Slam women's singles champions article in it's current form is anachronistic and violates the 'Changed names' paragraph of MOS:BIO. Frankly, seeing the name 'Helen Wills Moody' as far back as 1923 makes me cringe. They hadn't even met at that stage. A quick search in the google newspaper archive shows that the name 'Helen Wills Moody' was used in contemporary articles (1, 2, 3) and she used it herself (see autograph). At least there seems to be a consensus forming that in tournament edition articles we should use the name that was current at the time, which means that in e.g. the 1983 French Open – Women's Singles article 'Chris Evert' should be changed to 'Chris Evert-Lloyd'.--Wolbo (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We do disagree on the importance of our readers. We absolutely must make sure our readers understand that two particular players are the same person. It's tough enough when they see a draw and wonder who the heck Billie Jean Moffit is... at least it's consistent throughout the draw. It's quite another to see a list of champions where you don't know that two people are the same people. It's like what we do with scoring to make it as easy as possible for our readers. No one actually uses 7–6(7–2)... they use 7–6(2). But for the non-fan or occasional fan it really helps them understand the score. The same with names in tables. I know you can find articles with Helen Wills Moody, just as we can find articles as just Helen Moody or even mixed usage.1 or 2. I'll bet her legal name was Helen Moody. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * is 100% correct. You use Charlotte Cooper when she was known as Charlotte Cooper and you use Charlotte Sterry when she was known as Charlotte Sterry. You don't use some form of her name that suits your purposes and simply apply it across the board. You're not making it easier on readers, your just giving them misinformation. So rather than debate whether or not you use the persons name as they were known at the time of the event (it seems common sense that you would), I would like to get back to my original question – how do we reasonably make the connection between * Kitty McKane (1924) and Kitty Godfree (1926). My suggestion is Kitty McKane, once married,  is listed as Kitty (McKane) Godfree. If this solution is unsuitable I would just like to hear a reasoned argument on why, and a reasonable suggestion for a better way to solve the issue.Tennisvine (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I might use Kathleen McKane Godfree throughout since it links right to the main article... or perhaps Kitty McKane Godfree. Actually many of those early tournaments list her as Mrs. L. A. Godfree, as do newspapers (husband Leslie). I don't advocate listing her that way just because of sourcing, but if you want to be 100% accurate you should list her just as the draw originally listed her. I feel the tables would even be messier and even worse for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , your proposal is well-intended but in my view unsuitable and a no-go. Ironically, in essence for the same reason that you oppose Fyunck(click)'s viewpoint. You advocate using a historically non-existent, and therefore incorrect, version of the player's name (maiden name bracketed) to avoid confusion for our readers, i.e. for their 'ease of use'. It has no basis in common Wikipedia usage nor in its policy/guidelines. So what to do instead? One option would be to do nothing; just list the historically accurate versions of the player's name with a wikilink on all versions and trust that the reader will figure it out by clicking on the links (or by using hovercards). Another option to consider is adding efn footnotes to the (first instances of the) married names, explaining that they are the same player. E.g. on the first instance of Charlotte Sterry we add a footnote "Charlotte Cooper married Alfred Sterry on 12 January 1901". If the commonly used married name contains the maiden name (Esna Boyd Robertson, Daphne Akhurst Cozens, Chris Evert-Lloyd) a footnote for clarification is probably not even necessary.--Wolbo (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , while I think that simply using the historically accurate names and leaving it to the reader to figure out is, by far, a better suggestion than most of what has been proposed in the discussion so far – I think we can do better still. I'm not suggesting that we use inaccurate or as you say "non-existent" names. Does a name with a ref. attached as in Charlotte Sterry[1] qualify as a historically non-existent name? I'm quite sure she never used her name with a bracketed number attached. Or is it a way to aid the reader, i.e. for their 'ease of use'? You have pointed more than once to The Manual of Style on biographies (MOS:BIO) to use as a reference in this discussion, so I would like to post here the information found in Section 2.1.1 Maiden names:


 * It is common to give the maiden or birth family name (last name, surname) of a woman better known under her married name, for example:
 * Lucy Washington (née Payne, 1772?–1846), widow of Major George Steptoe Washington…


 * An alternative form, Lucy (Payne) Washington, is also widely accepted.


 * A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname.


 * Again, I think that the (maiden name bracketed) is a clear and simple device to help the reader make a connection without compromising historical accuracy, and as pointed out by Wolbo with his reference to the policy/guidelines shown above, it is not without precedent. It does not suggest that they actually used their name in this format any more than a name with a [bracketed reference number] attached is making that assertion. I don't think a stance of "that's how we've always done it, so it's up to the reader to figure it out" is the way to go in this situation.
 * You can not just pick a name and then apply it in all situations to make it easier for the editor or even for the reader. It's really no different than picking a person's age and then stating that they were that same age at all the different events in their life - it just doesn't work. Choosing a name for the bio article title is a separate issue that has a separate set of criteria, and so that name is not necessarily the one that should be used across the board (especially in the cases we are discussing). Tennisvine (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes you can because we've done it. I don't really care what's easier for the editor... I always have the reader in mind when making these articles. And it's not even remotly the same as picking the same age.... terrible analogy there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because you've done it previously doesn't make it correct. If you have the reader in mind, then you won't misinform them - 27 year old Chris Evert Lloyd won the 1982 Australian Open Women's singles final, , not 25 year old, not 35 year old, not Chris Evert. The only correct information is – 27 year old Chris Evert Lloyd won the 1982 Australian Open Women's singles final. It's historical fact, so if you change any of the facts (the date, the tournament, the age, the name) it is incorrect and you have misinformed the reader. Hope that helps you to understand the analogy better. Tennisvine (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

So Chris Evert didn't win the 1982 Aussie Open? I'm sure that will be news to her. You make it sound like this is some unprecedented nomenclature. zeenews, getty images, chicago tribune, it's done all the time. The old Wimbledon book I'm looking at right now shows Miss K. McKane winning in 1924. It also shows Mrs L.A. Godfree winning in 1926. You could use what they had back then but it's confusing to our readers. In a list of many champions I always lean towards our readers and I hope you understand that. Your original example talked of Sylvia Lance and her name change. In using Sylvia Lance Harper throughout we could underline Lance for the time she won under her maiden name. So Sylvia Lance Harper for her 1923 and 1924 titles. That would keep things uniform yet inform readers that she went by Lance back then. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Underlining a name is just as bad, if not worse, than bracketing a maiden name. As a reader it would confuse me to see a part of a name underlined without any explanation. Also, our tennis project does not exist in a vacuum and there is simply no need to start inventing new naming conventions here (brackets, underlines or otherwise) when the existing (biography) guidelines can serve us perfectly well. I dislike going around in circles, this discussion is long enough, but the guideline "If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention." is perfectly clear and we use that guideline ourselves in the List of US Open women's singles champions (see Molla Bjurstedt > Molla Mallory and Helen Wills > Helen Wills Moody). The List of French Open women's singles champions uses the footnotes that I suggested earlier, see 1971 Evonne Goolagong Cawley, but it does so in the opposite way., your attempt to use references as a justification for the brackets is a non-argument. References, unlike brackets, are not part of a name, they refer to a name (that ought to be obvious). Also would like to point out that in the examples used in this discussion so far I can find several sources to justify using Sylvia Lance Harper as well as Kitty McKane Godfree for the period after their marriage. In those cases, as with Chris Evert-Lloyd, there is no need for brackets, underlines or anything else.--Wolbo (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that the underline have no explanation. It would require a single footnote that it represents playing under a maiden name, as opposed to many footnotes for every single player that gets married. And that list of french open champions doesn't use footnotes for most of the players. It doesn't do it for Evert, Court, Henin, Wills, Sperling, duPont, etc... It's the same with tournament names. By themselves we use the name for that year. When in tables we use a uniform name so readers not familiar with tennis will know it is the same event. In my youth I had no idea that Billie Jean Moffit was identical to Billie Jean King. I assumed two different people had won the event. Casual readers might assume the same thing. And then, as we often number victories, it really becomes a stew when editors start removing things saying that Billie Jean King only won 3 Cheerios championships, not 5. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The brackets are not a new naming convention they are in the (MOS:BIO) that you have referenced several times., could you please address the The Manual of Style on biographies Section 2.1.1 Maiden names:


 * It is common to give the maiden or birth family name (last name, surname) of a woman better known under her married name, for example:
 * Lucy Washington (née Payne, 1772?–1846), widow of Major George Steptoe Washington…


 * An alternative form, Lucy (Payne) Washington, is also widely accepted.


 * A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname.
 * Am I misinterpreting? - An alternative form, Lucy (Payne) Washington, is also widely accepted. - If so, how? I am not disagreeing with the guideline "If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention." and I don't see how that can not work in conjunction with - An alternative form, Lucy (Payne) Washington, is also widely accepted. Tennisvine (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok,... so right now we have 4 people in this conversation... none of whom agree with each other. Some are closer to each other than others but we aren't getting anywhere. I'll blink and try and bridge the gap and compromise my position. Mind you I don't agree with it at all. Using previously brought up players Sylvia Lance and Evonne Goolagong... My suggestion is that in charts and tables we will use their maiden names for the times they played while unmarried... so Sylvia Lance and Evonne Goolagong. When they get married we will use their maiden names plus their married names... so Sylvia Lance Harper and Evonne Goolagong Cawley. Just like that, no underlines and no parenthesis. The maiden name must always be present so as not to confuse readers that it's the same person. Hopefully they will understand that Sylvia Lance Harper and Sylvia Lance are the same person, especially when numbering titles.


 * This will cause messiness too because no longer in charts of Wimbledon will we ever see familiar names like Margaret Court or Billie Jean King again. You will have Margaret Smith and Margaret Smith Court... you will have Billie Jean Moffitt and Billie Jean Moffitt King. Zina Garrison will have to be changed to Zina Garrison Jackson for much of her career. Tracy Austin played tennis after marrying so there might be times we have to put in Tracy Austin Holt too. "Well known" is subjective and we have no way to quantify that so exceptions are out. I am not convinced that we should use multiple versions of names in charts and I would do it the same way we handle tournaments... using the most common recognizable name and sticking with it for our readers sake, just like many news sources and almanacs do. But I think my patience for arguing tennis wore down in the great diacritics censoring debate of years past, and I'm more willing to give in to others wishes regardless of whether I think it's better for our readers. This way I can get back to fighting tennis vandalism and adding things here and there. I hope this helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ,, This Clearly addresses the issue.
 * MOS:BIO Section 2.1.1 Maiden names:


 * It is common to give the maiden or birth family name (last name, surname) of a woman better known under her married name, for example:
 * Lucy Washington (née Payne, 1772?–1846), widow of Major George Steptoe Washington…


 * An alternative form, Lucy (Payne) Washington, is also widely accepted.


 * A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname.
 * Tennisvine, you can write 'clearly' in bold, but that guideline 2.1.1 applies to which name to provide at the start of the first sentence in the lead of an biographical article. The whole article you cite from is about biographies, while this discussion is primarily about tables in list articles. Section 2.1.1 is part of section 2.1 ('First mention') and deals with 'the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph'. Outside the bio lead (that provides full names and all versions), the most common version of a name should be used. If you take the rule you cite out of its context, it would be e.g. Hillary Rodham instead of Hillary Clinton, which would make no sense. We should go by what mainstream media etc use. Same for Billy Jean King. I am strongly against using Billy Jean Moffitt anywhere outside parts of her biographical article (I didn't even know that was her maiden name before I read it in this discussion, even though I'm a tennis fan). Especially in tables spanning many years, we should use the commonly used name, the name that readers know and recognize. We wouldn't do anyone a service by going with obscure names and different versions of names. We should definitely look into what is done elsewhere in WP and look for guidelines that actually apply to our topic. I can't find them right away (most naming conventiones seem to be about bio article titles). Gap9551 (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I did do a check on how female player names were written in tournament listings in (year)books and encyclopedia. In all of them (about 10) a distinction is made between maiden and married names in listings, although there is no complete consistency in the way the distinction is made. As Fyunck(click) pointed out, some of the older (pre-emancipation) sources tend to use the Mrs. construct.--Wolbo (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And more than that even. When miss Kathleen McKane married Leslie Godfree, at Wimbledon and in the press she was then refereed to as Mrs Leslie Godfree. here and here. Max Robertson's 1974 book "The Encyclopedia of Tennis" retains that style. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, that example deals with the way we present married/maiden names in the lede of an article of which they are the subject. This a different scenario to our discussion which is specifically addressed in the 'Changed names' section. Secondly, it may be stated that the alternative form is 'widely accepted' but I rarely if ever come across that form in article ledes (the first form is prevalent) so I stand by my statement that it has no basis in common Wikipedia usage. Also in both cases there is an important qualification stating that we should provide the most commonly used name in reliable sources, which in many cases, such as the examples you gave yourself, differ from "first name (maiden name) married name".--Wolbo (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I fully understand that the example is addressing biographical articles, the point I'm making is that the format of - name (maiden surname) married surname - is not without precedent and could be applied here as a way to make clearer, the information in the tables. As far as I can tell, the one thing everyone agrees on so far is that the tables should be as easily read and understood as possible. As has already stated, you use the historically correct name in the tables. I'm not trying to change that rule,  I'm trying to come up with a way to do that and still provide an easy link for the reader between maiden and married names when the situation arises. The commonly used name should only apply to bio articles because that's where it makes sense – a person that may have more than one name over time, can only have one bio article title. I don't understand why using the wrong name in the tables (thus providing misinformation) strikes any of you as the better choice here., her name is Billie not Billy and the fact that you didn't know that she had played (and won major titles) as Billie Jean Moffitt only goes to support the fact that we shouldn't use historically inaccurate names in the tables. Yes, at one point in time they would list women by their husbands name, then at some point, rather than saying " this is just how it's done, so we'll keep doing it this way" people thought outside the box and a new precedent was set. Let's think outside the box. Tennisvine (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a "rule" to use historical names in tables. It is done in some articles but not others. We don't have a rule to change either way because Tennis Project has not made a consensus rule on how to handle this situation. And you have it backwards with Gaps understanding. Because she was listed in a table as Billie Jean Moffitt and Billie Jean King, he didn't know those titles were won by the same person. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And please Tennisvine, lets keep this here while it's being discussed. I don't want to have to keep reverting things. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's have the correct information listed while you argue for putting misinformation in the tables. Helen Wills was not married prior to December of 1929 so why would you want to list her by a married name prior to that date. This is beginning to smack of misogyny.Tennisvine (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This discussion has grown tedious, pointless, and is clearly headed nowhere. I will refrain from using the - name (maiden surname) married surname - format for now, but I will continue to argue that it is a good solution and one that has precedent. I will also continue to list the correct names in the tables sighting: MOS:BIO Section 2.1.2 Changed names. If you can show me any guidelines that say we are required to use a historically inaccurate name (for example using a woman's married name for dates prior to her marriage - Why on earth would that matter?) then I will gladly just leave Wikipedia. Until then, if you would like to revert my edits, I will simply put back the correct information and report you for vandalism, then you can make your argument for why a woman's actual name doesn't really matter. I'll leave you with this quote from Mark Twain that sums it up nicely - "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Tennisvine (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's an article you should probably read - its two years old but clearly still relevant, The Decline of Wikipedia
 * That's putting the cart before the horse. Two editors have reverted your changes already. If you do it again in a content dispute you are likely to get blocked. So please keep it here while we work out a solution. You've only been editing for 23 days and maybe you don't realize the protocols nuances of Wikipedia. Changes take a little time to work out. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As an independent editor coming here from WP:ANI, I suggest that someone put some time into getting together an RFC, which to my mind is the only way this is going to move forward, given that there are editors with entrenched views. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually some have compromised their own views and still not seen agreement. Others have continued to violate Wikipedia protocol with no consequences. It's really unbelievable to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So it seems that, since some don't seem to care about wikipedia protocol, we are going with first name maiden name (Jane Doe), and first name maiden name married name (Jane Doe Smith) for our players when represented in lists. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Mos:Bio 2.1.2 Changed names
So we have been asked to come back to the WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines page and work this out. This is my attempt to do so.

My understanding is that if a guideline exists, it is because a consensus had already been reached - and so my question is simple - Do we follow this guideline MOS:BIO Section 2.1.2 Changed names If so, does it apply in these specific situations as previously cited by :
 * * Helen Wills (1929), Helen Wills-Moody (1930)
 * * Kitty McKane (1924), Kitty Godfree (1926)
 * * Margaret Smith (1963), Margaret Court (1970)
 * * Sarah Palfrey (1932), Sarah Fabyan (1938)
 * * Evonne Goolagong (1974), Evonne Cawley (1975)

If it does, can we correct instances we find where the wrong name is used? If we do not follow this guideline then why does it exist? Thank You Tennisvine (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, the guideline is not very clear on what to do in a given instance. The subsection you cite reads
 * If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention. However, see MOS:IDENTITY.
 * The first part supports your point. However, the second part (MOS:IDENTITY), starts with (the rest is not about the guideline directly but be sure to read it too):
 * Identity When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses.
 * This line says we should use the most commonly used name (by reliable sources) over the name they used themselves at the time. Now it is not fully clear whether the guideline means reliable sources at the time the player was active, or today's reliable sources listing the results from back then.
 * Your question, therefore, is not "simple", as you state. It is not a matter of simply following the guideline or not. This is about interpreting the guideline and applying it to our current purposes. Gap9551 (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You are conflating the two guidelines, but they address two separate issues for identifying a person. Nowhere in the Identity section you cited does it reference time - you quoted "use the most commonly used name (by reliable sources) over the name they used themselves at the time". You added "at the time", but it's not in the Identity guideline. If you're going to conflate the two guidelines and add "at the time" then wouldn't it read "use the most commonly used name at the time (by reliable sources) over the name they used themselves at the time." Tennisvine (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Players' performance timeline tables
In these tables, the table uses ! as rows and not row headers. This is in clear violation of table accessibility guidelines and WCAG 2.0. Could this please be changed. Bgwhite (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Specifically it's also under Layout Tables. I'm sure this was not an issue when we created the table layout for performance timelines so long ago. In fact Federer's, Djokovic's and Nadal's performance timelines all use the ! in win/loss rows etc (probably all based off our guidelines). So I don't mess up the actual way the tables look, who's best at coding it properly in our Guidelines so that the visually impaired with their screen readers have access to these tables? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two options:
 * Replace ! with |, add background color for the row to #EFEFEF and set to bold.
 * Set each individual cell that has ! to have: scope="row"
 * 1st method is used when the entire row is bold with a grey background. 2nd method is used when the ! is applied to some individual cells in a row.   The table has a mixture of both types.  I don't like using both at the same time as that can get confusing for editors, but it has the smallest footprint.
 * The table already sets entire rows to grey by using . An example of the 2nd method is here (Note: scope="col" is redundant for tables that have class="wikitable"). Bgwhite (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * so what about these changes I made to a single guideline table? Or do the row headers such as Win–Loss also have to have the ! removed to comply with accessibility guidelines? From what I can see visually there is no difference to the original table we have in our Tennis Project Guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The first edit I made was to rid the final ! from non-table headers. 2nd edit was an optional way of doing bold for an entire row.  It's cleaner, but not as common.  Either way is fine.  Bgwhite (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's funny... the next query I had was how do you bold an entire row. I had tried font-weight but it didn't work correctly since I put it with the bgcolor statement instead of background. I knew there must be a way to do it. Wiki markup is far from my specialty. I simply get by. So we are not supposed to use ! even for row headers? Really just the initial table column headers? Also I assume proper markup for bold is to use tics both front and back, even though many use the tics only in front of single items? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ! is for column headers only, unless scope="row" is added. The reason is screen readers.  We can glance up at the column header, but if a screen reader user is in the middle a table and wants to remember what the column header is, they press a button and the header is spoken.  For example, in the "Italian Open" cell.  If ! were still in there, then the screen reader would speak "Win-loss" for the column's name and not "Tournament".
 * Proper markup is to use bold tics both front and back. A pet peeve of mine is tennis editors that don't add  and .  If you look at the source of a rendered page, the front/back ticks and closing sup are in there.  It is added by WikiMedia's  parser.  So, one isn't saving any space by not adding them, but they are wasting some time for the parser to add them.   The problem comes in when some tags are not closed.  In the case of, WikiMedia's new parser, Parsoid, won't close the tag unless it hits a "natural barrier", such as a section heading or a new table cell.  Parsoid is currently used with VisualEditor.  There is some small and weird looking text when a  tag isn't closed on VisualEditor.  To combat that, a check is made for non-closed tags and they are fixed.  95% of the non-closed tags are tennis articles.  Hopefully this check will go away when Parsoid is used by all and the missing   can be spotted by all editors.
 * Your table woes are only going to get worse. Say hello to WP:HTML5. Bgwhite (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

✅ I changed the coding in our guidelines to be compliant. The performance tables should look the same as before since I didn't want to change any appearance issues without proper consensus. I noticed the ladies tournaments were in white while the men's were in grey. It seems like it should be done the same way but that was not the purpose of this correction. If someone sees an error in my fixing please let us know. I also tried to make sure all the tics were properly closed and consistent in placement. Thank you Bgwhite for keeping us on our toes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And it looks like Wolbo tackled the "bgcolor to background" issues. I'm guessing some other charts in our guideline also have some compliance issues we need to take a look at. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you .  The charts still have an accessibility issue, but I'm not sure how to get around it.  It's where one row only has one column... The "Grand Slam tournaments" or "National representation" rows for example.  Normally one would break the tables apart into separate tables.  That might be an option for the Davis Cup table, but not the ATP players' performance timeline table. Bgwhite (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , you're welcome. Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. We have a clear obligation to make Wikipedia as accessible and inclusive as is realistically possible. I joined WP Accessibility some time ago and it is good to see that after a dormant period it is becoming more active recently. The main progress the tennis project has made in terms of accessibility has been to improve the color contrast of numerous (tournament) infoboxes to meet at least WCAG 2.0 AA standard. That is now largely done, although the colors of some older tournament legends still need to be adapted. I realize the single column row is an accessibility issue and unfortunately we have a significant, and increasing, number of these tables (see also (1) and (2)). Trying to change this might meet resistance. To address this issue for the Davis Cup table I created this version without the 'colspan' on Bill Tilden's career statistics page.--Wolbo (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish I had a good answer on how to solve some of the tables. Your Davis Cup table  is perfect.   For the two links you gave, adding another column that contains they year would solve the issue.  Especially the sort problem with the second links.  Bgwhite (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I "fixed" the second table at Maria Sharapova career statistics. Should be accessibility sound, HTML5 and the sorting now works. Bgwhite (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * can't we do a similar thing that you suggested before? Instead of simply using colspan=15 (as we do now) we can use the "scope" function, colspan="15" scope="colgroup" to make it compliant? See Web Accessibility Tutorials: Irregular headers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, different situation. This sums it better than I could say.  Bgwhite (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But that example link looks to be very specific. It is talking about using "column headers" only (!). We are not using a column header. In other wikipedia guidelines it says fixing this situation is "not part of any accessibility referential and has limited impact." It seems it only affects really old screen readers. Jaws has no trouble with any rowspan or colspan for over 10 years now. Pretty much all the assistive technologies have had no trouble with it for the last 5 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point on the tennis table not using the column header. Need to study this more.  Bgwhite (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

References on tournaments articles
Is there any guide for incluision of references on tournament articles? Are references not requiered on them? Osplace 22:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * References are usually required. Sometimes there is a link in the infobox to the tournament website which would suffice. Any one in particular? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 2015 Ecuador Open Quito. Osplace 02:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to update organization/structure of "Article guidelines" page
There is a wealth of great information contained in the article guidelines, but I get frustrated when trying to locate information. The main reasons for my confusion include:
 * Information which belongs together (notability and other article creation advice) is mixed in with style guidelines and general practices
 * General style guidelines (which apply to all articles) and style guidelines applying to only one article type (e.g. player articles) are blended and difficult to sort out.
 * The hierarchy of headings, subsections, etc. is completely broken across the entire page. Items which should logically be at parallel levels are often not in the article, and vice versa.
 * The massive tables (e.g. performance timelines) break the flow of the (mostly textual) guidelines, and make it hard to scan up/down.

I'm proposing a significant update to the organization and structure of this article, with four clear top-level headings:
 * 1) Notability and article creation criteria (like naming) - Subsections for different article types. Consistent tables to make the presentation clearer.
 * 2) Common style guidelines - Subsections for each type of guideline.
 * 3) Article-specific guidelines - Subsections for each type of article. The player-specific guidelines are sorted out.
 * 4) Standardized tabular lists (titles, performance timelines, fed/davis cup)

I've performed an initial draft which reorganizes all of the guidelines according to the outline above. In addition to reorganizing the guidelines, I've also applied a number of formatting updates. I have tried not to change any of the guidelines themselves; my apologies if I've slipped up in this first draft.

What do you think? Is it worth continuing? What other improvements can be made to the layout/organization/formatting of these guidelines? Saskoiler (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I think it could be laid out better... absolutely. Is your proposal the way to do it... I'm not sure. I'll have to look closer and deeper. Editor is better than I am about what makes a great set of guidelines. I think he set up a lot of this current infrastructure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone have further thoughts here? Saskoiler (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Haven't had the time yet to look at this proposal in detail but will try to come back to it. I do suggest to make sure that the proposal only relates to the structure of the guidelines and leaves the content itself unchanged, otherwise it becomes too unwieldy. Any suggestions for changes to the content can be a follow-up to the outcome of this structure / outline discussion. --Wolbo (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. The proposed change is only to the structure/organization of the page. I believe my draft is consistent with this (i.e. no guidelines are changed). If I've made an error, I will happily change it... or welcome anyone else doing so. Saskoiler (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Number column in career finals tables
Just out of curiosity, when was it decided that the number column be removed from the career finals tables? Was there any specific reason for this decision? JayJ47 (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it was decided to remove it, it was decided not to include it in our guidelines. I personally hate it, especially numbering losses as opposed to just wins. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't it be useful to keep the column as is? I know the number of titles and runner-up finishes is tallied above the table, but wouldn't it be better if we could track what title was what number for a player e.g. the Miami Open was a player's fifth career singles title. Just a thought JayJ47 (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To know what runner up was Nadal's 27th is so trivial to me as to be unworthy of an entry. Plus people can count if it really really matters to them. There are always numbers we can add to things but that doesn't make them worthy of an encyclopaedic-entry. We tally the number of victories at each event in case they win it multiple times, we show the number of wins and the number of runner-ups. We show their strike rate (which if I could I'd dump in a heartbeat as trivial, but I didn't create these consensus charts). But we don't show the number of serves in a match, the number of aces in a match, career net approaches, etc.. A separate column just to tell us their 4th loss and 7th win when they played in the minor leagues, or that the Chili Open was Nadal's 22nd loss out of 32 is way over the top.
 * Also these charts are tough enough to keep from getting too wide, and more so as people transition to handheld devices. To go out of our way to add an extra column such as this is not in our readers best interest. The column "as is" is against our guidelines just as is changing player's rankings before the WTA/ATP officially does so. It wasn't always easy but agreement was made on columns, colors, tiebreak formats, number of photos, player yearly articles, tennis notability, etc... Most stuff in articles has no rules and editors are given a ton of flexibility. But certain items that are in every article we decided to keep very consistent for our millions of readers. We can change things surely, and we have. But I'll bet 99% of our players win less than 5–10 events in their career and a column totaling that is completely unwarranted. I see columns placed for players with 1 or 2 wins. If a rare player amasses 200 wins I could see where it might help a tiny bit to mark every 20th win to make it easier to count. A win mind you, not a loss. But that could be done with a parenthetical (120) after the word winner for those rare players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Roger Federer career statistics has been corrected as per discussion about accessibility issues brought up by and as per Tennis Guidelines. It can be sorted by tournament category and there is no trivial No. column. Other major changes to our guidelines can always be discussed. Not sure why it didn't get changed immediately after discussions (or perhaps it was changed with no one noticing?) Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see it was reverted to a non-consensus chart again with extra columns... oh well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"I'm not sure it was decided to remove it, it was decided not to include it in our guidelines" where was it decided not to include it, except by yourself? It should be decided whether the column should stay or not. Also not everything you don't like should not be there. --User:Tomcat7 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We have a set of guidelines that we throw at editors on a regular basis. Our tennis editors constantly use those guidelines to tell other editors not to change the color scheme or not to create non-notable player articles. We have a chart for performance timelines and we defend it and other charts so they aren't deviated from. We literally hit people over the head with these things. How does it look if we tell them we defend on certain items in our guidelines? They will be able to point that out and our guidelines literally fall apart before our eyes. There will be no reason for anyone to follow our color scheme... notability for ladies ITF events...throw that out too. We had a recent RfC and more editors wanted to keep the column out rather than add it, but it was a pretty close vote. The closer felt that it was close enough that it didn't warrant changing every single article that had long-standing incorrect columns.


 * But I'm not doing that. I'm conforming newer articles to our guidelines and the RfC surely allows that. Only ones from this year since they don't have long-standing incorrect columns. That RfC certainly did not say that we keep adding columns against our guidelines. That is wrong per the RfC. I have suggested and tried multiple compromises... no one else has, I'm doing my best. I figure compromising would be best for all concerned. Actually one editor also tried a compromise and he was shot down by Wolbo. We either use our guidelines or we don't, and most of us use them as a solid backdrop when we explain to new editors how to create an article. I might be able to explain to new editors that old incorrect columns are grandfathered in with longstanding articles, but new editors aren't stupid, they're just new. They'll soon realize that our Tennis Project Guidelines mean nothing if we only want to follow some of them some of the time. Mark my words, it really leaves all our tennis guidelines open to be shot down by an administrator for any reason when someone complains of bias enforcement. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * A possible compromise was also put forth but got removed quickly:


 * We have had editors ask about shortening "winner and runner-up" to "win and lose" so I had thought about incorporating another style that we use to display those terms, and do it within the table. This way actually saves room and for players with only a few rows you'd see no change to our current consensus guidelines. With players like Djokovic his wins would tally up by 5 in green, and (though I hate it) his losses would also tally up by 5 in red. Something like this "might" pass muster with our editors instead of the logjam we have today. Anyway, this was simply something to think about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

American Tennis Association
Prior to 1950 there was discrimination against blacks from competing within Tennis. . Via what methods should we discern notability for those players such as those in the American Tennis Association BlackAmerican (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. Usually it would be the amount of press they received back than, but there was bias in that also. I wonder how the Major League Baseball articles handle that? To be honest I don't even know what kind of a circuit blacks had or the type of events they played pre-1950. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Baseball notability WP:NBASE Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players' League, Union Association.


 * So as long as they played in a game, they were considered notable. I created an article on Sylvester Smith (tennis) and discovered they had their own championships, doubles championships and more.  Even Althea Gibson was part of the American Tennis Association.  BlackAmerican (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously tennis is a lot different than baseball. It's not usually a team sport, and not everyone who plays is notable. My first inclination would be that major tournament winners would be notable. That's assuming that there were a reasonable amount of players in the biggest events. Probably best to bring it up at the main Tennis Project talk page as that gets more eyes watching it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think baseball is pretty huge in accepting everyone.  Tennis is different but I just posted your suggestion.    Do you have a link to the main Tennis project? BlackAmerican (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Baseball does not have notability with minor league players and excludes them (just minor league teams are allowed), and tennis project includes the top minor league players if they win titles. So we're pretty inclusive. Old pro players from the 40's are included if they did well in events, so I don't see a problem with inclusion of historic players in other leagues if the were notable tennis players within that league. Certainly just being in the league would guarantee notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * A person in the Negro Major Leagues is notable simply for being in the league.  This was during the era of racial exclusion and after.  The American Tennis Association is similar to the Negro Major Leagues.  It isn't necessarily minor league but a parallel association.  The exclusion makes it tough to determine many things.  BlackAmerican (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But if there's no press, sourcing will be a problem. I would probably say that winning an event in the ATA would would likely garner some press or book coverage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)