Talk:Australian Open

Clarity

Hi. The sentence "(...) has been held for 100 years since 1905 (...)" is somewhat misleading, since it gives the impression that the tournament has been in fact held 100 times. That is not the case, as it was not held several times, during World War I and World War II, not to mention the year 1986, when it was not held in order for the 1987 edition to take place in January (although when calculating the actual number of editions, one must remember that it was held 2 times in one year: 1977). I suggest that the sentence in question be altered to: "was held for the first time in 1905, making it 100 years old as of 2005". Any objections and/or other suggestions? Regards, Redux 21:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wish to expand on Redux's talking points made 17 years ago. Specifically, the second paragraph in the History section needs some corrections:

Whilst it is true that a total of seven cities have hosted this particular tournament, the number of editions per city is quite off; when you tabulate all the figures, the total number of editions equates to only 98 when as of 2022, the count is at 110. This is due to the fact that the figure for Melbourne hasn't been updated for a while, it should read 66 (as of 2022.) This is also due to the fact that while the cited reference should be deemed credible for it is from that tournament's own website, it doesn't pass the verifiability test when looking specifically at each year the tournament was held in the city of Adelaide.

In the reference, it says that Adelaide hosted the tournament "14 times" without specifying the years. Upon verifying where each of the 110 editions was held, it turned out that Adelaide held it 15 times, not 14. The source for this figure is the Australian Open tournament page on the ATP website where anyone can just click on the "view draw" link for any given year where the hosting city is mentioned.

These are the complete results as of 2022

Melbourne (66) 1905, 1911, 1914, 1924, 1927, 1930, 1933, 1935, 1939, 1948, 1953, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

Christchurch (1) 1906

Brisbane (7) 1907, 1915, 1923, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1969

Sydney (17) 1908, 1919, 1922, 1925, 1928, 1931, 1934, 1937, 1940, 1947, 1951, 1954, 1958, 1962, 1966, 1970, 1971

Perth (3) 1909, 1913, 1921

Adelaide (15) 1910, 1920, 1926, 1929, 1932, 1936, 1938, 1946, 1949, 1950, 1952, 1955, 1959, 1963, 1967

Hastings (1) 1912

Total:110

Still in the second paragraph, since the proper demonym was use to refer to the "five Australian cities", likewise, two New Zealander cities should be used as well as opposed to the current "two New Zealand cities."

Moving-on to the fifth paragraph. Whilst it is true that the tournament was moved to a brand new facility within Melbourne in 1988, it is not quite right to say that it moved to "Melbourne Park" in 1988 as that name was only introduced 8 years later in 1996. Changes should be made to reflect that.

That's it for now.

13lorem (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hana Mandlikova

Hana Mandlikova's victory in the 1987 Open was achieved previous to gaining her Australian citizenship and thus, she should not be considered the last Australian to have won the title.

2022 Novak Djokovic Vaccination Issue in the History Section

A contribution made to the History section regarding the recent 2022 Novak Djokovic Vaccination Issue made in the revision https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Australian_Open&oldid=1064047276 has been reverted on the grounds of no historical importance. However, my humble submission is against this reversal ; since the present issue and subsequent judicial decision is certainly going to make historical significance and hence, the reverted contribution should be accommodated. Xscontrib (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. We cannot predict future significance and as of right now, this incident is trivial in the context of the history of the tournament. Should Djokovic ultimately be unable to defend, it may warrant a single sentence to that effect – but no more than that, with details being in the 2022 event article(s). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. We must avoid recentism. If Djokovic plays, nothing needs to be said. If he is prevented from playing over the vaccination issue, a single, brief sentence would be appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Now someone should consider writing that single, brief sentence to make it appropriate? [1] Xscontrib (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

How about "Novak Djokovic was prevented from playing in the tournament after the Australian Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, Alex Hawke, cancelled his visa, citing health and good order grounds", with this as a source? HiLo48 (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

fine Xscontrib (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Still seems like excessive detail, and needs to be framed in the context of AO history. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

We have seen effects of falsifying details and denying/expressing reluctance towards scientific process by celebrities on vaccine roll-out. IMHO This event shall not be seen as one watertight incident, exclusive to sports, but a historical event which will shape upcoming days ; how popular persons decide personal benefits over a greater good. Xscontrib (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

How is this relevant here, specifically to the AO? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment of Xscontrib's comment, such speculative content doesn't belong in this article. I also agree that we don't want excessive detail regarding this matter, and am very open to constructive suggestions. The problem is that Djokovic is the reigning champion, so I believe we need to say something. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It really just belongs in the 2022 edition of the event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

wheelchair and quad sections

my level of knowledge and interest in tennis is close to zero; however, there really should be details on this page of the other competitions in this tournament. Many other pages on wheelchair and quad competitions and players link to this page.

As an example, Dylan Alcott, who has won not only the past two Australian Opens in the men's quad, but also a multiple Grand Slam winner is not mentioned in this page at all. 121.200.5.19 (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Current champions (2022 edition)

This section is a little ambiguous. Ash Barty has four Grand Slam titles (3 singles, 1 doubles), Barbora Krejčíková has eight Grand Slam titles (1 singles, 4 doubles, 3 mixed doubles), Kristina Mladenovic has eight Grand Slam titles (5 doubles, 3 mixed doubles) and Ivan Dodig has six Grand Slam titles (2 doubles, 4 mixed doubles). Should this be updated to include the collective number of their grand slam titles or clarified that the number refers to the particular category in which they won their 2022 title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anookara (talk • contribs) 03:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

How wonderfully glorious and positive.

Overnight a piece of text was removed from this article with the Edit summary "Removed out of place protest information". Before even knowing what the information was, I immediately saw something wrong with that. If it was out of place, it should be moved to the right place, not simply removed. Then I looked for the right place, but there isn't one. There is nowhere in the article describing anything negative associated with the event whatsoever, which is ridiculous!

There's nothing about Novak's vaccination issue, Margaret Court's controversial views, the taking away of the land where Melbourne Park is now from its previous use, and no doubt lots of other things I'm not aware of.

I'm not a fan of big "Controversies" sections in articles, but this article right now really is a whitewash. HiLo48 (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)