Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Performance Timelines

I am proposing that we do something about performance timeline tables in order to ensure that their is consistency across the board. Lately, one particular user has introduced a table within a table which is comprised of a players' results from the ATP 500 and 250 series, which I believe is unecessary as this information is already (or should be) well documented on the player's main page. Furthermore, they have introduced a "titles-finals" row within the performance timeline, which I believe will make it a little harder to understand when compared to the format which has been used for so long and in my opinion, should always be used i.e. (one row for titles and one row for runner-ups/finals reached). The size of the table should also be kept the same as it was before (100%/98% instead of 97%). Overall, I believe that we should be using the performance timeline tables that we have been using for so many years, that is the tables that only include the four grand slams, ATP Masters 1000 events and the Davis Cup. Also, it appears as though the user that I am talking about has only added lower events for ATP players. All that he has done to female players' performance timelines is change the size of the table from 100% to 98%. What do you guys think about this? Thanks in advance for your input. JayJ21 (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Could we have links to examples? Sellyme^Talk 00:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic career statistics uses the table which I believe should be used across the board when ATP Players are concerned. The tables used in Somdev Devvarman and Frederico Gil are the tables that I believe should not be used. The table used in Djokovic's page is the table which has been used for so many years on Wikipedia, and I believe that it is easier to understand. The tables used in the other pages I have mentioned include unecessary details, and the colour scheme used is also unecessary. As for WTA players, the table used in Maria Sharapova career statistics is a good example of the table that should be used across the board for WTA players. Thanks. JayJ21 (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Without looking at perhaps even more variations I would have to agree that the Djokovic singles performance timeline is far superior to the two examples above. The only reason, off the top of my head, that it should look different would be for older retired pros who played different important tourneys. But the styling should be pretty much the same imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input guys. I also forgot to mention that the user who has been introducing these variations has also been removing the "A's" in performance timelines, which I believe should be kept as they represent a player's absense from a tournament. Leaving it blank may confuse readers. Here is an example: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Verdasco&oldid=430213281. I have since reverted this version and restored the original table. Thanks. JayJ21 (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The A's should remain from the time a player turns pro to the time they retire. If they retire in mid year I wouldn't expect them to get an A under the US Open. To me an A means they could have played but didn't play for any one of a 100 reasons. But I don't think we have any standard set in the tennis project so you can't call it vandalism if someone makes it a different way than normal. It would simply be a content dispute. I guess you would need to put up the chart here and we'd say our nays and yeahs on putting it in the 'Article Guidelines' as the standard timeline chart. If it passes muster and goes into the guidelines THEN you could change a deviation on grounds of policy. Just my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have created a user subpage which includes the timelines that I believe are acceptable and unacceptable for use in tennis related articles. I have also written reasons as to why they are acceptable or unacceptable for use. The subpage can be viewed here. Please leave your comments/responses here on this project talk page, or on the subpages' talk page. Thanks. JayJ21 (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Junior Qualifying Tournaments at Roland Garros

How should the junior qualifying tournaments at Roland Garros be listed? If you recall, the articles for many of the junior qualifying pages were AfD'd and deleted, so there's probably no point in going to create an extra page and have it AfD'd. I was thinking that we can probably list the qualifying tournaments on the same page, which would be the best route if we wanted to include as much information as possible. Otherwise, it could be omitted, I suppose, as it is argued that the qualifying tournaments are non-notable. Any comments? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hrm. I would honestly support articles for them, as they're obviously inherently worthy of mention, but can't be fluidly put anywhere else. A sub-page would theoretically work, but doesn't work with the rest of Wikipedia. Maybe just adding it in the article normally? It will be really unsightly, but it's the only feasible option. Sellyme^Talk 04:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And they'll argue that notability is not inherited and that these qualifying tournament articles for juniors aren't as notable as the rest because there are not as many sources covering it, blah blah... I guess we just have to add it into the article. That's what I was thinking the inevitable solution would have to be... Would this be the precedent for the future as well? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

With the lack of any other options, I support integration of qualifying into main article, although with the actual draw in a collapsible box. Sellyme^Talk 08:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

When I see terms like "unsightly" a red flag zooms to the forefront. A page like the French Open is ranked C-class and it isn't going to go any higher with something unsightly and information possibly un-noteworthy being added. It's one thing to add a link but I'm not so sure about another collapsible box. Those boxes are nice but they also spread like rabbits and can make an article look a bit on the sloppy side. I'd sure like to see what it looks like and where it would fit in the page before the glue dries because I'm a little wary of it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So I've put up the boys' singles page with the main draw above the qualifying draws. Hopefully that works out well. Please edit/comment if you want, I just put that up as a starting point for expansion. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not too bad, but possibly slightly confusing. Perhaps we need a bit of leading prose for the section. Sellyme^Talk 07:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

So someone popped it out. Says that qualifying shouldn't be included at all. What to do now?... Prayerfortheworld (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say that's that. There were some at the time that also wanted all the junior tournaments deleted for lacking notability...not just the qualifying rounds. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the qualifying shouldn't be included. I mean, it is part of the tournament, and although it may not be notable enough for an article, it definitely needs to be mentioned somewhere. Sellyme^Talk 23:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't either, but I can't think of an alternative that would be satisfactory to the non-notable argument... I think we should leave it without the qualifying draws, but possibly include a Qualifying section that has text talking about the details of the qualifying tournament? Or a list or something similar to that? At least give a nod to the qualifying tournament in that manner. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. It's easily notable enough for an article. However, I say we just push to have it included in the main article as it was before. Sellyme^Talk 03:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Martina Navratilova versus Serena Williams

What do you all think of the grand slam navbox spliting up that I did on the Navratilova page compared to how it looks on Serena's page? Just curious.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Love it. Having 12 navboxes pop out of one of three other navboxes is ludicrous. I far prefer the navbox layout on Navratilova's page. (Whoops, forgot to sign) Sellyme^Talk 03:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

2010/2011 AO day-by-day pages

I noticed that, according to the AfD for the 2010 AO day-by-days, the 2010 AO day-by-days were merged to the 2010 AO main page. This brings up two (maybe more) problems: 1) the 2011 AO day-by-day hasn't been merged yet, and 2) {{verylong}} was added to the 2010 AO page after the day-by-days were merged. How can this be fixed? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually support the day-by-day summaries as full stand-alone articles. I mean, the events are just going to get more and more coverage, possibly even more players in the future, Wikipedia is going to keep growing, and as such, the articles each year will get progressively larger. There is no feasible solution but to split them off into other articles so that potential new Wikipedians aren't scared off by a 800kB page. Either that or we utilize article sub-pages, something I've wanted for years, but I highly doubt that will ever happen. Sellyme^Talk 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What happened was that, when discussing it on the day by day talk page and afd, those editors had a consensus to keep but move to the 2010 main page. No one had really talked to the large bulk of wikipedians who edited the main page. It was moved to the main page but an uproar there said no way!. So it sat in limbo neither on the 2010 AO main page nor on its original page. Since consensus was not to actually get rid of it, the text was reinserted on its original page where it stands today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see these pages have been somewhat neglected. "Zvonvrera"? "Badhgatis"? Every second sentence is "blah blah blah. While blah" as well, instead of being "blah blah blah, while blah". I'll have to fix that all tomorrow :/ Sellyme^Talk 12:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Performance Timelines Continued...

Below are examples of the timelines that I think are acceptable and unacceptable for use on Wikipedia. JayJ21 (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable Timelines

• Below are the timelines that I believe are acceptable to use. These tables were taken from Novak Djokovic career statistics and Maria Sharapova career statistics and thus reflect both payers' results. Both tables are clear and easy to understand. A's are included to show that the player did not compete in the event for that year (due to varying reasons e.g. they could have been injured and/or their ranking was not sufficient enough to gain direct entry and they did not compete in the qualifying draw). The only difference between the two tables is that Sharapova's timeline includes a column with win percentages which I believe is also acceptable for inclusion. Furthermore, readers can clearly see and easily understand how many titles the player has won versus the finals they have reached in a single season. Separating this statistic into two rows rather than combining them into a single row known as "Titles-Finals" makes this stat easier to read and and understand. Also, Djokovic's results from other tournaments (the ATP 500 & 250 Series events) are not included as this information is already well documented in his biographical article. Likewise, Sharapova's results from the WTA Premier and WTA International events are not included for the same reasons. Finally, the format below has been used for a very lengthy period of time on wikipedia and I see no good in changing the way that they are.

ATP Players

Tournament	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Career SR	Career W-L
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open	A	1R	1R	4R	W	QF	QF	W	2 / 7	25–5
French Open	A	2R	QF	SF	SF	3R	QF		0 / 6	21–6
Wimbledon	A	3R	4R	SF	2R	QF	SF		0 / 6	20–6
US Open	A	3R	3R	F	SF	SF	F		0 / 6	26–6
Win–Loss	0–0	5–4	9–4	19–4	18–3	15–4	19–4	7–0	2 / 25	92–23
ATP World Tour Finals
Tour Finals	A	A	A	RR	W	RR	SF		1 / 4	8–7
Olympic Games
Summer Olympics	A	Not Held			SF-B	Not Held			0 / 1	5–1
Davis Cup
Davis Cup Singles	Z1	Z1	PO	PO	1R	1R	W		1 / 7	19–6
ATP World Tour Masters 1000
Indian Wells	A	A	1R	F	W	QF	4R	W	2 / 6	22–4
Miami	A	A	2R	W	2R	F	2R	W	2 / 6	18–4
Monte Carlo	A	A	1R	3R	SF	F	SF	A	0 / 5	11–5
Madrid	A	Q1	QF	SF	3R	SF	A	W	1 / 5	14–4
Rome	A	A	Q2	QF	W	F	QF	W	2 / 5	18–3
Canada	A	Q2	A	W	QF	QF	SF		1 / 4	12–3
Cincinnati	A	1R	2R	2R	F	F	QF		0 / 6	11–6
Shanghai	NH	Not Masters Series				SF	SF		0 / 2	6–2
Paris	A	3R	2R	2R	3R	W	3R		1 / 6	9–5
Hamburg	A	A	2R	QF	SF	NMS			0 / 3	6–3
Win–Loss	0–0	2–2	5–7	24–7	25–7	33–8	16–8	22–0	9 / 48	127–39
Career statistics
Tournaments Played	3	9	19	22	19	22	19	7	Career total: 120
Titles	0	0	2	5	4	5	2	7	Career total: 25
Finals Reached	0	0	3	7	7	10	4	7	Career total: 38
Hardcourt Win–Loss	0–1	2–3	17–9	43–12	43–12	53–11	43–12	24–0	18 / 72	225–60
Grass Win–Loss	0–0	2–1	4–2	6–2	5–2	8–2	6–2	0–0	0 / 11	31–11
Carpet Win–Loss	1–0	3–2	5–2	1–0	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–0	0 / 4	10–4
Clay Win–Loss	1–2	4–5	14–5	18–5	16–3	17–6	12–4	13–0	7 / 33	95–30
Overall Win–Loss	2–3	11–11	40–18	68–19	64–17	78–19	61–18	37–0	25 / 120	361–105
Win %	40%	50%	69%	78%	79%	80%	77%	100%	Career total: 77%
Year End Ranking	186	78	16	3	3	3	3		–

WTA Players

Tournament	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Career SR	Career W-L	Win %
Grand Slam Tournaments
Australian Open	A	A	1R1	3R	SF	SF	F	W	A	1R	4R	1 / 8	31–7	82%
French Open	A	A	1R1	QF	QF	4R	SF	4R	QF	3R		0 / 8	26–7	79%
Wimbledon	A	A	4R	W	SF	SF	4R	2R	2R	4R		1 / 8	28–7	80%
US Open	A	A	2R	3R	SF	W	3R	A	3R	4R		1 / 7	25–7	79%
Win–Loss	0–0	0–0	10–4	15–3	19–4	20–3	16–4	11–2	7–3	8–4	3–1	3 / 31	109–28	80%
Olympic Games
Summer Olympics	Not Held				Not Held				Not Held			0 / 0	0–0	0%
Year-End Championship
WTA Tour Championships	A	A	A	W	SF	SF	F	A	A	A		1 / 4	13–5	72%
WTA Premier Mandatory Tournaments
Indian Wells	A	2R	1R	4R	SF	W	4R	SF	A	3R	SF	1 / 8	24–8	75%
Key Biscayne	A	A	1R	4R	F	F	4R	A	A	A	F	0 / 6	19–6	76%
Madrid	Not Held								A	1R	3R	0 / 2	2–2	50%
Beijing	Not Held			Not Tier I					3R	2R		0 / 1	1–1	50%
WTA Premier 5 Tournaments
Dubai	Not Tier I								A	A	A	0 / 0	0–0	0%
Rome	A	A	A	3R	SF	A	A	SF	A	A	W	1 / 4	13–3	81%
Cincinnati	Not Held			Not Tier I					A	F		0 / 1	5–1	83%
Montréal / Toronto	A	A	1R	3R	A	A	A	3R	F	A		0 / 5	7–3	70%
Tokyo	A	A	A	2R	W	SF	SF	A	W	1R		2 / 7	15–4	83%
Former WTA Tier I Tournaments (currently neither Premier Mandatory nor Premier 5 events)
Doha	Not Tier I							W	Not Held			1 / 1	5–0	100%
Charleston	A	A	1R2	A	A	A	A	QF	NM5			0 / 2	4–2	67%
Berlin	A	A	A	3R	QF	A	A	A				0 / 2	4–2	67%
Moscow	A	A	A	A	QF	QF	2R	A				0 / 3	2–2	50%
Zurich	A	A	A	F	A	W	A	NT1	Not Held			1 / 2	7–1	88%
San Diego	Not Tier I			QF	A	W	W	Not Held		NM5		2 / 3	12–1	92%
Career Statistics
Tournaments played	1	8	16	20	15	15	13	9	10	13	6	Career total: 126
Titles	0	0	2	5	3	5	1	3	1	2	1	Career total: 23
Finals Reached	0	0	2	6	4	7	4	3	2	5	2	Career total: 35
Hardcourt W–L	0–0	23–5	20–9	34–11	29–7	45–5	24–5	19–1	20–5	19–7	14–5	16 / 76	247–60	80.5%
Clay W–L	0–1	5–0	9–2	8–3	9–3	3–1	7–2	12–2	6–2	7–2	7–1	3 / 22	73–19	79.3%
Grass W–L	0–0	0–0	9–2	12–0	10–1	8–2	7–2	1–1	5–2	7–2	0–0	3 / 15	59–12	83.1%
Carpet W–L	0–0	0–0	0–0	1–1	5–1	3–1	2–2	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–0	1 / 6	11–5	68.8%
Overall W–L	0–1	28–5	38–13	55–15	53–12	59–9	40–11	32–4	31–9	33–11	21–6	23 / 126	390–96	80.25%
Win %	0%	85%	75%	79%	82%	87%	78%	89%	78%	75%	78%	Career total: 80.25%
Year End Ranking	N/A	186	32	4	4	2	5	9	14	18		Career money: $14,738,611

Unacceptable Timelines

• Below are variations of the performance timelines (that in my opinion) should not be used. These four examples were taken from Somdev Devvarman, Frederico Gil, Marin Čilić and Tomáš Berdych and thus reflect their results. The first uses a colour scheme which is unecessary and inappropriate as the merged cells already make each tournament category distinguishable from the remainder of the table. Furthermore, the "A's" have been removed (which should be included to represent that a player did not compete in an event for any number of reasons) and the overall size of the table has been reduced. The second has included results from the ATP 500 & 250 events which is unecessary as this information is (or should be) well documented within the players' biographical article. Including them also makes the table lengthy. The final table's size has been reduced (when this is not necessary) and the A's have been removed when they should be included to show that the player did not compete in an event during a particular year. The final example incorporates a player's results from the ATP 500 & 250 series events, placing these results in a separate "show or hide" table within the performance timeline itself, which is again unecessary as per the reasons described above.

Tournament	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	SR	W–L	Win %
Grand Slams
Australian Open				Q2	Q3	1R	0 / 1	0–1	0.00
French Open				Q3	1R	1R	0 / 2	0–2	0.00
Wimbledon					Q2		0 / 0	0–0	–
US Open				2R	1R		0 / 2	1–2	33.33
Win–Loss	0–0	0–0	0–0	1–1	0–2	0–1	0 / 5	1–5	16.67
Davis Cup			PO	PO	1R	1R	0 / 4	6–7	46.15
ATP Masters Series
Indian Wells Masters					Q2	4R	0 / 1	3–1	75.00
Miami Masters					Q2	3R	0 / 1	2–1	66.66
Monte Carlo Masters							0 / 0	0–0
Rome Masters							0 / 0	0–0
Madrid Masters							0 / 0	0–0
Canada Masters					1R		0 / 1	0–1	0.00
Cincinnati Masters					1R		0 / 1	0–1	0.00
Shanghai Masters							0 / 0	0–0
Paris Masters							0 / 0	0–0
Win–Loss	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–2	5–2	0 / 4	5–4	55.55
Career Statistics
Tournaments Played	1	2	2	5	11	10	31
Titles–Finals	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–1	0–0	0–1	0 / 31	0–2	0.00
Overall Win–Loss	0–1	0–2	2–5	10–5	8–14	13–11	0 / 31	33–38	46.479
Win %	0%	0%	40%	67%	36%	54%	46.479%
Year End Ranking	1116	1033	204	126	108	66	$567,175

Tournament	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Career SR	Career W-L
Grand Slam Tournaments
Australian Open	A	A	A	A	A	A	1R	2R	0 / 2	1–2
French Open	A	A	A	LQ	1R	1R	LQ	1R	0 / 3	0–3
Wimbledon	A	A	A	A	1R	1R	1R		0 / 3	0–3
US Open	A	A	A	A	1R	1R	1R		0 / 3	0–3
SR	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 3	0 / 3	0 / 3	0 / 2	0 / 11	N/A
Win–Loss	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–3	0–3	0–3	1–2	N/A	1–11
ATP World Tour Masters 1000
Indian Wells	A	A	A	A	A	A	1R	A	0 / 1	0–1
Miami	A	A	A	A	A	3R	LQ	2R	0 / 2	3–2
Monte Carlo	A	A	A	A	A	A	LQ	QF	0 / 1	3–1
Rome	A	A	A	A	A	A	A	LQ	0 / 0	0–0
Paris	A	A	A	A	A	LQ	A		0 / 0	0–0
SR	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 1	0 / 1	0 / 2	0 / 4	N/A
Win–Loss	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–0	2–1	0–1	4–2	N/A	6–4
ATP World Tour 500 Series
Acapulco	A	A	A	A	A	A	1R	1R	0 / 2	0–2
Barcelona	A	A	A	A	A	2R	A	A	0 / 1	1–1
Washington	Held as ATP 250					1R	A		0 / 1	0–1
Basel	Held as ATP 250					LQ	A		0 / 0	0–0
Valencia	Held as ATP 250					A	LQ		0 / 0	0–0
SR	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 2	0 / 1	0 / 1	0 / 4	N/A
Win–Loss	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–0	1–2	0–1	0–1	N/A	1–4
ATP World Tour 250 Series
Chennai	A	A	A	A	A	A	A	1R	0 / 1	0–1
Doha	A	A	A	A	A	A	1R	A	0 / 1	0–1
Sydney	A	A	A	A	A	A	1R	2R	0 / 2	1–2
Johannesburg	Not Held					SF	A	A	0 / 1	3–1
Santiago	A	A	A	A	A	A	A	1R	0 / 1	0–1
Costa do Sauípe	A	A	A	A	A	SF	2R	LQ	0 / 2	4–2
Buenos Aires	A	A	A	A	A	A	2R	1R	0 / 2	1–2
Casablanca	A	A	A	1R	A	QF	LQ	2R	0 / 3	3–3
Estoril	A	A	QF	2R	QF	1R	F	2R	0 / 6	10–6
Queen's Club	A	A	A	A	A	2R	A		0 / 1	1–1
Båstad	A	A	A	A	A	1R	A		0 / 1	0–1
Gstaad	A	A	A	A	A	A	2R		0 / 1	1–1
Umag	A	A	A	A	A	2R	A		0 / 1	1–1
Kitzbühel	Held as ATP 500					1R	NH		0 / 1	0–1
New Haven	A	A	A	A	A	3R	1R	NH	0 / 2	2–2
Bucharest	A	A	A	A	A	1R	A		0 / 1	0–1
Montpellier	Not Held						2R		0 / 1	1–1
Vienna	Held as ATP 500					2R	A		0 / 1	1–1
SR	0 / 0	0 / 0	0 / 1	0 / 2	0 / 1	0 / 11	0 / 8	0 / 6	0 / 28	N/A
Win–Loss	0–0	0–0	2–1	1–2	2–1	13–11	8–7	3–6	N/A	29–28
Career Statistics
ATP Tournaments Played	0	0	1	2	4	17	13	12	Career total: 49
ATP Finals Reached	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	Career total: 1
ATP Tournaments Won	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Career total: 0
Statistics by surface
Hard Win–Loss	1–0	0–0	0–1	0–2	0–1	9–7	1–7	3–4	0 / 18	14–22
Clay Win–Loss	0–2	2–1	4–1	1–2	5–2	8–9	11–5	6–8	0 / 26	37–30
Grass Win–Loss	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–1	1–2	0–1	0–0	0 / 4	1–4
Carpet Win–Loss	0–0	1–0	0–0	0–1	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–0	0 / 0	1–1
Overall Win–Loss	1–2	3–1	4–2	1–5	5–4	18–18	12–13	9–12	0 / 49	53–57
Win (%)	33%	75%	67%	17%	56%	50%	48%	43%	Career Win (%): 48%
Year-End Ranking	623	279	154	144	110	69	101	78	N/A

Tournament	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	SR	W–L
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open			1R	4R	4R	SF	4R	0 / 5	14–5
French Open			1R	2R	4R	4R	1R	0 / 5	7–5
Wimbledon			1R	4R	3R	1R		0 / 4	5–4
US Open		LQ	LQ	3R	QF	2R		0 / 3	7–3
Win–Loss	0–0	0–0	0–3	9–4	12–4	9–4	3–2	0 / 17	33–17
ATP World Tour Masters 1000
Indian Wells Masters				2R	3R	2R	3R	0 / 4	3–4
Miami Masters				2R	3R	4R	2R	0 / 4	4–4
Monte Carlo Masters		LQ		1R	2R	3R	3R	0 / 4	3–4
Rome Masters				1R	3R	2R	QF	0 / 4	5–4
Madrid Masters				3R	2R	3R	2R	0 / 3	4–3
Canada Masters				QF	1R	1R		0 / 3	3–3
Cincinnati Masters			LQ	1R	2R	1R		0 / 3	1–3
Shanghai Masters	Not Held				1R	1R		0 / 2	0–2
Paris Masters				3R	QF	3R		0 / 3	5–3
Hamburg Masters				1R	NME			0 / 1	0–1
Olympic Games
Summer Olympics	Not Held			2R	Not Held			0 / 1	1–1
Career Statistics
Tournaments Played	1	9	12	25	22	15	12	96
Titles–Runner-ups	0–0	0–0	0–0	1–0	2–2	2–1	0–1	5 / 96	5–4
Overall Win–Loss	0–1	5–11	14–13	37–25	48–21	40–22	21–12	5 / 96	165–105
Win %	0%	31%	52%	60%	70%	65%	64%	61.11%
Year End Ranking	587	170	71	22	14	14

Tournament	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Career SR	Career W-L	Win %
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open	A	2R	1R	2R	4R	4R	4R	2R	QF	0 / 8	16–8	66.67
French Open	A	1R	2R	4R	1R	2R	1R	SF	1R	0 / 8	10–8	55.56
Wimbledon	A	1R	3R	4R	QF	3R	4R	F		0 / 7	20–7	74.07
US Open	2R	4R	3R	4R	4R	1R	3R	1R		0 / 8	14–8	66.67
Win–Loss	1–1	4–4	5–4	10–4	10–4	6–4	8–4	12–4	4–2	0 / 31	60–31	65.93
ATP World Tour Finals
Tour Finals	A	A	A	A	A	A	A	RR		0 / 1	1–2	33.33
Davis Cup
Davis Cup Singles	1R	1R	1R	PO	1R	QF	F	SF	1R	0 / 9	15–11	57.69
Olympic Games
Summer Olympics	NH	QF	Not Held			3R	Not Held			0 / 2	5–2	71.43
ATP World Tour Masters 1000
Indian Wells	A	A	3R	4R	2R	2R	2R	QF	4R	0 / 7	9–7	56.25
Miami	A	A	1R	3R	3R	SF	4R	F	QF	0 / 7	16–7	69.57
Monte Carlo	A	1R	2R	2R	SF	A	1R	3R	3R	0 / 7	9–7	56.25
Rome	A	LQ	1R	3R	QF	A	1R	2R	QF	0 / 6	8–6	57.14
Madrid	A	1R	1R	SF	2R	2R	2R	A	QF	0 / 7	7–7	50
Montreal / Toronto	A	A	2R	QF	1R	2R	1R	QF		0 / 6	7–6	53.85
Cincinnati	A	A	2R	1R	3R	2R	QF	3R		0 / 6	8–6	57.14
Shanghai	Not Held		Not ATP Masters Series				3R	3R		0 / 2	3–2	60.00
Paris	A	A	W	QF	3R	3R	2R	3R		1 / 6	13–5	72.22
Hamburg	A	A	2R	1R	2R	2R	NMS			0 / 4	2–4	33.33
Win–Loss	0–0	0–2	12–8	14–9	12–9	9–7	9–9	16–8	10–5	1 / 58	82–57	58.99
Other tournaments ATP World Tour 500 Rotterdam 2R 1R 1R 2R 1R QF 0 / 5 4–5 44.44 Memphis QF 0 / 1 2–1 66.67 Dubai 2R 2R 2R 2R SF 0 / 5 7–5 58.33 Barcelona 2R 2R 3R 0 / 3 4–3 57.14 Kitzbühel 3R NH 0 / 1 1–1 50.00 Stuttgart 3R QF SF 2R Held as 250 0 / 4 7–4 63.63 Washington Held as 250 QF QF 0 / 2 4–2 66.67 Beijing NH Held as 250 1R 0 / 1 0–1 0.00 Tokyo 1R SF W QF 0 / 3 10–3 76.92 Vienna 1R Held as 250 0 / 1 0–1 0.00 Valencia 2R 0 / 1 1–1 50.00 Basel Held as 250 1R 0 / 1 0–1 0.00 Win–Loss 0–1 3–3 4–4 5–4 5–4 7–2 7–5 4–4 5–1 1 / 30 40–28 58.82 ATP World Tour 250 Brisbane 1R SF 2R SF 0 /4 7–4 63.64 Chennai SF 0 / 1 3–1 75.00 Sydney 1R 1R QF QF 1R 1R 0 / 6 4–6 40.00 San Jose QF 0 / 1 2–1 66.67 Marseille Q1 2R 1R 1R QF 0 / 4 2–4 33.33 Munich SF W QF 1 / 3 10–2 83.33 Estoril Q2 1R 0 / 1 0–1 0.00 St. Pölten 1R Not Held 0 / 1 0–1 0.00 Nice Not Held SF 0 / 1 2–1 33.33 World Team Cup RR RR F RR RR 0 / 5 12–4 75.00 Halle F W 2R 2R 1 / 4 10–3 76.92 London 1R 0 / 1 0–1 0.00 Nottingham 2R Not Held 0 / 1 1–1 50.00 Stuttgart Held as 500 1R 0 / 1 0–1 0.00 Båstad F 1R F 0 / 3 7–3 70.00 Gstaad 1R 0 / 1 0–1 0.00 Washington SF Held as 500 0 / 1 3–1 75.00 Bangkok SF SF 0 / 2 5–2 71.43 Kuala Lumpur Not Held QF QF 0 / 2 3–2 60.00 Mumbai F Not Held 0 / 1 4–1 80.00 Palermo W 1R Not Held 1 / 2 5–1 83.33 Moscow 1R 0 / 1 0–1 0.00 Stockholm Q2 1R QF 2R 0 / 3 2–3 40.00 Basel 2R QF 1R Held as 500 0 / 3 3–3 50.00 Win–Loss 0–0 5–4 11–11 16–8 17–5 10–6 9–6 11–6 6–3 3 / 53 85–49 63.43
Career statistics
Tournaments Played	2	15	27	26	24	21	24	24	12	175
Titles–Finals	0–0	1–1	1–1	0–2	1–2	1–2	1–1	0–2	0–0	5 / 175	5–11	45.45
Overall Win–Loss	2–2	16–15	34–29	48–24	46–24	35–21	36–26	45–27	26–12	5 / 175	288–180	61.54
Year End Ranking	113	45	24	13	14	20	20	6		$8,306,165

2011 Roland Garros Women's Legends

Slight discrepancy here... the results page says that Martina Navratilova/Jana Novotná are set to play Lindsay Davenport/Martina Hingis, but the schedule says that they are scheduled to play Iva Majoli/Conchita Martinez. I haven't seen any press on this. Anyone know what's going on? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tie-breaks

Why have we returned to the old tie-break format? Doesn't it state the obvious? If you lost the tie-break and you scored three points, it's obvious that your opponent did seven points. I seriously do not understand. Qampunen (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I never knew it was the old tiebreak format. It was discussed a while back and decided that a non-tennis person would better understand if both scores were shown. It was set up in the guidelines and articles are being updated as quickly as possible... which of course means slowly on wikipedia :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's for the same reason we show full AFL scores instead of just goals/behinds, same reason we show the points total in association football tables instead of just wins/losses/draws. It's because other people don't know stuff. Sellyme^Talk 09:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Years articles AfD'd

Hello all, please join in on the conversation regarding the AfDs for the years articles for tennis players. Novak Djokovic in 2011 has just been deleted (see conversation here), and now all the year articles for Federer are being considered for deletion. This may set a dangerous precedent regarding all year articles, so I feel that it's important that we defend this. Join in here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Federer in 2011 Thanks! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for informing pftw. Interesting conversations over there and ProjectTennis folks usually iron things out in an acceptable manner for most articles. Of course there's always a nut or two with a seemingly loose screw... oh wait... that might be me this go around. ;-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm definitely the loose screw, but that's because the current design isn't perfect :P (See, I can make analogies too!). But yeah, it'll be interesting to see how this works out. Sellyme^Talk 01:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

More articles up for deletion

In case some don't often check the main project page, there are other pages up for deletion you may want to comment on.

• Brittany Teei
• Junior Orange Bowl (tennis)
• Gursher Singh Harika
• Jankovic – V. Williams rivalry
• Hantuchova–Schnyder rivalry
• 2005 US Open – Men's Qualifying Singles
• Day-by-day summaries of the 2011 Australian Open

That's it for now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on Performance Timelines

Yeah, I don't really see how any of the last four are in any way better than the first two. The colour schemes are horrible, the 500 and 250 events make it bloated, and they just don't work well as a table. Sellyme^Talk 08:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Those first two tables should probably be the standard we are seeking here at project tennis. They give the information 99% of the readers would want and dump stuff that turns the page into an overstuffed eyesore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we all agree. So how do we go about making this a guideline/standard for tennis related articles?. JayJ47 (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

lol..."we all" is only three of us. :-) It's already here as a choice so I'd say you give it a week and ask everyone to agree or disagree. I posted this link on the guidelines talk page as well. After a week if it looks like consensus... even if it's only us three, then put those two charts up on the guideline page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• • As far as using the first two charts as a guideline/rule at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_Guidelines:

Agree Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree For the reasons mentioned above. JayJ47 (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree I do think you all are correct in proceeding. I would say make these in line with access guidelines.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have put the two performance timelines at the guidelines page. Thank you for all your input. JayJ47 (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:2011 ATP World Tour Finals

I need a bit rule clarification here by you, especially by some ATP rankings experts. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 08:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Help with Performance Timelines

Hi. I'd really appreciate it if you guys could all help me in ensuring that there is consistency across Wikipedia when performance timelines are concerned, by changing any of the unacceptable timelines that you see to the ones deemed acceptable on the guidelines page. This user has been the one responsible for the implementation of the unacceptable timelines so keep an eye out for him. Thanks. JayJ47 (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, JayJ47. I may be late in joining this discussion as I see it has been running for a while, and also please disregard me if a general consensus has already been reached. But in case it is still helpful, I agree with most you are saying, e.g. including A's, colors, widths, separate titles/finals lines. But personally I wouldn't mind having the 500/250 results in the table, hidden by default, with a 'show' link, as illustrated by this old revision: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics&oldid=429686618#Singles_Performance_timeline . These results may be described in the biographical article, but that is also true for Slams and M1000's. Thanks for your standardizing efforts. Gap9551 (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gap9551. Thanks for your input! I still don't think that adding the ATP 250 and 500 events to a performance timeline is a good idea because one, they aren't majors, two they make the table excessively lengthy and three, the tables that have been deemed acceptable have been in use for so long and changing them is unnecessary. I'd really appreciate it if you could help me in changing any timelines that you see using the unacceptable format(s). Thanks. JayJ47 (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest whether or not the timeline has pulldown 500/250 results I can swing one way or the other. Having them show all the time is bad imho but a pulldown in that chart doesn't clutter as long as it's hidden. And remember, ATP 1000 events aren't majors either... that properly only belongs to the 4 slam Majors. Certainly the ATP 1000 events are FAR more important than the 500/250 series as far as points but then again Queens is still a highly prestigious tournament with a long history where the top players enter, even though it's only a 250 event right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I still think that the results from ATP 250/500 events should remain omitted as they are minor tournaments and should not be included. If you guys could help me out with User:Mrf8128, I'd really appreciate. He/she is still content on using the performance timelines that he/she has created, even when the guideline has a set of appropriate timelines. If we can stop he/she from using his/her timelines, we won't have to worry too much about the timelines in the future. Thanks. JayJ47 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources of Statistical Information

Hi I'm opening a discussion about continuity in sources for statistical information to articles we edit on and off for records percentages win/loss etc do we have guidelines as to where that information should come from or should we as a group set up our own guidelines within discussion the main reason I'm asking this if you work on something add it and then it just gets re-edited most of the time no explanation is given by an editor in the edit summary it can be annoying and holding my hands up may have done it myself, can we reach consensus on this point as to avoid having to leave request on peoples talk pages seeking an explantion form an editor we all have information coming from sources we individually may use, but they may be slightly different. what's your thoughts?. --Navops47 (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Tournament task force

Hi, WikiProject Tennis. As a current or past contributor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis, I thought I'd let you know about the Tennis tournament task force, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of tennis tournament articles of all kind. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the task force page. Thanks!

Everyone who is interested, join this task force and improve tournament coverage and consistency on wikipedia. 03md 00:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ambitious article creation proposal

Take a seat, put down any sharp objects and be prepared, because I have the feeling that a few of the veteran editors will drop their monocles in disbelief at this. I propose that every player who has won a Grand Slam or ATP World Tour 1000 event has sufficient notability so that an article such as xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx's tennis career would be worthy of creation. This page would include comprehensive details of ATP Tour tournaments the player has participated in (as seen in articles such as Roger Federer in 2009), and could also be merged with career statistics pages such as Martina Hingis career statistics. There is no doubt that this would be a lot of work, but that is irrelevant as Wikipedia is never finished, and I am willing to undergo such a task by myself if need be. It is also very inclusive, although it is definitely not "non-notable", as I guarantee every player who's won a major title has significant third-party WP:RS coverage. Although it is generally disliked for an article to be primarily data and no prose, and it seems that this is what any of the articles I am proposing would be, I feel that there would be a sufficient amount of prose to qualify each as an article, not simply a statistics table. A lot of players who have won a Grand Slam already have a page (or several) like I've mentioned.

Just to clarify: For most players, I do not endorse yearly results articles, but simply an overall article. In the case that such an article becomes excessively large (Like as with Roger Federer) then it could be split.

So, I've thought about this for around a month, and most arguments against it that I can think of are simply "I don't like it" or "Too inclusive", which aren't really sufficient basis for not having them. Having the articles is very inclusive, yes, but it is definitively notable, and can't realistically be put in the player articles. Your thoughts? Sellyme^Talk 12:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi sellyme I don't know if what your proposing is simliar to this article already up and running here. but this article is only noting combined titles won since 1990. This article I created here Grand Prix Tennis Championship Series 1970-1989 was done to redress the over emphasis given to the current ATP World Tour 1000 series as the only top level tournaments to exist after the Majors and Year End Championships, the Championship Series events on the Grand Prix Tour certainly carried the highest ranking points and certainly field size after the Grand Slam Season end finals during the period 1970-1989 and were certainly equivalent to the Masters Series today. Any inclusion of pre-1990 players records to be included in your article would make for a fair playing field ps dont't foregt to include the WCT Finals the season ending championships for the WCT tour. If I can be of any help feel free to ask thanks --Navops47 (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I was using the ATP Tour as an example, any equivalents would count as well, such as WTA Tour Mandatory Events. Only problem is it may be hard to find enough info from 1970. Sellyme^Talk 20:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just made a template to go with your article Navops47, located here. 03md 01:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi 03md that looks fantastic I was thinking about that yesterday you have done a great job very well done. I had made a start on creating pages namely the Italian Open which is now back to 1982 etc about 60% are not created yet. --Navops47 (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi 03md the listing for London on the template can you link it to this article hereIm not sure how do it myself and the event was known as the British Covered court Championships 70-71 event cancelled til 76 the became the Benson & Hedges Championships. --Navops47 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just changed it no problem --Navops47 (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I will attempt to split up the 1970-1989 templates e.g. 1985 Nabisco Grand Prix, in the same way that the post-1990 ones are - Grand Slams, Grand Prix Championship Series, Other Grand Prix events, Team events. Feel free to make a start yourself though. Do you know if there was a similar system for women? 03md 11:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you guys are completely misunderstanding my aim with this. I'm talking about articles for individual players, which encompasses their entire careers. Again, look at Roger Federer in 2010 for a rough example. Sellyme^Talk 11:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I see where you going now that's a huge amount of work to do per year per player and are you not just repeating information already there in the player and career statistic articles? why is this different? although I do like your layout style very much--Navops47 (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. I don't mean yearly articles, for most players their full career would work in one article. A few (Like Roger) definitely need yearly ones though. Yes, it'll be a huge amount of work. That is irrelevant. The thing is, player articles are quite large already. There is far more information that could be put in there but isn't because it would make it unreadable. Hence my proposal. I'll give this another few days to see if there's any opposition. Sellyme^Talk 13:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi as no one else is engaged in this discussion I think just go ahead with what you want to do can you look at at my query above this and give some feed back thanks --Navops47 (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

ATP World Tour Masters 1000

Why do we have only one article for the Championship Series, Single Week/Super 9/Masters Series etc. and the Masters 1000. Should this be split off into 2 articles, as we have for Championship/International Series Gold vs. ATP World Tour 500 and World/International Series and ATP World Tour 250? The post-2009 article could have a table featuring the 1990-2008 results as well, but have detailed info on 2009 onwards. 03md 16:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that makes sense --Navops47 (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've created ATP Masters Series and tidied up ATP World Tour Masters 1000 - you may want to move some stuff around and cleanup. 03md 00:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You didn't follow the splitting procedure (WP:SPLIT). Now in the new article no proper attribution is given to the original authors. You can still add the following template to both talk pages: Template:Copied. You could also add a new section to the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 talk page explaining what exactly was moved. Gap9551 (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Should the remaining combined sections in ATP World Tour Masters 1000 (being Winners by tournament, Titles champions and Records and trivia) remain, be split, or moved to a third article? Perhaps the last option is the most consistent? Gap9551 (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and created Tennis Masters Series records and statistics (not sure if this is the best name but it can always be changed). I've put split notices on the talk pages for ATP World Tour Masters 1000 and the new article. My plan is to expand this new article to include the Grand Prix Masters Series stats as well. 03md 17:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent job, I like it very much. Each of the 3 periods could have their own statistics, and the new page then has the combined stats since 1970, which weren't included on wikipedia yet, and which has a much better historical perspective as it compares Lendl to Nadal, for example. The only problem this new structure introduces is that in many other articles Masters titles is interpreted at 1990-present, which would contradict the statistics in this new article. In general we should make very clear to which period information applies. Gap9551 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• The plan was just as you say, to make one table covering 1970 to 2011 and then separate tables in each of the articles. as long as we make it clear whether we are only including post-1990 results I don't think it should be a problem. I should have the Tennis Masters Series records and statistics tables finished pretty soon. 03md 20:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi I think the single page idea is great will you split the results table up correctly from 1970-90 there were different tournaments in the top 9 at different times eg: Johannesburg 1970-1974 was replaced by Washington in 1975 which was replaced by Hamburg in 1978 and so on. Also are you combining the titles and singles matrix together 1970-2011? and are the records trivia being combined. and last what are you going to call the article as the series as you know has had five different names at one time or another. I agree with gap9551's previous comments the historical perspective which was one of the reasons I did the GP championship series article to give pre-1990 players some recognition.--Navops47 (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I will split up the table according to venue. The singles matrix and records will also be expanded to include pre-1990 data. Feel free to chip in with the article. The name of the article is currently Tennis Masters Series records and statistics (purely as a working title) but not sure if this is the best name. 03md 08:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohconfucius removing flags from infobox

I think someone needs to alert this edit from this project that it is not going along with past consensus on this forum to remove flags. This is just an alert.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's something in the script he's using? On the ones I checked he only removed the USA flags....no other countries seemed to be affected. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I just like to bring things like that to the appropriate projects, thanks for checking though.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Federer in 2011 – Davis cup

Should Davis Cup matches be included in the Roger Federer in 2011#All matches section and the schedule section below it? Federer's website says that he will participate. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If they're on his official schedule, then that's obviously a reliable source saying it will happen. Sellyme^Talk 23:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to rename these articles from being Roger Federer in 2011 to the more applicable and appropriate title 2011 Roger Federer tennis season like all the team sports use. The year then the subject and a season, but I believe we need to spell out tennis, so no inappropriate stuff is allowed to be included in those articles. I think 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season needs to be started because it has been another banner year for Djokovic. I would love to see the following: 1988 Steffi Graf tennis season (4 slams), 1970 Margaret Court tennis season (4 slams), 1969 Rod Laver tennis season (4 slams), 1983 Martina Navratilova tennis season (3 slams), 1984 Martina Navratilova tennis season (3 slams), 1989 Steffi Graf tennis season (3 slams), 1993 Steffi Graf tennis season (3 slams), 1995 Steffi Graf tennis season (3 slams), 1996 Steffi Graf tennis season (3 slams), 1997 Martina Hingis tennis season (3 slams), 2002 Serena Williams tennis season (3 slams). These are just to name a few that I think need to be started now.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've recommended that for notable players a insertnamehere's tennis career article should be created, so that information is all there, and can be split when necessary, but it wasn't discussed much. Sellyme^Talk 04:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I will start the work on these in a couple of weeks with the titles of these articles first that I mentioned above, which I will move and rename these Federer and Nadal ones first. Thanks for being such a great contributor to the tennis project.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So you're all for the tennis career articles? Once the Island Games finish (Just in time for the weekend) I'll get to work on those if they get enough support. Sellyme^Talk 08:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As I had said before, I think it is incredible factoid overkill... but I was already overruled on the Federer inundation of articles so don't let me slow you down. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's definitely over-kill, but it's still notable. Sellyme^Talk 10:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact they won a Major is notable and therefore it warrants the player having an article about them on wikipedia. It does not warrant them having multiple articles. IMHO that trivia is not notable... but again I was overruled. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a season someone wins a slam is notable and noteworthy and without excess in the slighest. If you all go look at those article above they won three slams in those years at a minimum, which you all don't think they deserve articles for them. Do you all relize how many tennis players have ever played them game and most professionals ones have articles on here that is enough for them. When a tennis player wins a slam in a season it differientiates it significantly enough for the use of a season article to chronicle the exploit. So back to the ones aforementioned above, is Graf's golden slam not notable enough to have a season article made of it. I am just curious? Peace to all and to all a loving sight on wikipedia!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah but remember the premise here. Those articles are the tip of the iceberg. The objective is every player that ever won a Major gets a career article with every match and tournament they ever played... in detail. Even their junior years. Not just the season they won a Major. That is what we have already agreed to. For consistency we will need to write an article on every match from junior to retirement that "Kerry Melville Reid" played in.... not just the year she won a Major in 1977. Now that probably won't spill over to multiple pages but someone like "Louise Brough Clapp" might. I'll start working on some of them in my spare time because consensus is what makes Wikipedia run and that's what we agreed to do... but it sure seems like trivia to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, I wasn't saying their junior years, even I believe that's slightly too ambitious. I just meant Pro Tour (and equivalent) matches. And what do you mean "for consistency"? Wikipedia is never finished. One article is better than none. Glad to hear you're happy to help though :) Of course, we should definitely START with the more notable players, but (hopefully) eventually get to what I previously outlined. Sellyme^Talk 23:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Fyunck(click), I would have to say unto you that the junior years and early career article could very well be deleted as UN-noteworthy. I would keep all the other ones because those are the ones he won a slam in those years. So, I wish you would stop saying what you do because I am trying to agree with you part and parcel. I respect all you have given to tennis on here, keep up the good work of the tennis faith.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles on tennis players

Hi. Sorry to come here with a negative comment, because clearly an awful lot of effort has been put into Wikipedia's tennis articles, but in my opinion the "Career" sections of some of the articles on major tennis players are swamped with far too much intricate match-by-match detail. Also, there are question marks about the style of some of these articles. Some of the text is written like journalese, and is not very encyclopedic. This issue was originally raised by someone else at Talk:Li Na (tennis)#Article_too_long, but I've since noticed it in quite a few other places too. Only the most die-hard fans will want to see a detailed record of seemingly practically every tournament over ten years. It makes for dull and difficult reading, and it's hard to get any general overview of the player's career progression and the important milestones therein. 86.179.115.82 (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome. There was a discussion when creating the "career" sections of tennis players. If it gets to be too cumbersome the consensus was to split it off to a new article such as "Li Na's Tennis Career" so as not to burden the main article with too much trivia. If it then again becomes too large it shall be broken down into year by year articles as was done with Roger Federer... Roger Federer in 2003, Roger Federer in 2004, Roger Federer early career, Roger Federer the Junior years, etc... etc... I assume Roger Federer senior circuit eventually. This type of thing is to be done with any player winning at least one Major in tennis history (not sure about doubles or mixed doubles). So the main page should be detailed but more a synopsis when it comes to tournaments. Then split off the super detailed pages where every match they ever played will be listed. I hope that helps a little. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the extreme length of some tennis articles is quite an issue. Technically, full scores shouldn't be recorded in prose unless they are of note, and the proposed articles will remedy this. Content forking as necessary is a rather under-represented Wikipedia policy, but we here at WP:TENNIS are trying to fix that! Sellyme^Talk 23:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Fyunck(click) and IP above, I will show you all how these will need to be done for future reference, so I will start off on the most prominent one that is 1988 Steffi Graf tennis season. Who amongst you all will not want to so-called read all about it? This has to be the most important and impressive achievement ever in the woman's game if not in all of tennis history. Hey, why don't you all go and do the research! I know why because it is to tediously time consuming, so I must undertake this endeavor by my lonesome. I will start the work on it here if you all want to take some precious time and a loving devotion to this type of work. So, I say lets have at it and serve up an ace if we can from the service line.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Want me to work on a table format for it over the weekend? Sellyme^Talk 03:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I assumed they would be a lot like the Federer articles too. I'm not sure Graf's 1988 feat is the greatest in history but that's simply personal preference. It's certainly a great year worthy of inclusion. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, what would be better? I can't think of anything. I would say get on the table when you can Sellyme. It will take me two to three weeks to gather up the sources and write the prose. I would have to say this type of article will be more quote based than score or just telling about the matches. In addition, it will include where provided the rank of Graf's opponents. This will be greatly different in terms of how it will read and look in the prose sections.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tennis history has lots of great achievements. We have players winning 9 Majors in a row before the age of 20.. another that won 158 consecutive matches without the loss of a set...another who lost 1 match in 7 years. We have a player who has won 2 Grand Slams. Graf's year was sensational but it's not the only sensational record in tennis history. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't suggest going into score detail in prose too much (Except for exceptional scorelines). I suggest only including the ranking of players in the top 20 or so, as that information will be in the table (again, with exceptions as seen fit). Sellyme^Talk 05:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season

This article now needs to be created speedily. It is notable and noteworthy.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone deleted this Novak Djokovic in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.233.34 (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming proposal

I am suggesting that all Roger Federer yearly articles such as Roger Federer in 2006 be moved/renamed to say 2006 Roger Federer tennis season. What do you all think about this proposal? I think it will avoid the ambiguousness of the former with making it known it is only going to be about a tennis season.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair, but are there similar articles in other sports? Best would be to follow existing names. Gap9551 (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Most sports follow [[<year> <team name> season]] but with individual players "2006 Roger Federer season" just sounds strange. I fully support this proposal. Sellyme^Talk 21:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ohconfucius diacritic proposal will take the choice from our hands

Whether you agree with diacritics or not, the choice on tennis articles is about to be taken away. It will not matter if places like the Tennis Hall of Fame, Wimbledon, US Open, tennis magazines, the press, etc... spell a name without diacritics, we will be locked into using them if Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC goes through. Since this will affect thousands of tennis articles I thought editors here should be aware of the pending change no matter what side of the fence you are on. Happy 4th everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't we do so already? I haven't seen a single article without diacritics where there could be. Sellyme^Talk 08:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean like Martina Navratilova, Novak Djokovic, Lili de Alvarez? There are plenty, so no. When I start and create an article it's based on English spellings... US Open official spellings... Hall of Fame official spellings... press spellings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the first two would more than certainly come under WP:COMMONNAME, even in the new proposal. For Lili de Alvarez I'm not so sure (He died at about the same time I was learning how to count to ten) but judging by a few Google searches I'd say that'd be COMMONNAME as well. I believe all articles should abide by the ATP or WTA naming convention (or equivalents) in the main body (Obviously having a redirect of the diacritical name and with that in the lead. Sellyme^Talk 08:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

English Commonname will pretty much always be with diacritics if it goes through. It'll be common name in their own country that we'll always fall back on. If you believe ATP or WTA spellings should take precedent then most the tennis diacritics should be removed from what I've seen and read. My compliant is that will not be a choice if this goes through. But read it for yourself. It'll need consensus to change so I'd guess at least 60/40 in favor. I have strong feelings about non-diacritics in English wiki so I'm admittedly biased, but whether you do or don't, whether you agree with me or not, since it affects many many tennis articles I wanted to make sure our tennis editors read the proposal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• It looks like someone has beaten me to post here. Never mind... Read the rationale, deliberate, vote early, vote often. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the "vote early vote often" fun...wouldst that we could do that in real elections as I know a few politicians in my state I'd like to see get the boot. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Djokovic-Nadal rivalry now exist?

Do you all think this has just happend? I am waiting to hear of you responses.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is needed. They have 28 meetings and could easily break the open era record of 36 (Lendl–McEnroe). The H2H is balanced, unlike e.g. Federer–Roddick. They have 6 Slam meetings, 1–1 in finals. Djokovic is reasonably accomplished at this point, 3 slams and #1. They are the top 2 now. And perhaps more importantly, there is bound to be quite some interest in this article. Is there a guideline for the order of the names in the title? Alphabetical, or is the more accomplished supposed to be first? Gap9551 (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is definitely needed. As for the names order I think the most accomplished one to be first :) (Gabinho^>:) 20:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC))

Alphabetical please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.233.34 (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur the article needs creating--Navops47 (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit notices

I think it'd be a good idea if we placed edit notices on pages that needed them. For example, some users don't adhere to WP:TENSCR when updating results pages, so perhaps an edit notice could be placed on results pages reminding users to acknowledge WP:TENSCR when updating. Also, updating scores set by set becomes a problem on Davis Cup results pages, where if it's displayed that a player wins two sets in a five-set match (so far), the template shows that that player has "won" the match, since the template calculates for three or five set matches. Which is a problem. So it would be appropriate to request that matches in progress be marked with {{mip}}, preferably requested in an edit notice. There are other applications, of course. The only problem is that edit notices must be created by administrators, which is not really too much of a problem at all. Comments? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability for Davis Cup players

Hi, Do players who compete in the Davis Cup but don't compete on ATP tour meet the notability guideline? My question comes because Luxembourg have only 1 ranked player (Gilles Muller) but Andy Murray beat Laurent Bram 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. He has played for Luxembourg on numerous occasions but other than that has only coached since 2006. 03md 19:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course they meet the notability guideline as per WP:NTENNIS (Gabinho^>:) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

# of photos in tennis articles

There is a discussion going on at talk:Rafael Nadal as to how many photos become overkill in a tennis biography article here at wikipedia. The Nadal article seemed like it was becoming a Flickr depository. Pete Sampras has 3 photos, Andre Agassi has 2, Roger Federer has 6 (one of which is of Nadal only), Steffi Graff has 2. And Nadal had 24 pics! I trimmed it to what I thought were the 10 best in the best locations for conveying their point but there is an editor arguing for more. Personally I like photos but I would have done the Nadal article with 5-8 pics... but from 24 pics, 10 seemed reasonable from a viewing standpoint. Without setting anything in concrete (since articles need to remain flexible) would most agree here that for popular players 5-10 photos should usually suffice? I mean if I see a one paragraph bio with 5 pix I'm gonna trim that down, but in general is 5-10 pix a pretty good standard to try to stick to for major players? Thanks Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a good idea. The Nadal article was getting ridiculous, and while a the article for a player with a long career would benefit from a set of images from all stages of his or her life, 24 images is always going to be too many. The 5-10 guideline sets a sensible limit while allowing flexibility. Absconded Northerner (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anda Open

The article Anda Open has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Planned but cancelled, nothing that needs a Wikipedia article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bulwersator (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Some questions

I've come across and editor who has recently created 20 or so new articles on tennis players. The articles consist of: Player has played in (insert south-east Asian tournament) and has won numerous ITF titles. The player usually lost in a qualifying draw or first round. Player may or many not have won an ITF tournament, only won a $10,000 or $25,000 tournament. I've taken a crash course in the WikiProject Tennis world to figure out what is notable and who is notable in order to delete the right players. Thank you for having nice documentation to make things much easier. I have a couple of questions.

1. Why was winning a $25,000 tournament the threshold for notability? Seems the ITF pages don't really make a big deal out of $25,000 tournaments. They are also not listed under titles won on the player's own pages. That originally threw me for a loop because it looked like the player hadn't won a tournament and thus not notable. Only when I dug deeper and looked at every tournament played did I see they won one.
2. Editor is creating articles on qualifying draws. An example would be the qualifying draw for women's singles on Tier II tournaments. Is this notable?

Bgwhite (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are that it's far too lenient in making players notable and I would have the cutoff being a level or two higher. Be that as it may the rules were discussed HERE before finalizing. I was not in that discussion (not knowing about it) and it looks like 3 or 4 editors made the decision outside of ProjectTennis. To be fair sports like cricket pretty much add anyone who has ever played, and hockey in this English wikipedia adds players from every other pro league in the world, so we are not out of line with some other articles. I'm just not sure someone who wins the $25,000 Piedmont North Dakota championship is notable. I thought qualifying draws were verboten but I'd have to check on that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy, looks like I've got some reading to do tonight. Thank you for the link and help. I'd say 1/2 of new biographies I see a day (I see 70 to 90) are for sports. So, I agree some sports are very lenient (football and cricket), while others have a more strict definition (baseball, ice hockey and golf). Oh, thank you to everyone in WikiProject Tennis. You have to be one of the best in terms of documentation and answering questions. Bgwhite (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh we have our share of knockdown dragouts... next time we do I'll put you on the list as referee :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems qualifying draws are created for all WTA and ATP events in 2011 including the lowest tier. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying closed as no consensus (I said delete). PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In the guidlines it specifically states "Any tournament is notable that is part of the ATP World Tour (including qualifications) or the ATP Challenger Tour (excluding qualifications). The Futures and and all lower ranked tournaments should be avoided." So for the men that would be the 250 or higher can have qualifying draws. No lower ranked tournament can, therefore Challenger and Futures qualifying draws are not notable and should be removed. For the WTA equivalent all the Premier events (tier one and tier two) can have qualifying draws. For the international events it's on the cusp... it covers the men's equivalent of challenger but a bit above in terms of money. The ITF women's circuit would be a big no. If they are there I would keep putting them up for deletion per our own regulations. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

More or less, everything here or here should get a qualie draw, nothing else should. Sellyme^Talk 00:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed Sellyme. I might cut back more but per our guidlines the WTA Internationals squeak in. It covers tier 3 which should make it and tier 4 which really should not. But we can't piecemeal the International events so they should all make it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I quite like it the way it is, especially with our current WP:NTENNIS policies. Mentioning something in an article requires less importance than having an article on the subject (obviously), so if a player becomes notable for winning a qualifying draw (Well, joint-winning), the draw should be notable as an extension of that, surely. It's fairly obvious that any below the ones already deemed acceptable would be going over the top (There's rarely even sources for it from the official tournament, you have to go to stevegtennis for that), but the current system isn't overly inclusive in my opinion. Sellyme^Talk 11:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Page Rafael Nadal is not to play

'Fyunck(click) and Absconded Northerner

Enough is enough

I'm more than a year and a half trying to make the page Rafael Nadal the best tennis player page on Wikipedia, and you are doing to sabotage under the name of contribute I will not shut up on this sabotage and will be told every person I know to retrieve the images Please I don't want problems, but if you want problems, I will not shut up محمد البكور (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

So now you threaten to call down others to do your bidding? Not a good thing here on wikipedia in my opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

More images doesn't necessarily make the article better. This is an article, not a image depository, text is the main priority. It is not sabotage to clean up the article so that the images don't clutter it up. 24 images is far too many for an encyclopedic article, and I challenge you to find any article in any encyclopedia with that many images. One of Wikipedia's main rules is that the consensus of the editors is the way we go. I have not been involved in this issue previously, but there are many people who believe 24 images is too many (myself included), and you're the only one refuting that. There is simply no need for more than about 10 images on an article, especially one which is only 5 pages in length. Please respect the WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS guidelines. Sellyme^Talk 04:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is maybe he has some ideas on why certain photos might be better than others. Certainly we should be flexible on which pix work best in the article. But he's not even trying... just reverting and threatening. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal external links section

Hello, I tried 6-times unsuccessfully to fix the last navbox grouping, and I need someone else to try their hand at trying to fix the problem.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It took me a few minutes and a google search to figure out the problem. When checking the html code here among the many minor problems we also have something on line 1757 where we have reach a PP size limit "NewPP limit report". Individually they are functional, but in combination they are too much. Navboxes are meant mainly for navigation and shouldn't be very complex and the 3 of them have caused the parser to exceed the 2 MB limit. I removed the 2nd navbox and replaced it with the troublesome 3rd navbox and it worked fine. It's only when all three are listed that we have problems. I guess nesting multiple navboxes overloads the system. Not sure what to do except try to shorten them a bit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Tiebreak scores on Davis Cup pages

I was looking through the Davis Cup matches and realized that they don't follow WP:TENSCR. I'm not too sure how to resolve this issue, as the scores are displayed using {{TennisMatch}}, and I know it has a certain decimal system that calculates tiebreaks. Would a change to the template code be on the to-do list? (To adjust it to show the tiebreak score for the winning side) Or? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hrm, that is problematic. I suppose a change in code would be required. Sellyme^Talk 03:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I had written to the author of the code a few weeks ago but did not got a response. User_talk:Kedarus#Two_templates:_HopmanCupbox_and_TennisMatch3 The same problem arises in the Hopman Cup boxes. It's beyond me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I could try my hand at it, but that will probably take time and experimenting, since I'll need to see how the decimal system works and how that can be used with the winning tiebreak score. Hopefully we can get a little help from the creator of the template, but if not, we'll have to think of something else. I'll have a go at it sometime soon, though. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) I looked at your post, and it seems that you don't understand how the decimal system works. I figured it out a few days ago. A code of "6.00" displays a tiebreak score of 6⁰; "6.009" displays 6¹, "6.019" displays 6², and each increment of 0.01 increases the tiebreak score displayed by one. So "6.059" would display 6⁶, "6.089" would display 6⁹, etc. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right I don't understand it. Why would they create something where 6.009 would display 6¹? It doesn't seem to make sense. If I recall correctly there was also a problem with the bolding of the winners score. Nice figuring by you but I'm still scratching my head as to why that system is used. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Although I have had no input in the use/creation of these the odd decimal system is presumably so tie-break which went on a long time and had scores of >10 can be handled i.e. 6.219 6²². As raw numbers it would not be possible to distinguish 6.1 for 6¹ and 6.10 6¹⁰, however why there isn't a seperate parameter I'm not sure. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As usual RR your 2¢ is worth more than my dimes. Why those particular decimals were chosen is beyond me but your explanation sounds very possible. I'd have probably gone with 6.00–6.09 for 6⁰–6⁹ since 99% of tiebreaks would be covered. Then used 6.10–6.19 for 6¹⁰–6¹⁹...6.20–6.29 for 6²⁰–6²⁹, etc... Seems like it would have been far easier to grasp and editors would have picked up on it with a glance. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently perusing and interpreting the code... I would have to say that yes, the system is quite complicated to understand, and yes, a simpler system (like the one mentioned in the post above this) would be easier to understand. But, I must say that the system used in this case is, in my opinion and in the defense of the template's creator, rather ingenious. It makes sense mathematically, and is obviously well thought-out. I am all for continuing to use it, but I'm just wondering if there are proposals to change this system. Obviously, making changes to the coding would be something that takes much time, but if there are any strong movements to ditch the system, then those must be taken into account. Otherwise, I'll continue to look at the code and see if I can adapt it to fit WP:TENSCR's stipulations. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say leave it be if you can figure it out. We have enough things to do on the tennis sites than to worry about code changing. It would be nice however if when you figure it out to write something somewhere so that editors in the future will understand how to change or add scores. I'm amazed it isn't anywhere already. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@Prayerfortheworld, your summary of the code is actually slightly wrong. 6.00 infact displays as just 6.00, and I can't figure out how to get 6⁰ to display. WilliamF1two (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Claudia Monteiro

Hi all! Please be so kind to take a look at Claudia Monteiro and expand it if you can. I am unable to read French and I know nothing about tennis, which is kind of problematic. Thanks in advance, Wasbeer 12:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

DavisCupbox Template

In Template:DavisCupbox, how do you input the scores in tie breaks? I have figured out that it's to do with decimals, but I can't see the logic, as, for instance, 6.05 gives 6⁵, but 6.03 gives 6⁴. WilliamF1two (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe 6.003 gives 6³, and so on (6.011 gives 6¹¹, 6.005 gives 6⁵). It's very silly. Sellyme^Talk 05:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

When using {{TennisMatch}}, the scores follow the format as follows: 6.00 gives 6⁰, 6.009 gives 6¹, 6.019 gives 6², etc. Increment the number by 0.01 to increase it to the next tiebreak score. In defense of the creator of the template, I have to say that it's not silly. On the other hand, it's quite ingenious. I'm trying to make the template conform to WP:TENSCR right now, and the code is really convoluted, but it uses a ceiling function that works very well. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ranking into the Tournament.

(Originally posted in 2011 WTA Tour talk page).

It will be informative if the rankings of the players are kept in brackets next to the seeded players in the individual 'Singles/Doubles' pages of individual tournaments. This will help people to get the information from the article itself, without going to other related pages. For smaller tournaments having only one singles and one doubles tournament, can't we keep all into one single article ?

eg:)

Seeds

(Numbers inside brackets denote ranking at the start of the tournament).

1. Vera Zvonareva (xxx)
2. Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova (xxx)
3. Elena Vesnina (xxx)
4. Ekaterina Makarova (xxx)

5. Monica Niculescu (xxx)
6. Elena Baltacha (xxx)
7. Ksenia Pervak (xxx)
8. Evgeniya Rodina (xxx)

A tabular format also will do.

eg:)

Seed	Player	Ranking	Outcome/Result
1	Roger Federer	3	Champion

Anish Viswa 01:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a modified proposal after my comments at Talk:2011 WTA Tour#Ranking into the Tournament., but I still oppose. Just to clarify, are you suggesting to show the ranks used in the seeding (usually a week before tournament start and currently shown at for example 2011 Baku Cup#Seeds), or the ranks when the main tournament actually starts? After the tournament is over it will often be hard to find sources for the rank when the tournament actually started. If the old ranks at seeding time are used then it can be confusing to display them next to a result which was achieved when some players had a different rank. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I like to know the rankings of the top seeds in the tournament, to get an idea how big the tournament is and whether top ranked players are taking part in it. You can decide the timing of the rankings, but start of the tournament rankings will be better.

For a small article like the 2011 Baku cup, do we really need 3 separate articles, each one page size only. Can't we have it all in one article so that the information will not be so scattered ?
Anish Viswa 02:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I support rankings when seedings where drawn, as this will be very easy to source (The official .pdf's of the WTA and ATP draws show it), and is really very helpful. I agree with Anish Viswa about not having to go to a new article to find out relevant information, and redundancy is a good thing. I quite like the look of the tabular format, and would support that, although it would be a rather large change. Sellyme^Talk 04:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

To translate or not to translate

I'm going to rename the article of Allianz Suisse Open Gstaad, as Allianz isn't anymore the title sponsor. I'm going to drop the title sponsor from the article's name, but I'm wondering should this article's name be translated into English. The name of Italian Open was translated from Italian, so should this article be called Swiss Open, Suisse Open, or Suisse Open Gstaad? --August90 (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say 'Swiss'. Gap9551 (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be (sponsor name if applicable) Swiss Open, judging by general consensus on other articles. Sellyme^Talk 05:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No the sponsor name should not be used. Only if there are links to particular years like "2008 Allianz Swiss Open" should the sponsor name be used. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless it's the WP:COMMONNAME, which is why I put "where applicable". Sellyme^Talk 05:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Project Tennis guidelines are to use non-sponsored names because sponsors do change. There are a few exceptions, as always in wikipedia, but usually the historical name should be used. An exception would be "Queens Club Championships" over "London Grass Court Championships" because of commonname usage over its historical name. "Swiss Open" should probably be the tournament name in this particular instance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As Sellyme said sponsor name could be used if applicable, e.g. if a tourney has had a certain sponsor for a long time, or if a relatively new tourney has had only one sponsor. IMO Madrid Open page's name could be Mutua Madrid Open, as Mutua Madrilena has been the only title sponsor of that tournament. Madrid Open has in fact been part of the name only for three years, whereas it was originally called Mutua Madrilena Masters Madrid. We don't know what will the name of that tourney be when Mutua sponsorship ends. It may possibly be something like Sponsor Open, or as well Sponsor Madrid Open, we don't know. Anyway, seems that Allianz Suisse Open Gstaad can be renamed as Swiss Open. I just wonder whether it should be Swiss Open or Swiss Open Gstaad. --August90 (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If nobody has anything against it, I'll rename that article as Swiss Open (tennis), as Gstaad is in the name only as the host town. --August90 (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NTENNIS Question

NPTENNIS states a player is notable if they "have competed in the main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments." Does this also include wildcard exemptions? A player ranked around 290 in doubles, never won a $25,000 tournament or above, she is French and received wildcard for the French Open. Bgwhite (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If they've participated in an ATP Pro Tour or WTA Tour event they're notable, regardless of why they competed. This is doubly true for a Grand Slam. Definitely notable. Sellyme^Talk 23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What's your opinion on this?

I tried to move this User:Gabinho/Valeria_Solovieva article into namespace but have encountered some difficulties. The article looks fine to me... Check out the discussion section User talk:Gabinho/Valeria Solovieva. What's your opinion on this? (Gabinho^>:) 05:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC))

I did a couple tweaks but that particular admin seems to be a real stickler. I made the two changes he mentioned (which I deemed unnecessary to begin with) but that wasn't good enough. Those two changes were citing the handedness of the player and height... things pretty much never cited unless a very very rare contention takes place on those items. I think he's overstating WP:BLP but I'm not an administrator so I asked for additional outside help to figure out where the boundaries are. Per this admin's ideas I think almost all our tennis biographies have only about 10-20% of the citations required so it will be a daunting task to fix them all. Stay tuned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the admin is making the correct choice, we need to satisfy verification procedures, so we can adequately avoid any bio of a living person issues. So, I will help you on this, and show you both what it means to satisfy these issues. The tennis player in question already is notable, so this means you are correct in the pursuit of making this article. SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get the height, middle name, and rankings just for starters. We cannot assume anything whatsoever, when it comes to BLP issues, it must be fact.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The very first reference. It's all on the Tour profile. Sellyme^Talk 03:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

But with BLP issues you have worked on 100s of pages yourself with the same ref info without adding superficial references... why this one? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How did you all come up with the middle name Alexandrovna, when it is not listed on any of the links. Where did you all get the height as being 5 ft 4 in, which the sources you all provided say clearly 5 ft 0 in. Those are some major concerns, that need rectifing. I make sure if I don't have the information not to put it on the persons page. Further, I am not in disagreement over the just puting the links or doing inline citations. So, I just wanted to get that out of the way. Just deal with the two concerns that I addressed and it should be published again.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the sources and saw no middle name so I deleted it. As for the height that's an ITF problem. If you note on the source given it say 5.0ft/1.63M. Well in putting in the 1.63M into wiki html coding it converts it to 5ft4" not 5.0ft. Something is wrong on the ITF page and I'd guess it was the 5.0. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that now! I would just leave the height out for now, and put the birthday in the infobox, so it does not get rejected again.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's only being rejected by one particular administrator. It will be rejected by him as it stands with or without the height. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you go to the ANI forum with this or the dispute resolution. Those are probably the areas you need to look into.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think if you go and google Russian Middle Names, you will be able to see that s/he was correct because it is based off of the fathers name.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Project main page navbar

On my Firefox version 4.01 the navbar at the top right is jumbled together with another small table. It looks fine in IE. Can anyone confirm this and if so, fix it? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely correct.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it's the same on 5.0 and 8.01a. Sellyme^Talk 23:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In Opera browser it's also jumbled together. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just made a small change that seems to fix it on my browser. But layout can still be improved. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Works fine on FF 4.0, 5.0, and 8.01a now. Sellyme^Talk 09:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

New infobox

I created a new infobox for tennis events: Template:Infobox tennis event 3 It's an improvement to Template:Infobox tennis event. With that older infobox we have situations like in the article of 2009 BNP Paribas Open, where the infobox claims the '08 tournament was also sponsored by BNP Paribas, even though '08 edition was sponsored by Pacific Life Insurance Company. In this new infobox there's the generic name on the lowest row. --August90 (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The proper way to do this is to add an optional parameter to the original infobox. It's messy to have infoboxes with almost exactly the same code which should be kept in sync when changes are made. I once started sandbox work on adding several optional parameters to Template:Infobox tennis event to control situations where the name changes, where it's the first or last edition so there shouldn't be links to the previous or next edition (it also autodetects edition=1st and omits the previous edition), or where the previous or next edition is not one year after or before. I will complete this later today or within a few days. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I made it a separate template just not to mess the current infoboxes with an extra parameter. If the 'generic name' parameter can be optional, and be replaced by the 'official name' parameter when generic name is lacking, then there'll be no problems with current articles. But I let others make the the improvements, as already that improvement was almost too difficult for me. --August90 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have implemented and documented the new optional parameters to Template:Infobox tennis event. I have limited experienced with template coding and parameter conventions. Are there any objections to my work before relevant articles are updated to use the new options? I have currently only done it for 2009 BNP Paribas Open. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems good. Thanks, PrimeHunter. --August90 (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

WP Tennis in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Tennis for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done it. Sellyme^Talk 02:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sellyme. Additional editors are also welcome to add their answers to the interview questions. This article is scheduled to run the week of 29 August. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Rogers Legends Cup

Should there be a page on the Rogers Legends Cup? It's played in the same venue as the women's Rogers Cup and is basically the Legends tournament. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Cincinnati before Montreal/Toronto?

Why are the Cincinnati Masters being put on top of the Montreal/Toronto masters in performance timelines? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave them as is because Montreal/Toronto is held before Cincinnati? Any thoughts? JayJ47 (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to ATP or WTA timelines? The WTA tour had Cincinatti before Montreal/Toronto before 2011. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Tournament notability

I've had a query or two recently about tournament notability and I noticed in our guidelines it only talked about men's tournaments. I updated and included the rough equivalent for the ladies here: [[1]]. If anyone see's something I missed for tournaments please discuss. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Draws are created for all WTA International qualifiers in 2011. I support deletion but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying closed as no consensus. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I would dump it too but it's not that big of a deal in the whole scheme of things that is wikipedia. Shall I just change it to include qualifiers of ladies internationals? The other thing is that while mens and womens ITF tournies are low level the womens do have a couple $100,000 events. It's not 100% equivalent between the two genders. Again I would not include any ladies itf tournies as being notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't worked on ITF articles since October and was surprised to find Category:2010 ITF Women's Circuit and Category:2011 ITF Women's Circuit. I don't know whether there has been deletion discussions. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like someone created the category for tournies that were defunct mens challengers but also womens itf events. That category should really be gone. But it made me find 2010 Sparta Prague Open. That has to go! And 2010 Seguros Bolívar Open Bogotá – Women's Singles, 2010 Sparta Prague Open, 2010 Sparta Prague Open, and more have sneeked in there too. Goodness. Now, those events are $100,000 events I believe, but I always thought we had drawn the line at itf tournies? Is it $100,000 or $75,000 ladies itf events all of a sudden? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How I fixed it was that the mens Challenger series tournies are considered notable (not the qualifiers). Those are the $35k-$100k events for male pros. The gals don't have a Challenger series... their ITF events include everything from $10k to 100k+ where the mens ITF only include the $10k-$35k events. There are about 15 bigger ITF tournies of the ladies that are $50k-$100k+ and those would be the approximate equivalent to mens Challengers. Unless there is an objection that's the tournaments I included as notable (not qualifiers) for the ladies. That would be fair. To be honest I might dump all the itf and mens Challengers but that's another argument that I'd probably lose. My only issue was that new editors were confused we had nothing written in the guidelines for the womens tournaments like we did the men. I simply tried to make them equal in what is notable. I hope it at least makes things a little clearer for folks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

ITF rankings

I have woken the current ITF rankings up since November last year. Is anyone else interesting in adding in the rankings when they come in? Wonderwizard (talk) 15:09, September 6 2011 (UTC)

I had not heard of the ITF Rankings for nations before your post. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/ITF_Rankings shows around 20 page hits per day. It grows to around 100 when matches are played but is it worth maintaining the rankings? I don't want to do it. By the way, nearly all sources mentioning "ITF Rankings" are about the junior rankings for individual players which is officially called ITF Rankings: http://www.juniortennis.com/Rankings/ITF/ITFRankings.php. The nation rankings are called respectively "ITF Davis Cup Nations Ranking" [2] and "ITF Fed Cup Nations Ranking" [3]. The page should probably either be moved or mention the junior rankings. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Mass page moves

There appears to be a current campaign to move tennis bios to namespaces without diacritics. As we know well, the project is generally tolerant on the use of diacritics, it seems rather unproductive, if not disruptive, to be attempting to mass-move of any article with such characteristics except for the most clear-cut cases where the players are naturalised in Anglophone countries. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually as we well know the project has voted and said no to diacritics. It's wikipedia non-native English speakers that seem to be forcing us to use diacritics even though the major tennis organizations, ATP, WTA, ITF, Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open, Davis Cup, Fed Cup do not use diacritics. Many times even a player's own personal web page, like Anna Ivanovich, spells it diacritic-free in our English language yet we can't change the title because of a few really squeaky wheels. This is an English wikipedia and the German wikipedias, Czech wikipedias, Russian wikipedias, hieroglyphic wikipedias can spell things with their own lettering as they please... and they do.

_We have been told by administrators to take each player case by case so I plopped up about 5 and we'll see how it goes. I have done it before and some changed and some didn't so it really just depends. You'll also note I didn't just move the page... one reason is because there is a wikiBot that automatically takes the non-diacritic redirect page and makes it immovable. Talk about stacking the deck against common English! We have 26 letters in English, yes a few diacritics words are in here but as time goes by usually the diacritics simply disappear. There are great English sources for these tennis players (and that's what they are notable for and why they are in wikipedia to begin with) but they are purposely being ignored by editors like Ohconfucius. If 5-10 players get a move nomination I hardly think it is disruptive to our infrastructure. And I'm not sure what number constitutes a "mass move" but I don't think 5 qualifies and I had actually thought of adding up to 5 more. It's a poll to see where people stand on each player.

_And another thing. Right now I see three players listed here on tennis project trying to be moved from non-diacritics to diacritics. I guess three is ok and five is a mass? Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Update guidelines to allow for or encourage merging of qualifying round(s) content

I've started a thread on a sub-section of this project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article Guidelines#Update guidelines to allow for or encourage merging of qualifying round(s) content. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Roger Federer

I found some annon IP address added the flag to his page, and I reverted it, are flags allowed or not?The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a grey area. I find that most players I edit do have the flag...Anna Ivanovic, Novak Djokovic, Pete Sampras. You have to remember you can't simply go out and play at Wimbledon or Davis Cup or the Olympics without a country representing you. The flag icon has nothing to do with citizenship, birthplace or residence. It's what country is backing you at places like the Majors, Davis Cup or Fed Cup...i.e. international events. There was talk about this awhile ago at wikitennis and I believe including flags won out, but never for birth or citizenship reasons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for Wimbledon? It's my understanding admission to Wimbledon for adult men and women is strictly on the international rankings and possibly previous grass court results. You don't need to be sponsored or representing a country. The Davis Cup and Olympics are organized by country.

MOS:FLAG says "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes" and MOS:FLAG#Use of flags for sportspersons also discourages them.

FWIW, the edit that added the flag did so in the country field for Federer's {{Infobox tennis biography}} which does not define what to do with "country." It looks like there's little consistency. For example, {{Infobox golfer}} uses nationality but again is silent on how this is defined and should be used.

There have been discussion on how the country field should be used such as:

• /Archive 4#Use of national flags in tennis articles - discusses if we should have the nationality and is not about display of the flag image.
• /Archive 6#Flags - discusses if we should have the nationality and but also touches on display of the flag image.
• /Archive 5#Nationalities discussion on if we should have the field at all and what to put there.

--Marc Kupper|talk 04:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Two things about MOS:FLAG. A lot of that was written in April of this year, where as last year that was not the rule at all... and you left out "infoboxes that include international competitions" can be exceptions, and tennis info boxes are loaded with international events like Olympics, the Majors, Davis Cup, etc... Country is the template we have right now though it could very well be changed to Nationality imho. I may have mis-remembered exactly the Wimbledon info. I'll have to dig up the rules the Majors use. It was in several articles that talked about Andy Murray not being able to use Scotland as his Nationality upon entering, and Alex Olmedo not being able to use Peru (even though that was his only citizenship). Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Tennis in Asia and Africa

Are there any articles on 'Tennis in Asia/Africa' or 'Tennis players from Asia/Africa' ? If not, can we have articles like this ? I am trying to find out who were the top ranked tennis players (male and female) ever from Asia and Africa.
Anish Viswa 00:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a tall order. I don't think there are any major articles for 'Tennis in North America' or 'Tennis in Europe' or 'Tennis in Antarctica' either. It's not done on a continent-by-continent basis as most of the time we are a country oriented population. There have been great South African players but as for Kenya or Tanzania you may be on your own to dig up the info and then total it for every country. A quick google search on tennis in Africa didn't really show up anything except links to sexiest tennis players in Africa. I'm thinking that's not what you want. There is a new york times article on tennis in South Africa, and you can always check out wikipedia categories like Category:Tennis players by nationality. Sorry I couldn't help, but now I now need to get back to check out those sexiest tennis players in Africa. ;-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it will be a good addition to the History of tennis article, how Tennis was introduced to countries in Asia and Africa and the progress that was made in those continents. This is a very poorly source area, since most of the tennis and great players are concentrated in Europe, USA and Australia, about which we have some fair knowledge.
Anish Viswa 08:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Djokovic-Nadal rivalry

This must get done soon, so this is the reason I am asking for help from other editors in working on it to make it the best possible article that it can possibly be rather rapidly. Go ahead and edit in my userspace on this article, and as we get it closer to showtime we will publish it for all to see.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you all think so far?The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Main name parameter in Template:Infobox tennis event

In August a new optional parameter, main name, was added to Template:Infobox tennis event. That's the name of tournament's main article and if its given, it appears at the bottom of infobox above links to previous and next editions, instead of the sponsored name of that year. I just wonder how widely that parameter should be used. Should it be used for every season, or only the years before and after name change. Also, there are main articles which still use the sponsored name, like Rogers Cup (tennis). What should be done in those cases? Also, I wonder whether it would be correct to call the Madrid Masters's indoor editions editions of Madrid Open, as that's been the name only for those outdoor Masters tournaments. --August90 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season

Do you all think this article needs to get created?The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a version at User:The Gypsy Vagabond Man/2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season. The deletion discussion mentioned in the deletion summary is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novak Djokovic in 2011 from May. There was equal support for keep and delete but AfD is not a vote and I guess the closer thought the deletes had better arguments. Similar Federer articles and Rafael Nadal in 2010 closed as no consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010. The Federer articles were later nominated and kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Federer in 2011. Deletion discussions are independent and don't determine a fixed precedent but it seems to me that Djokovic is making history in 2011 and it deserves an article. Since the first discussion he has won two more Grand Slams events and the Canada Masters although he didn't win the French Open. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I like your comment PrimeHunter.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually my remembering of the talk and voting was to allow 2001 John Doe tennis season, 2002 John Doe tennis season, 2003 John Doe tennis season, etc... for EVERY player starting with the year they win their first Major or become number one. The years before they accomplish this are to be called John Doe's early career and John Doe junior years. We are supposed to be making hundreds of these articles if there is enough stats to make the main page too large. Since it's allowed we might as well start with a good candidate in Novak. Since there's a wealth of info on him, Novak can have six more articles...jr years, early years, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. We also need the same for Martina Navratilova but that's gonna be a ton of work! Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because it is going to be a vast ammount of work that does not mean it should not be done for encyclopedic value. The reasoning behind the discussions above was the fact it was an ambigiously made title to say Roger Federer in 2010 because that opens up the entire pandora's box per se, but someone went and renamed them to more apt titles that allows for no ambiguity in the 2010 Roger Federer tennis season. This means the title specifies that it must be about Federer's tennis pursuits in the tennis seson of 2010 and no other year. So, I like the idea of start with Djokovic if you really mean it, and yes we can work on Navratilova as well, when we get the time.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you mean did I agree with the decision for these pages, not on a lot of it. But that's not important. Tennis Project spoke and they are now legit pages and I will follow it and help build them. Novak is as worthy as Roger or Rafa in these articles so he's a great candidate to start with. Martina even more so. Yes it means we also must create these pages for players like "Dorothy Round Little" but I have a feeling it'll take quite awhile to get to her. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, I think it could take ten or twenty years before we get to Dorothy Round Little and make her season pages. By the way, I give permission to edit the 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season article in my namespace/sandbox to all editors inclined to take on the challenge. Also, I will be letting an admin create the page from my sandbox if they deem appropriate.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I need someone else to go and dig-up the sources to create the prose for the article. If someone else wants to do the doubles be my guest, and that is because I don't see the usefulness of doing that to the article.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mhm, consensus was that notable (Won a Grand Slam, or multiple ATP World Tour 1000s (or equivalents) or was World #1) should have season articles from and beyond that event. Sellyme^Talk 00:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

and per the Roger Federer articles that were voted on to stay, also two articles before the first yearly article...juniors and early years. That applies to all players to have won a Major or been number one. Now if there are only a few lines per year it should stay in the main article. But if it gets big it should be removed from the main article and have its own page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So by that, We definitely have great perogrative to create the 2011 article, and even we can go back to 2007 and create the articles on him from that standpoint because he won the Masters Series events in Miami and Montreal (Canada) in that year. This mean 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season articles need to be created. By the way Nadal's need to be done from 2005, since that is the year he won his first French Open and two Masters Series event.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Not a 2007 article. No matter how many masters events he won there is no separate 2007 article because he was not year end number 1 nor did he win a Major that year. His first came in 2008 so that's where we start. 2007 would go into an early years article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think two masters series and a grand slamm final are apt to have one remember the US Open. I think this is his breakthrough season, which culminated in 2008 Australian Open, just a mere few weeks into the new year.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If we are to go by your rule then we will have to most assuridly delete 2011 Roger Federer tennis season, since he has not been No. 1 during any strech of this year at all nor will be and hasn't captured a slam either in the year nor cannot because all are finished and completed.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think 2011 Roger Federer tennis season is fine and so will be the 2007 Novak Djokovic tennis season article in the not-to-distant-future because they are relatively the same and I would argue Djokovic 2007 season is better than Federer 2011.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not my rule. This was discussed and we start with the year they became number one or won a Major and they can have every year after that if the article proves lengthy enough... even if they stink in later years. Before that time they get the early years or junior years. My rule would have been completely different, but it was talked about fair and square and I was in the minority. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I see, but do you want to be my guest and create the article for 2011!The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone, please, oh please, help me out the with prose! I can't do this whole article on my own.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Who wants to tug the line and create the 2011 article besides myself?The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going to now tug on the line, and go create the article myself.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOMEONE TRY TO DELETE IT NOW, THAT I HAVE PUT IN SO MUCH WORK, AND IT IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN ANY OF FEDERER'S OR NADAL'S SEASON ARTICLES ON HERE!The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Djokovic–Federer rivalry

I want to know do you all think it exists or not? This is the third part of what they are now calling the trivalry all over the tennis world. I will make it if you all deem it appropriate to do so in a discussion. I would also consider making the Trivalry article like golf has the Great Triumvirate article. I think we can develop the article much better in modern times, and this will allow us the ability to link together all three ways of the rivalry.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Right here, I give to you all the copy of the matches played, for the community expert assessment.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Northern Lawn tennis Club

Hello fellow members this page Northern lawn tennis club I created has been designated for Speedy deletion by this editor User talk:Bazj. The talk page is here Talk:Northern Lawn Tennis Club. I cant see why its has been proposed for deletion because its different to most other tennis club pages unless I am completely missing something? Please read my response of the relevant talk page and I would appreciate any help advice from more experienced editor as best way to proceed thank --Navops47 (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)you

This page has now be properly referenced and cited and speedy deletion tag removed by original proposer.--Navops47 (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Player notability pre-atp/pre-open era

I noticed a player up for deletion today that does not meet any of our guide's notability requirements. Not even an itf $50,000 winner. However this player won the national championship of India back in 1946. There are a lot of historical players who won tournaments that of course are not atp 250 or atp 500 tournaments because the atp or wta didn't exist. They should not be left out just because they played 75 years ago. I think we need to add a line or two to our guideline that says something about player and tournament notability for eras not covered in our guideline. Something like: Historical players, such as those prior to the open era, will be deemed notable if they won a tournament that is roughly equivalent in stature to what is notable today. Being in the main draw of a pre-open era tournament equivalent to an ATP 250 event shall also be deemed as notable. Many of these will need to be considered on a case by case basis by wikipedia consensus." Tournaments could be handled in similar fashion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with this statement we recognise Majors for players achivements prior to the Open Era when infact they were Amateur tournaments and not professional. We view everything won by players since the formation of The ATP as professional and those not before that as irrelevant this is simply wrong. I would back this motion --Navops47 (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NTENNIS Question

Recently the NTENNIS guidelines were changed so that women need a ITF 50k win, not 25k. Is this retroactive? Does it effect pages made before this change, or are they subject to the new requirements too? (BTW, and not the reason for this question, see AfDs, such as this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remi Tezuka would support the idea new notability rules apply to all articles). Ravendrop 05:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this should not affect articles created before this new guideline was set. Those articles followed a guideline that was OK back then. It should affect only new articles. (Gabinho^>:) 06:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

It should apply to articles retroactively only so much as the mens Challenger events apply to men. We were getting queries on various talk pages about how no itf tournaments should be notable, and for the men they aren't because they have Challengers and women don't. The approximate equivalent events for the ladies would be ITF tournaments of $50,000 and above. Having those $25,000and lower tournies count for the ladies and not the men was a sham and not fair to either. And it was not just the players notability where we had a discrepancy... it mattered for whether we made the tournaments themselves notable. We were also getting questions about creating new tournament pages. Remember the mens ATP Challenger Tour (excluding qualifications) are notable. So here we had the opposite problem... only the top level tourneys were notable for the ladies because they had no Challenger tour. With the $50,000+ ITF events being added it makes it more even for them as far as tournament notability. There is about the same amount of tournies as the men's challenger tour.

Now for the most part our notability rules apply to new players in today's events. In the past, dollar amounts were smaller and we must take that into consideration. We should be looking for equivalency with the mens Challenger series... and that started in what... 1980? Earlier than that we had no masters events. pre-open we have nothing to go by in our guidelines. I guess when going back in time we'll try to do the best we can to make the 1940s tournaments and player notability as equivalent as possible to today and that should probably be written in the guidelines somewhere. The question for Remi Tezuka would be did she win an event that was the equivalent of a mens challenger when she won it? If she did then nominating it was an error. She won two of those questionable ITF events in 2002 and one in 2005. If you feel those events were equal in stature to the mens challengers at the time in question by all means let keep her as notable. We just don't want every common player notable nor do we want someone truly notable to miss out. Fairness is what we are striving for. It's been talked about here and other talk pages before but the last time was here in archive 8. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fyunck on these points one simple fact the Monte Carlo Open in 1970 had a total of $5000 in prize money that year the Pacific South West Championships in Los Angeles had prize money of $60,000 ATP Calender 1970 Laver won Los Angeles the prize money was large for some reason (the tournament then was that important) I have been arguing on users talk pages for a long time about equal comparative analysis of data prior 1990 and even further back if necessary to recognize players achivements and this should be re-drawn in guidelines. --Navops47 (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Barbara Sobaszkiewicz notability

Just making sure editors know there is a poll going on about the notability of Barbara Sobaszkiewicz. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I had posted something in the discussion that I didn't want lost. It was too much to write again :-) So I'm re-posting it here (word for word but without the actual vote listed) for later archiving as I think it will be helpful in later discussions. 21:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

---

---

Barbara Sobaszkiewicz notability discussion - Fails WP:NTENNIS as has not won an itf 50k+ tournament, played in a WTA International tournament or played in the Fed Cup. Contested PROD, with remover arguing that as the article was created before the new tennis notability guidelines (but complied with the old ones) it should not be subject to the new ones. This recent AfD contradicts that claim. Ravendrop 06:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say the new guidelines should cover the last two seasons in its equivalency with the men. This year (2011) in May she won a $25,000 doubles itf tourney and that's not good enough to be notable. She has never even won a $25,000 singles tourney so that can be thrown out. Prior to 2010 we should probably check what the payouts were as compared to men to check whats compatible with mens challenger series events... however since prior to 2010 she never won anything above a $10,000 entry level grade itf event in either singles or doubles I would say there is no need to check in this case. She is not qualified to be listed as notable in tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In May, when she won a 25K tournament in doubles the guideline criteria confirmed her to be notable. The NTENNIS clearly says: This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players. I think we should apply these new NTENNIS criteria to newly created articles. (Gabinho^>:) 08:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC))

Really? Should we then include all the men's itf tournies for the same time period to keep everything fair? That is what we are trying to do on wikipedia correct? Because otherwise the ladies from 2009–2011 are much more notable than the men. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Really. The men's ITF tournaments are ranked bellow Women's. Per example the highst ranked ITF men's tournament (15,000$ + H) rewards the winner with 33 points. The 25K (25,000$) level ITF Women's tourament rewards the winner with 50 points. There can be no comparison between them. If a female competitor, let's say, wins 6 of these 25K tournaments over one year she gathers 300 points which is enough to place her in Top200. That's notable. In my opinion 25K female tournaments are notable and they should't be removed from the critera in the first place. (Gabinho^>:) 09:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC))

Ok. I did more research on this subject. First I had miscounted the tournaments so that may sway things a bit. Sorry. You would think that to be notable in tennis you should have done something a little out of the ordinary. It's a job for many like working for the fire department. The WTA tour has 59 tournaments and the ATP tour has 68 tournaments. Pretty close. Every tournament and every player that has ever played in those tournaments (even qualifiers) is notable by our standards. That's every player in every draw, every year. Every equivalent value tournament and player from 60+ years ago is also notable. I think that's a minimum of 32 players per event up to 128+. That's a lot of players but they should be notable.

The Men's Challenger tour has about 150 tournaments ranging from $35,000 to $150,000 total prize money. Tretorn sponsors the 13 events that pay over $100,000. These are pros in this tour but imho at least the bottom half is not very noteworthy. 150 tournaments and any male player winning one, even a $35,000 total payout event, is notable on wikipedia. That's weird. Those $100,000+ events sound more reasonably notable to me. Maybe if you win 6-8 of the $35,000 events, but winning one is nothing very special in the history of the sport. If you got rid of all the events that payout less than $50,000 you'd still have 100 tournaments.

The Ladies don't have a challenger tour, just a massive itf tour. And that's where the balancing comes in. They have $10,000 and $25,000 events but the next total payout on the itf tour is $50,000. The ladies don't have anything in between $25,000 and $50,000 like the men do. it would be easy if they had lots of $35,000 purses but they don't. If you include all the $25,000+ events there are about 220 of them. Way more than the guys, and I already feel that half of the guys events aren't notable for winners. If we dump the $25,000 events for the ladies we are left with about 80 tournaments of the $50,000 plus variety. Unfortunately that's much less than the men's 150 which we at wikipedia have found as noteworthy for winners. For perspective if they were both cut off at $50,000 there would be 100 events for the guys and 80 for the gals.

I had miscounted the guys events when changing some guidelines and I thought it was much closer to the ladies totals. So with the $25,000 events included its 220 ladies tournies to 150 mens tournies. Without the $25,000 events it's 80 ladies tournies to 150 mens tournies. Either way you do it one side or the other gets shorted in tryingto make things fair. So Gabino mentions comparing points given out. He said the $25,000 ITF ladies event winners get 50 points and that 6 wins brings them within the top 200 players. Ok lets look at the bottom of the mens Challengers, that's the $35,000 tournament payout. This is the lowest notability for men. Winning one of these gives 75 points (80 points if it supplies food and shelter). Winning 3 of these (according to the wikipedia article) will put a male in the top 200 players in the world. The lowest win on the men's challenger tour, which is the lowest notability we have for men, is far more important than a $25,000 ITF ladies victory. That is why I set the standards at a $50,000 victory for the ladies to be notable. Yes in my opinion that is still too low a threshold for notability in tennis. Anyone who has seen my edits on talk pages knows this. But my reasoning for raising the ladies threshold to a $50,000 ITF win was to make it relatively equal to the men for the sake of casual wiki readers and their limited tennis knowledge. I thought I did that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, I think if a tennis player has won anything from an ITF, ATP, WTA sanctioned event they should qualify as notable enough for an article.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a surprise :-) That however would include practically every tennis player who ever lived since some of the low level itf events are filled with 16 year old high school players. It would also be against tennis project guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What about putting the disclaimer on it has to be a seniors win on the ITF, ATP, WTA tours, and exclude the juniors unless they win a Grand Slam event. I just want us to not worry about money or money equivalents or money conversion or anything with money for that matter.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring money as a parameter of tournament notability is just not feasible since the ATP/ITF give different amount of points to someone winning a 100k ITF compared to a 10K tournament. Like it or not money is a, and arguably the main, determining factor in deciding the notability level of a tournament.Ravendrop 20:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

All levels of senior events should in fact be notable.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with Gypsy in that I hate to use simply money as the dividing line between notable and non-notable. I just don't see a way around this because the men's and womens tours are so different. I would never agree that winning a low level itf event for men makes you notable. I don't even think winning a challenger is notable enough for this encyclopedia but I was overruled by consensus. So it was 1) get rid of all mens challengers and ITF futures along with all womens ITFs, 2) add every pro tennis event no matter if it's played in a city park and pays $200 to the winner which would make the winner notable, 3) Cut off the womens ITF events at approximately the same place the men do where they separate challengers and futures. Choice one would be against consensus so I ruled it out quickly. Choice two starts to look like every tennis player and event in the world, no matter how small, is notable... and that is simply not true by any interpretation of wikipedia notability standards. I chose number 3 as the most fair considering where consensus is for notability. I guess it could have been done by points given out but the cutoff would be identical. An advantage to using points would be that if the dollar amount goes up, to account for inflation, I assume the points would not. Of course as we've seen the atp and wta change their points systems on occasion also so nothing would be perfect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see that you want to base it on rankings, but we are talking about wins here. I think we either count all ITF Senior wins or we dont allow for them to count to advocate for notabliity. I am fine either way. So, if we leave it out we would just count ATP and WTA tour wins only.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Madrid Masters

In performance charts, we need to define the hard court event from the clay court event in the tables, so we need to create for 2008 on back a Madrid Masters (indoor hard) and for 2009 onwards we need to have Madrid Masters (outdoor clay). The hard court one needs to be put above the Shanghai Masters for consistency purposes to keep it in chronological order. I hate to bring this up because it is going to mean a heck of a lot of work, but the tables as currently constructed are misleading at best.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that's the best way. It will add some additional confusion for those who are counting up masters titles for other articles. As an example And Murray has won 4 "different" Masters titles as can be seen here. He's won Miami masters, he's won Canadian masters, he's won Cincinnati masters and he's won the Stockholm/Essen/Stuttgard/Madrid/Shanghai masters. He has not won the Hamburg/Madrid masters. I would think that if anything we should make sure to combine these titles into one row. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, I am going to now take a day or so to think on the idea.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Swiss Indoors

Davidoff no longer sponsors the event and it is now called the Swiss Indoors, so the titles of the articles need to reflect that change 2011 Davidoff Swiss Indoors.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we sure? I don't see Davidoff on the official webpage but I do see it on: better.com, espn, and Stamford. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I would advise you to look here at espn and swissinfo. The ATP now calls the event the Swiss Indoors Basel.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the article is now called the Swiss Indoors, so I think this now as of 2011 needs to be extrapolated to all the others like the bracket ones and the 2011 tournament page.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done I was just asking. I hadn't seen the other sources but it looks like we need to change it. Obviously each year will retain the name it had that particular year but 2011 needs to drop the Davidoff. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

William le Maire de Warzée d'Hermalle Notability

I came across this page, William le Maire de Warzée d'Hermalle, and wanted to check here if he meets notability guidelines or if this should be proposed for deletion. The article says that he made it to quarterfinals at Wimbleton, but the source given does not show that. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It would appear he did make it to the quarterfinals. See here under Willie De Warzee. That would make him notable. The external link may not show it but the clickable 1908 does. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season

Editors who are native speakers of English would come handy in this article for copyediting. Please expend time on improving its quality by rephrasing it where it is needed. Any kind of help is appreciated. Thanks. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tennis biography

Hello you all, I guess the Template:Infobox tennis biography was changed several times, but the Template:Infobox tennis biography/doc isn't and infoboxes in articles includes parameter, that do not exists in the Template:Infobox tennis biography, such as weight. It is very inefficient to investigate a fact, fill in it in the infobox, do correctings, copy editing, but the infoboxes do not show it. Instead of this, please, do an update of the doc, and start a bot to remove all not existing parameters from articles. --Diwas (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanx to User:Frietjes for update the doc. I hope there will be a way to remove the obsolete parameter from the articles, that are using parameters like weight within the infobox. --Diwas (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC ar Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)

There has been a brewing issue at WP:RM over WP:HOCKEY recommendations and how they should be applied over WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. Basically the hockey recommendation is that Diacritics shall be applied to all player pages, where appropriate as for the languages of the nationalities of the players in question. This is in fact a mandate that does not allow consideration of any other policy on naming. I think we need to resolve the issue of which naming convention we use for ice hockey players. Is it the one for the names of everyone else based on existing policy and guidelines, or do we have a blanket exception for one project? Please go to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#RFC_on_hockey_names Vegaswikian (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15