Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis: Difference between revisions

Tennis Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Tennis To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Take an item off the Cleanup listing Copyedit : Roger Federer, Leander Paes, Rafael Nadal, Justine Henin – to be used as examples for ideal page structures Expand : Grab a Start article and expand it, or peruse the List of articles. Photo : Add photos to Tennis or Tennis people articles Stubs : Bring a Stub up to our standards. Other : *Sign up as a member of the project. Tag more articles with our standard project template. Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2021-05-04 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Take an item off the Cleanup listing Copyedit : Roger Federer, Leander Paes, Rafael Nadal, Justine Henin – to be used as examples for ideal page structures Expand : Grab a Start article and expand it, or peruse the List of articles. Photo : Add photos to Tennis or Tennis people articles Stubs : Bring a Stub up to our standards. Other : *Sign up as a member of the project. Tag more articles with our standard project template. Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Came across this list article, which is rated Top importance: List of tennis tournaments. It can really use a good cleanup and probably needs to be reorganized. But where to start? How about a more simple alphabetic list that doesn't need to be updated every year? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, definitely in need of a major improvement. I would propose:

1. Changing the lede from "List of tennis tournaments" to " List of current tennis tournaments"
2. Updating the 2011 table to reflect the current situation and removing the year from the title and the week and dates from the table. Perhaps we could instead mention the month as that is less sensitive to updates.
3. Deleting the the 2010 and 2009 tables completely. It makes no sense to have one or two year old tables but no other years and it is practically impossible to add all previous years. Those tables belong in the "Tennis in <year>" articles.
4. If it is supposed to be a complete list of tennis tournaments it should also list e.g. 'Kooyong Classic"
5. Remove 1000: ATP World Tour Masters 1000, 500: ATP World Tour 500 series, 250: ATP World Tour 250 series from "Other tournaments". They are not tournaments, but tournament series.

--Wolbo (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list can accommodate both the "current" and the "historic" tournaments, we can just make two sections for them. Then we don't need to change the name.

We already have yearly articles like 2011 ATP World Tour which show the tournaments on a month to month basis. Keeping a very similar table in this list article is redundant information. This list article would become more useful if it is kept more simple. I agree on deleting the 2010 and 2009 tables. We can add exhibition tournaments like Kooyong Classic, we just find a way to differentiate exhibitions from main tour events (for example through color coded table). Agree on removing the different "Series". MakeSense64 (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lists on the page were so long that I missed the existing 'Past Events' section completely as well as the 'Exhibitions' section (listing Kooyong). I deleted the Men's 2010 table and also the Women's 2010 and 2009 tables. That is certainly a step in the right direction. Also removed the ATP series wikilinks. That's the easy part done. Having discovered the 'Past Events' section I'm fine with the 'current' & 'historic' setup of this article. It's mainly the practicality of creating a complete and useful list of past events that I have some concerns about. What to include/not include (e.g. pro tour)? Is all historic info available? The past event list as it currently exists has in my view very limited practical use and needs to changed into a table format like the current events. That's a major undertaking. --Wolbo (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good steps already. The article will need a lede and needs to state clear criteria for inclusion. But that's something we better discuss on the Talk page there. I dropped the note here and it's nice to see it being picked up, but of course we need to continue the work in the article space itself. I will join as time permits me. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So where do we go from here? Ideally the article should list all tournaments but it would become impossibly long if we listed all past tennis tournaments. Also it lists the men's challenger tournaments (but only about 110 or so of the more than 150) but doesn't list the women's ITF tournaments. I agree the article needs a clear definition of the criteria for inclusion but the more we exclude the more it conflicts with the generic (inclusive) article title. Ideas? --Wolbo (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article is about 50 kB size, only half of the 100 kB threshold where we normally start thinking about splitting it up. So that's not a concern for the moment. As I said, further discussion is better carried on the Talk page of the article, but for starters the lede could simply state that it is a list of historic and current tennis tournaments , which are notable enough to have their own article on wikipedia. The inclusion criteria can always be refined or added to later on, but we need something to start with. Then just take it from there, step by step. The article will not get improved overnight, but by and by it can get better if a few people keep watch over it (it is on my watchlist). MakeSense64 (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True about the 50KB but it currently only list about 200+ past tournaments and surely there are well over a thousand in total. This NYT article lists 200 'tournaments' in the US alone in 1921(!). Questions: 1) Do we have notability guidelines for past tennis tournaments? 2) Procedural: Should we copy this discussion to the tennis list article talk page or post a message there pointing to here? Don't think there is enough traffic there to have an active discussion (from 2009 to 2012 there was no post at all). --Wolbo (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even here on the project page there are not that many editors watching (many have thrown in the towel). So on most tennis articles you are usually editing alone (which can be both a blessing or a curse). To your questions: 1) I don't think so. 2) I would just wait till this section gets archived, then you can post a link to it in the Talk of List of tennis tournaments. Otherwise the link will not work once it gets archived.

By the way, this "list" of tournaments from 1921 is only trivial mentions (and probably mostly local club tournaments), so definitely we need more than that to include a "historic tournament". MakeSense64 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know this has probably been discussed many times before but can anyone tell me what the current situation is regarding the naming of tournaments? Is there a consensus and guideline or not (yet)? At times I see the 'colloquial' name used e.g. 'Cincinnati Masters' but also the commercial name 'Western & Southern Financial Group Masters & Women's Open' is used. There seems to be little consistency. I'm strongly in favor of using the colloquial name (provided of course one exists) in most occasions as the commercial names are probably meaningless to a large part of our audience. Obviously the commercial name should be mentioned in the event's article. I'm reasonably knowledgeable on current tennis but when I read in Juan Carlos Ferrero's article that he had lost at the 'Sony Ericsson Open' I had no clue whatsoever that the Miami Masters was meant. --Wolbo (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We use non-sponsored names (if possible) as per tennis project guidelines but of course not all have been changed to fit that bill. We use the most common term available for the tournament name, hence Cincinnati Masters (since sponsors always change). But for each individual year we keep the sponsored name as it won't change for that particular year, hence, 2010 Western & Southern Financial Group Masters and Women's Open. For an individual players article, I guess it's sort of flexible. If they win a tourney one time and it's in prose or talking about a single year, I could see someone using the sponsored name. usually in any kind of a career list it should be the non-sponsored name. Of course if we have a brand new tournament that has only had a sponsored name we run into trouble but we do look for what the press is calling the event to try to move it from the sponsored name. We cannot make up a name ourselves as it must be sourced. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik, junior tennis is not considered notable, except for the junior grand slams. So what to do with these articles?

• Petits As
• Dunlop Orange Bowl
• Osaka Mayor's Cup
• Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup

Some of them are apparently not kept up to date (recent years missing), and are poorly sourced (if at all). MakeSense64 (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they are not notable at all. I've never even heard of the jr Fed Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I (partly) disagree. I haven't heard of three out of four of these tournaments but certainly the Orange Bowl is a pretty well known junior tournament and many of the tennis greats have won it in their younger years.--Wolbo (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I probably heard about the Orange Bowl too, but not the others. By the way, there is also Junior Orange Bowl (tennis) and Junior Orange Bowl.

I also noted that our article for ITF Junior Circuit is outdated and refs need to be fixed.

I figured out that besides the junior grand slams there are 5 "Grade A" events: [1]. So if the Orange Bowl and Osaka Mayor's are keepers, then we probably should have articles about the other 3 as well. Another option is to merge them into a new section at ITF Junior Circuit, since that is now a very short article. Petits As is the main 12-14 years tournament (and I found some 30 gnews sources for it, mainly in French).

My feelings are mixed about these articles. On the one hand we don't consider junior tennis notable, on the other hand tournaments like the Orange Bowl seem to have a long history and I found it interesting to go through the names of past winners. My guess is that in AfD several of these article would survive based on GNG. MakeSense64 (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right in some of them surviving an afd. I like the merge idea for the vast majority so we can keep them all in one place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, maybe we should also have a look at other junior sports. E.g. junior ice hockey seems to have more than a few articles about tournaments Category:Junior ice hockey. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eckerd Open and Virginia Slims Masters are doubles and should be resolved, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention before doing something. The only thing which separates the 2 articles is the earlier doubles results. Afro (Talk) 16:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the original creator of the two articles, I would like to point out that the two tournaments cannot possibly be related. French Wikipedia may think otherwise, but there is a big difference in importance between the Virginia Slims Circuit's year-end event and a relatively small tournament held in September. The Florida Federal Open didn't start until 1977, and even then it was held five months after the date that the Masters used to be held on – and on hard courts as well – and only switched dates so it could change its surface and join the American women's clay court season in 1987. The tournaments weren't even held in the same city – the Masters were held in St. Petersburg while the Florida Federal was held in Palm Harbor, Clearwater and Tampa.

The logical conclusion is to therefore remove the references to the Masters that someone has put back into the article on the Eckerd Open (they were only in the original because I mistakenly followed the advice of the French Wikipedia article) and not to delete one of them. The two tournaments were separate and not linked in any way, shape or form. Totalinarian (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find it a very useful article. Which guidelines can be used to defend it? Gap9551 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also posted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines
Can some one explain how 2004 Estoril Open and 2004 Estoril Open – Men's Doubles pass the enduring notability of persons and events test of WP:NOT as they consist only of results. Mtking ^(edits) 23:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unlikely that main tour (ATP and WTA) tournaments would get deleted, since we even keep such articles for the lower Challenger tour events. Earlier this year we even struggled to delete some 200+ articles for the minor Futures Tour, which has plenty tournaments with less than $25k prize money.

It is a long standing problem that many of our tournament articles have little or no prose and are merely lists of results. But that is not seen as a reason delete. It means the article has to be improved. The question is: who is going to improve them with additional prose? Many tennis editors have thrown in the towel since we have national projects trying to push more diacritics into the names of players. It's just not practical to change the spelling of so many names all the time. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if they do not pass the WP:NOT policy (because they lack enduring notability) they should not be in the encyclopaedia Mtking ^(edits) 05:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, then just put them in AfD and see what comes out. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As MakeSense64 says, completely notable but we need some more input to improve these articles so the question doesn't even need to be asked. 03md 01:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would the 2004 Belgian Grand Prix pass as part of enduring notability? Afro (Talk) 15:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an auto race and should be posted in the appropriate project for clarification. This is for tennis related queries. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's about the autorace as such but rather to show how difficult it is to prove that any sports event has "enduring notability" (per WP:NOTE). I believe Mtking's query is a tangent from a lengthy and somewhat heated discussion on the notability of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) events. I read up a bit on the relevant guidelines (WP:NOTE and WP:EVENT) but find them difficult to apply to sports (and tennis) events, particularly because they include rather vague and ambiguous terms such as "enduring notability", "lasting effect" and "routine coverage". A very strict and literal interpretation could seem to suggest that 80% (rough guesstimate) of all sports articles on WP should be deleted which is clearly neither sensible nor constructive. WikiProject Tennis has what I consider to be sensible and logical guidelines on the notability of tennis events and the ones mentioned clearly fall within the guidelines. Nevertheless it doesn't hurt to compare the project guidelines against the general guidelines once in a while to verify that they are (still) compatible. --Wolbo (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see Mtking prod'd the pages and I removed the notices. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination. Please note that that the 2004 Estoril article has now been nominated for deletion as well as the Men's Singles and Men's Doubles articles. If this is allowed to stand it will mean the deletion of hundreds, if not thousands, of similar articles covering ATP and WTA professional tennis events. This seems completely destructive and in direct conflict with the WP Tennis project goals. --Wolbo (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open

Had a quick look at all the different tennis categories (Category:Tennis) and noticed we don't have one for defunct tennis tournaments. Would it be useful to create this so we can, well, categorize defunct tennis tournament? They do have a dedicated tennis infobox but I don't think that can be used for categorization --Wolbo (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is List of tennis tournaments#Past events. An infobox can add a category. {{Infobox defunct tennis tournament}} doesn't do it but uses can be found at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox defunct tennis tournament. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the stated goals of the WP Tennis is to "Standardize naming: "Wimbledon" vs. "Wimbledon Championships", "US Open" vs. "U.S. Open" and "French Open" vs. "Roland Garros"". While the many tennis articles I've browsed appear to have a reasonable standardized naming for Grand Slams I can not find a GS naming paragraph in the Article guidelines section. So 1) do we have an agreed upon naming convention for Grand Slams (Open era & Pre-open era) and, if so 2) should we not add this to the article guidelines? --Wolbo (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes and yes. As the majors go it's always Wimbledon... then it's Australian Open, French Open, US Open for the modern game. These terms are also used in "general" even before the advent of open tennis. When we get specific in pre-open tennis I believe the usual terms are Australian(earlier Australasian) Championships, French Championships and U.S. National Championships. I'm not sure why we use U.S. in this sense but I'm guessing it's because we follow the sources and far more use U.S. in that context. All 4 are considered Majors since 1925. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick read through of the WP Tennis Goals and while they come across as both sensible and worthwhile I have a few questions / suggestions:

1. Goal "Tennis, History of tennis, ATP Tour"
This mentions no actual goal or proposed action. Assume it is meant to indicate that these are 'top importance' articles that should have our attention. To make it actionable would it be a good idea to merge this with the goal "Need to make at least one article into Featured Article status" into "Achieve Featured Article status for Tennis, History of tennis and ATP Tour"?

2. Goal "Create an article for every player who has won more than x matches in a Grand Slam tournament"
Should this be expanded to "Create an article for every notable tennis player"?

I don't think that it's worth creating an article for every notable tennis player. Since every player who represented his country in Davis cup is notable I could name some guys who are notable even though they couldn't be called professional tennis players. There wouldn't be anything to write about them, no articles, even finding some basic information could be difficult. I think that we can have different criteria for players who may have an article on WP and for players who should have one. Niktute (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis players articles are unbalanced at the moment. We have many articles, often lengthy ones with (too) much detail, on players that are barely notable, yet we have no articles or only stubs on legends of the past. Have been updating/expanding a number of articles on past greats but there is still much work to be done. It's a valid point that our guideline, which says that every player has to be notable to have an article, doesn't necessarily mean that every notable player needs to have an article. Fair enough, but we would still need to improve this goal because without at least defining 'x' it's rather meaningless. --Wolbo (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Goal "Standardize naming: "Wimbledon" vs. "Wimbledon Championships", "US Open" vs. "U.S. Open" and "French Open" vs. "Roland Garros""
This sounds like a subgoal of "Create guidelines and templates for tournament articles, draws, and player articles". Shoul it be indented?

4. Goal "Finish the performance timeline comparison tables..."
Why only woman?

5. Goal "Need to make at least one article into Featured Article status"
See 1.

6. Should we add a Goal "Create an {Infobox tennis biography} for every tennis player article" as a subgoal of 2.?

Thoughts and suggestions? Probably best to add your feedback as an indent under the individual points to keep it readable. --Wolbo (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not much feedback so far on the WP Tennis Goals post so in an effort to takes things forward (or perhaps drag a dead horse?) here's my proposal for an update to the project goals.

• Tennis, History of tennis, ATP Tour
• Create an article for every Grand Slam tournament ever held
• Create articles for each Grand Slam tournament draw: Men's Singles, Women's Singles, Men's Doubles, Women's Doubles, Mixed Doubles
• Create an article for every player who has won more than x matches in a Grand Slam tournament
• Add 'Performance Timeline' sections to all the above articles
• Create guidelines and templates for tournament articles, draws, and player articles
• Standardize naming: "Wimbledon" vs. "Wimbledon Championships", "US Open" vs. "U.S. Open" and "French Open" vs. "Roland Garros"
• Finish the performance timeline comparison tables, which will include the career Grand Slam tournament, World Hard Court Championship and Olympic results of every woman who has reached at least one Grand Slam tournament, World Hard Court Championship or Olympic final during her career.
• Need to make at least one article into Featured Article status.
• Create articles for every notable tennis tournament for male and female players, especially since the beginning of the Open Era, including yearly articles and draws.

• (1) Take Tennis, History of tennis, ATP Tour, Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open articles to Good Article status and at least one to Featured Article status
• (2) Create an article for every Grand Slam tournament ever held

• (a) Create articles for each Grand Slam tournament draw: Men's Singles, Women's Singles, Men's Doubles, Women's Doubles, Mixed Doubles

• (3) Create articles for every notable tennis tournament for male and female players including yearly articles and draws.
• (4) Create an article (including infobox) for every player who has reached at least the quarter finals in a Grand Slam tournament

• (a) Add 'Performance Timeline' section to all relevant player articles

• (5) Create guidelines and templates for tournament articles, draws, and player articles

• (a) Standardize naming: "Wimbledon" vs. "Wimbledon Championships", "US Open" vs. "U.S. Open" and "French Open" vs. "Roland Garros"

• (6) Finish the Tennis performance timeline comparison (women) and Tennis performance timeline comparison (men) articles

The numbers are added purely for reference. Here's an overview of the changes and explanations.

• (1) Merged "Tennis, History of tennis, ATP Tour" with "Need to make at least one article into Featured Article status." Added the Grand Slam tournaments.
• (2) Unchanged

• (a) Unchanged (indented)

• (3) Removed "especially since the beginning of the Open Era" and changed order (2 & 3 are both tournament goals)
• (4) Specified "x matches" to "reached at least Grand Slam quarter finals". Without defining "x" it was an empty goal. All notable players is perhaps too pie-in-the-sky ambitious and the "quarter final" requirement seems reasonable and is also easily verifiable and therefore practical. Added the goal that all player articles should have a tennis biography infobox.

• (a) Changed "all the above" to "all relevant player" (indented)

• (5)) Unchanged

• (a) Unchanged (indented)

• (6) Added men's performance timeline comparison and removed detailed explanation (can be seen on the article pages)

Hope to get some feedback on this proposal and reach a project consensus. I know it's not very busy in here at the moment so I'll wait a considerable time before making any updates. There is no real rush but we should get this sorted. --Wolbo (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Project. I was wondering about branching off from Grand Slam (tennis) (if Sharapova wins) to create a List of women who have won career Grand Slams? I'd like to deal to deal in a lot more detail than current exists in the Grand Slam page so I think it's a viable standalone list. What do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

I am searching for reliable sources about the playing style of Svetlana Kuznetsova. Is there a special website for such information (apart from the official websites)? Thanks.--GoP_T^C_{N 17:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)} [reply]

Can we sort out a way to differentiate between Challenge Rounds and finalists in the Wimbledon/U.S. National Championships etc - the finalists are technically semi-finalists as the winner reached the Challenge Round - the real final - stats and infobox wise, this means the rounds reached in a tournament are in order 'QF', 'SF', 'F', 'F', 'W' which is just plain silly. Should we use 'CR' or downgrade the QF, SF, F as it was called at the time to 1R, QF, SF which would make more sense? An example - Wilberforce Eaves reached the "Final" (ie round before the Challenge Round) of Wimbledon 3 times, and reached the Challenge Round of the US once - these are all down as 'F' results, even though he progressed further in the U.S. Championships... Asmazif (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2012 (GMT)

Use 'CR'; what would we call the new First Round? If you wanted to put a name to the "Final", call it the "All-comers Final"; I seem to recall reading somewhere that this was the term applied to Wimbledon finals of this sort. Totalinarian (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]