Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines/Archive 1

Guidelines and best practices

Proposals for guidelines/best practices should go here. The form should probably be "XXX is a great example of a YYY article", but all advice is welcome. --dantheox 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left some comments at Talk:2007 Wimbledon Championships. The first task of this subproject should be getting that article in shape. --dantheox 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Date Debate

It seems we need to come to a consensus on linking dates in articles.
I would like to open a formal debate here (instead across many talk pages.
Some dates obviously should be linked...other dates...not so much...
I offer the following proposed standard: (From other projects)

• birth dates - it seems that most of these are linked, if using the proper infobox.
• The same year should never be linked to multiple times (from the same page). The "first" usage would seem appropriate.

Specific to Tennis:

• Year of tournament - (link to "#### in Tennis", but only in the infobox); is there any point in linking the "Mon DD"?
• Years that reference other events, should be linked to that specific event or to "#### in tennis" articles, but NOT to the generic wikipedia year.

->Edit the rules directly to keep one common set; please use "strikeout" for proposed deletions.Mjquin_id (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's nice that you are taking initiative in setting up standard to normalize date usage on tennis related articles. But may I suggest moving this discussion to project's main talk page? I suggest this because that page is likely to be on watchlist of wider community than this page. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I rather thought that talk page was a bit to broad...trying to "migrate" discussions to more specific areas...What do you think?Mjquin_id (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. But at least leave a note on that talk page, for those who are interested. I guess it is clear now that very few are currently watching this page. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Live Scoring

It seems that I have unwittingly gotten into a tit-for-tat editing war on the Melanie Oudin article, wrt live scoring of matches. I attempted to delete references to a match in progress involving Miss Oudin, and had changes undone on three occasions.

It is not clear to me that live scoring adds anything to an article about a player, and indeed it would appear that the issue is handled by policies such as [|those discussed here] (such as NOT#NEWS).

Any thoughts on this issue? Do tennis player biographies fall into the sphere of the tennis WikiProject? Should guidelines be amended for this WikiProject to direct live score efforts towards WikiNews or some other source? Does NOT#NEWS or some other Wikipedia guideline already apply here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.hatton (talk • contribs) 19:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Current Ranking?

I would like to suggest that it may not be useful to have the current ranking listed in the infobox for every player. This information is frequently allowed to become significantly out-of-date, particularly for lower-ranked players whose pages are not frequently visited. For example, 206th-ranked Laurent Recouderc's page has not been updated since August, when his ranking was 81 spots higher. Many players at this level have not had their pages updated in that timeframe or even longer. I would like to suggest implementing a threshold above which a player's current ranking is no longer included on the infobox, to keep this problem from occurring so frequently. My preliminary suggestion is to consider the top 100 as that threshold, since that makes for a convenient cut-off point. I expect that you'll see a significant drop-off in page traffic once a player's ranking dips outside the top 100. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? MrCheshire (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Current in infoboxes

In tennis articles many events such as Wimbledon, US Open, etc... have an infobox with things like name=, logo=, country=, and current=. As far as "current" I have seen edit disputes as to what should go after the equals sign. Wimbledon 2011 won't start until July but should Wimbledon 2011 be listed under current or should wimbledon 2010 be listed? In looking at other sporting events like golf i see the US Open Golf tourney has current champion (which is from 2010) but current=2011 (which starts in June). What should it be and what is the cutoff? Should we have current= under in the infobox at all? The superbowl doesn't. Is policy listed somewhere? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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 been introducing variations which I think are unacceptable as the original format used is already adequate enough for use on wikipedia, and it has been used for so long so changing it would be unecessary and a waste of time. 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. Thanks. JayJ21 (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Connors timeline needs fixed. Colours wrong and I cant read some of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.38.100.250 (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion to add two standard timelines - please voice you opinion

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Discussion_on_Performance_Timelines to add two standard timeline charts to the guidelines. Please join in and give an agree or disagree and why. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving Forward Flags, Names, etc.

I know it's standard practice to move forward a nation flag to the next round of a draw article when two players from the same nation are playing eachother, since one has to win. For instance, if two Spaniards play eachother in the second round of a tournament, you put a Spanish flag in that slot for the third round, since a Spaniard will play. However, I noticed in this edit of this year's Women's US Open, that when the Radwanska sisters from Poland played eachother in the first round, an editor moved the Polish flag and "Radwanska" to the second round, presumably on the logic that a Pole named Radwanska would be playing. I am just wondering if this is correct. Smartyllama (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are that adding anything prematurely, even flags, is incorrect. In practice however, and looking at the big picture, I don't see a big deal about flags as it's usually a 24-48 hour thing where it's sitting there. The person's last name seems a bit much to me, especially if one of the players is much more well known where someone who doesn't look closely enough will think they advanced. It happens so rarely that I'm sure there's no guideline and probably hasn't even been discussed before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

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

There is a deletion-discussion underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles Qualifying on if we should have a standalone article for the qualifying round(s) or if it should be merged into the a main article for the tournament.

Should merged content be a "standard" for the qualifying rounds? I don't have strong feelings myself on this but am thinking

• Are the tournament result articles created programatically or by hand? There's some finessing of the indentation and section naming needed to create a merged article.
• As the qualifying round(s) are usually of lower importance in terms of the overall tournament it makes sense to put the merged content at the bottom of a main tournament article. Chronologically, it belongs at the top.

--Marc Kupper|talk 01:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The decision was merge, and it looks better with the qualifying at the bottom of the article. Most people will visit the page to see the main draw, so it is impractical to put the qualies on top.

We have more pages to merge in this way, for example the draws for 2011 Citi Open and 2011 Open 13.

WP wants us to avoid too many content forks, so I think standalone articles for qualifying draws are only to be used for the grand slams and a few other big tournaments like Indians Wells. We can update the article guidelines accordingly.

I am even thinking that for smaller tournaments (draw 32) the draw can be merged into the main article. WP only recommends splitting an article when it gets over 100 kB size. For a smaller tournament like 2011 Citi Open we can probably merge everything and still stay below that threshold.

What do you think? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wild card playoffs

There is currently an AfD discussion about an article for Australian Open 2012 wildcard playoffs.
See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Australian Open – Main Draw Wildcard Entries
Maybe we should add something about this in the guidelines. Do we consider wildcard payoffs notable? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Last year there was also a national wildcard playoff for the US Open, which got quite some attention in the media (probably because it was a first time). See: US Open wildcard tournament

I don't see it mentioned in any WP article. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL... if there is a wildcard entry getting a "payoff" that would likely be notable :-) Kidding aside I'm not sure on this since it's so new. Qualifying draws are notable but not for a stand alone article, and I'm thinking the same for this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If there was a "payoff" for editing WP it would be even better :-).

For smaller tournaments we have to merge the qualifying draws into the main draw articles, as per a recent decision, but for the slams we still have a lot of standalone qualifying draw articles , e.g. 2010_Wimbledon_Championships_–_Men's_Singles_Qualifying. Do we merge them as well? The guidelines are not very clear on that point. They mention "(including qualifications)" for some categories. Maybe some editors understand that to mean that standalone qualifications articles are asked for. We probably have some re-wording to do here. And then we should probably handle these new wildcard playoffs just like we do with qualification draws. Do you agree? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines don't cover everything but they are more thorough than many guidelines around wikipedia. I don't see why the qualifying draws for Majors can't be stuck on the bottom of the main draws, However, it is a minor issue when there are so many major issues that need fixing. The fact there are qualifying draw pages for Majors is simply no big deal in the scheme of things imho. the same with separate draw pages for smaller tournaments. You mention merging them all because of the 100k size guidance... but charts and such don't take up much size but make you have to scroll a lot of page. It does make some sense to simply click a link to a draw than to have to scroll too long a page. I'm not sure how many out of how many that includes but it's at least something to consider. Overall I'm much more a minimalist in what gets included but to be fair most here are not. Just remember the guidelines are just that, a guide to help (especially if there is a dispute)... we don't want cookie cutter articles that all look the same. There also other things that haven't made it in yet, like pictures limits that were discussed as no more than 10 per article (on large articles) with preferably much less for smaller articles (5 or less). So it's a living growing set of guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that many other issues need fixing in the tennis project. While the guidelines are pretty detailed here, my impression is that many tennis editors have never read them. Maybe we should put a more prominent link on the project main page.

Since only a few editors seem to be active here for the moment, I have brought up another problem and asked some community feedback on it. You are welcome to comment here: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Career_statistics_articles.

I think we need some better clarity on which tennis articles not to create. Then we can focus more on the tennis articles that we should have and how to improve them. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I really like the statistics pages. At first they were on the main pages but have since been moved off on their own and I think it works much better. It does not violate nostatsbook from what I can see. They are not indiscriminate, most are not sprawling, they are neat, and they use tables for the lengthy lists. I think being an individual sport makes things a lot different than other major sports. Heck, for anyone who has won a Major they get to have pages such as 2008 Roger Federer tennis season. That's a lot of players in tennis history that we have to make pages for. Roger has 11 such pages, in addition to his main page and statistic page, with more on the way.... and we have to add those for every player in history who won a Major. It's gonna take awhile and it's why it's tough to take the time to worry about a qualifying draw page amongst all the other things that need to be done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I also like player stats, but the question is should we have articles (or large sections) about it on WP. I am not sure the WP community will approve of that kind of articles. We better find out before we spend any more editor time on them, because it obviously takes time to keep these pages up to date week after week. I looked at Joe Mauer, a baseball player and noticed that they use a template to add the player stats in the external links at the bottom of each player page. E.g.:

• Career statistics and player information from MLB, or ESPN, or Baseball Reference, or Fangraphs, or Baseball Reference (Minors)

So they have a simple baseballstats template, which frees up their time to focus on the articles themselves.

MakeSense64 (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I just put the question of individual season articles on NSPORTS. It will be good to have clearer guidelines for such articles across all sports. See: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Individual_season_articles. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Tennis clubs

How about notability of tennis clubs? I just ProD-ed this one L.T.C. Festina, but there are several other questionable cases. And here is one that survived AfD several years ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spartak Tennis Club. Any thoughts? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's probably case by case. I see nothing notable about this one except it's old. Since Spartak Tennis Club passed muster a few years ago it should still be viable today. You don't really lose notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I just added some notability guidelines for tennis clubs, organizations and venues. Feel free to improve or discuss them. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked and it seems fine to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

wheelchair tennis

How do we handle wheelchair tennis? Notability of players and tournaments? MakeSense64 (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd thought about that before and I think it's notability is quite low. Their full draws at the 4 Majors are already covered here such as at 2011 US Open – Wheelchair Men's Singles. The winners (possibly finalists) could be notable since in the majority of press they are covered less than jrs. I would also create a chart at List of wheelchair tennis tournament champions that looks similar to List of ATP Tour Grand Slam tournaments and Masters singles champions. The chart would include the the 4 Majors, the 4 tourney Super Series, and their year end Wheelchair Tennis Masters. Since it has low notability this would take care of all the winners in one location. I'm not sure if the winners of those supers or year end would be notable or not but it's not like there's that many so whatever consensus would say. I would not create separate pages for those tournaments. Anyway that's my thoughts on the matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that seems reasonable. The 4 slams and wheelchair masters are well represented in the Category:Wheelchair tennis tournaments, but I think the ABN Amro wheelchair draws got to go. We also have articles in the Category:Wheelchair tennis at the Summer Paralympics , including all the players that participated in them. The Category:Wheelchair tennis players has only 15 names, so is probably limited to the winners of grand slam events. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Picked up on your idea and started to create List of Wheelchair Tennis Champions. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Performance Timelines

Why are there still so many articles with these types of timelines?

Examples: Fernando González

Urszula Radwańska

I remember having a discussion a while back where some of us agreed that these timelines shouldn't be used. For one, the one involving Radwanska contains flag icons (which should only be used when absolutely necessary) and I thought we agreed that the colour schemes didn't work. Furthermore, I remember someone mentioning a while back that some of these timelines violated Wikipedia:ACCESS guidelines. Reducing the default size of finals results and timelines may also be a violation of access guidelines, especially for those who are visually impaired. Thoughts? JayJ47 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably because it takes time to notice when poor ones have been used. I assume none of the bad ones have been added since we talked about it? We also use the more simplified ones without the minor atp/wta events depending on the player... especially if they have multiple pages. That way we can keep a simplified version with just Majors and year ends on their main page for quick reference. Like McEnroe's page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So what can be done? When I change the bad ones one particular user just changes it back. I honestly feel like having this guideline is pointless because nobody else seems to follow it and I see very few trying to enforce it. Most of the other guidelines seemed to be followed time and time again but this one seems to be ignored on a regular basis. JayJ47 (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to remember that I don't have all the tennis pages on watch. Which ones get reverted after you change them? And which user? If I SEE you having trouble I will certainly help you maintain it. You won't see me adding the "Career statistics" section to the bottom though. For me that's usually overkill and information not needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The user is User:Mrf8128 and they usually revert my edits on pages such as: Gaël Monfils and Petra Kvitová career statistics. Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. JayJ47 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The only difference I see is font size, and that is not etched in stone. There are players who have played for over 20 years where the font size is better at even 90%. I thought you were talking major substance or colors. To be honest, on my screen, Petra Kvitová's page looks better with the smaller font. Rememeber we are not a cookie cutter encyclopedia... we have guidelines, and charts should look pretty much like our guidelines, but exact might be going a bit much. Your Urszula Radwańska example above I agree with, that needs to conform... but font size seems like no big deal and Monfils and Kvitova look good either way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Player spelling rules

I am trying to clarify which player spelling should be used. The recommendation "Use common English spelling as found on ATP and WTA sites" is not applied in most cases on Wikipedia, since the ATP and WTA sites never use diacritics, while most articles do.

In practice, it seems like players on Wikipedia are mentioned using:

1. their exact spelling (including diacritics) if their name is spelled with the latin alphabet in their native language:
   • Diāna Marcinkēviča instead of Diana Marcinkevica,
   • Goran Ivanišević instead of Goran Ivanisevic,
2. their English transliteration if their name is not spelled with the latin alphabet:
   • Maria Sharapova instead of Мария Шарáпова or Maria Scharapowa,
   • Vera Dushevina instead of Vera Douchevina,
   • Shahar Pe'er instead of Shahar Peer.

   Exception for Chinese names:

   • Peng Shuai instead of Péng Shuài.

Should the above be considered the rule to follow?

One open point is which order should be applied for Chinese and Korean names. See for example 2009_Wimbledon_Championships, where both Shuai Peng and Peng Shuai are used. The ATP and WTA rankings are using family name first, should this be used consistently? Sdcfr75 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-diacritics is applied to many cases in wikipedia, it's just very erratic. The Wikipedia guideline is mixed and useless. We try in tennis to be consistent but as with Novak Djokovic or Tomáš Berdych it's pretty much the squeaky wheel wins. In 2008 we decided to go with common English but while many names have been changed to the proper non-diacritic form, many have failed to gain consensus for a move. Ana Ivanovic even spells her name diacritic-free on her own website yet the editors on her page refuse the move. So it's pretty much whatever consensus one can achieve on each and every page in question. You are also somewhat incorrect on the ATP and WTA sites. I have seen many player bios where the players' name is non-diacritic and their residence/town is spelled with diacritics. So they use diacritics but they choose common English for peoples names, like newspapers and tv. That's what we strive for though I agree it's often unsuccessful. Articles I create I use ATP, WTA, ITF, Davis Cup, Wimbledon, US Open, and sometimes US, UK, Australian and Canadian newspapers online, and use the most common spelling among them. Bear in mind you must have the native spelling in parenthesis after the English alphabet spelling... right in that first sentence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we really need to try to go with whatever spelling we find on the ITF site (which lists all players). In my opinion, certain editors (not only in tennis) insisting on using the names with diacritics, basically amounts to a kind of "soft ownership" of the article. If you have a standard English keyboard it becomes very inconvenient to edit any article with names with diacritics. The editors from certain countries know that, and that's why they insist on using the diacritics in the name. I really don't understand why the English WP doesn't clean up this mess for good by stating a clear and firm rule to use English names on the English language WP, just like they use Czech names on the Czech language WP (where every woman gets "ová" added to their name, so you find Venus Williamsová and even Casey Dellacquová. No matter how strange the name becomes, that ova gets consistently added and they don't ask anybody whether they like it or not). MakeSense64 (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That cs:Venus Williamsová isn't a name spelling, it's a grammatical ending in the female nominative case. The actual name, "Williams" is unchanged, even though Czech has no W. In the genitive plural, for example "of the Williamses" it's Vrchol nadvlády Williamsových. But yes it's true that in other cases (not this one) names do get changed on foreign wikis. The point is though that here on en.wiki people can and do use diacritics for Latin alphabet names. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, they simply use the spelling that is most commonly found in Czech language sources, which is how it should be on the Czech WP. Now, if only we could go back to use the same policy here on the English WP. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

MakeSense, I repeat cs:Venus Williamsová isn't a name spelling, it's a grammatical ending in the female nominative case. The actual name, "Williams" is unchanged, even though Czech has no W.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point...Yeah it's Venus Ebony Starr Williamsová from Kalifornie and Christine Marie Evertová from Americká, and that's fine because it's in the Czech language in the Czech wikipedia. Different Nation's wikipedia's spell player's names according to their own country's alphabets and styles, and consensus here has for a long time been to use English sources and the ITF and ATP/WTA websites for our tennis player spelling sources. It's in our guidelines, it's just that it gets ignored so often as to be sad. I always follow the English sources though and try to fix as many articles as I can. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course it would be an enormous work to correct all the names with diacritics in tennis articles, and it may never get completely done. It makes sense to use the diacritics in some sports where a given player may only play in a national league. But with tennis being an international sports (a player at only national level would usually not meet notability criteria, unless you are from Nepal ;-) there is always an English name, and if there is an English name then we should use it in the English WP. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I just came here to the Tennis project to see what was behind the reasoning on Talk:Denes Lukacs → Dénes Lukács that Tennis articles must not have the full spelling of tennis player's names because the ITF doesn't allow the use of them. From the point of view of someone from the non-tennis part of Wikipedia it isn't particularly convincing. The rest of the encyclopedia seems to have no problem with accents for tennis people who surpass notability as tennis players, such as Björn Borg, so while Borg has an omljud, why should the tennis project assume ITF rules on WP. Why should WP pay attention to the ITF? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You may have just come here for a comment but it seems you are doing requested moves on tennis articles. Have you not seen all the diacritic arguing through the years on wikipedia? Hockey had a knock down drag out this past year that ended in the article being moved to the English alphabet version. We don't just use the ITF. We use ATP, WTA, Davis Cup, Wimbledon, English newspapers, English television, etc... It is overwhelmingly the most used and common name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi. Our tennis articles already must have the full spelling of a person's "real name" (and they do), just like every other article. But that "real name" doesn't need to be the "title" of the article (and it often isn't, also in fields outside sports/tennis). WP:COMMONNAME and WP:STAGENAME mean that a lot of articles are not kept at the "real name". If you manage to change the WP policies around this, then let us know and we will happily start using the new policies. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of any other BLPs which begin with e.g. " Sasa Tuksar (Croatian: Saša Tuksar)", and you will note that Kauffner, who is against use of diacritics, has amended to Saša Tuksar removing "_____(Croatian ______)" in the first line. The reason articles don't start" Bjorn Borg (Swedish Björn Borg) is a Swedish tennis player" is that no encyclopedia would ever start a BLP this way. Likewise ESPN wouldn't write " Bjorn Borg (Swedish Björn Borg) is a Swedish tennis player" they'd simply have "Bjorn Borg is a Swedish tennis player," since ESPN doesn't represent accents, umlauts and other diacritics. Out of interest, how many tennis BLPs repeat the name in this fashion? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You think we keep a scorecard tally? I can think of Novak Djokovic, Andrea Petkovic and Milos Raonicoff the top of my head...Hockey players like Marek Zidlicky... there could be 100s of tennis players with this style notation. And if we went by biographies such as Sting or Pink then it should be more like: Saša Tuksar commonly known as Sasa Tucksar... We can certainly do that if it's a better fit with other biographies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

RM notification - restore Saša Tuksar

Sasa with no caron in Croatian = anemone, windflower

Hi Fyunck. Yes, I have come here for a comment and I have seen editing which I believe is counter WP best practice. As a test case I have put a RM on Saša Tuksar to be restored to correct spelling. As I point out on the RM note, by deleting the caron on this BLP title an editor from here (no offence but I think yourself) has changed Mr Tuksar's name from "Alexander" to "Anemone." It also has changed a masculine noun Saša to a feminine one, Sasa, anemone. The fact that popular media, sports press and so on, often don't use diacritics isn't - judging by what happens on WP - given much weight by consensus of WP editors in assigning accurate WP:Titles to WP:BLP. As per Björn Borg. If you can argue a convincing case why certain sports should be different, then what the sports press use may be relevant. Obviously this is an opinion, but by putting forward an RM where the pronunciation has been substantially as with Mr Tuksar changed I'm interested to see what general editors think. It doesn't surprise me that Hockey would go for non-European spelling, but tennis is a more international sport. We'll see. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Many tennis players never played under their "real name". I just edited Steffi Graf, because the article should start with the "real name" and can also include nickname (in this case "Steffi") in some cases. And we need a reliable source for the "real name", as I have added in this case. But the article should stay at "Steffi Graf" and that's the common name/ player name we use for her throughout our tennis articles because she always played as "Steffi Graf". Why is it that certain editors do not understand this principle anymore when somebody's common player name is a non-diacritics version of their "real name"? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have noted this comparison to "stage names" under Talk at WP:STAGENAME, since I do not believe that ITF alphabet restriction makes a name without diacritics a "stage name" - it is still the "real name", just spelled simply for sports fans. "Certain editors," which would include me, do not understand this "principle" because a short form of a name ("Jim" for "James") is not a stage name. These arguments you're using are all over the place. Please see the comments of non-tennis editors at Talk:Mate Pavić, and Talk:Saša Hiršzon, particularly the Chicago point. WP is an encyclopedia and accuracy is paramount for BLPs. I'm going to refer this discussion to Talk at WP:BLP too since I've raised BLPs. I'm sorry to do this, but the deletion of diacritics from a series of BLPs by some tennis editors, no matter how sincere, isn't a great contribution to building an accurate reference work. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's wikipedia and you are free to do as see best. The arguments are not all over the place, they are simply plentiful for tennis players and using their easily found English sourced names. And plenty of move requests have also lost in their attempt to have diacritics. You mention two that support your feelings and Pavic was for an illegal reason as we later find out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

@IIO. You are also welcome to read an essay I put together on this topic: WP:TENNISNAMES. Even Britannica spells several tennis names without diacritics, while they are held at diacritics version here on WP. So the idea that encyclopedias always stick to "real name" spelling is not true. In many cases it is simply an alternative spelling of their name, which has become the most common spelling of their name in their career as a tennis player. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see evidence in your essay that any Britannica BLP starts with the name with diacritics removed. Could please state here which Britannica BLP does this? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Just click on the link given in the article, this should do: [1]. This pulls up the tennis players that are mentioned in Britannica, which are not that many, and you will see names like Helena Sukova, Ilie Nastase, Novak Djokovic, all with their non-diacritics player name. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct about Ilie Năstase, but then again I see French players are allowed their accents. Interesting. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So EB, like Wiki is inconsistent in it's use. For quite awhile we have simply taken these things one at a time, one day at a time here... with the debates usually stalemating. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

@IIO. It is also the case for Helena Suková. The only exception on EB is René Lacoste, but that is a player from the 1920s and I think we will all agree that a systematic naming convention was probably not in place at that time. Let's not forget that the professional tennis tours (ATP and WTA) only emerged in the late 1960s and 1970s (open era). So while EB is typically very consistent in using diacritics in the names that have them, that is not the case for tennis players. Why would that be? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Because before the Eastern European countries joined the EU we didn't treat them equally with France and Germany in respect of names? One of the basic issues is familiarity. In any case WP BLP guidelines, as have been linked elsewhere by Kauffner, require that whatever (a) the WP:Title still (b) the name in the first line of lede be spelled accurately, and not " Ilie Năstase who played under the WP:STAGENAME Ilie Nastase" etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't need really to solve the questions as to why a certain spelling of a name is found more common in English-language usage, that can be for many different reasons based on the case. We just report on what we find.

As for mentioning the "real" name in the lede, that is mentioned in the WP:TENNISNAMES essay by refering to WP:MOSBIO. But we have to also try to follow WP:LEAD which requires us to include significant alternative names or alternative spellings of the name in the lede (see the alternative names section). "Ilie Nastase" is a significant alternative spelling, so we are supposed to include it if we try to use our guidelines. Just like in the German Andrea Petkovic article, where you find the alternative Serbian spellings right in the beginning, even though it is only a difference of one letter. If we use certain guidelines then we should use them consistently for all tennis player articles. Do you agree? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The need for accuracy in WP:BLP is the overriding and dominant concern of how the first line of a lead/lede in an article is shaped and is more important than WP:Title where (as Kauffner has shown) WP policy is more inclined to English language usage. The example you give: "Andrea Petkovic (Serbian: Андреа Петковић, Andrea Petković)" is as you note slightly complicated by the fact that in this case the player is now German, and I have no idea what German passport regulations are, or her choice is/was. Though we see Welt dropping the accent, but de:Andrea Petković retaining it. Generally all we have seen is that WP BLPs always default to accuracy in lede first line wherever possible, whatever the article title does. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know all our tennis articles mention the "real name" and/or native spelling, including alternative spellings of the name as accurately as possible in the lede, per the MOS guidelines on that point. This is done regardless of at what title the article is kept. I think some improvements are needed in certain articles where the player has competed under various names. A typical example is Anna Smashnova, during her career she has also competed as "Anna Pistolesi" and "Anna Smashnova-Pistolesi". We do have redirects at these names, but shouldn't we mention these alternative names somewhere in the lede? Actually WP:LEAD asks us to do that, even recommends to create a separate section for alternative names if there are more than three. You can also some recent editing I did on Steffi Graf. Her "real name" was not given in the lede, so I have added it in per MOS. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Good catch on Steffi Graf. If alternate names are used pretty frequently we are required to have them in the lead. Now "In ictu oculi" has brought up a point on another talk that some blps, though they use the common name or spelling, often have the birth name first in the lead sentence rather than second. As long as both forms of the name are in the lead, I'm not so picky as to which goes first. I follow the English sources for article titles but the lead order is not quite as big a deal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:MOSBIO guideline it is recommended to start the lede with the "legal name", even when the article is titled with the pseudonym, stagename or common name of the person. The example it gives is : Louis Bert Lindley, Jr. (June 29, 1919 – December 8, 1983), better known by the stage name Slim Pickens...

MakeSense64 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I found seven relevant entries on Britannica: Djokovic, Năstase, and Suková (non-biography) omit the diacritics, while Lacoste, Borg, Mauresmo and Ivanišević (non-biography) retain them. It is interesting to note that the native spelling is nowhere to be found in the former examples. When Britannica uses anglicized spellings like Aragon and Napoleon, the native spelling is mentioned. The lack of diacritics in at least some of these cases might not be intentional. Prolog (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is something else I came across. Even if an article is kept at the diacritics title, in the body of the article we are supposed to use the spelling of the name as it appears in the sources for the article. Even the pro-diacritics editors agree on that as you can see in their recent proposal they made here Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC. Quoting from their proposed wording: "The use of diacritics in proper nouns from languages with a roman script [1] should be respected. Native forms of such words should be used in article titles as appropriate. Common renderings without diacritics (where used in English-language sources) may also appear in the body of the article if that rendering can be cited to reliable sources. Both native and non-diacritic renderings must be adequately cited."

The proposal was not accepted, but we can see that common renderings without diacritics (per our sources) can be used in the body, and if we use a native rendering then we need a cite to back up that native rendering. So, even if we have a Sasa Tuksar article kept at his diacritics title, in the body of tennis articles we should use "Sasa Tuksar" if that is the spelling we find in the English-language source(s) for the article. The sources we use for articles about draws and tournaments are almost always sources that use no diacritics at all. Then that's how they should be spelled in the body of that article. If we change a name to native spelling in a draw article, then we will need to add a source for that native spelling, and that for each of the names that gets changed to native spelling. This means that we currently have tons of tennis articles that fail WP:V. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt many agree with your interpretation of the proposal; "may also appear [somewhere] in the body of the article" does not mean "should be used everywhere in the body of the article." Prolog (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Obvioulsy the problem is not in the may, the point is in the last sentence if the cite: Both native and non-diacritic renderings must be adequately cited.

Well, our tournament and draw articles are usually based on English-language sources that show only the non-diacritic rendering. Editors have added the diacritics in some names, but without bringing cites showing the native rendering. If both renderings must be adequately cited, then there are only two possible solutions: either stick to the spelling found in the source, which is non-diacritics rendering, or add a cite showing the native rendering for each of the names you want to alter to native spelling. Do you see any other ways? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

2004 Estoril Open, 2004 Estoril Open – Men's Doubles & WP:NOT

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 result. Mtking ^(edits) 23:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Player Notability : International Team Competitions

Partly in view of the notability discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Consensus I have updated the relevant part of the notability criteria from

• The player has competed in the Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or similar international competition

to

• The player has competed in one of the international team competitions: Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or World Team Cup

Removed the word 'similar' to make it less ambiguous / open-ended and added World Team Cup. That should cover the current relevant international team competitions. Perhaps the Wightman Cup could/should be added as a historical international team competition. --Wolbo (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC on how to handle significant alternate names

Since this may impact all biographies, including tennis bios, I thought it might be important. RFC on Alternate names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Flags and Icons Next to Tournaments

It has come to my attention that some player articles have recently have had flags and other icons added next to the tournaments in the results wikitable. Not only is this against the current Project Tennis guidelines, but it only adds clutter to the wikitable. As the wikitable should already note the location of the tournament, additional flag icons are just unnecessary. Additionally, flag icons are already present for the players so this is just overkill by adding flags next to the tournament as well. I just wanted to make members aware of this so they can help in the clean up of articles where this is present. I've already gone through and remedied some articles including Andy Murray's standalone and career statistics article. Thanks. GreenTree998 (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... I seem to remember this discussion from before. I have been trying to remedy this also. I'm not sure where all of it is coming from, but like shopping carts if you don't clean it up others will pile up and mess up the neighborhood. Thanks for the heads up here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried to see if there was one source of this, but it appears to be coming from several anonymous IP editors all in the past few months and for the most part applied in a very inconsistent manner. Oh, well, I'll try to clean this up on any articles I come across. GreenTree998 (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Standardized Colors

Hi. I wanted to ask why standardized colors do differ from the ones that have been used in the most recent ATP World Tour and WTA Tour articles (e.g. : 2013 ATP World Tour, 2013 WTA ATP World Tour, 2012 Roger Federer tennis season, 2012 Novak Djokovic tennis season, etc.). In other words, while I find it good that the colors are standardized, I don't understand why the colors for the Team Events and the Olympics were changed. Was it a consensus decision following some sort of debate? Regards Cpfig (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Archive_11#Standardized_color_scheme_for_tournaments to establish a standardized color table and make it part of the article guidelines. It started as an attempt to codify / standardize the existing color usage. At the same time there were some discussions elsewhere on the need to use colors that comply with the accessibility guidelines (WCAG). These guidelines are meant to ensure that the colors used (font & background) have sufficient contrast and color difference. This led to some modifications, generally to make the background colors lighter and resulted in the table that is now part of the article guidelines. This means that a significant number of articles need to be updated and that process is now ongoing. It's a relatively easy update using the 'search and replace' function on the editor. --Wolbo (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. It seems I am late for the discussion, but here is my opinion. I would prefer the F0DC82 color for the Olympics and for the team events to conserve a dark blue color, or at least some color that is sufficiently different from the one that is used for the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 events. Also, I think the color distinction between Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 events on the WTA Tour makes some sense and should be conserved since these event categories have slightly different points distributions. Cpfig (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If you believe you have good arguments, other than simply aesthetics, to update/modify the standard colors you can always start a new discussion on this page or the main WP Tennis talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

No scores in prose???

Now, this is causing me a great deal of woes, pain and suffering. How is removing scores making articles any better? Removing scores does not make articles better, it makes them worse. An article won't become better when you remove the scores. Also, if you suggest that this makes the articles shorter, that is not the case - adding words to describe the numbers in the scores (in two tight sets/in three long sets/in straight sets) actually makes articles LONGER. Also, if a tennis player's Wiki page has scores for years 2009/2010/2011/2012, then some pedantic rule-abiding editor removes them from the year 2013, it makes the article look strange - there are scores in many (all years but one, actually) of the years/sections, and one year is without the scores. How did you decide this is good!? Please reconsider this policy, it is stupid.

Thanks for reading!

Naki (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this should cause woes, pain and suffering. It's what was agreed upon as multiple scores in prose are distracting, poor writing, and un-needed. Most of the time you don't need words at all as the number of sets is trivial, and when you do written words look much better. Those other years must also be changed but no one has gotten round to it yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

flag icons

Our goal as editors is to make things as visually pleasing the pages as we can and make it enticing for readers to read it.

can anyone honestly tell me that this is far more pleasing

Week of	Tournament	Champions	Runners-up	Semifinalists	Quarterfinalists
March 5 March 12	BNP Paribas Open Indian Wells, United States WTA Premier Mandatory $5,536,664 – Hard – 96S/48Q/32D Singles Draw – Doubles Draw	Victoria Azarenka 6–2, 6–3	Maria Sharapova	Angelique Kerber Ana Ivanovic	Agnieszka Radwańska Li Na Marion Bartoli Maria Kirilenko
		Liezel Huber Lisa Raymond 6–2, 6–3	Sania Mirza Elena Vesnina

than this

Week of	Tournament	Champions	Runners-up	Semifinalists	Quarterfinalists
March 5 March 12	BNP Paribas Open Indian Wells, United States WTA Premier Mandatory $5,536,664 – Hard – 96S/48Q/32D Singles Draw – Doubles Draw	Victoria Azarenka 6–2, 6–3	Maria Sharapova	Angelique Kerber Ana Ivanovic	Agnieszka Radwańska Li Na Marion Bartoli Maria Kirilenko
		Liezel Huber Lisa Raymond 6–2, 6–3	Sania Mirza Elena Vesnina

The first one looks like a paragraph that no one will read, the second makes it more obvious as to the breaking down of each line tournament, location, event status, draw size, draw links. And the countries aren't linked because the flag serves as the link to the the countries.Dencod16 (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

What most wikipedian will tell you is that ALL those flag icons are distracting. All of them. But through talk and give and take we've come up with a working compromise at tennis project that has worked for quite awhile. Flags mark the international nationality of players, not places. So yes, I like the first choice better and it what we go by. You need to stop the edit warring and convince wikipedia otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol at all of them, clearly as many users have placed them there and that wasn't me, what you stating isn't true. How can it work for quite awhile, when the pages has been like that has been working for a far longer time. Dencod16 (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• I just looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Flags, and that section is not in agreement with MOS:FLAG, which basically stipulates that flag icons should only be used in cases of genuine national representation. There is no national representation on the tour, only in events such as the Olympics. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A couple things. Remember that is a guideline not a policy and tennis project has used these flags for players while MOS:FLAG has been rewritten. That being said, many of these players DO in fact represent their respective countries in these international tournaments. MOSFLAG says "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." It also doesn't say "genuine." Players play for Davis Cup, Fed Cup, Hopman Cup, Olympics, Jr. international team events, etc... Also you can't play at Wimbledon, US Open, French Open, Australian Open, unless represented by a country/state, or at least it used to be that way. Those events keep track of player and country. Remember these flags don't represent citizenship in tennis lists... We keep the flags away from the venues, events and cities but use them for players. Historically nationality has been very important in tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I know it doesn't say "genuine": I paraphrased. The guidelines says "actually", which places the same burden on usage. "You can't play at Wimbledon...unless represented by a country" doesn't make grammatical sense; I assume you mean "unless you represent a country"? Even if that were true, it still doesn't make for representation in the sense of Olympics or Davis Cup. The point is, there is no point in keeping track of country, certainly not with these icons. If MOS:FLAG has been rewritten, then this should follow suit. Wikipedia is not for children: we don't need to make these articles "attractive" by adding little colorful pictures (as was suggested above by another participant). Drmies (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The other thing of note is that it's not like TProject is alone in its interpretation of guidelines. I checked a few individual sports here and they do the same thing... some even more extensively. We have Snooker champs and an individual champ, Badminton champs here and here, plus darts champions and an individual darts player. We also have Indy 500 winners and drivers. Even the fastest runners. Point being this is indicative to all of wikipedia, not just tennis. And even the tennis events themselves take to using those icons, so readers and editors are conditioned to it being important. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Drmies asked me to take a look at this, without stating his own preference, However, I will say it, as someone who has never even paid attention to MOS:FLAG at all what Drmies is saying here does seem to be inline with overall en.wp practice, and also seems to be more encyclopedic, given that these players are not playing as nationals. On the other hand I don't think that overflagging counter MOS:FLAG is actually disruptive or threatening to any major WP:POLICY. Maybe overruse of national flags will compensate Serbian, Hungarian, etc. readers for their national heroes and heroines being appropriated for Australianization/Britishization or whatever it is. Apart from that, Drmies is evidently more correct about the overall MOS:FLAG it seems from a brief look at a couple of other sports projects. If wp tennis is to radically depart from MOS:FLAG it may require a broader RfC. User:Dencod16 the Indian Wells, United States flag seems additional overkill if all the players are flagged, yes, but the main impression of overkill is overkill anyway. 1 flag more or less doesn't seem too much of an issue.

Apologies for verbosity. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Project Page editing

I find it funny than anyone can edit a Project page, it should be a page that only an administrator that can edit. It gives the page more credibility Dencod16 (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

They are guidelines that we have talked about at the tennis project. Anyone can join the tennis project. Sometimes we think we have it right and someone points out something that wasn't clear so we do our best to clarify. We do the best we can and sometimes rules will change. The method of scoring in tiebreaks used to be something like 7–6(4), but editors decided a couple years ago to make it clearer to non-tennis fans and make it 7–6^(7–4). There have been several challenges to remove almost all flag icons on wikipdia but we've held a fairly united front against the removal by keeping their use for player nationality only (except for team events like Davis Cup). Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And you're point is, the fact that people who think they are "tennis administrators", that all they do is edit edit edit rather than help in making articles bugs the hell out of me. And i don't care about what has been done, the point is that something like guidelines should only be touched by an administrator, not you or me, who are only editors should be able to edit. It's like in a company any employee can edit the rules and regulations as they please, without a final word on one of there bosses. Dencod16 (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

But that's not how wikipedia works. All guidelines can be edited by anyone and get okay'd by consensus. All pages in your own workspace can also be edited but anyone. You'll have to change wikipedia, not just tennis project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

And while we're at it, would you please wait till we have an ATP website source for ranking updates? The template has that source listed as a reference and we wait till it's updated...else the source is useless and it's original research. This has been explained to you yet you ignored it. It's not a race to see who can do things the most quickly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

While we are at it as well, stop acting like you are the great tennis administrator and do something useful. And also, who are you to tell that anyone should be able to edit guidelines, they are guidelines that someone should manage, not just any article. This site was a lot better when there were actual tennis administrators who were managing guidelines and not wannabe administrators. Dencod16 (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Now there's a lovely friendly constructive post. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Fyunck is completely correct in their assessment: this is how Wikipedia projects work. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Martina Müller WTA name

For the record my comments above were redacted by Fyunck. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

format for rankings (world No. 1) in prose sections

Is there a style guideline we should use for describing someone's ranking? When to use hyphens for compound adjectives?

The Women's Tennis Association has ranked her World No. 1 in singles on six separate occasions.

• World No. 1
• world number one
• world no. 1
• world No. 1

As a qualifier ranked world no. 96, she defeated world no. 3 Davenport

• As a qualifier ranked world number 96, she defeated world-number-three Davenport
• As a qualifier ranked world number 96, she defeated world-number three, Davenport.
• As a qualifier ranked world number 96, she defeated world number three, Davenport.

-AngusWOOF (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Per searching through wikipedia consensus and proper grammar, it should always be "world No. 1." Non-capitalized "world" unless it begins a sentence, and a capitalized No. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ranking-Based Notability?

I was just checking-out the notability guidelines to see if I could create an article for Neal Skupski, who has recently won two Chalennger doubles tournaments. While I was able to create in this instance, it did strike me as odd that there was no ranking-based notability. It is plausible that through winning Futures tournaments and recording strong performances at Challenger level, a player could reach the top 200 without passing any of our current notability criteria. While such a player would likely soon become notable, either through General Notability or by entering an ATP World Tour tournament, I was wondering if nonetheless we would benefit form having ranking based notability criteria, perhaps based on reaching the top 200? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reposted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis for further comment. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

My first thoughts are that we have too many players now with notability, so adding anymore would be overkill. This seems like such a trivial happenstance so if all they can win is futures I'm not sure they are worthy. Others may disagree though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Foreign alphabet/character sets in IPTL player names

I've opened a discussion about this on the 2014 International Premier Tennis League season talk page. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Davis Cup & Fed Cup

one of the notability requirements is:

• 1. The player has competed in one of the international team competitions: Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or World Team Cup

Any level? because i'm going to create articles of players supporting by this requirement only. Wallinson (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Any level? As far as I know Davis Cup and Fed Cup only have one level. If you compete in a nation against nation tie you qualify. Perhaps you mean "any round"? So yes, even a first round pairing such as this years Kazakhstan vs Italy... if you play you're in. Who were you worried about? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The players thats plays in Zonal Groups I, II, II and IV are qualified too, right? Wallinson (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Top 10 win list headers

The past few days I've simplified the section header of several players' Top 10 wins lists (an example). I really like these lists; they're well-designed and thus easy to understand, so I don't see the need for a section header any longer than "Top 10 wins". Plus I much prefer concise headers because that leads to a less-cluttered and more usable TOC.

It seems that the verbose dual-header convention has become the "norm" simply because that's what it originally was and has been replicated for many players. This may not be important enough to need an official convention, but I thought I should consult with the project before making further changes. -Testpored (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of making the title more concise and it is good to remove the second header as it serves no purpose. Having said that, shortening the section title to just "Top 10 wins" takes it a step too far because it now becomes ambiguous. Why not remove the second header (as you did) and name the first one "Wins over Top 10 players". That is still short and concise but now there can be no confusion over exactly what is displayed in this section. Apart from that I would have to disagree with your assessment that these table are 'well-designed'. There are several formatting and other issues with the example table of Lucie Šafářová: 1) Unnecessary use of color; the yellow background in the headers of the first table and the year row in the main table have no purpose and should be removed. 2) The colors used for the tournament categories are not according to the article guidelines. 3) The color usage in the fields 'Rank', 'Surface' and 'Round' is not explained. 4) The 'Score' field should not be sortable. 5) The values in the 'Round' column should not repeat the word. 6) The 'Year' row which spans the table disables the sorting function and goes against Help:Table#Sorting and accessibility guidelines. --Wolbo (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, "Wins over top 10 players" is a good middle ground for the header (note the lower-case "top" since it's not the start of the title). But I forgot to mention before that I've also moved a couple of these top 10 lists under a broader "Record against other players" section (also containing multiple H2H lists) for Nadal and Djokovic. In these sub-section cases a simple "Top 10 wins" header suffices, but I have no objection to making these top 10 lists their own sections with the full title.

Regarding your style critique, 1) The yellow background doesn't bother me, but removing it is fine too. 2) Safarova is an outlier for having a legend included, but most top 10 lists use the same colors as Finals lists and performance timelines. 3) the opponent ranking color background usually is consistent and the same as year-end ranking colors in the performance timelines. Haven't paid attention to surface or round, though. 5) the verbose style of writing "No." and "round" is in some of the women's lists I've seen but not the men's, e.g. Rafa and Novak. The men's style is definitely better: more concise and looks nicer. 4,6) I really like the year rows, as they provide nice separation for these lists, especially for the top players with lots of wins. So I'm in favor of removing sortability altogether. -Testpored (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Scores on tournament tables

I have started working on players pages to clean up the Grand Slam tables and have several questions.

1. It seems to me that scores should be referenced to a credible source (i.e official tournament websites that have archived score pages, or reliable printed sources) so readers can be confident in their accuracy. I have started adding the refs. to pages I've been working on by placing a small column at the end of the table to house these ref numbers. that way it is clear that the ref. was for the scores (see example here). I've since been informed that the current standard is to place the ref. next to the tournament name but this seems to me to be unclear. I would propose that the column at the end of tables makes a clearer solution. What do other editors think?

Tennisvine, welcome to the tennis project, hope you enjoy your stay. To illustrate the issue with examples, the question raised is if an extra column should be added with reference(s) like

Result	Year	Championship	Surface	Opponent	Score
Runner-up	1914	Australasian Championships	Grass	Arthur O'Hara Wood	6–4, 6–3, 5–7, 6–1	[1]
Winner	1919	Wimbledon	Grass	Norman Brookes	6–3, 7–5, 6–2	[2]
Runner-up	1920	Wimbledon	Grass	Bill Tilden	2–6, 6–3, 6–2, 6–4	[2]
Runner-up	1922	Australasian Championships	Grass	James Anderson	6–0, 3–6, 3–6, 6–3, 6–2	[1]
Winner	1922	Wimbledon	Grass	Randolph Lycett	6–3, 6–4, 6–2	[2]
Runner-up	1925	Australasian Championships	Grass	James Anderson	11–9, 2–6, 6–2, 6–3	[1]
Winner	1927	Australian Championships	Grass	John Hawkes	3–6, 6–4, 3–6, 18–16, 6–3	[1]

or should references be added to the tournament names, like:

Result	Year	Championship	Surface	Opponent	Score
Runner-up	1914	Australasian Championships [1]	Grass	Arthur O'Hara Wood	6–4, 6–3, 5–7, 6–1
Winner	1919	Wimbledon [2]	Grass	Norman Brookes	6–3, 7–5, 6–2
Runner-up	1920	Wimbledon [2]	Grass	Bill Tilden	2–6, 6–3, 6–2, 6–4
Runner-up	1922	Australasian Championships [1]	Grass	James Anderson	6–0, 3–6, 3–6, 6–3, 6–2
Winner	1922	Wimbledon [2]	Grass	Randolph Lycett	6–3, 6–4, 6–2
Runner-up	1925	Australasian Championships [1]	Grass	James Anderson	11–9, 2–6, 6–2, 6–3
Winner	1927	Australian Championships [1]	Grass	John Hawkes	3–6, 6–4, 3–6, 18–16, 6–3

or perhaps references should be added to the score section, like:

Result	Year	Championship	Surface	Opponent	Score
Runner-up	1914	Australasian Championships	Grass	Arthur O'Hara Wood	6–4, 6–3, 5–7, 6–1[1]
Winner	1919	Wimbledon	Grass	Norman Brookes	6–3, 7–5, 6–2 [2]
Winner	1920	Wimbledon (2)	Grass	Bill Tilden	2–6, 6–3, 6–2, 6–4[2]
Winner	1922	Australasian Championships	Grass	James Anderson	6–0, 3–6, 3–6, 6–3, 6–2 [1]
Winner	1922	Wimbledon (3)	Grass	Randolph Lycett	6–3, 6–4, 6–2 [2]
Runner-up	1925	Australasian Championships	Grass	James Anderson	11–9, 2–6, 6–2, 6–3 [1]
Winner	1927	Australian Championships (2)	Grass	John Hawkes	3–6, 6–4, 3–6, 18–16, 6–3 [1]

Here's how wide it could be in a mixed table:

Result	Date	Category	Tournament	Surface	Opponent	Score
Runner-up	January 24, 1914	Grand Slam	Australasian Championships, Australia (3)	Grass	Arthur O'Hara Wood	6–4, 6–3, 5–7, 6–1[1]

I did indeed indicate to Tennisvine that the second option is the current standard (see e.g. Tony Wilding career statistics), but this only applies to tables that have references. The standard situation is in fact that a player's (Grand Slam) tournament results table does not have any references at all. So the first question to be answered is should the finals in these results tables be (individually) referenced or not? The only reason the Tony Wilding table has individual references for each tournament is that the standard sources (ATP, ITF websites) do not provide this info.--Wolbo (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A separate column at the end seems more logical to me, since the reference applies to the information given in the entire row, not just one cell. This format is commonly used in other articles (outside tennis), see e.g. List of world records in swimming. But it also makes the tables wider. Gap9551 (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I see it a little different. First, none of the tables is standard. This is obviously a table of Grand Slam tournament finals. The tournament name is linked only the first time, and players are only linked the first time. I usually put a score ref after the score, but often someone comes along and puts it somewhere else. I only put the ref if it is not in the standard ATP or WTA website. If all the scores are from a book we wouldn't need an extra column since that could be mentioned after the table in a note. It's minor but the reason I'm not a big fan of putting the ref after the tournament name is because we have another convention here where we number the wins after the tournament name. So we'd have two number with a ref. Other items to think about... this is only a Grand Slam tournament table. Many tables have mixed tournament types. Then standard is to also include a column on category (slam, 1000 series, 500 series, etc) and the tournament category would also need a location such as United States. Many are given full dates, not just a year. That makes the table much wider than is shown here. I gave an example above, and that's without a separate reference column. Not everyone has a widescreen monitor. I'm flexible on the issue, but we have to be careful in setting standards since they will encompass many different types of tables. As a project we have certainly set many standards, but we have also left many items open to variance so as not to be too cookie-cutter-like. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

2. I have been finding that the tournament names in the table are either linked to the general tournament page – U.S. Open (tennis) – or to the tournament page for that year – 1978 U.S. Open (tennis). I would propose that the clearest format would be that the tournament name links to the general page for that tournament and the year is the link to the tournament page for that year. What do other editors think?

There is clearly a level of inconsistency regarding the linking of tournaments. In addition to linking to tournaments and tournament editions a third option which is (increasingly) used is linking to the tournament event – 1978 US Open – Men's Singles. There also seems to be a difference between Grand Slam and regular tournaments, or to be more precise between tournaments that just have a year as date (sometimes linked to tournament edition, sometimes not linked) and full dates (never linked). All this inconsistency can be confusing for readers so it is a good point to raise and to try to establish a common practice.--Wolbo (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think readers who click links in the results tables (especially in career statistics articles) are generally already familiar with the sport of tennis, and are unlikely to be looking for the general tournament article, especially in the case of famous tournaments like Grand Slams. Readers who are unfamiliar with tennis are more likely to read the intro section on the biographical article or the infobox on the top right, which should include links to the general tournament articles. In the results tables, I'd prefer links to the tournament edition and the tournament event. And I'd also prefer full dates of the finals (these can be hard to find sometimes, even in the edition or event article, and are useful if you want to see how many titles a player won before a given age, for example). Gap9551 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Something else that has confused some editors is what date to put into the column. The date of the beginning of the tournament or the actual date of the finals. And if we say the date of the finals, some of those finals dates aren't known for older players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to further clarify what I'm proposing - The date should link to the tournament event - 1978 US Open – Men's Singles when there is an existing page, if not - 1978 US Open – Men's Doubles, then the date should link to the tournament edition - 1978 U.S. Open (tennis). The tournament name should link to the general tournament page - U.S. Open (tennis) - I don't think any assumptions should be be made about who is reading these pages or following the links, I think the criteria for a common practice should be what's most logical and easiest to navigate. As to the point of including full dates - It seems to me, that is a level of detail that's better left to the tournament edition and tournament event pages, rather than getting too detailed within a table. Tennisvine (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have dates in the event articles rather than in every biographical (or career stats) article, ideally for every round. It's relevant information but not of interest to most readers. And it also good to at least provide a link to the most specific article available about the event. By the way, I do think it can be helpful to think about what kind of readers are most likely to be reading certain information (see e.g. Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers, which is not an official guideline by the way). The whole point of Wikipedia is to serve readers (like customers) by providing useful and relevant information to them, and to do that it is good to have an general idea about what might be of interest to a typical reader of a given article or section. That means that for example an intro section should be general, and that a career stats article can provide more detail than a biographical article, such as score lines and head-to-head records. Automatically you would arrive at a situation that is most logical and easiest to navigate, I think. We probably don't disagree about anything fundamental. Gap9551 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

3. In cases where the player is a runner-up I have noticed that sometimes the score is ordered with the runner up first (i.e. 3–6, 3–6) and other times where it's ordered the standard way (i.e. 6–3, 6–3). I'm guessing that in the cases where it is ordered backwards, that is to reflect the runners-up score first, but I found this confusing (god knows tennis scoring can be confusing enough) and would propose that the scoring should follow the standard format in most cases. What do other editors think? Tennisvine (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are talking about a specific player and his/her record, then his/her score goes first. If they lost it would be 3–6, 7–5, 2–6... if they won it would be 6–3, 5–7, 6–2. The rest I'm not sure of. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It is an established consensus since a number of years that scores are listed from the player's perspective, so a runner-up score would be 3–6, 7–5, 2–6, not 6–3, 5–7, 6–2. This has become even more significant since we started listing all finals for a player in one table (instead of two), with the first column stating the outcome ('Winner' or 'Runner-up'). In this setup the score order is an additional visual clue for the reader to distinguish between a win and a loss.--Wolbo (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I will go in and correct the order of those runner-up scores I ordered incorrectly. Thank You. Any thoughts on questions 1 and 2? Tennisvine (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)