Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Tennis (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Proposal to remove WTA Tier I tournaments from active players' performance timelines[edit]

I am proposing that we keep results from the WTA Tier I events in the performance timelines of retired players but remove them from the performance timelines of active players for the following reasons:

  1. The Tier I events have been replaced by the WTA Premier Mandatory and/or Premier 5 events so only the latter two types of events should be included as they reflect the current structure of the WTA Tour.
  2. Most of the Tier I events (with the exception of a few) have retained their status as "masters" tournaments as they are part of the Premier Mandatory or Premier 5 event categories anyway.
  3. Some of the Tier I events e.g. Berlin are no longer held whilst others such as Charleston and Moscow have been demoted to Premier status, so their inclusion in the performance timelines of active players could confuse readers that are new to the topic of tennis. The inclusion of discontinued tournaments such as Berlin would also be redundant as they no longer exist.
  4. The general consensus seems to be that Tier I events should not be included in performance timelines as the vast majority of articles on wikipedia tend to have performance timelines that include Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 results but omit Tier I events. This has been the norm for quite some time now.
  5. Some readers may question why some active players have Tier I results included whilst others do not, so removing the WTA Tier I events would encourage consistency across the board and would also be the logical option given the current structure of the tour – younger players cannot obtain results from Tier I events as their "masters" results will come from the Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 events.
  6. Eliminating the Tier I events from performance timelines would keep this table as clear and concise as possible as these charts tend to be placed in "career statistics" articles, which tend to be quite lengthy and detailed as well.

A few other notes

  1. WTA Tier I events should remain in the performance timelines of retired players such as Lindsay Davenport as these tournaments were relevant when she was most active, and she cannot obtain results from Premier Mandatory or Premier 5 events (the current structure of the WTA Tour) as she is no longer active.
  2. If players have won and/or finished as runner-up at a WTA Tier I event, these results should remain within their career finals tables and "masters" finals tables for obvious reasons.

What does everyone else think about this proposal? If there is consensus to remove the WTA Tier I tournaments from performance timelines, then I will add to this to the project's article guidelines. JayJ47 (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... my first inclination would be to say "I don't agree." We have the performance timelines to indicate how a player does in the biggest tournaments of their generation... regardless of what they are called. Today for the ladies those are the Majors, Premier Mandatory&5, YEC, Olympics, Fed Cup. But before then it was the Tier 1 events. My thinking is that if they overlap in a players' career we would show both unless a player didn't enter them at all. Why would you think it would be that difficult for our readers? If some feel it is, we could always add a sentence to the mandatory performance key. It already has NMS. Right now our standard is to include only a Grand Slam tournament performance chart on a player's main page, and the full chart on the Career Statistics page. I think the Tier 1 events fit ok on the Career Statistics page but maybe I'm alone in this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Isn't it a bit ambiguous to say we should remove them from active players and keep them for retired players. Say, for example, your proposal goes ahead and we remove them from active players such as Serena Williams. When she retires do we then add her Tier 1 events back in or leave them missing, even though they were relevant when she was playing them? For what it's worth, I'd also be against this anyway for the same reasons stated above although I'm probably not the best person for an opinion on this as I don't do much editing to WTA players articles. Username of a generic kind (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
It was just an idea. The main reasons why I'm proposing this is because I think it's a bit redundant to include tournaments (irrespective of their status) that do not reflect the current structure of the WTA Tour and that are no longer held in performance timelines. Like I've said before, most of the Tier I events have retained their masters status by being categorised as "Premier Mandatory" and "Premier 5" events, so if the Tier I events were to be removed, then we'd only be losing results from a few tournaments such as Berlin and Moscow. As for your comment on Serena Williams, that's a good point that I hadn't considered before. In cases like hers, I'd still be in favour of keeping just her results from the Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 events, as this would reflect the most recent structure of the WTA Tour. So I guess my main argument would be to have performance timelines reflect the most recent structure of the WTA Tour, as I personally feel that this would be most beneficial to the vast majority of readers who are probably only interested in finding out the results of an active player during this particular day and age. I'm not saying I'm completely right though and I stress that my proposal is merely a suggestion not an affirmation of something that is set stone and about to be implemented. JayJ47 (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@JayJ47, confused readers can search on Wiki for extra information about what, why & when. There is no need of removing, we can keep it in this way of thinking - Dementieva's performance timeline - just in another subsection. Arbeit10 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with JayJ47's comments. Keeping just the tournaments in the performance timeline that are part of the current structure while leaving out older tournaments of the same standing and importance is a textbook case of recentism. The example of Dementieva's performance timeline mentioned above is also far from ideal. It anachronistically misrepresents the editions of certain tournaments up to 2008 (e.g. Indian Wells and Key Biscayne) as WTA Premier Mandatory tournaments while they were in fact Tier I tournaments. And in doing so it also misrepresents the number of Tier I tournaments during that period. --Wolbo (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Need help with Women's tennis article[edit]

The Women's tennis article I think needs additional help any would be welcome. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Meh, why do we need an article for Women's tennis? --Stryn (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that is the question that first needs to be answered. I am not (yet) convinced that we need a separate article for women's tennis, anymore than we need one for men's tennis. I realize other sports have separate articles for women but the situations are largely different. In many of those sports the women only started participating at a (much) later date and/or don't have the same coverage and attention as the men. In comparison in tennis the women's game has been an integral part of the sport since almost the very beginning (even if it didn't always have equal footing) and this is reflected in our tennis articles. Also we already have the ATP and WTA articles that cover the men's and women's tours respectively.--Wolbo (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts from other editors as to whether we should have a separate Women's tennis article or not?--Wolbo (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd say no. Women's Tennis Association suffices. Username of a generic kind (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Championships/Tour Finals in tennisplayers infoboxes[edit]

Hello, WikiProject Tennis.

I looked at a few articles (ex Maria Sharapova and Roger Federer), and something in the infobox struck me as odd. Under "Other tournaments" we have either "Championships" or "Tour Finals". Thanks to the wikilinks I now know what that meant in this context, but on the face of it, it looks weird, perhaps more so (for me) since english is not my first language and I don´t know that much about tennis.

I realize that Championships/Tour Finals can be practical because they´re short, but would it benefit readers in general to have the longer description, or a clearer (if that´s possible) abbrevation in the infobox? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I understand the desire to keep the tournament name on a single line in the infobox. If possible it is preferable. The "Tour Finals" label for the men is fine, accurate and unambiguous, but the women's label "Championships" is way too ambiguous and therefore confusing and needs to be changed. A logical option could be "WTA Championship". Another option is to use "Tour Finals" just like the men if that is considered generic enough or, alternatively, "Year-end Finals" for both the men's and women's tournaments. I tried the last option and it does fit on a single line.--Wolbo (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for talking! You say that "Tour Finals" is unambiguous. It doesn´t seem that way to me, since Tour Finals/ATP World Tour Finals and the four tournaments above that in the infobox are all described as "tennis tournaments". But then again, I may not really know what I´m talking about here, so I´ll trust what you say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes they are all tennis tournaments but they are placed in different categories (Grand Slam, Other tournaments) to clarify the distinction. And "Tour Finals" is both distinctive and descriptive which makes it unambiguous, in contrast to the generic label "Championships" which could apply to any tennis tournament. Given that the WTA Tour Championships will be renamed to WTA Finals per the 2014 edition it makes sense to change the "Championships" label to "Tour Finals".--Wolbo (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I proposed the change on the infobox template talk page. Please add any feedback there.--Wolbo (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The label for the field WTA Championships has been updated from "Championships" to "Tour Finals".--Wolbo (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Grand slam champions who saved match points (from 2000)[edit]

I propose to merge the article Grand slam champions who saved match points (from 2000) into the List of Grand Slam related tennis records and remove the 'from 2000' limitation. This was already proposed in 2012 by MakeSense64 but got no reactions which is why I am posting it here. I see no reason or justification for having a separate article on this specific Grand Slam statistic and it clearly fits the scope of the Grand Slam related tennis records article. In my view we already have too many tennis records and statistics articles and would do well to limit that list to make it less confusing to our readers. This could be an easy start to that. Thoughts? --Wolbo (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Grand slam champions who saved match points (from 2000) has been merged into List of Grand Slam related tennis records.--Wolbo (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Joint notable/non-notable tournaments[edit]

I have a difference of opinion with another editor on what we should do when a notable men's event is joined with a non-notable ladies event. Per our guidelines the ladies section is not notable so it's inclusion should be voided. There was a discussion of this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astra Italy Tennis Cup where the ladies $10,000 ITF event had actually broken off to form a separate article. It was agreed to merge it with the mens event to at least list the ladies champions. I'm not sure this was ideal to list the gals non-notable winners but there aren't all that many of these dual-level joined events, so a list of winners seemed no big deal as a compromise. Now it appears we have another of the same things at the 2014 Tampere Open. The men's event is a challenger event while for the women its the non-notable lowest level ITF event. I have the same issues as I did with the former discussion, but again, since they are rare, to have a list of the non-notable ladies winners seemed no big deal. BUT... not with separate non-notable draw articles for ladies doubles and singles as has been done at 2014 Tampere Open – Women's Doubles and 2014 Tampere Open – Women's Singles. To me that's gone too far against our Guidelines. I redirected the articles but they were redirected back. Do we want to tighten up our guideline wordage to make sure this doesn't keep happening or do we want to change our guidelines to allow these articles? As I said, I can live with the Ladies champions being listed on the main article page (but even that is really against our guidelines as they stand now) but to include draw page articles for the non-notable event seems way over the top unless rules are changed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything you're saying. The winners can be listed on the tournament page as the tournament itself is notable so there's nothing wrong with having them there. The draw pages should definitely be removed as they are stand alone articles with no notability. I think just an extra sentence in the tennis notability guidelines explaining this should suffice. Username of a generic kind (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
If the women's event is indeed not notable per our guidelines then logically there should be no separate draw articles such as 2014 Tampere Open – Women's Doubles and 2014 Tampere Open – Women's Singles. I see no reason for creating them. The presence of a notable men's event does not in itself lend notability to the women's event.--Wolbo (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course I see it differently but can't say more than I already have done here at User talk:Fyunck(click)#Not happy. Jared Preston (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Because my talk page gets deleted from time to time it's probably best if I post your keys points here for others to consider since they are reasonable concerns. You had said:

Editor Jared Preston - "This tournament is a dual-sex joint tournament for men and for women. It doesn't matter that the women earn less money or may be ranked lower, the Tampere Open is a notable tournament which grants the draws to be notable. Not even all Challenger Tour participants are notable, so it's not a case of a notable tournament only being open to notable players etc. I won't accept the argument that other wiki-users may create drawsheets for non-notable tournaments – the WS and WD here do not fit into this category. Where are you going to stop? Deleting junior draws at Grand Slams because junior tennis isn't notable or just in case someone creates a drawsheet for some grade 5 junior tournament?"

I hope that works for you Jared. While I don't agree with it, they are points worth noting in this discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
That's very forthcoming, thank you. Obviously I spend a lot of time editing on the ITF tour events, and I'm very much an inclusionist. The line has to be drawn somewhere, so I'm not alluding to creating drawsheets or articles on all sub-$50,000 tournaments, as is done on the Italian Wikipedia (crazy, and what a mess too!), but when a larger event such as one on the Challenger Tour is organised with women's events too, I (stubbornly, maybe) cannot see why the women's events shouldn't be included. Just like at Grand Slams, we have the junior draws – and I'm well aware of the difference that a winner of a junior slam is notable whereas the winner of an ITF sub-50k tournament isn't, but my argument is about all the events at what is otherwise a notable tournament. In fact I created these to be comprehensive, even though I understand the refutations. It's not that I feel completely exonerated in this position, but other members of the tennis project have even helped with updating the scores of the events in question, so they are of interest to some people even if others are against. Anyway, that's the way I see it and it's always good to have dialogue. Jared Preston (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Davis Cup/Fed Cup categories[edit]

Whilst I'm here, I'd quite like to make a suggestion about something which I've thought about a few times before. We have Category:Hopman Cup competitors, so why not have categories for Davis Cup and Fed Cup competitors? Broken down into competitors by country, I know that would mean a lot of new categorisation for starts, but any tennis player correctly placed in these categories would confirm they are notable by project standards. It works well on the German Wikipedia, as can be seen at de:Kategorie:Davis-Cup-Spieler and de:Kategorie:Fed-Cup-Spielerin and works quite well for comprehensive categorising of tennis players who have represented their country internationally. Other sportspeople are categorised similarly too (Category:United States men's international soccer players, Category:Germany international footballers, Category:Canada men's national ice hockey team players etc etc.)... so would anyone counter this idea? Jared Preston (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, it's significant enough to warrant a separate category. A while back I thought about creating a category for Davis Cup / Fed Cup winners but didn't act on it. Could become a subcategory of David Cup / Fed Cup players. In contrast I'm not convinced that participating in a Hopman Cup competition is significant enough to warrant a Category:Hopman Cup competitors.--Wolbo (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Grand Prix Championship Series[edit]

Their is a request open to change the name of the Grand Prix Championship Series article to Grand Prix Super Series. Comments are welcome.--Wolbo (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The RM has been relisted to allow more feedback.--Wolbo (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Tennis tournaments pre Open era[edit]

Excluding Grand Slam tennis tournaments, are there notability criteria about the other tournaments played from 1877 to 1968, namely before the Open era of tennis?--Matlab1985 (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Good question. The Article Guidelines don't give any guidance on this and that shortcoming should be addressed. The pre-Open era non-Grand Slam tournaments that are currently handled as notable are the team competitions Davis Cup, Federation Cup and Wightman Cup and we have pre-1968 articles for those. Almost all other tournaments do not currently have year articles going back further than 1968 with a few exceptions like the Trofeo Conde de Godó which has some year articles from the 1950s. Other tournaments, like the Pacific Southwest Championships, have a navbox at the bottom of the page with links to their pre-1968 editions but, as yet, no pre-1968 year articles for those tournaments exist. In my view the present situation, where at least 95% of all tournament articles are Open era, is unbalanced and amounts to recentism. Pre-Open era tournaments mostly did not have all the best players (they excluded the professionals) but that does not mean they are not notable, certainly not by definition. To address this unbalance we could add a simple guideline stating that if a certain tournament is notable in the Open era all pre-Open era editions of that tournament are notable as well and articles for those editions can be created (provided that reliable sources are available). This does not cover everything but it would be a decent starting point. In the absence of explicit guidelines as always it is best to just use common sense.--Wolbo (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I would probably use the term "usually" in the sentence "all pre-Open era editions of that tournament are <usually> notable as well" It's a little more subjective back then. Or possibly start it with "As a general rule of thumb..." I think Wolbo's addition is a good place to start because it is pretty unbalanced as it stands. Usually the biggest events were the tournaments named after their nation... the Irish championships, the Scottish championships, but many of those exist today with slight name changes. I would think that most older tournaments listed in Tennis Archives would be notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
How about: "If a certain tournament is notable in the Open era all pre-Open era editions of that tournament can be considered notable as well if supported by reliable sources."--Wolbo (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Grand Prix Championship Series RM[edit]

Members of this project may be interested in participating in Talk:Grand Prix Championship Series#Requested move. Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

WCT Seasonal Triple Crowns and GP Triple Crowns[edit]

Hi I came across this name refering to a WCT "Triple Crown Concept" from the New York Times in 1981 found here: whilst looking for sources for the discussion regarding the GP championships series RM. I also came across the term being used on the GP tour in from the London Telegraph Newspaper in 1977 found here: London Telegraph July 26 1977., this from the Saraosta Herald Newspaper in 1976 stating the French Open, Wimbledon and Forest Hills as "Triple Crown" events: Saraosta Herald Jan 23 1976 does anyone know anything about this and can you please share your knowledge. --Navops47 (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Early reference here from the Sydney Morning Hearld in 1975:Sydney Morning Herald Nov 5 1975 applied to Majors but this diversifies later on the tour to included a combination of Slam and non-slam events. There are also references to the name regarding the womens tour found her in January 1977 Valley News .

New tennis formatting template being used[edit]

I've been noticing a new template being employed by an editor (Vencin)... especially on yearly articles. There seem to have been a whole bunch of templates made based on Template:Tennis sm match. Maybe it loads better or codes smaller, but for some reason it's uncomfortable for me to work with. If everyone loves it then I guess I'll just have to learn how to cope with fixing incorrect scores and such. Examples would be, original coding 2013 Novak Djokovic tennis season new coding 2014 Novak Djokovic tennis season. Andy Murray and Nadal 2014 season have been changed to this formatting, but the Roger Federer 2014 season isn't affected yet, but I'm sure it will be. I thought I'd bring it up here to see what our editors think. I don't know the reasoning for the change but it's harder for me to code. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

These new templates do look very different from the wikitable templates we normally use and are accustomed to so in that sense it is understandable that they are uncomfortable for experienced editors. The end-result on the player season article does look nice and tidy with the horizontal divider between the tournaments and the 'Match' header instead of the '#' but I'm sure the same result could be achieved with the wikitable templates. I have no idea what the raison d'être for these new templates is so why don't we invite the editor over to tell us about them, explain why they were made and what the benefits are over the existing templates.--Wolbo (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
With these templates all pages are identical (color, width, etc.). All templates have documentation how to use (Template:Tennis sm header, Template:Tennis sm tournament, Template:Tennis sm match, Template:Tennis sm footer). User not need to put color of tournament (only set c=1000), not need to set color for round and result (only set 1R, SF, W and Win or Loss for result) template set automatic color.

I have and other tennis template:

--Vencin (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit I find the templates created by Vencin very beneficial. I've been editing the Andy Murray 2014 season and as a relatively new editor I find them very easy to use. It saves me having to check what colour each round/tournament needs to be as has already pointed out. Obviously it's a bit of a change for anyone who has been editing season articles for several years, but I feel it definitely makes it easier for new users to edit the wiki pages. Username of a generic kind (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
That's why I brought it here... I had no idea if editors love it or hate it. Some corrections need to be done. I fixed one of them but in another, the rtc value of totaling wins or losses needs to be changed to "small" at Template:Tennis_sm_match_result_text. It should be 3 not 3. I'm not sure the rtc number should be bolded as the win is, but that's a minor matter. In looking at the Djokovic 2014 season, The opponent should be simply the opponent. No need for a confusing number after the name that is different than the ranking column... it's not as clean and can be confusing to readers. The chart does look nice and it's easier to control color where I'm not having to go around correcting editors personal color choices. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I edit the template and the rtc value is "small" now :) --Vencin (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Much better. I also tweaked the "bye" so it's more traditional and not centered... eyes see it more readily. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you better centered. In old pages "bye" is in center (2013 Novak, 2013 Andy, 2013 Rafael, 2012 Novak, etc.)--Vencin (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
None of the Federer seasonal articles are centered. Neither are some of the earlier Nadal seasons. When I run down the list of opponents names, where I expect to see a name I expect to see a bye, not blank white space. I'll have to carry this on later next week as I'll likely be away from computers till Thursday. Later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Manual of Style for career statistics/other tennis articles?[edit]

I know in the article guidelines section on the project page there is a clear indication of what should go in a tennis player or Davis/Fed Cup team article, but there doesn't seem to be any guidelines for other tennis related articles. Just thought I'd bring this up given the discussions above about the templates used in season articles, as ideally we should be aiming for consistency across all articles.
One thing I wanted to know is what is expected to go in career statistics articles. For example, with the Big Four, each of them has a section for h2h against top ranked players but the ranking limit is different for each of the four (5, 10, 20 and 30). Some also include all Olympic results and some have exho finals. Different articles also have milestone wins or winning streaks but there doesn't seem to be any strict guidelines.
Is this something that we should look to have with a clearly set out MOS or do people not consider this to be a matter of significance? Thoughts? Username of a generic kind (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season AfD[edit]

The article 2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season has been proposed for deletion. For some reason this does not show in the Article Alerts on our project page so I'm adding a notification here.--Wolbo (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added my comments to this discussion. --Navops47 (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thx. It actually does now show on the Article Alerts, probably because of the WikiProject tag that was added on the talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Wolbo point taken from your comments on AFD Maria Sharapopva tennis season discussing inclusion criteria for article guidelines per WPT, but the recent move of Grand Prix Championship Series to Grand Prix Super Series was argued from your viewpoint on Wikipedia:GNG because you could not find enough sources on the word " Championship" but could on "Super" hence the move the other editor is highlighting the same fact on the word "Season" in the title I was not involved in the guideline discussion for the season articles due to work commitments maybe we should look again at the guidelines the problem however will not go away if other non-project editors cite WP:GNG for proposed AFD because not enough source material is being generated to support the article title.I did a quick source search for just Maria Sharapova in 2013 no exact name tried mutiple word endings again no single significant coverage so I don't know where you go from here--Navops47 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Correction I was involved briefly and apologise for the above comment please see the AFD Sharpaova for further comments.--Navops47 (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No need at all to apologise. My arguments for renaming the Grand Prix Championship Series article to Grand Prix Super Series were not so much based on notability (WP:GNG), in my view the article is clearly notable, but more so on verifiability (WP:V) and a concern that the article as it stood was in danger of deletion on grounds of original research (WP:OR). I'll leave the detailed discussion of the Sharapova season article at AfD but please note that the article already has three references that provide coverage of the topic. If you feel we need to look again at our criteria for season player articles just reopen the discussion. The article guidelines are never set in stone, they are organic and evolve in line with the viewpoints and practices within the project as well as within the broader wiki community. They are simple the opinions and guidance within the project on how to create the best possible tennis articles for our readers. Nothing more, but also nothing less.--Wolbo (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I was away for a week and noticed this. Has something changed in wiki season articles in the last few months? I looked at the WP:NSEASONS section and it really only applies to team/organizations... not tennis superstars. I argued against all season articles way back in the day, but it has a long history now and is part of our core of consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There are wider implications in the outcome of this debate take Dirtlawyer1's reply to a comment I made "Navops, WP:NSEASONS does not include guidelines for individual player seasons because no one ever contemplated that 100,000-byte single-season articles would ever be created for individual athletes. It has nothing to do with coverage produced by team publicists; such coverage is not independent of the subject, and cannot be used to support the notability of a subject." well that certainly affects this article 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season where the entire sources quoted are written by a staff publicist at the club and infact quite number of the season articles for that team alone.--Navops47 (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Does he/she have something against tennis or sports in general? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I would have to say no they have produced 114 articles covering different sports some including tennis some of which have been given GA status and contributes to a wide spectrum of sports related articles--Navops47 (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
So it's specifically seasonal articles then... ok. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

List of tennis rivalries[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the inclusion criteria for the list of tennis rivalries. If interested please add your comments there.--Wolbo (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)