Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

Sharapova GAR

I have nominated Maria Sharapova for Good Article Reassessment. Please feel free to add comments here ‎or, better still, improve the article. Also, you can review my comments and concerns here.

Masters Series project

I am well on the way to creating the Masters Series articles I talked about (see this template) but I was wondering whether anyone was willing to do the singles draw pages and some of the lead sections on main articles (details on top seeds) as I only have time to create main pages. Some of the 1990s articles are given their sponsored names (e.g. 1998 Eurocard Open) and others their original name (e.g. 1998 Monte Carlo Open). Let me known on my talk page or here if you can help. 03md (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? 03md (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm kinda interested in doing this, where can I start? MbahGondrong (talk) (MbahGondrong (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm also interested to help - I'm actually just starting to add draws to grand slam articles like f.e.2005 Australian Open - Women's Singles. I'm a real newbie, but I keep it safe by copying existing draw templates, feedback is appreciated. I'm sure I'm gonna keep running into articles to add simple draws or seeds lists for some time to comeSwirlingblacklilly (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

tennis_expert keeps doing the same with anonymous IPs

This time, he's using 75.34.102.227

I am tired of the "Key Biscane, Florida" instead of Miami, like it should be, so I'm going to take out the key biscane for all the articles related to the Miami master series. I know they're like a hundred or even more, but they are going to be changed, even with tennisexpert reverting continuously. Korlzor (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As we've discussed about 50 times already, Korlzor/Wikitestor, the tournament is held in Key Biscayne, Florida, not in Miami. That is a verifiable fact. See, for example, this. Aside from the location of the tournament, the women's event has never been a "masters" event. Never. And don't edit war about these issues. Wikitestor has been blocked indefinitely for abuse of editing privileges. Your sockmaster account, Korlzor, could be next if you persist in being disruptive. That account already was blocked for 12 days and then 1 month in October 2008. Tennis expert (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The tournament is called "Miami Masters" on both ATP/WTA and shortly it's called Miami, and it will be on Wikipedia. You both are the only ones defending the KB,F spam. We are taking it out. Btw, weren't you supposed to be retired? Korlzor (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Kolzor/Wikitesor/Numerous anon IPs: Your attitude is very disturbing - your blind and threatening behavior is very damaging for Wikipedia. You have been evading blocks as much as you could, so don't throw around accusaitons. Let it rest, for gods sake.--HJensen, talk 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

haha sure, the one that "because he wanted to" started to delete the grand slam and ms tables, on his own. Not even paying attention. Korlzor (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say "because I wanted to"? Your attitude is exceptionally hostile, and very unhelpful. What do you actually mean by "Not even paying attention"? --HJensen, talk 22:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And for 100th time, the Key Biscayne spam war starts again

Now the 2009 season will start, tables are being changed and Key Biscayne is starting to being spammed replacing Miami again.

So we are going to have the 100th Anti Key Byscaine Spam war. I don't give a shit what are u going to say TE, It's just I dont care where it is hold. It's called Miami. DOT.

Korlzor (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to all involved parties: Korlzor has been blocked for one month for hypocrisy (accusing Tennis expert of using IPs to edit war when he's been proven to have done the same), unnecessary hostility, incivility, and edit warring. Thanks. GlassCobra 17:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call. While Tennis Expert can be difficult to "dance with", he/she never resorts to the direct obscene incivility that Korlzor uses. It highly depreciates the value of his/her input 8 also the repeated use of IPs like this). As for the subject my stand is:

The physical location of the tounament is Key Biscayne, not Miami. However, even the tournament uses Miami as the postal address on its web site. So I guess it is one of these occasions where a suburb hosts a turnament, but one uses the large city (like Copenhagen Open which was held in Frederiksberg). But I was told on Tennis Experts talk page that my source was wrong (see here, which, by the way, is a censored version of the full debate).--HJensen, talk 18:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite his/her incivility, Korlzor has a point (say, half a point). The tournament's name is indeed Miami, since 2000. This can be seen on the ATP calendars (here) or on the ITF website (choose you start/end dates and search for Miami here). But the tournament of course takes place in Key Biscayne, as Tennis expert points out. So, using Miami or Key Biscayne depends on the context. You can say that Davydenko won Miami, or that he won in Key Biscayne, but saying he won Key Biscayne is as wrong as to say he won in Miami. Am I obscure here or is it understandable ? Miami is played in Key Biscayne. So Tennis expert is wrong to write Key Biscayne in the performance timelines, where you have only the tournaments' names (US Open, etc...) and not their locations, but Korlzor is wrong to replace Key Biscayne by Miami in the course of the text (as he/she has done here on Roger Federer), where it's perfectly alright to say Davydenko/Nadal or Federer played in Key Biscayne.
And as HJensen points out, this is true for the many tournaments which bear the name of a nearby city, rather than that of their actual locations : Copenhagen was played in Frederiksberg, Estoril is played in Oeiras, 's-Hertogenbosch is played in Rosmalen, Cincinnati is played in Mason, Monte Carlo is played in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, etc... --Oxford St. (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have expressed this better myself. Excellent summary! --HJensen, talk 12:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was kinda true. My problem is not seeing Key Biscayne on the prose, but the SPONSORED TOURNAMENT NAME. Anyways, the problem is also that if someone new to tennis reads the article, if he does read "He won in Key Biscayne, Florida", he won't have any idea about what tournament are we talking about. If he does read "He won The Miami MS", he will clearly know what tournament is is.62.57.197.191 (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The name of the tournament is the "Sony Ericsson Open", not the "Miami Masters". So, it's not valid to argue that "Miami Masters" is the name of the tournament and the tournament is held in Key Biscayne. This encyclopedia is concerned with verifiable facts, not with marketing strategies. Fact #1 is that the tournament is held in a tennis complex in Key Biscayne, Florida, a separate city from Miami. Fact #2 is that the name of the tournament is the Sony Ericsson Open. As for the Kolzor sockpuppet's argument, Key Biscayne creates no ambiguity for our readers given the links we provide. Tennis expert (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why u ever change Miami for Key Biscayne but never change Cincinnati for Mason. Do you live in Key Biscayne actually? 62.57.212.67 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you partially on a technical level Tennis expert, you have to consider the fact that to a general reader this sort of technicality can cause confusion. And if we decide to follow your example and decide to point out actual locations of the tournaments as shown by Oxford St., this would only increase the confusion of the reader. The whole point of writing an article is that the reader should have an instant understanding of the type and location of the tournament.

And 62.57.212.67, please refrain from making personal attacks. If you are incapable of continuing discussion assuming good faith, please do not contribute to the discussion. ^LeaveSleaves 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that our general readers are important but not so important that this encyclopedia should include factual errors. As for Oxford St.'s list of alleged factual errors, those should be fixed, too, if they really are errors. Tennis expert (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest, 62.57.212.67, that you immediately stop using sockpuppets to evade the 1 month block that was imposed on you lest the block be extended. See this block and this extensive list of Korlzor suspected sockpuppets. Tennis expert (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, now we need a solution that is both technically correct and at the same time understanding. Now Key Biscayne is a village near Miami that very few people have heard of. So I guess what we can do is add both when using it in the prose description. However when using in tables etc., we use only Miami, as this gives a clear idea to the reader of general location of the tournament. I guess this same rule can be applied to other similar cases as well, where the actual town/village of the tournament is not well known. I know that this description may not be geographically precise (e.g. Key Biscayne isn't exactly party of Miami city), but I think that it would be sufficient compromise that would achieve both our goals. ^LeaveSleaves 06:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves, nice attempt but TennisExpert isn't a person that actually reads and makes any peace with anyone, he considers that wikipedia is his duty, some articles like this one are owned by him and such... He NEVER asks to change anything, he comes in, changes it, and then reverts the whole people trying to put it back. He can even continuously break the 3RR rule, that he won't be banned (happened me twice, he reverted me, then I got banned and he just got a warning that he completely ignored..). It's pointless to argue with him, he is going to answer you "Wikipedia must have true information" and "Miami Masters is held on a complex on Key Biscayne,_Florida" (and the fun part is that he actually links to the Key Biscayne city into Key Biscayne (Key Biscayne,_Florida"), not to the Key Biscayne part where the tournament is held Key Biscayne).62.57.239.182 (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop IP hopping and once again, quit making personal attacks. Make a valid contribution if you can. As for me, I have an ability you can't seem to understand. ^LeaveSleaves 06:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your premise, LeaveSleaves. Key Biscayne is a well-known city in Florida, and the tournament itself is often reported in the news media as occurring in Key Biscayne. (See, for example, Bud Collins's 2008 tennis encyclopedia where he says the tournament occurs in Key Biscayne.) And Key Biscayne is not connected with Miami in any way whatsoever. They are entirely different legal entities. As for using a mixture of Miami and Key Biscayne in articles, I believe that would be even more confusing to readers. Tennis expert (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Key Biscayne, Florida, at least as given in the Wikipedia article is a village, not a city, in Miami-Dade County. In fact it is located no farther than 20-30 miles from Miami city. And as I said earlier, I'm not claiming that my suggestion is geographically (or legally for that matter) precise. What I'm trying to do is reach a solution that would satisfy both technical necessities and necessity of an ordinary reader anywhere in the world who has minimum knowledge of US or Florida geography. To such a person Miami is definitely an easy pointer compared to Key Biscayne. To summarize, a description that looks like this: Key Biscayne, Miami.

In the United States, the name of a municipality (city or village or whatever) has no consequence. What is relevant is whether it is an incorporated entity. Key Biscayne is, and it is not "in" Miami. I am opposed to intentional imprecision in an encyclopedia. That's OK, I suppose, for a commercial website like the ATP's or WTA's websites. But not for Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd once again like you to consider that the reader is not necessarily familiar with the geography and municipality system of US. Our focus is not on defining the settlement which holds the tournament but to give the reader a general idea of its location. And I'm not asking for removing mention of Key Biscayne, but to club it with Miami. Or do you also disagree with the fact that Key Biscayne is part of Miami-Dade County? ^LeaveSleaves 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to combine Key Biscayne with Miami, then it must be combined with the official name of the county, which is not "Miami". And I disagree with your assumption about our focus. This is an encyclopedia that needs to focus on facts. Tennis expert (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You may disagree, but the point on such a project is to get a global opinion of the situation (the so called consensus), and we just have to read the giant-discussion above about the sponsored vs non-sponsored articles, and to read this small one, to discover you are the only editor defending that, and thus you're forcing an entire community to be against you on such purposes. Keita24 (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) What about a new approach to listing the Masters tournaments that are factually correct:

• "Current tournament name (XXX Masters)"; which in this particular case would lead to
• "Sony Ericsson Open (Miami Masters)"

This would also avoid wikilinking to a redirect which is discouraged at FACs (as Key Biscayne does). Also, I don't understand the inconsistency of Tennis Expert: this edit uses different names for the Miami Masters. That is rather confusing. Well, I don't expect that any of this will be taken seriously, even it n>>1 support it and one doesn't. --HJensen, talk 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

@Tennis expert- If you carefully notice my links above, I am linking it to Miami-Dade county in my links and only hiding it by piping it with Miami, which I believe is a valid move because Miami-Dade county is very commonly referred to as Miami as well. I fail to understand why you choose to put your personal preferences above understanding of a common reader. ^LeaveSleaves 01:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your premise is incorrect. Why are you personally opposed to "Miami-Dade County"? That's the official, factual, legal name of the county, not "Miami County". Tennis expert (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've zero personal preference on the entire matter. I'm trying to reach a solution that is conducive on two levels as I have mentioned above. And please check the links carefully: Key Biscayne, Miami. I'm linking to Miami-Dade County in the second term. I'm only piping it with Miami, once again because Miami-Dade County is not a commonly known entity. I'm imploring you to show some level of compromise here and meet me halfway. The linking is factually and geographically correct. Only the appearance is slightly altered, and which is politically correct (no pun intended) by the way, to meet the second requirement. ^LeaveSleaves 12:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have zero personal preference, then you shouldn't mind using the correct "Miami-Dade County" and not the incorrect "Miami County". I don't know why I have to continue saying this, but Wikipedia should reflect the true facts. Key Biscayne is in "Miami-Dade County". There is no such thing as "Miami County". Therefore, piping to "Miami County" should not be done. Tennis expert (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite my lack of preference, I have some sensitivity towards the common reader. And I'm not referring it to as "Miami County" but simply as "Miami", which is completely common way of referring to Miami-Dade County. And don't forget that this achieves the goal of pinpointing the location of the obscure Key Biscayne. What I don't understand is why you have excessive and compulsive insistence on geographical accuracy at this place where it is perfectly feasible to convey the information in the simplest way possible that satisfies our major concerns. ^LeaveSleaves 20:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about, HJensen? Tennis expert (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was rather clear. But I will try again:

a) A new suggestion (to be used for all Masters Tournaments). OFFICIAL TOURNAMET NAME followed by its ATP MASTER SERIES NAME

b) Expressing a concern that in your edit you let "Miami Masters" be the name at some places, not at others (where you use Key Biscayne which is not the name).

c) Referring to a wikilinking issue. Using a link like Key Biscayne, as you have used in the Nadal article, is effectively a hidden link to a redirect, as "Sony Ericsson Open" is redirected to "Miami Masters". That is confusing the reader (and is not recommended by the MOS, see WP:EGG—and yes, I know it is a guideline not a policy; but I think guidelines should be ignored for very good reasons).

d) I end by anticipating that my input will not be taken seriously. --HJensen, talk 13:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I know I should probably wait for Tennis expert's response, but I can't help but say this. While you (Tennis expert) are continually asking me to remain factual and legal, I am appalled to notice that you are circumventing clear cut guidelines to suit your personal judgments and whims. ^LeaveSleaves 14:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should have waited, LeaveSleaves. I still have no idea what you are talking about, HJensen. Post a diff of an edit I've made to make yourself clear to me. If you don't like Key Biscayne, Florida, then I suggest tournament in Key Biscayne, Florida. That should solve your easter egg guideline concern. By the way, none of the following is an "ATP MASTERS SERIES NAME" of a tournament: Miami, Miami-Dade County, Miami County. So, again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Tennis expert (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I partially retract my comments. But I'd like to point out that your solution does not fit EGG. You are using redirect as a the main link, a usage which is discouraged. ^LeaveSleaves 20:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Retract further. Looks like I misread things. ^LeaveSleaves 20:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I did provide a link to your edit I commented on. If you don't understand this and the rest I have stated twice, I am sorry. I don't want to repeat myself again. If anybody else wants to comment on my suggestion they are more than welcome. (Why "tournament in Key Biscayne, Florida" should solve an Easter egg concern is beyond me - the reader is led to the "Miami Masters" article - but you need not respond.) --HJensen, talk 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You provided a link to a previous version of the article, not to the diff of an edit I made. I can't see what edit of mine you're objecting to without seeing the exact diff of that edit. But if you don't want to clarify your objection, you of course don't have to. As for the easter egg problem, the "tournament in Key Biscayne, Florida" is the tournament described in the "Miami Masters" article; therefore, problem solved. Tennis expert (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not. It is still an easter egg. And do you seriously suggest to introduce "tournament in Key Biscayne, Florida" in the performance timeline tables? If so, I would object (not that I think my opinion matters).--HJensen, talk 07:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

At least could we stop making such changes while we are discussing this? I mean, suddently, Tennis expert changed the tournaments name on Novak Djokovic to sponsored style again (this edit)). We are not reaching anything this way. Keita24 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It "is" Miami...ATP says so

Just joined you guys, the tournament is in Key Biscane, okay, but it is called Miami 1000/Masters, this is what the ATP calls it and this is what the TV shows, and the commentators say (official ATP English audio), someone please fill me in with the update and the summary of the discussion, from what I understand from the Wikipedia rules, the following is needed, a reference, and consensus, and of course no socket-puppets. From the ATP tournament profile, "Sony Ericsson Open | ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A. | March 25 - April 5, 2009"

Key Biscayne is an island located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, United States, may be that's the reason behind the ATP calling it Miami, that could be a reason, but we need to stick to sources, stick to the ATP please. (The county seat is the City of Miami.)

Also from the ATP website: Rafael Nadal, who is coming off his 13th ATP World Tour Masters 1000 title at the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, looks to win his first title at the Sony Ericsson Open. The two-time Miami finalist is looking to become the sixth different player (since 1991) to accomplish the Indian Wells-Miami title sweep.

The bold to show my point, no shouting here what so ever, make Wikipedia better and please stop the wars.

And lastly, from here: ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A. | Sony Ericsson Open | ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Yosef1987 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Having watched tennis for about a year now and getting familiar with all the tournament names I have noticed that the official tournament name and the masters series event names differ. The name that should be used is Miami since it is the Masters event name and that is what should be listed in players' statistical table under the heading of Tournament. For the 5th day now i have watched the Miami Masters on tv here in Africa and never once have i heard them mention Key Biscayne as the tournament name.

Therefore i think all players profiles should list Miami instead of Key Biscayne as i have noticed this error in Nadal, Federer and Sampras' pages just to name a few I have checked for. Saviour73 12:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. I do think this should apply only to the men's events and not the womens though. It seems to me to a common usgae issue, and the ATP has successfully pushed the idea of the 'Masters' series of events, whereas there is no such equivalent (i.e. no one talks about the 'prestigous Tier I series'). The Masters Series (ATP) events should be referred to by their common usage name (the name that the ATP uses and that the general public knows them by) and the WTA should use the general, current sponsor name (as no overriding 'Series' identity exists).

I do think though that commo usage applies to the women's events in terms of location, i.e. Miami, not Key Biscayne. This reflects both common usage, and a consistency with the men's events which seems generally preferable. AlonsornunezComments 15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who believes that this tournament is being held in Miami instead of Key Biscayne is just plain wrong. We have discussed this several times before, and it is a fact that the tournament is located in Key Biscayne. As for what the news media is reporting, do a Google search and you will find that much of the media is reporting the correct location. See, e.g. this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be factual, not reflect some marketing gurus who want to mislead people into thinking that the tournament is in downtown Miami or something. Tennis expert (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear TE, I agree with the correct location, but there is a tournament name we need to stick with, that's all, mention the location in the tournament page, that would be stating a fact, but not forcing a new tournament name (we need to contact the ATP for that). Would you rename this article's name: Miami Masters? Yosef1987 (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is specious. The tournament name is Sony Ericsson Open, and if we had any common sense, the name of the Wikipedia article would be that, too. Tennis expert (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, because sponsors change, now BNP Paribas has what? 2 tournaments in 2009? Irrelevant here. It is not a matter of common sense sir. Official non-sponsor names, wasn't a hard find. Yosef1987 (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Yosef1987 here, and it seems clear to me that Key Biscayne is, in common usage, considered a part of Miami; if I'm not mistaken it is considered a part of the 'Miami metropolitan area'. Additionally, we need to go with references and sources and those clearly favor Miami. Just look around. AlonsornunezComments 03:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy doesn't help anyone, Yosef1987. There is the BNP Paribas Masters in Paris and the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, California. Tennis expert (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wherever KB is located, it is not the point, we have an official name (besides the ever changing sponsor name) that we need to stick to, cannot be a simpler option, if I may say something, with all my respect to all the wonderful editors here, those edits made without consensus and by a mere personal opinion, I consider it a destructive editing. To change a tournament name we'd need to contact the ATP for that. Again I mean the best for Wiki. And I hope we reach somewhere soon, because this really cannot be serious, for a second I thought maybe it was an April's fool joke. Yosef1987 (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the note below the table on this page, and I am sure there are more examples, it has nothing to do with a location, they don't hate KB, but they've chosen an official name for it, and that is a verifiable reference, as well as it IS played in KB, but we are talking about the tournament and not the place, a player wins Miami Masters and not KB Masters. I really didn't add anything new here, just confirming my point of just pointing out the real location only in the tournament's article itself. Yosef1987 (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents please

Having just watched the QF between Fed and Rod, on the back of the court, where it says 2 big "Sony Ericsson", below it near the ground it says Miami all over the place

If there is a tournament in Cairo, Egypt and ATP decided to call it New York City Masters, for the encyclopedic entry, it would be named NYC masters, but it'd mention in the tournament's article that it is played in Cairo. I don't see Key Biscayne mentioned in the Miami Masters article (would you rename the article?); what I am saying is, mention it in the article's page, and that's it. And for what it's worth, Key Biscayne's county seat is the city of Miami. Stick to the official tournament names for an encyclopedia's sake. Now whoever is making those edits, would you please let me know in a clear fashion where I went wrong? And those who support/would like to add something, please do. Thank you! Yosef1987 (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Added bolds, is not shouting, sticking out the points only. Yosef1987 (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to do it right please

Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages. There are several available options to request opinions from editors outside the dispute. Other dispute resolution mechanisms include mediation or, after all other methods have been tried, arbitration.

From what I know, stick with references, from governing bodies, official names exist besides the sponsors, as mentioned a bit above. Yosef1987 (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding a link to another Miami reference, this one from noted journalist Peter Bodo. AlonsornunezComments 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Now what?

If this is going no where for now, I'd suggest reverting the edits made, because clearly a consensus has been reached(???), and I doubt(???) we'd need a poll for such a thing.

• The case is not only with Miami Masters, but as demonstrated, with others
• There is an official tournament name (other than the ever changing sponsor name) that we need to stick to, as demonstrated
• The correct location must be added to the tournaments' articles, that's for sure, and TE helped point out that
• From now on, as the rules say, we should discuss first before starting an edit-war
• Let's get to somewhere please quickly Yosef1987 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't ask any questions, which is apparently why you received no responses. In any event, the official name of the tournament according to the Association of Tennis Professionals is the "Sony Ericsson Open". You linked to a webpage that merely provides a series of links based on tournament location, not based on tournament name. No where does that page say "Miami Masters". Also, the official ATP tournament calendar says "Sony Ericsson Open", not "Miami Masters". Tennis expert (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for your input in the "Alone" section, anyway, the "calender", C&P: ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, the bold to show what was click-able, before FL, USA. Let's please not argue that there is only sponsors' names. Also where is Key Biscayne and Roquebrune-Cap-Martin (Monte-Carlo :)) and all the others. Also there is a drop down menu for the tournaments on the ATP website, check the naming.

To sum up, it IS played in KB, okay, but the ATP chose to call it Miami Masters (de facto) and (who ever sponsors) 2009, same for most of the tournaments, in the singles performance time-line tables, the column reads Tournament and not Location, and we cannot use a sponsor's name because by common sense they change every other year. What we would and should do, is mention Key Biscayne and Roquebrune-Cap-Martin and all the others in the tournament's articles, waiting for your feedback. Yosef1987 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

""Edit: The section is called "Now What?", and I got no response; until a consensus is met, all edits should be reverted, and if I am wrong, please let me know, because we cannot war and talk, and I, myself, don't war nor play games. Yosef1987 (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) Encouraging others to edit war is disruptive and could get you blocked. Don't go down that path. (2) I have already demonstrated that the ATP did not choose to call this tournament the "Miami Masters". Why do you not understand what's specifically written on the ATP website? (3) The fact that the tournament sponsors change periodically is inconvenient but irrelevant. (4) I have no objection to your changing any tennis tournament article to reflect the true location of the tournament. In fact, I encourage you to do so because the change would reflect the factual basis of this encyclopedia. Tennis expert (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Encouraging others to edit war??????? Me?!!!! Yosef1987 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Alone

Am I the only one on this? I have changed it on Nadal's page, TE changed it back, without saying anything here. Please TE when you get here, the simple 4 points above, I need a direct reply to each one, thank you. Yosef1987 (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not alone in this. It seems to me that Mr. Expert is unwilling to budge on this, and that we should proceed with a rough consensus (dating back to January as seen above). I think that this is easily solved by modifying all Key Biscayne references to Miami, is as commmon usage among most tennis articles and the tours themselves, and include a note on the article page (which is already called 'Miami Masters'!) stating something along the lines of '...is played in Key Biscayne, a small village so-and-so miles off the coast of Miami'

This solution is also easily applied to the various tournaments at which it is applicable. AlonsornunezComments 13:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just checked the articles of the top 20 players in the world and all have been nicely changed to Miami Masters with all other masters series events using the word "Masters". This is the way it should stay. I have also become involved in the mediation for the Miami Masters. Saviour73 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ATTENTION

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Miami_Masters, feel free to add yourself and sign. Yosef1987 (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that didn't work out, as Mr. Expert seems unwilling to mediate on this issue. Any more experienced users out there know what the next step should be? We should really address this issue with finality and then move on. AlonsornunezComments 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If he has refused mediation and all the other things that sane people do, is it bad to request a block? He is disrupting our work, disregarding consensus and anything else we can do. Block? OnHoliday 16:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we have some sanity and resolution on this?

I just wish to note two things;

Tennis expert, your refusal to accept mediation on this long running dispute is both unhelpful and disruptive. You are not doing yourself or Wikipedia any favours in continuing this series of reverts against others wishes. Wikipedia can only work by consensus. Personal crusades, no matter how right you believe you are, ultimately get you nowhere. If you genuinely care about the content of these articles, then please accept mediation.

IP editor; I don't care who you are or if you have been previously blocked or not. Your jumping between IPs to edit war is a clear breach and evasion of Wikipedia rules and policies. That alone makes your contributions unwelcome and disruptive. If you genuinely care about the content of these articles, then please register an account and contribute to the discussion in an upfront manner without this edit warring. I would also urge other editors to refuse to engage this editor in discussion until they register. If, once they register, they prove to be a banned user, then so be it. If you disregard Wikipedia policy you lose the privilege of contributing to it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition I would urge fellow editor to look at the articles for the year-specific Miami Masters (here, here, and here) where TE is clearly acting in bad faith and disrespecting the opinions and processes of the community by making changes (Miami to Key Biscayne, of course) at a time when the community is trying to come to a consensus on the issue. Very bad form. AlonsornunezComments 12:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

TE (or someone else, the history is not clear to me) did the harm again, on Nadal's page AFAIK, which part I don't get, don't we need consensus first?!!!! Please someone take an action. Yosef1987 (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, EO, but I'm under no obligation to accept formal mediation on this issue. Therefore, it's bad faith for you to claim disruption for exercising a right that Wikipedia plainly allows. The people who won't accept the fact that the tournament is held in Key Biscayne and the fact that the official name is the "Sony Ericsson Open" and the fact that "Miami Masters" is not the name of any tournament anywhere are just being irrational. This encyclopedia is about verifiable facts, not personal opinions. Tennis expert (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So all these newspapers are clearly wrong then.. Perhaps you should write to them and put them right. Please go and read Wikipedia naming policy. Specifically where it says "Use the most easily recognized name" and "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another." Your edits on this page are plainly disruptive as it results in a page being named one thing, and the article, with no explanation at all, calling it another. The reader is therefore left mystified. The name you prefer has only been in use since 2007 and common usage is still Miami Masters. The title "Sony Ericsson Open" is important, and should be mentioned in the lead. It should even be a redirect. But your actions are simply causing a confused mess.

On the subject of mediation. If you refuse mediation what exactly do believe will bring about resolution? Do you think resolution will come about when everyone gives in and simply does what you want? Do you honestly believe this is likely? Do you think resolution will occur after six months of tiresome edit warring and everyone else gets sick of it? What do you believe is best, not for you, but for Wikipedia?

And if you are so convinced that you are right, why do you believe mediation will not bring about a resolution on your terms? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when is a Google hit count conclusive? But if you want to play that game, "Sony Ericsson Open" has about 700,000 hits while "Miami Masters" has about 370,000 hits. Maybe you should consider sending corrective e-mails to the persons responsible for the roughly 700,000 hits. I'm certainly willing to go through WP:RM to change the name of the article to "Sony Ericsson Open". Perhaps that would alleviate your "mystification" concerns - let me know, please. As for mediation, I've already said what the next course should be: article-by-article consensus building, given that there is no consensus here. Tennis expert (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you show me where you have sought consensus for your changes on articles? Apologies if you've being doing this, but I am having difficulty finding any amongst the hundreds of reverts in your edit history.

Please do not get diverted by some irrelevant Google hits count. My point was not to demonstrate that "Sony Ericsson Open" is wrong, or that "Miami Masters" is right. I'm saying that "Miami Masters" is the "most easily recognized name" as per policy. It also has been the name of the article for some time, and should not be changed without good reason, as per policy. Could address these points of policy, and explain why it does not apply here?

If you are willing to go through WP:RM to change article titles, would it not make much more sense to leave your changes until this has happened?--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Google counts is never a reference (nor newspapers), I guess I don't have to explain how search engines work, secondly, you cannot use WP:RM because the name would change every other year, and we are not playing games here, if something affects all the tennis bio articles, it should be discussed here, not article-by-article, that would be just time consuming, and destructive, and please, all edits should be reverted to the original until a resolution is met anyhow. Yosef1987 (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) When we talked about this before (see the archives), the conclusion was to use the name of the tournament as it existed at the time the tournament was held. In fact, most Wikipedia tournament articles use the sponsored names. The Sony Ericsson Open is among a handful of exceptions. (2) As far as WP:RM is concerned, of course that's the right method for making a controversial change to an article name. You're not liking that procedure is irrelevant. And aside from that, I'm surprised that you would oppose WP:RM while being in favor of mediation. Care to explain? (3) Your not liking article-by-article consensus building is irrelevant and conflicts with the way Wikipedia works. Aside from that, a consensus for a particular article prevails over a consensus that purports to cover all articles. If you have any questions about that concept, let me know. Tennis expert (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You have presented no evidence whatsoever (except your personal opinion based on who-knows-what) that "Miami Masters" is the "most easily recognized name". You used Google to find a few newspaper articles to support your claim. When that was refuted, you said essentially to ignore Google. Well, you can't have it both ways. Try again. Tennis expert (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Miami Masters" is the name with the longest history. Are you suggesting that a sponsored name in use only since 2007 is better known? But really, that's irrelevant. It's the current name of the article and so is the name that should be in use in the article. If you want to change it you need to show that "Sony Ericsson Open" is the most easily recognised. The burden of proof is on you.

My use of the Google link, as I tried to explain before, had nothing to do with attempting to count hits. It was just a quick way of demonstrating that a great number of reliable sources disagree with your assertion that ""Miami Masters" is not the name of any tournament anywhere". Personally I have no strong preference, but claiming that it is a simple case of "I'm right, everyone else if wrong", is clearly not conducive to achieving consensus and flies in the face of the evidence.

Now can we be rid of that red herring and address the questions I put, please?

• What satisfactory resolution do you expect to get without mediation?
• What is the good reason for changing the name of this article, as as policy would require?
• If you are willing to go through WP:RM to change article titles, would it not make much more sense to leave your changes until this has happened? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis_expert, to make things short and clear:

• I am not sure what are you telling me, honest
• Monte-Carlo/Roquebrune-Cap-Martin example, and many others as some editors has shown us
• Despite of the correct location, ATP uses another famous name
• Would be great if all is kept as before till we resolve this
• Did Andy Murray win Key Biscayne Masters? Did Nadal win Roquebrune-Cap-Martin Masters last year?
• All that for the performance time tables
• Mentioning the correct location, as it is done for Monte-Carlo, must be made, for Miami and others, but to change its name, we'd need to contact ATP personnel
• The Miami, as I said before, not only on the website, but on court, and the official TV coverage stats etc
• As for the renaming, Miami Masters is the name for all the past/current tournaments, Sony Ericsson is the current sponsor ($$$)
• BNP has now 2 Masters in 2009, one called BNP Paribas Open and the other BNP Paribas Masters!!!!

I am not being sarcastic, trying to prove a point, that's all

• As for the in-article namings, we are not discussing that now. Yosef1987 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I have an inquiry now to TE, please discard what I stroke out, I'll get back to this soon. Yosef1987 (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism/Warring

If this is considered vandalism, we can do it the right way, first warn him/her/they on their talk pages, and then, if they don't respond, this will definitely help. Yosef1987 (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He has been warned, do not add another warning. Yosef1987 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He has undone my warning, and he is still not talking here. Yosef1987 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No matter how many warnings we give him, he will ignore it. I don't usually call for this, but I think a ban is the right choice. Sorry. OnHoliday 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already talked here and in many other places about this issue. No consensus has ever been reached here, as the preceding discussions clearly show. So, that leaves article-by-article editing and discussion. I invite you to take up this issue in those places. And Yosef1987, stop plastering warnings that have no basis in fact. That's disruptive. Tennis expert (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would second (third?) Alistairjh and Yosef, though (being relatively new) I don't know the procedure. He is being extremely disruptive and does not seem to be acting in good faith, IMO. AlonsornunezComments 20:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis Expert, I am not being disruptive, I have the best intentions for this website, as for the warning, clearly there is an edit war, and you are not cooperating enough, the least I've asked is a direct answer to simple 4 points, you might very well explain yourself to everyone here by answering them, and I, would very much appreciate that, and if we still don't agree, we'd need a third-person's opinion, but not go ahead and start editing, if a consensus is not reached, I suppose you know Wikipedia more than I do, then take the right steps to convince all of us that you are right. Please do Wikipedia a favor, thank you very much and best regards, and your time is much appreciated. Yosef1987 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis Expert, you recieved a warning about your edits to Rafael Nadal (history). The warning seems to be perfectly valid, so you cannot accuse Yosef1987 of "plastering warnings that have no basis in fact" (see above). OnHoliday 07:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about, which perhaps is due to your extreme youth. Just because a warning is given does not mean that it has any validity. If you have any questions about that concept, let me know. Tennis expert (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, procedure for solving this can be found here. Apparantly arbitration is the last step, and hopefully something we won't have to consider. OnHoliday 09:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Keeping everything above board, just letting everyone know that I have (again) reverted TenEx's changes to the various Miami Masters year-specific pages regarding this very issue. I am not engaging in a edit war, just keeping things 'as is' until a consensus is reached. TenEx, please act in good faith and stop reverting until this issue is concluded (As an aside, you said that you are going for consensus instead on individual pages, but after I reverted you ignored BRD and instead changed again instead of taking the issue to the talk page. I read that as rather disingenuous.) AlonsornunezComments 14:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what a blind reversion is? If not, I suggest you read up on it because your reversions are blind and constitute vandalism and disruption. This is but the latest example of your problematic behavior. When will it change? Tennis expert (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what he did exactly, but shouldn't we settle this before we make changes? And by settle I mean the way it was? I could be wrong? Yosef1987 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

TenEx, please stop changing/editing these until we solve this issue. And again, you said that you are going for consensus instead on individual pages, but after I reverted you ignored BRD and instead changed/edited again instead of taking the issue to the talk page. I read that as rather disingenuous if you are trying to start a dialogue. You are acting rather disruptively here and clearly against the betterment of the articles and the respect of the community. Funny also that you speak of me being disruptive in this! Kettle, teapot? AlonsornunezComments 03:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's "Tennis expert", OK? You still don't know what a "blind revert" is, do you? It's when you throw the baby out with the bath water by mindlessly and lazily reverting a series of edits because you disagree with just one of them. That's what you've been doing. That's vandalism and disruption. And it's just the latest example of your unconstructive editing on Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Again TE you are being disingenuous. My reversions (on pages (here, here and here) were not of a "baby/bathwater" nature. They were reversions of edits by you dealing specifically and singularly with the Key Biscyane/Miami location issue, which we have been discussing here. Your edits seem to me very disruptive and against community good faith in light of this ongoing discussion. AlonsornunezComments 04:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that, well, we might have a chance to stop editing all these pages to discuss the matter here? I suppose, the way things are going, we are not going to reach a consensus, but if we do your edits and your revertions may have been for nothing, so can we just discuss here and instead of making the pages look the way you want them to. (If you have any GA or FA reviews, this is probably going to stop them promoting the article) OnHoliday Why, after a long time, has this war not been resolved? Why? 07:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My Inquiry to Tennis_expert

I now understand your urge behind KB, but I have got few questions which would clarify things to me.

• KB is the location, but not the tournament name, right?
• If Miami Masters is not a tournament name, how come it is shown on the ATP official TV coverage, news articles etc? Of course besides Sony Ericsson
• For the factual accuracy of an encyclopedia, I am supporting you, as I have said before, to mention the correct locations in each tournament's individual article, why isn't that good enough? And for the enough part, the following point:
• We cannot put Sony Ericsson of course in the Performance Timelines, but we also cannot put Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, the column if for the tournament not the location, and the tournaments are not named after the exact correct location, where did I go wrong here? (I am asking)
• They are named after the closest most famous city, do I have proof? No, but a pattern is clear no doubt. Tell me where I went wrong also here.

I would very much appreciate your answers. Thanks. Yosef1987 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: as for the "encouragement to war", it was never meant to be like that, and I hope you find my good faith in my edits, what I meant is to keep things as it was till we resolve the matter, and by that I wanted your confirmation as well on this, am not asking for anything wrong. Yosef1987 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) This is what I was writing for WP:Tennis right before you struck your comments: "The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) says that the name of the tournament in Monte Carlo is the 'Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters', not the 'Monte Carlo Masters', the 'Roquebrune-Cap-Martin Masters', or anything else. You are confusing two different issues: (a) the official name of a tournament; and (b) where the tournament is held. I am in favor of always using the official name of the tournament, e.g. 'Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters', and saying where that tournament actually is held, e.g., 'Roquebrune-Cap-Martin'. I am not in favor of 'changing the name of the tournament'. For example, in a Wikipedia article, I always say, 'Andy Murray won the Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida.' ".

(2) I am not aware that the term "Miami Masters" is used on television or by the ATP or the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) in any official capacity. The ATP and the WTA are businesses and want to keep their sponsors happy; therefore, they are highly unlikely to use anything other than "Sony Ericsson Open".

(3) Wikipedia editors have gone wrong about tournament locations. The site of a tennis tournament is a geographical fact and can be verified independently of the ATP or WTA. For example, the Grand Canyon is clearly in the United States and it would therefore be erroneous to rely on a source claiming that the canyon is in Canada, regardless of how often the source said that. However, the name of a tournament is a commercial or business decision made by tournament organizers and secondarily by the news media. We (Wikipedia editors) have to rely on verifiable reliable sources to determine tournament names.

(4) We may put whatever information we want in performance timelines, subject to Wikipedia policy about verifiability. Therefore, we could put "Sony Ericsson Open" in a timeline, just like we could put "Roquebrune-Cap-Martin" there.

(5) The decision by the ATP and tournament organizers to say (erroneously) that the Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters is in Monte-Carlo merely reflects their marketing objectives. Whenever a marketing campaign misstates independently verifiable facts, Wikipedia must ignore the campaign and instead rely on the actual facts. And the actual fact is that the Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters is in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin even though the official name of the tournament uses "Monte-Carlo". Tennis expert (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion

Tennis_expert, is right about these answers, TE has talked sense about the issue into me, give it time to read it, you'd feel the same, and as for the Wikipedia rules, TE is dead on. My suggestion to keep everything right, that is to name the tournaments in the performance time-lines by the real location, (e.g. Key Biscayne and Roquebrune-Cap-Martin etc) and having after it between parenthesis () the widely known misled name, (e.g. Miami, Monte Carlo etc), on the other hand, we'd go for the sponsors names, which follows this very well. Keep it cool, because we are moving in a circle now. Yosef1987 (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: And please, for the meanwhile, no further edits to be made until this is resolved in a good manner. All suggestions and comments are welcome, keep them direct to the point and cool please. Yosef1987 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is actually in Key Biscayne, after looking at Google Maps showing that it is very close to Key Biscayne and miamidade.gov giving the address of the centre as 7300 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida. Really the only confusing thing was that ATP said Miami. OnHoliday 17:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Want to get consensus on "Rivalry with X" in tennis bios

Some background info:

I've made many edits to the Federer-Nadal rivalry article since last summer. I also appended brief "Rivalry with X" subsections to each man's page under the "Career" section and added a wikilink to the "See Also" section as seen here and here. I did so following the precedent in the Sampras article. I noted these changes in each talkpage here and here. As I wrote then, the reason for doing this was to link to the main rivalry page.

I haven't been watching either Fed or Nadal's pages for a while, and when I looked at them today I noticed the subsections have been moved. The content is still there but in different places in each guy's article. For Federer, it was moved to its own main Section. There's also a brief wikilinked mention of the rivalry in the intro. For Nadal, the section was eliminated but the content was moved to a full paragraph in the intro.

And to see how even more articles treat it I did a quick google search and found two other articles: Agassi and Laver. The Agassi page mentions his rivalry with Sampras in the article but no special sections. It also wikilinks to the Sampras-Agassi rivalry page in the "See Also" section. Laver's rivalry with Rosewall is treated the exact same way that the Sampras article does it.

It's also important to note that their are currently only 4 stand-alone tennis rivalry articles: Fed-Nadal, Sampras-Agassi, Borg-Mac, and Graf-Seles.

So, I'd like to get consensus on where we should put this "Rivalry with X" content in tennis bios.

My preference is to revert back to the way I originally created it as a subsection at the end of "Career". Obviously the rivalry is part of a player's career. Plus, the precedent is already there with Sampras and Laver.

Another possible decision is would we want to apply any agreed upon format to all tennis bios where a notable rivalry is mentioned? This would include all 8 of the bios with their own stand-alone rivalry articles, Laver, and anyone else whom I'm unaware of.

I look forward to everyone's feedback. Thanks. --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me from a Japanese "wanderer". I found a discussion in French Tennis Project. [1] One user proposed to make "Federer-Nadal rivalry" in French, but some users opposed, three "Contre"s -- he gave it up. I said my opinion in France (!), my clear opposition to "rivalry" articles. «Sometimes, quite controversial like Graf vs. Seles. Anyway, such sort of "rivalry article", it's very difficult to keep NPOV -- praises after praises, subjective analyses by Wikipedia editors, and so forth.» I'll never admit in my homeland Japanese WP, if some user (maybe Nadal fans) get such an idea. --Hhst (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Attention Needed

Here. Yosef1987 (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 Tennis Masters Cup - GA review

I'm GA reviewing this and have been told that the main editor of the article, Oxford St., is having a wikibreak and the duration is unknown. Would anyone like to get to work on the article? It would be a shame to have to fail it on lapse of time. --Philcha (talk)

I'm willing to work. ^LeaveSleaves 22:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Look forward to meeting you on (not in) court. --Philcha (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the review page. ^LeaveSleaves 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I can help a little too, I was cleaning some and putting the images side by side the other day, still need to do it on the doubles section. Keita24 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Leander Paes under GA review

Hello there, the above article, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Futures F1/F3

Just looking at Fernando Verdasco#Early years and noticed reference to Spain F1 and Spain F3, to what do these refer ? GrahamHardy (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Retired : Active

Could anyone here explain the actions of Ambassador Dunlop? I've already asked him/her to use the edit summary and explain what they're doing, to no avail. Is there any agreed use for this field in the infobox? As it is Ambassador Dunlop seems set on adding it to every tennis player. My understanding of this field is it should be added when a player retires, specifying the date they retired from competitive tennis. Adding it to current players, IMHO, is about as pointless as adding a "Died: living" field to every BLP article. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with your logic here. I have left another note to the editor requesting him to comment on the issue and to pause addition of such field until the issue is resolved. ^LeaveSleaves 17:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Premier Mandatory, Premier 5, and Premier tournaments on the WTA tour

Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 are types of Premier tournaments and do not need to be listed especially. They are sub-categories just to distinguish prize money, ranking points, player particpation and if they are compulsory or not. The whole point of the Premier and International categories was to cut down the categories and make the system easier. By putting Mandatory and 5 in the box, it is just making things more complicated, and this means it would just be like the old Tier system with four categories when Premier and International are the main ones. Monokaea (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What other purpose could possibly be served by distinguishing Premier Mandatory, Premier 5, and Premier tournaments? Prize money, ranking points, player participation, and whether they are compulsory appears to cover the whole gamut. Plus, the rulebook of the Women's Tennis Association frequently distinguishes between these types of tournaments. Finally, Wikipedia consensus distinguishes them, too, as evidenced by, for example, our singles performance timelines and the text of numerous women's tennis biographies. That stuff from the WTA about tour simplification essentially was propaganda when you actually look at the rulebook. Tennis expert (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Legend: Pre 2009 Legend: Post 2009 Grand Slam (0) WTA Championships (0) Tier I (0) Premier Mandatory (1) Tier II (0) Premier 5 (0) Tier III (6) Premier (0) Tier IV & V (1) International (1)

Titles by Surface Hard (6) Grass (1) Clay (2) Carpet (0)

This is the 'legend' I've made for Vera Zvonareva. It looks a lot tidier than a long sprawling table like before. I thought I'd post this here for approval before I edit other articles. Boddefan2009 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Tennis expert (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, a change needs to be made to the "Post 2009" language, which implies "after 2009", not "beginning in 2009". Tennis expert (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Should ITF titles and matches be counted?

I am confused by the listing of titles that occurs on the WTA Tour page. It conflates ITF titles with WTA Tour titles for Justing Henin, Conchita Martinez and Kim Clijsters. I understand that this was cited, in a link to a WTA PDF, but in various bios and articles it lists the more standard numbers. I use 'standard' here in the sense that this is the number of titles that is cited by articles, television broadcasts and players and fans alike. Before I crossed the line into Edit War I thought I'd present that question here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonsornunez (talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See this thread. Tennis expert (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Having not reached a consensus with you on that thread, I have brought the issue here, for a general consensus.Alonsornunez (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you both agree that only Henin's victories of tournaments at the highest level should be included; the WTA tournaments, Grand Slams and Olympics. And I think you misunderstand each other.

Somewhere in the discussion Alonsornunez wrote: Yes, they are included in a player's biography, but no one, EVER, counts small ITF titles as part as a professional WTA player's career stats, unless specifically talking about ITF tournaments. No one ever says that Justine Henin has 48 career titles.

I think there is the mistake. Those 7 ITF titles are the 7 grand slam titles she won; not "small ITF titles". Grand Slams are organised by the ITF and not WTA and count as IFT-titles. Besides that IFT organises other small tournaments like the Futures.

Henins palmares contains in total: 40 WTA titles, 7 Grand Slam titles (hence ITF titles) and 1 Olympic title. The number of Futures and youth tournaments are not taken into account.

Because the Olympic Games are officially organised by the IFT it would be even more correct to state that she won 40 WTA tournaments and 8 IFT tournaments. Miho (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Miho, thank you for your response to this. Yes, there does seem to be a general consensus that, as professional athletes, only the players' highest results should count. But when you look at Henin's career, she has forty-one titles when you count the Grand Slams and Olympics. Additionally, at the onset of her career (from '97 to '00) she won seven small ITF events. This is where TennisExpert is getting forty-eight from. That number seems, while 'correct' in a sense, skewed because those ITF events never count when we talk about players careers. Perhaps the heading of the section should be changed? I understand what he is saying about it effects the match wins as well, but match wins do fluctuate, as some sources will exclude Davis Cup, some will not, some will include the Grand Slam Cup, some will not; however, there is a general consensus amoung tennis statisticians and experts (not to mention players!) when discussing a player's total titles, and ITF titles are never counted. Again, thanks for your help!Alonsornunez (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I made a mistake in the numbers. I agree that the total amount of titels should be stated as 41. Of those 41 there are 7 grand slams and 1 olympic. Besides that she won 7 minor tournaments, which should be excluded. This 41 titles is the same as WTA states on their bioprofile of Henin; here. Funny they give the number of 41 titles in brackets, but they give a list of those tournaments and they sum up to 48. There is also Henin's own site; there she also states that she won 41 tournaments here. Sorry for my mixing up of the numbers. Miho (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Miho, yeah the numbers should be those not counting the ITF tournaments, shouldn't they? It seemss bizarre to use numbers on this wiki that no one else ever uses except for the WTA, and even in that case they only seem to use them less than half the time. I don't know why TE is so insistence on using numbers which only make the page seem wrong. Alonsornunez (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already told you why, Alonsornunez. The page is not "wrong" if it is sourced. Several editors here are insisting on making edits that are unsourced, in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Tennis expert (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe then that the disclaimer along the bottom should then read "...Tour level events". It seems bizarre that the page lists forty-eight titles for Henin, when all retirement articles state that she retired with forty-one, the same way her bio page does at the official WTA website. I would ask that other editors please help to reach a consensus with this. Alonsornunez (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed strange. I think that the WTA is not really clear/consequent on the presentation of data. On the one hand they state that Justin Henin won 41 titles and within the same sentence they sum up 48 tournaments. On the other hand in their table which gives all the titles and win-loss they are clearly stating 41 WTA Tour titles and 7 ITF Women's Circuit titles. I think that Henin's wikipage is kind of clear. It states everywhere that she won 41 WTA-titles, not just 41 titles. So I think the info on Henin's page is correct. Then the list on Women's_Tennis_Association#Most_titles_won_during_the_open_era. It is the WTA who makes this list. In their opinion it should include both WTA and ITF circuit titles. They are the governing body, so we have to accept and respect their way of calculating. That they combine the WTA and ITF titles must be stated at the bottom or at the top of the wikitable to make this combining clear to our readers. The actual text could be more explicit on this. Maybe you should add there the example of Henin (48 titles of which 41 WTA titles and 7 ITF circuit titles). What is important here at wikipedia is to keep on being clear in what we present to the readers. So with Henin always write that she won 41 WTA titles and not just 41 titles. Miho (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This has long been one of my problems with the WTA, they have two or three different lists of stats for everything! My suggestion would be this: That the table in question be changed to 'Career WTA Titles'. The list of the combined totals, while factually true, seems confusing and unnecessary. Since no one ever sights the stats in questions (though I am not disputing their existence) I think that maybe we should switch the table to a list that is used all exclusively, that of WTA Tour level events only (this counts the Olympics and Grand Slams). For me the deciding factor is that the 'non-ITF list' is the one that is always cited in articles and by statisticians. Anyway this goes thanks for your help and measured response. As a new user here I appreciate the suggestions and openness. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were a new Wikipedia editor.... Anyway, you have not provided any evidence of what is "always" cited by the media and statisticians. Nor have you provided a source for determining a player's career wins and losses exclusive of ITF events. The Women's Tennis Association lumps wins and losses together for both ITF and WTA tour events. Until a source is found for purely WTA tour events, this article needs to be consistent about including ITF events and ITF wins-losses. Tennis expert (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have, though, provided evidence, in the fact of the WTA bio pages, Justine Henin's retirement article (official WTA article) and various outside articles. Miho understood this same evidence to exist as well. I would ask that you please provide me with one article that cites the conflated WTA/ITF numbers for establishing players' standings in regards to career titles. I do not believe there are any outside of that one WTA page. And I am a new Wikipedia editor... I'm confused by that bit, I'm sorry. Might be the hour of the night. Time to put some coffee on. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

How Should I Proceed?

I am new here to Wikipedia, but over the course of the last couple days I have seen any enthusiasm for editing (specifically tennis, a passion of mine) sapped. There seems to be great ownership issues on the part of one user, Tennis Expert, and any changes I make, big or small, have been undone. I am not asking this rhetorically: Where should I edit, where I can expect that any changes will be explored in good faith.

It saddens me that my enthusiasm has been so quickly replaced with disappointment. Alonsornunez (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's normally what most people have happen by hardline so-called experts like that one you mention and others on this site. It is rather sad! I have to admit this website is not in fact an encyclopedia but a glorified information blog that's all! KEEP FIGHTING ON! Bluedogtn (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Further, it does not make sense to me that the colors does not match for the majors on the wikitable for majors, and this is because the australian open is in blue but the navbox and the wikipage for them is yellow on the other hand it is the reverse for the US. Open! This should be made consistant like the golfing articles! Bluedogtn (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Bluedogtn. Yeah, it's sad to me that incorrect information will be allowed to stand and confuse casual fans because of the zealousness of some particular posters. Very sad. Alonsornunez (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Starting with something new is always difficult. Accepting new people within a group is also difficult. Also new people have to get used to the (unwritten) agreements, opinions and standards, and the "old" people have to accept that new people have fresh ideas and can sometimes see inconsequences more easily. Like in real life it's a matter of respecting each other, making moves towards each other and working out things together. Although I don't know Alonsornunez and Tennis Expert I "assume good faith" from both sides and the ambition to make the Tennis section on wikipedia to a succes. I want to add that we must not forget that wikipedia is an encyclopedia which must relay itself on accepted/reliable sources which provide our data. In the above discussion it is WTA who is the one that "decides" that Justin Henin won 48 titles and that at the same time that it is WTA who "decides" that her "CAREER HIGHLIGHTS" states "SINGLES Winner (41)" In this WTA is leading and "our" job is to present this data as clear as possible (if they make mistakes we can of course add a note in which we write that there is a mistake in their data). Miho (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Request For Comment Re: Serena Slam

I am requesting that any interested party please chime in at Talk: Serena Williams. Edits have been made back and forth over the relevancy of the phrase 'Serena Slam' being included in the article. After having gone back and forth and not moving, I asked for and received a Third Point of View. This editor's suggestion seemed fair, and was integrated, but then edited again. I have been threatened with accusations of Edit Warring and ignoring Wiki policy, despite my honest attempt to be respetful and to engage in conversation to reach a consensus or at least a compromise. I am now opening up the discussion to a larger group to try to establish a consensus, either way. Thanks. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is your ignoring both WP:Consensus and WP:BRD repeatedly, despite several notices on your talk page. Unfortunately, your modus operandi is disruption and edit warring. Tennis expert (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I welcome your continued dialogue with me and in the spirit of cooperation I would ask that you please respond to the points I made on the Serena Williams talk page re: The Serena Slam. You can answer here or there, or everywhere. (I love me a Beatles reference. Apologies!) Alonsornunez (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring, I am highly suspicious of people that acquse people of this or violating consensus for the fact they think they are always correct! These policies are now being used as a bludgeoning tool for people to ridicule others of violating some sacred tenant! I believe wikipedia needs less rules not more! Rules only make for strife and divisions of opinion because I am sure I can acquse you so-called Tennis Expert of this very same allegations you have made against Alonsornunez! I say QUIT IT! Bluedogtn (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This proves Alonsornunez's point! Quit giving this user HELL Please Tennisexpert! http://www.tennis.com/features/40greatest/40greatest.aspx?id=700 http://www.tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=80028 http://www.tennis.com/tournaments/2009/australianopen/australianopen.aspx?id=163220 http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/9169730/Williams-sets-sights-on-Serena-Slam- http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/9156700/Serena-routs-Safina-to-claim-Aussie-Open-title http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/9208440/Grand-Slam-for-Serena-Williams http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/9169720/Sport---Australian-Open:-Womens-singles---Serena-sets-her-sights-on-a-Slam- http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/9169768/LAWN-TENNIS:-WILLIAMS-EYES-FOUR http://images.si.com/tennis/2003/australian_open/news/2003/01/24/roundup_friday_ap/ http://m.si.com/news/to/to/detail/1393666/full;jsessionid=C20C7D4361928E423BE960E39E845085.cnnsilive9i http://images.si.com/2008/writers/jon_wertheim/09/16/tennis.mailbag/index.html http://m.si.com/news/wr/wr/detail/1441375;jsessionid=2182DD1DCE5C65DC4E35F1AC1967B947.cnnsilive10i http://videos.espn.com/m/video/21824237/pti_big_finish.htm?seek=1.31 Bluedogtn (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality and length of articles

I've been looking over the tennis articles, and I think that we would all agree that they need some work, especiall to get them to FA status. I've been also looking at the Michael Jordan article (which is FA) and at 87 kilos it clocks in well below a lot of the bloated tennis articles. Any suggestions for how/what to prune? I'd taken out a couple lists and tables which seemed like trivia and a violation of WP:NOT, but they were reinserted. Couple questions then: A) Are these tables/lists to stay in? I think they clog the articles and are trivia; B)Can we work on pulling some of these articles to better status; and C) I'm new, and unsure how to do this! Any general suggestions? Alonsornunez (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to start trimming some articles down by cutting non-encylcopedic info out of sections. Please take a look at the 2009 revision for Serena Wiliams (compare to the previous version) and let me know what you think. Alonsornunez (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For its relevancy I've posted this here from Wikipedia:Notability: News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.Alonsornunez (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the 11:12 version of the Serena Williams page and let me know what you think. I think it works as more of an encyclopedic entry than the earlier version, but there has been little good faith discussion of it on its own talk page. Alonsornunez (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I like your work well done! _BLUEDog^TN 00:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope that consensus continues to build for a more streamlined version of articles. (Doesn't even need to be mine; I've just thought of it as a good jumping-of point) A more encyclopedic and less 'fact list/ everything in' approach I think will move us closer towards GA criteria. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started a Williams Sisters rivalry page. I think maybe this is where the head-to-head list for Venus and Serena found on both their pages should go. Alonsornunez (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I tried some time ago to convince people that articles do not need repetitive information. As of now, most articles on top male tennis players has some information stated up to three times. There is a table for all finals, then tables for GS and Masters finals (repetition), and then a "performance timeline" that repeats things further in a different format. But I was reverted either by a now blocked user (who likes Nadal so much that he would probably not mind having stuff repeated 10 times) or by a user who didn't like it because it was against consensus (to my recollection; sorry if I am misrepresenting and lying for the umptieth time). I must admit that I since that have gave up taking this too seriously.--HJensen, talk 18:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I find your last line especially true. My other big interest is comics, and the environment seems like one I would find enjoyable and productive. Alonsornunez (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions Anyone?

So it seems that Tennis Expert has taken unkindly to my contesting his reversions and my initiative in starting new articles. He's accused me of being a sockpuppet. -sigh- I know that findings will show I am no one but myself. ;-) Is there some where I can file a complaint though, or log some record of this. It seems silly and a tad vindictive. We can't improve tennis articles if new editors are scared away! -sigh- Alonsornunez (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You can file a Wikiquette alert, but one should be rather careful, and think it over whether one should not try to cool down, even though one thinks that the "opponent" does not. In any case, always provide relvant diffs (that is, evidence of the offensive behavior of the editor in questions). Accusations of sockpuppetry are rather strong, imo. But think it over.--HJensen, talk 11:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you're right. A 'cool head' approach is best in this type of circumstance. Thanks for the suggestions. Alonsornunez (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that you were correct in starting the article, and it should by no means be deleted! TennisAuthority 17:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a newly created account whose first substantive contribution to Wikipedia was opposition to the deletion of the Williams Sisters article, whose second substantive contribution was the above, and whose third substantive contribution was the minor correction of a discussion page post from Alonsornunez. Something smells fishy (probably a new sockpuppet of the latter). Tennis expert (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No way, the TennisAuthority is this user no Alonsornunez! I created this account for the sole editing of tennis articles! By they way, I am also this user! I have done the same for golf, film, nascar, and horseracing accounts! The bluedogtn account will be used only for political articles or if you have to be a non-newly registered user! I am no sockpuppet, which is a hard allegation Mr?Mrs?Ms?TennisExpert! I probably know more about tennis than you do, and I would respect if you delete this page this user has took hard time to create that you would reciprocate the same with the Federer-Nadal rivalry! Both are just as legit, but ones taken more time to develop! _BLuE^DOgTn 23:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Grrr, I am not suprised by the allegations by TennisExpert!TennisAuthority 23:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice reply to yourself! By his own admission, Bluedogtn=TennisAuthority. Tennis expert (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking through both Bluedogtn and TennisAuthority, they don't seem to contribute on articles relating to the same subject, eg. Tennis and Golf. As WP:SOCK says,

For a variety of reasons, some Wikipedians also create one or more alternative accounts. An alternative account is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has an account. In such cases, the main account is normally assumed to be the one with the longest history and most edits. ... If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that they provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry (see alternative account notification).

It is perfectly within Wikipedia rules for TennisAuthority to have many accounts, and he has admitted having them, as it says above. DeMoN2009 12:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have an Idea! Hear Me out please!

Why don't we try and cut down on the length of Serena and Venus Williams articles by creating a List of Career Achievements and Awards sections and pages like those for Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal! TennisAuthority 03:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I support this idea. It seems clear to almost all editors that the Venus and Serena articles are too long, and this is one way of making them smaller and easier for readers to browse and scroll through. Alonsornunez (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. DeMoN2009 16:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo Help!

So, I'm getting the hang of this Wikipedia thing. Check out the Williams Sisters rivalry if you get a chance. There's been some great work done over there by editors, and I'm hoping to have it assessed at some point. Along those lines though, I'm clueless has to how to find photos for the article, and more importantly what photos are allowed. If anyone's got a sec and can help explain how that works I'd appreciate it. Alonsornunez (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, have a look at the Williams Sisters rivalry article. So far, Alonsornunez has used edit warring to enforce his sole ownership of the article, resulting in it being tagged for being subpar and reading like a fansite. See this version of Alonsornunez's discussion page (before he sanitized it). While you're there, have a look at the proposed improvement of the article here and the Williams Sisters rivalry discussion page. Tennis expert (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I got an in-between solution to this encyclopedia article! I think it is legit to keep, but it has too much bias in it with the emotion by Alonsornunez, who has done a great job in starting articles on here for a new user in all! I think we have to make this article less subjective and more objective, which Tennis expert is right in bringing that to the forefront in this discussion page! Remove all the quotes like bullfight and subpar and just keep it to the facts of the match about who won and what tournaments and what years not the quotes! Make this like a term paper in college that the english professor says has to be objective is what I am trying to get at! Talk to me you two because you will get no where being in this bitter edit waring rivalary on both of your behalves! I think accurate photos for this rivalry would be to find grand slam trophy presentation photos with them side-by-side! TennisAuthority 20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and help! I welcome suggestions to make the page, and all tennis pages better. Any idea on how I upload photos?Alonsornunez (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You can use photos at commons:Category:Serena Williams and commons:Category:Venus Williams for the article. DeMoN2009 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:45, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Borg-Connors-Lendl-McEnroe Rivalries Page

I am thinking about creating the page with all the match finals these players have played during their careers! What do you all think!TennisAuthority 00:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. But were you thinking one page with all the matches between the four? I think it might be a bit much, and I might advocate something more along the lines of Rivalry pages with two players at a time. AlonsornunezComments 05:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll on date autoformatting and linking

Date autoformatting and linking has been extensively discussed in relation to tennis articles. People may be interested to know that the Poll on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Resolving Miami/Key Biscayne Dispute

The question here generally relates to the location of tennis tournaments, and whether references by various media sources and tennis' governing bodies (ATP, ITF, WTA) are to be followed are to be followed in regards to the above. The specfic issue here in the Miami Masters and its location in Key Biscayne (a small village in Miami-Dade county and considered part of the Miami metro area) versus the various references to simply 'Miami' (by the above mentioned sources) Questions include a)whether there is suitable reference to use Miami and not Key Biscayne, b) whether such reference is to be respected, and c)how to proceed in a manner honoring both the sources and a reference to Key Biscayne (if such an outcome is possible). Salient points are in this talk section above, starting in January 2009. AlonsornunezComments 17:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't make things so complicated. There are just two questions. What is the name of the tournament (Sony Ericsson Open versus Miami Masters)? And where is the tournament held (Key Biscayne versus Miami)? Tennis expert (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the location issue, let me ask this- is it in the same location every year? And if so, is the address where the tournament takes place officially (i.e., by the local government) said to be in Miami or in Key Biscayne? If it's actually in Key Biscayne, it may be best to say "in Key Biscayne, near Miami", or "near Miami in the village of Key Biscayne".

There was an issue similar to this recently at Natasha Richardson as the location of a funeral parlor was officially (by their address and by news reports) in Millbrook, NY, but the actual location was 5 miles away in Lithgow, NY. My suggestion had been to say "xyz funeral parlor near Lithgow", though the article currently reads "near Millbrook".

Regarding the naming issue, I'm really not sure. If it were the case that the sponsor name changes every year it might be appropriate to pick a general/neutral name for the overall tournament. WP:NC says articles should generally use the most easily recognized name, determined by what it's called by reliable sources. WP:NCON appears to suggest using the current official name of the subject, and to prefer a "self-identifying term"- thus if the tournament calls itself xyz instead of abc, we should probably use xyz. Maybe that helps. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The location has been the same since 1986. The objective, reliable evidence (not the marketing propaganda) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the tournament is held in Key Biscayne, Florida. As for the name of the tournament, it certainly does not change every year. The tournament has had four names in the last 25 years. See the Wikipedia article Sony Ericsson Open for more information about that. Tennis expert (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well I'll ask this; are there a significant number of sources that would pass WP:RS which state the location as being Miami? If so, it would still be appropriate to mention that the tournament is "in Key Biscayne, near Miami" or something similar. In any case, something this simple and straightforward doesn't need to be verified very strongly. It may be worth mentioning that the tournament is frequently billed as being located in Miami, especially if that detail is mentioned in secondary sources.

As to the name of the tournament, I'm starting to believe that per WP:NCON the article on the overall tournament should be titled by its current name, unless there's strong support in the media and tennis community for referring to the historical tournament by a generic title such as "Miami Masters". It may be worth mentioning Miami Masters as an alternative title in the article ("..., sometimes called the Miami Masters,...").

I will say however that I have not fully read up on what's happened here, nor have I done all the background research that should be necessary. I'm just doing a meta-analysis based on the arguments I've seen thus far in the RfC and in my dealings with this at WP:EAR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Mendaliv, thanks for jumping in with this. Part of the issue (I think for the community as a whole, though I'm not sure) is that the tournament is referred to/'nicknamed' "Miami" by the ATP, the WTA and various aticles. (i.e. "So-and-son is defending champion in Miami this week", "So-and-so is six-time Miami champion", etc.) There are absolutely enough sources for "Miami" to pass muster. I have no problem with either location given lead in a joint article reference, but I think that 'Common Usage' would seem to dictate that Miami is used (for example of this, the official ATP Miami page mentions Miami twice and Key Biscayne not at all) In addition, while being a tricky subject, it would help TenEx if you did not infer an attempt to obfuscate on my part by stating that I am "making things so difficult". The questions as you phrased them above are disingenuous and specious. AlonsornunezComments 16:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You really should stop being disruptive. The questions I listed are exactly the two questions being discussed here. And this is not a "tricky subject" at all. As for the location of the tournament (question #2), you keep ignoring the fact that the ATP is mentioning Miami as the tournament location for marketing reasons, not for the sake of accuracy. There are hundreds of reliable sources to support the indisputable geographical fact that the tournament is held in Key Biscayne. Examples from all over the world include, but are not limited to, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ESPN, the Seattle Times, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Boston Globe, the Palm Beach Post, the Daily Mail, the New York Times, the Pakistan Observer, the San Jose Mercury News, the Hindustan Times, the Shanghai Daily, MSN India, SportExpressen (Sweden), the Jerusalem Post, the Dispatch Online (South Africa), Korea, The Age (Australia), the Japan Times, the Times (London), SportsYa (Spain), the New Zealand Herald, and the Miami Herald. Finally, take a look at these Google search results for "Key Biscayne" on the ATP website itself. Tennis expert (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's all just concentrate on the issue at hand here, and leave issues of incivility for later if they need to be pursued. As to the issues at hand, I take it we're near the end of the location issue... as the actual location of the tournament is Key Biscayne (which is simply verified), the article should state the location as Key Biscayne per WP:ASF. Whether it should also say "near Miami" or go into a more elaborate discussion of how a lot of media sources treat the tournament as being in Miami is a matter for later debate, I think.

As to the naming issue, for whatever reason, ATP and others treat the tournament's location as Miami, and thus generally consider it a Miami tournament. Without reliable sources that try to explain why this is the case, or at least discuss what would seem to be an unusual difference between the name and location, I'm not sure what we can do. My understanding of Alonso's argument is that "Miami" should be given preference in the article lead because of common usage. However, I don't think that's a valid point- WP:NC refers to article naming and not to handling source discrepancies. There isn't any limit to the number of synonyms for the tournament we can represent in the article.

If there really are sources out there that support the name "Miami Masters" to refer to the tournament in a historical sense, it may be appropriate to use that term for the article title. However, barring evidence of a dispute over the tournament's official name or disagreement over what it's called in the media, we should probably go with the current name per WP:NCON#Proper nouns. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should say Key Biscayne, near Miami (possibly the Miami part in brackets) - after all, the tennis centre's address is, according to miamidade.gov, 7300 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida, but many of the reliable sources use Miami, which doesn't make sense when I think about it. OnHoliday 07:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that just the competition is held in Key Biscayne, while all the organization, temporary residence, and other support activities take place in Miami? I really think there might be an explanation somewhere, and hopefully we can find a source for it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already provided the explanation. It is a marketing strategy that most of the news media ignores because the strategy is not based on fact. Tennis expert (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv, agreed. Finding some explanation (and reference has been difficult thus far). As with similar tournaments taking place in small villages or towns in metropolitan areas it seems fairly consistent that both tours identify the tournament by the larger city/county name (Miami in this case). I agree that the village/smaller location name needs to be identified, particularly in the tournament article. I think however, and the rough consensus among editors seems to be that the 'recognized' name (Miami, not Key Biscayne in this case) be used on the performance timelines, or similar cases where a tournament is abbreviated by name, not identified by location ('Player X won the Sony Ericsson, which is played in Key Biscayne' as oppposed to 'Player X is the five-time defending Miami champion') So far the most that seems to be able to be established (and this is only numbers) is that Miami is more common when identifying the tournament (as opposed to the tournament location, if that makes sense). Whew! AlonsornunezComments 04:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So say Key Biscayne (near Miami) in the main articles, but in the player biographies say Miami. Please tell me it's that simple. Also, rough consensus can be broken after a long argument, although I think that the 'recognized' name should be used on the performance timelines, as more people would understand it. OnHoliday 08:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert, can you provide independent verification of that?

Alonso, you're right- to an extent that's up to the WP:TENNIS community.

Alistair, I hope it is that simple. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the situation enough to really comment on anything beyond this one article. I suppose that's up to those of you more into tennis to figure it out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not that much to do with tennis actually. If we look at WikiProject Rugby Union, we had a dispute over the location of the Stade de France, because it was in Saint-Denis, but most people thought it was in Paris. It was really confusing because it was in the Paris metro area, but we eventually decided that it was in Saint-Denis. You can see the discussion on the WikiProject Rugby union talk page and on the 2009 Six Nations Championship talk page, although it does say in most of the reliable sources that it is Saint-Denis. Here, reliable sources say Miami and Key Biscayne, but the address says Key Biscayne, so the ideal solution is Key Biscayne (near Miami). OnHoliday 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for re-using solutions from prior problems; save a lot of arguing and promote consistency in article writing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Templates - help needed

Hi guys, I have been working hard on individual year templates for the ATP Tour (e.g. Template:1990 ATP Tour, Grand Prix tennis circuit (e.g. Template:1985 Nabisco Grand Prix and WCT circuit (e.g. Template:1973 World Championship Tennis circuit as well as some WTA templates. The majority of the links on them should be accurate but I was wondering if someone with tennis knowledge check through the completed templates. Some pre-ATP era tournaments are simply recorded as "[Place name] Open" and I have also been unable to find some of the tournament sponsor names, such as the name of the San Francisco tournament known as the SAP Open. They all need to be recorded with the sponsor name if applicable. Thanks. Can people either respond here or on my talkpage. 03md 21:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Williams Sisters rivalry Templates

I just wanted to see if I could get the Tennis community at large to take a look at the Williams Sisters rivalry page. It has a couple of tags on it which seem to me to be overstated and unnecessary. It is of course imperfect and all suggestions are welcome, but the accusations of it needing to a)possibly be completely rewritten and b)focused on intricate detail seem overstated. Thanks. AlonsornunezComments 19:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Results tables

I've just noticed that many bio articles now have "sortable" results tables. Not a bad idea, as long as the tables are completed correctly. For instance, dates should be added to the table using the {{dts}} template so the sorting occurs chronologically, rather than alphabetically. Similarly, the {{sortname}} template ought to be used for opponent's names as we should be sorting these columns on surnames, not first names. So, we must either remove the "sortable" from the table class or use these templates. Thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Be bold and fix the tables by adding the templates. Not sure why this technical issue needs a detailed discussion. Tennis expert (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a huge job to add those templates, perhaps you aren't aware of the amount of work required. I was hoping that other people would be interested in helping out, or even getting a bot to do it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could have just said that originally.... Tennis expert (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I've said it now. No harm done, was there? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

And I don't want to change articles against consensus, so that's why I brought it up in the first place, to see if sortable tables were favoured by the community, especially as not all bios have sortable tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like just the sort of tedious edits that I like to torture myself with. To be honest, I've become a little lost since finishing the List of female tennis players "project". Can The Rambling Man be a little more specific with what is needed? I'm not very au fait with tables or templates. Do you know of an example which uses {{dts}} & {{sortname}} appropriately? Maedin\^talk 14:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. To sort, say, Pete Sampras in the table, instead of just having "Pete Sampras", you need {{sortname|Pete|Sampras}}. For names which need disambiguation, you should use {{sortname|Tom|Jones|Tom Jones (tennis player)}}. You will need to add this template for every single name of every player in the table. For use of {{dts}}, there's quite a comprehensive set of instructions at the template doc page which is probably better to check out (including examples of, for instance, parameters to prevent/allow dates to be linked). Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers is a featured list which uses both templates correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! (Though I suppose I could have thought and just looked at the template pages first, right?  :-/) I know it isn't quite what you were going for, but I've started making this change at List of female tennis players, which if it weren't so big and had a better intro, might be suitable for a FL, especially as it recently went from this to this. Adding references would just make the size unmanageable though, unfortunately. Hopefully at the weekend I can start adding the template to results tables, where necessary. Maedin\^talk 16:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. If you had FL in mind, perhaps think about something more manageable like a list of female Wimbledon singles champions? That should be easier to handle, easy to illustrate, easier to reference and be very, very relevant to the project. Perhaps we're talking about the first ever Wikiproject featured list here?! Give me a shout if you want to pursue this - I've gone through a few FLCs so I reckon I could contribute constructively. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am 100% interested! I enjoyed working with the List of female tennis players and think a featured list would be a great benefit to the project. I will scout around a bit and find or start a good candidate and let you know . . . although I do have a question. Is it ok for a featured list to be so narrow in scope, i.e. to be concerned with only the female singles champions of a single tournament? You can just point me in the right direction if this is covered somewhere already, :-) Maedin\^talk 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a perfectly acceptable scope. If it's a reasonable stand-alone list then it qualifies. The subject-matter is highly notable and should make a worthy FL. Check out WP:FL? to see what they expect but feel free to contact me personally if there's anything you wish to have clarified. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bio infoboxes

Is it just me or are the biography infoboxes showing up {{{USOpenDoublesresult}}} (e.g. see Justine Henin's page), presumably because she didn't have a single US Open doubles result? Could someone who knows about templates take a look as it needs to be fixed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have altered the infobox template to hide {{{USOpenDoublesresult}}} etc. However the white band saying Grand Slam Doubles results still remains. I can hide that as well, but that would require addition of a separate parameter grandslamsdoublesresults= yes to every infobox which has double results in order to show that band there. Infoboxes in some articles, but not all, already have that parameter. How should we proceed now? ^LeaveSleaves 14:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest we need to remove that banner too, but as you say, it will affect infoboxes without that parameter. Perhaps another task (see table sorting above as well) for a bot? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Even for a bot we'd need a list of articles to which this additional parameter applies. ^LeaveSleaves 14:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, either way, that banner should go if its not relevant, wouldn't you agree? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. What do you suggest we do then? ^LeaveSleaves 15:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's a case of getting someone with AWB to go through every single bio article with an infobox and make the change(s) required on case-by-case basis. Or we just change the template and things disappear until they're manually fixed - either way would be better than leaving it as it stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we do make the change, the only thing that'd disappear would be the white banner. The results would still remain intact, only without the headline. ^LeaveSleaves 15:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We should do the change. Sounds good to me... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Change enacted. ^LeaveSleaves 13:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis

The Tennis article needs a major work over, I did some edits when I found it really needed big attention. Yosef1987 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can mark what is needed and divide the work? Yosef1987 (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. OnHoliday 18:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone here interested in getting Wikiproject Tennis' first featured article or featured list?

As regular readers here are aware, this project is bereft of good or featured articles. Some quick research on other Wikiprojects reveals:

• Football (6 featured topics, 50 FAs [including retired and current players], 90 FLs [including national and third division teams], around 200 GAs)
• Cricket (28 FAs, 25 FLs, 59 GAs)

while

• Tennis (2 FAs [both video games], 4 GAs)

I'm proposing that we attempt to take a stable article (probably about a retired player, or a particular tournament [obviously not Key Miami Biscayne Masters...!]), compare it up against the WP:FAC or WP:FLC or WP:GAC, depending on the article and how condfident we're feeling, identify areas of improvement, possibly using peer review and then just go for it. Anyone willing to (1) nominate some candidate articles/lists and (2) join me in this intrepid journey? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea, and I agree about it needing to be a stable player or tournament. I am absolutely willing to help, though be forewarned that I don't have a lot of experience with FA and GA criteria. I'll read up though. I'd like to nominate Pete Sampras, an article which is clearly in need of help but which a) has a good foundation of information and b) is stable. AlonsornunezComments 15:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to have at least one interested member of the project! Read up on FAC and we'll wait to see if we get more interest before committing ourselves. Sampras should, at the very least, be a GA. Such an iconic and significant figure in the history of tennis (in my POV-opinion!) has a low class article right now, with, of course, no offence to anyone who has edited it in the past. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to take part, but I have concerns that I just can't be very active with RL being the way it is at the moment. I was going to suggest Boris Becker, but I really don't mind who! Pete Sampras is fine by me. In any case, I can drop by and help with copy-editing and other such things. We'll get tennis on the main page yet, ;-) Maedin\^talk 18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I couldn't help but make a comment here. I'd love to see a tennis article make GA or FA. I suggest you all take a gander at 2008 Tennis Masters Cup. It is too long (lack of summary style is what doomed its GAN), but I think it's a good model in terms of writing and structure. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently got Federer-Nadal rivalry to GA. Perhaps we could try to get it to FA. My schedule is busy these days so I don't have much time for wikipeida, though, and have no intention of doing so by myself. Also, the Sampras article is a good choice to get to GA. Thing is, I looked at it and no mention of his recent Autobiography! If any of you read the whole book (I lost interest after a couple of chapters) there is a lot of useful info there. --Armchair info guy (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis is B-Class, maybe we could have a go at that? OnHoliday 06:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone wants to join me, but after getting Laura Robson to GA (really easy, but no hope for FA), I'm going to take a stab at Roger Federer. That'll be difficult, though, seeing how bloated it is right now... Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

All the detailed results in biographies

Almost all of the major players (by which I mean historically Sampras, Connors, Lendl, Becker etc, Graf, Navratilova, Seles, etc) have a huge swath of tables in intricate detail. While the general "size of articles" criteria exclude tables (which is very odd, and needs review in light of these incredibly detailed and lengthy tables), it's now becoming clear (especially going back through this talk page archive) that we need to deal with the tables in a constructive manner. So, as per a number of association football articles that I've reviewed, worked on, helped promote to featured status, we need to decide on how best to fork this intricate detail to another article. First and foremost we need a useful and generic nomenclature for these results forks (e.g. List of Andy Murray's tournament results or similar - please suggest better...) so we can keep any intricate detail superfluous to a well summarised article.

Secondly we need a consensus between the expert writers that aiming for GA or FA is the right approach. There's no point in editors making an effort to meet the GA or FA criteria only to be boldly reverted for a discussion which will never be concluded as a result of an essay rather than following good Wikipedia guidelines and policies. We should make strident efforts to avoid unconstructive edits and head for good and featured articles. It isn't that difficult as long as we edit as a community. Good luck everyone! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Era

Hey, tennis folk. I'm not at all sure why this bothers me, but it does. (Go figure.) Our articles are not consistent when it comes to the capitalization of this ubiquitous phrase. The three contenders are: Open Era, Open era, and open era. Embarrassingly enough, examples of all three can be found in Open Era. I would advocate capitalization of both terms (i.e., Open Era) to conform to the journalistic norm and to the capitalization of other kinds of eras (Mesozoic Era, anyone?). But each of the three contenders could be justified, and I'm more interested in consistency than anything else. Is it possible to achieve a consensus? GreenGourd (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Serena Williams to be prepared for Featured Article nomination

Several editors believe that this might be the first tennis-related article to be nominated, and even to be promoted. We are keen to attract editors to the article over the next month. The timeline for nomination is vaguely by the end of May. Please join in! Tony (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)