Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Tournament draw wikitext generator

With the help of Mad melone, I've published a tool that generates the draw sections of tennis tournament articles from their respective ITF printable URLs (e.g. go to a tournament [1] -> select singles/doubles, main draw/qualifying -> click print [2]). In tandem with an article template like Adamtt9's here, it should allow us to rapidly add all the missing draws articles from the open era, thereby filling in the red links in the above-mentioned season templates like this one. --Somnifuguist (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning me, but I only built the webservice, all praise for the tool is yours Somnifuguist. There is potentially more to come as I am experimenting with a bot that can directly write to a wiki (rather than providing a copy&paste solution), but that's a medium to long way down the road.--Mad melone (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The tool has now been used to create ~400 articles on the German wiki, which shows its potential should someone choose to use it here. Somnifuguist (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed that Big Four career statistics be merged into Big Three (tennis), or alternatively re-named and adjusted as appropriate. Input to the discussion here is welcomed, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

What should be in Big Three (tennis)?

In relation to the proposal above, user:Fyunck(click) and I are in disagreement over the intended content of the article. Broadly speaking, they feel the vast majority of content originally in Big Four (tennis) should be included, and I do not - more at the current discussion here. Although not explicitly stated as such, my interpretation of the merger discussion in October/November was that it was a more popular opinion to embrace the Big Three concept more fully and mention the Big Four concept more in passing, in the same way that a Big Five had been mentioned on the older article. Fyunck(click) thinks Big Four details should be included more fully from the merged article. I think there will need to be some tidying up either way, but as a middling observer of tennis I think this is an important and enduring topic that deserves a good quality article with consistent information - at present it's half Big 3, half Big 4 and readers might be confused. Notwithstanding Fyunck(click)'s status as a longstanding member of the project while I'm an interloper, some input from the other members on what should be included in the Big Three article would be appreciated; we can then move forward with changes to the related Statistics article as appropriate. Thanks very much. Crowsus (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Per Aircorn, "How the Big three article is set up to accommodate info from this article is up to interested editors." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That said, I disagree with most of what you are saying. The reason for the merger was that the Big Three content would overlap too much with the Big Four content. The fact that the Big Three was selected as the article to be merged into doesn't mean the Big Four don't exist. The Big Four has always been a more relevant term than the Big Five; that is not up for debate. The merger wasn't about getting rid of the Big Four term (or about getting rid of the Big Three term, if the opposite had been decided). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"Fyunck(click) thinks Big Four details should be included more fully from the merged article." Fyunck is right about that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"I think there will need to be some tidying up either way, but as a middling observer of tennis I think this is an important and enduring topic that deserves a good quality article with consistent information - at present it's half Big 3, half Big 4 and readers might be confused." You are right about that. None of the editors who advocated for the Big Three article over the Big Four article actually want to write the main part of the article. So I don't think it's worth trying to improve. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I also don't agree with Aircorn's decision to close the discussion. (4 editors wanted to merge into the Big Four; 7 editors wanted to merge into the Big Three, including one IP with no editing history and a different editor who just wrote "Agree".) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

What Crowsus is proposing is more a deletion than a merge and that was NEVER intended. The content of the Big Four should mostly be intact. Obviously as Sportsfan77777 said, there needs to be tidying and some fudging to make it work as seamlessly as possible. I wouldn't call you an interloper... everyone should be free to discuss their opinions. Heck, maybe many agree with you. But there is a huge difference between merge and delete. Let me also point out that I was never a fan of all the details in either article. I thought they should be simple prose like we do for the Four Musketeers article. But I was overruled many times on that by wikipedia editors. No problem, but now that the content exists and the only agreement was to merge, it should be merged... not deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Bearing the above in mind, you/we should either then appeal to a higher authority to have the merger discussion re-opened or cancelled (thereby restoring the original Big Four article which I had read a few times over the years, and which i feel was cast aside disrespectfully in favour of a new, very basic list which somehow was successfully argued as being a better option to retain), or a new Move discussion should be started to re-name Big Three to Big Four which would bring in more editors from across the editing spectrum. I have already said that I agree with your position that Big Four is valid as a topic, but at the moment the article is called Big Three. To have four players discussed in detail under that title is nonsensical. Either there's a big three in tennis or there's a big four with one member dropping out in recent years, I'm on the big four side of any vote on it and i think it needs further discussion but in the end a decision needs to be made, either it's three and the article is mainly about 3 players or it's four and the article is about 4. If you miss having the Big Four article that you spent time on, fight for its return because what's there now is a pretty shoddy mish mash. Crowsus (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

There was a Big Four and there is now a Big Three. And we don't need the merger re-opened, it just needs to be merged correctly. This recent thing started not with the article merger but with your proposal to pretty much eliminate a different article, Big Four career statistics. That was unacceptable in my mind. Certainly the new Big Three article should mostly focus on the Big Three. Most of the Big Four prose should be in the "2011–2013: Big four Dominance" section (with some overlap), but it should probably be the biggest single section. And as we have it now, that section points to Big Four career statistics for those readers who want more detail on stats of the Big Four. I see no real issue here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Big Four career statistics was created after a discussion I started a couple of months ago. Big Four (tennis) had been noted as being too large as far back as 7 years ago [3], when it was half the size, so IMO it was a much-needed split and the proposal to merge the statistics article back into Big Three (tennis) should be withdrawn. As for Big Three vs. Big Four, it basically came down to whether editors viewed the term as describing an era (Big Four), or a legacy (Big Three). I disagreed with the direction of the merge, but it was probably inevitable given the recurrent raising of the issue since Murray's decline. I also heard a commentator include Thiem in a 'Big Four' recently, so having a core 'Big Three' article that discusses other variants of the term is probably less confusing for readers new to tennis. Now that the merge has taken place (albeit somewhat haphazardly), it seems logical to move the statistics article to Big Three career statistics to be consistent, so I would support such a move. Somnifuguist (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention for sports stadia

A request for comment is open regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguation in relation to articles on sports stadia here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC Naming convention for sports stadia. Input is welcome. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Important page move - The Championships, Wimbledon

Letting Tennis Project know that a move discussion at talk:Wimbledon, London has spilled over to include moving The Championships, Wimbledon to simply "Wimbledon". They at first moved it unilaterally but I complained that neither Tennis Project nor The Championships, Wimbledon talk pages were informed prior to the move. It was reopened. I'm actually not sure how I feel one way or the other, but I wanted our editors who do care to have the chance to express their opinions on that particular aspect of the discussion... especially since it's the most important tournament in tennis history. Again it's at talk:Wimbledon, London. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), Thanks for the heads up. Ym2X (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia tennis pages. Sources.

I would like to propose a change to current wikipedia policy on which sources are and are not allowed on wikipedia tennis pages. Currently the rule on self-published sources seems to be being administered unfairly by one editor who discriminates against Amazon published books. More and more good books are self-published these days. Particularly for the pre-open era pro tour, nearly all the sources are self-published. Currently some are allowed and some are not allowed, with Amazon-published works not being allowed by him. Perhaps the editor in question fears the opening of the floodgates if we allow all Amazon published works as sources, so let me set his mind at rest by proposing the following solution.

Amazon published works should be allowed as wikipedia sources under the following rules for minimum standards of entry:

Publication has an Amazon Sales Rank in five different countries.

Publication reviewed or recommended by a magazine or an established expert.

Publication accepted into the Kenneth Ritchie library at Wimbledon.

Author may not cite own work. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I support this proposal.Karoly Mazak (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karoly Mazak (talk • contribs) 11:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Editors on this project can't make their own policies that go against the standard set forth on Wikipedia per WP:VERIFY|WP:SELFPUBLISH. So you will have to take your issue up Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as this relates to one of the pillars of Wikipedia when it comes to sources.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 11:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This is about selective application of the rules. I see no difference between Ray Bowers publishing his retrospective rankings on a website and Karoly Mazak publishing his retrospective rankings in his book. I have not received a satisfactory answer as to why these two sources are treated differently. I will post this on the thread you posted onecamera, but I dont see Ray Bowers mentioned on there. Who decided he was a reliable source? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Were the Kenneth Ritchie Library catalogue available online, I would say this was a good idea. But as far as I can see, it's not. Deb (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a very easy way to check. Just email the Wimbledon library and the librarian will tell you if a book is in their library or not. They are very good at responding. I have posted this proposal on the page suggested by onecamera and have received support from Karoly Mazak and krosero. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As Oncamera points out individual WikiProjects do not get to set their own policy regarding WP:VERIFY|WP:SELFPUBLISH. In addition there is a clear conflict of interest here with the editors involved proposing guidelines with the obvious intent to get their own (resp. each other's) tennis books accepted under their proposed 'rules'. Authors should stay far away from any conduct that appears to be aimed at plugging their own book. Said editors are skating on thin ice.--Wolbo (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently this policy you constantly quote is being administered by you, Wolbo. I think you are skating on ice if you think your own very prejudicial judgement should be allowed to decide which sources qualify under this rule or not. I have already considered the issue of "plugging" my own book which is the reason why I stated authors could not cite their own work. My proposal isnt about any one book. This is about all books meeting minimum standards including the verification by experts. I prefer the verification of experts to the prejudicial judgement of one wikipedia editor.

Let me quote again the remarks you made in a talk page on this subject Wolbo. "No offence to anyone who has taken the effort to publish something but any idiot can self-publish (and it seems a lot of them have). Fyunck's view that "something is better than nothing" is simply wrong if it doesn't meet the requirements set out in WP:V, WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUB (which are not static but evolve with community consensus). It is a minimum standard that cannot be compromised. If we allow Mazak's "book" (and I use the term loosely) we might as well determine the rankings ourselves and that is aside from the question about the encyclopedic merit of judging in 2010 that Gore was the No. 1 ranked player in 1877.--"

In writing the paragraph above, Wolbo, you lost all respect in my eyes. It was full of spite, jealousy and bias and the last sentence was utter nonsense. You allow Ray Bowers to determine 1930s rankings in 2005 but you do not allow Karoly Mazak to do so in 2010. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolution to current conflict on sources

I have followed procedure on this and gone through RFC on sources. Without pre-judging the final result, it looks as if my proposal on establishing set rules for tennis sources will not carry. Editors from other subjects like the existing rule as it is. The problem is this leaves us with a major issue on these tennis pages and I do not know what the answer to it is. I would like a proper debate on this.

One editor, Wolbo, has taken it upon himself to be the sole arbitre of what sources are allowed and what sources are not. His judgement has been shown to be very prejudicial. If we debate books on a case by case basis then me trying to get my own book accepted as a source will be seen as me having a vested interest.

I find Wolbo's remarks on Karoly Mazak's book offensive for a number of reasons. Firstly, if we look at the page World number one ranked male tennis players we find rare sources for the early years and who did the research to find these sources? Karoly Mazak! This is the same person that Wolbo mocks and calls his book a "book" in inverted commas and says he might as well decide the rankings himself if we allow it as a source. Well where is your book Wolbo? Where is your research?

This is what the late Alan Little, former honorary librarian of Kenneth Ritchie Wimbledon library said about Karoly's book: "This is a tremendous effort and undoubtedly a fine document for future reference. The summary of each year and the ranking list attached will serve many researcher in the future. We will be pleased to put a copy on our shelves."

The problem is, the tennis history community is very small. The same person that writes a book edits on wikipedia. Someone who has a prejudice against amazon published books also edits on wikipedia. Who else regularly edits?, its mainly you fyunck, you may be the only one without a bias on this issue. I am not prepared to accept that Wolbo allows some self-published sources such as Ray Bowers, Robet Geist and tennisbase, while disallowing others. McCauley with all his many errors is allowed but my book with much more data and far fewer errors is not. Ray Bowers' retrospective rankings are accepted but not Karoly Mazak's. There is no justification that I can see, both Bowers and Mazak are the same.

I have always respected your expertise with technical issues (page formatting, etc.), Wolbo. You have more knowledge on how to format an infobox or a ref tag correctly than I do and I will be the first to admit that. You do have some knowledge of tennis history, but you are not someone I would class as an expert. And even leaving myself out of the conversation I have known experts. For example some of the data in my book comes from someone who adds data to the ATP website. I know how he researches (I have similar methods myself) and he is someone I have a high regard for as an expert, gathering data (some quite obscure) from libraries all over the world. Wikipedia editor Krosero is a researcher and someone who I have high regard for. And Karoly Mazak, who I have already mentioned.

A lot of people laugh at wikipedia tennis pages, mocking their lack of accuracy. My attitude is different. Wikipedia pages show up high on google searches. Do we want the pages to be as accurate as possible or do we want them to be rubbish? I say we should make them as accurate as we can, because a lot of people read them and it is important they receive the best information. I have spent some time (over the past year in particular) making them a lot more accurate. And whilst I do acknowledge the large number of tennis pages you have edited over many years Wolbo, improving the formatting, correcting spelling and grammar etc. and in some cases the content also, it is about time you showed myself and other tennis historians some respect for what we have done. I do not bow to any self-appointed authority you think you have in deciding sources on wikipedia. I would like suggestions of how to resolve this. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

An RfC to change all wikipedia guidelines was doomed from the outset. Tennis isn't important enough for a wiki-wide change. Self-published sources can be used if it can be shown the authors are experts on the subject, or if they have been properly published for other works of tennis. What has to be shown is that the books in question are the works of experts. Tennis magazines printing they are experts or people like Alan Little saying in print they are goes a long way. Newspaper articles talking about the books. If something is self-published then it needs some respected sources telling us it is pretty accurate and worthy of our using it as a source. Find those items and put them here so we can judge them. It is your responsibility to do the legwork and convince those of us at Tennis Project. A respected publisher uses advertising to make sure a book sells. If you self-publish you may need to seek out tennis magazines or the press and tell them about your book. If they like what the hear and read, it'll get mentioned in an article. If famous tennis players talk about the book, that works too. But self-published book authors have to do that themselves. That's about all I can say. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I was advised to do an RfC. I was following what I was advised to do. You are certainly right about the reasons for the RfC's failure. Getting a book advertised as a self-published author is hard. Bear in mind authors are not specialists in advertising. My book was reviewed in a magazine. Which tennis players know about the pro tour? Even many so-called experts do not. My issue with this is actually not about my book specifically. Of course I would love it to be accepted as a source. But my issue on this is about fair application of the rules. I have asked the editor in question repeatedly how Robert Geist, Ray Bowers and tennisbase qualify under these rules. He refuses to answer, yet all the while will routinely remove my book and Karoly's if they are cited as sources. I want to know reasons why each self-published source is allowed. I am a reasonable man. If a good reason is given (as was the case with McCauley being a journalist for World Tennis magazine) I will accept that. I think it is becoming increasingly clear to several editors that something is amiss here. Only last night someone queried why some retrospective rankings by Bowers were accepted as sources on the World number one ranked male tennis players page. I am afraid I can see no logical reason. Lets list each self-published source currently accepted and see the reasons for its acceptance. If I make edits on wikipedia I am expected to justify those edits and I expect all editors to behave the same way. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think actually my book has a magazine review plus one other expert citation. I am happy to discuss these and provide links to them. But what I do not want to do is get involved with an edit war with the editor in question. I would like this whole issue discussed on talk first and agreed upon. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert Geist and Ray Bowers are quoted over and over as tennis experts in published sources. Published books on tennis quote them, such as "A Terrible Splendor." Newspapers like the NY Times quote them as well. Now tennis base is another story. I see no reason it should accepted where others are not. It is a site designed for and paid by bettors on the sport of tennis. When it was first being built and some conversations with the author about his ranking of old tennis events... some were absurd. Some of his numbers were based on sourced exhibitions, not sourced legitimate events. Overall it's great to see the stats there from someone who has researched and loves the sport, but I no longer subscribe since I will not pay some ridiculous sum just to support all the betting it's used for. It seems a bit slimy with the betting aspect. But it's no better than yours or Karoly's books. The site owner is a mathematician and tennis fan who decided to make money on his expertise of tennis by linking it to the betting world. He (Gabriel García) does have some famous players that have blogs on his site and that gives extra weight. I have always thought each work should stand on its own as far as is it a worthy source, regardless of if it's self published or not or a betting site or not. I do not own "The Professional Tennis Archive" though I have seen it. I own "the Concise History of Tennis." Mazak's book is surely as worthy as thetennisbase info. TPTA I would have to reserve personal judgement on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent answer fyunck, it is very useful. I can now explain to people when they ask, why Bowers is listed as a source. I will let Karoly explain about his own book should he wish to. Let me explain my thoughts on the tennisbase pre-open era pro data and also explain about my book. I am one of the very few people who has gone through all the tennisbase pre open era pro data. Some I used in my book. Some of the good quality tennisbase data is provided by an excellent historian who I know (he also provides data to the ATP website). He provided some of these results of his to me directly by email and sent me some copies of newspaper match reports (all the results he emailed me were also published on tennisbase). Some of the data on tennisbase is provided by editor Krosero, another excellent historian (he also shared some of his match reports with me). Some tennisbase data comes from McCauley of varying quality (sometimes amended). However, some tennisbase data (of unknown origin) is not so good. I made an assessment on which tennisbase data to use in my book and which not use and corrected errors as I went along. I was able to verify the quality of each tour or tournament using my knowledge. A good proportion of the data in my book is from my own research. I spent a long time trawling through online archives and emailed many libraries and I visited three libraries in person. I unearthed the results of several newly found tours and tournaments and many results not published since the matches were originally played. So my book is considerably more accurate and contains more data than tennisbase does for the pre-open era pro tour period (tennisbase also has pre-open amateur data and open era data which my book does not). Despite its inaccuracies, I would say tennisbase is a valuable website on tennis history and praise those involved for their efforts, but I am very dubious about having a statistics section for the pro tour (and using tennisbase stats for the pro tour on wikipedia). Complete match results for the pro tour are not known and never will be known (some matches were not reported anywhere), so the stats listed are partial. I do not list stats in my book for this reason. I have a large archive of match reports (not only screenshots of online newspapers, but also offline newspapers sent to me from libraries). Any queries on results, I can provide match reports to settle the argument. I have a copy of a magazine review of my book which I can upload for you to see. Copies of my book are in the Wimbledon library and the hall of fame library. There was also this https://www.si.com/tennis/2019/12/18/mailbag-2019-year-decade-review-serena-federer-wozniacki-big-three Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's all relative though. I believe all you say, but it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot unless other mainstream sources print it about you or your book. The Sports Illustrated blurb is not the writer commenting or talking about it, or reviewing it. He just posts a link to Amazon. Had he written a paragraph on it's worthiness it would be a different story. You mentioned that "authors are not specialists in advertising"... if they want to use their books as sources then they have to learn. Sort of, if a tree falls in the forest and no one sees it, did it really happen? I assume you sent free copies of your book to Tennis.com, Tennis View Magazine, Tennis Channel, and every other small tennis journal? Getting them to give favorable reviews and noting your expertise is exactly what we need. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

https://imgur.com/a/FGaLS4n Is the magazine review. This was published in Tennis threads, the only UK printed monthly tennis magazine, in November 2019. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma

Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma (https://internazionaliparma.com/) and Internazionali di Tennis Emilia Romagna (https://internazionaliemiliaromagna.it) are two very different tournaments but at the moment they are in the same page. The former is a Challenger 80 ($52.080) held indoor in Parma city at the PalaRaschi (the main sport arena in Parma) on hard surface. The other one is a Challenger 125 ($156.240) held outdoor in Montechiarugolo, a suburb of Parma, on red clay. The only thing they have in common is the same organizer (MEF Tennis Events). Therefore a new page would be necessary for Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma, as Italian (it:Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma) and German (de:ATP Challenger Parma-2) wikipedia have. Carlo58s (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Djokovic–Federer rivalry

I have nominated Djokovic–Federer rivalry for WP:GAN. Kindly edit and help improve the article.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Known flags for the next round

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Knockout brackets in sports events has a suggestion against adding a flag to the next round in draws before a match between players from the same country. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You mean in the tournament draw brackets? Difficult to police and it usually fixes itself in an hour or two. I think we have better things to correct than a particular flag icon. What I suggested years ago was that we only need flag icons in the first round. I guess the thing going against the removal and keeping the flags (at least in tennis) is the way the sources do it at the WTA, ATP, and the events themselves. They have the flags listed every round. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Singles/Doubles category sorting

Category:2020 ATP Tour currently includes:

• 2020 Astana Open
• 2020 Astana Open – Doubles
• 2020 Astana Open – Singles

Doubles is sorted before Singles because D is before S alphabetically. Most tournament articles are sorted like that. I think it should be opposite:

• 2020 Astana Open
• 2020 Astana Open – Singles
• 2020 Astana Open – Doubles

The number 1 comes before 2, singles gets far more attention than doubles, and singles is mentioned before doubles in nearly every context (if doubles is even mentioned). Small bonus: "Singles" is narrower than "Doubles" in proportional fonts so it looks better visually, and readers can more easily connect articles about the same event. All articles already have sortkeys to remove the year. I suggest sorting the word "Singles" as "1", e.g. 2020 Astana Open – Singles as "Astana Open – 1" (or optionally "Astana Open - 1" with hyphen instead of ndash). This places it between 2020 Astana Open and 2020 Astana Open – Doubles without having to change their current sortkeys. If somebody also sorts 2020 Astana Open – Doubles as "Astana Open – 2" then it's OK but not necessary. The same principle works in categories like Category:2019 Miami Open where 2019 Miami Open – Men's Singles can sort as "2019 Miami Open – Men's 1", and 2019 Miami Open – Women's Singles as "Miami Open – Women's 1". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well that makes just too much sense. Thumbs up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Abu Dhabi Open needs to be looked at

Can someone familiar with professional tennis look at the recent changes to Abu Dhabi Open? A pair of new editors suggest the event has a new name or new organization.

If they are correct, the information that they removed may need to go on a new page and the current page renamed.

If they are trying to hijack the article, then of course it needs to be reverted.

Here's the diff from January 13 to 22 February: [4] davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)