Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

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

Season articles

Is there any fresh news on the escalation of this issue? I feel it's time to rethink the notability guidelines as we are about to have a new GS winner in the shape of Kei Nishikori or Marin Cilic and I'm afraid their respective fans will flood the market with articles such as 2001 Kei Nishikori Tennis season. Any thoughts? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 16:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What would be your suggestion? Something as simple as they must have won a Major in the year in question? I have no problem with working on the parameters but do we grandfather in old created articles, or do we delete the slew of Federer articles? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I would second Lajbi's proposal for an internal WP:Tennis standard for single-season articles for individual seasons in which the tennis player in question won one or more Grand Slam events in the individual season/year in question. Other editors suggested something similar during the recent AfD for the "2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season" article. I think such a standard makes sense because I believe it will likely yield the same outcome as a full-blown analysis under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. As for grandfathering all existing single-season articles, I have three comments. First, you cannot bind anyone with such a "grandfather" clause because WP:Tennis' internal "guidelines" cannot prevail over the Wikipedia-wide notability guidelines. Second, that having been said, a grandfather clause could provide a compromise and "gentlemen's agreement" among WP:Tennis editors how to handle these articles going forward, and I don't think other editors are hovering on WP:Tennis' doorstep, looking to propose all of these articles for AfD. Third, before proposing the new single-season standard with the grandfather clause compromise, I suggest you comprehensively review all of the tennis single-season articles and see what you really want to keep or not keep, and determine if the proposed solution renders your desired outcomes. You will probably not get a third bite at this apple. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually see no conflict at all with wiki guidelines. And guidelines are not policy. But if consensus shows that articles may be deleted (for whatever reason) then certainly we can re-look at things to make them tighter. Winning a Major is certainly a reasonable suggestion. One could also simply combine multiple seasons together when some are too weak to stand on their own. You mention a comprehensive review... I think there are actually very few of these articles. They mostly center around Federer, Nadal, Serena Williams, and Djokovic. The Roger Federer articles were made with prior wiki consensus and created the rules we have today. But rules change on a regular basis at wikipedia. Also if history of other wiki articles is anything to go by, it always seems there are more and more apples to eat. They never seem to run out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Federer's earlier articles could be easily "saved" based on other notability standards. He was successful in his Junior years, and he almost had a decade with a GS win in each year. His post number-1 career would be in jeopardy but then he had a comeback era so one or two minor seasons could be sacrificed for the greater good. The GS/year would be a good first step. Adding Olympics to the mix would be fair too. I think it will leave enough leeway for editors to create season articles (up to 40 different articles per year not counting the Junior/wheelchair champions, which is TBD). Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 21:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Federer may have been notable some years, but not this season. Junior years would be gone as likely would Roger Federer's early career and 2011 Roger Federer tennis season, 2013 Roger Federer tennis season, and 2014 Roger Federer tennis season. Without grandfathering we would need to be consistent so editors could easily follow the new guidelines. With a "combined years" solution they may not be a problem as 2013 and 2014 might simply be combined into Roger Federer's later career, and 2011 could be joined with 2012. Obviously in whatever gets decided, unforeseen loopholes could be found, but it sure seems to me that we wouldn't want to start off with known implied exceptions right out the starting gate. I'm not for the Olympics addition. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What about we "encourage" editors that when creating later or early careers then let's say they should embrace at least five years? I don't have a problem if a GS victory year is expanded with four more; it's still one article instead of five. But merging two just to save one is obviously just an escape route. Certain players can also have their whole tennis career bagged together. To get a current example Marin Čilić's whole career can be a standalone article as he had only 250 tournament wins up to now. Although that would cut his main article back to minimum if moved (or cause a double entry about his career). Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 08:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying this can't be done. It is certainly one way to handle the situation. I'm saying that if it is done this way then we can't say they must have won a Major to qualify for seasonal articles, since that would be a falsehood. Whatever we come up with that allows each of the Federer extra articles must also be allowed for all other Player articles so that we are fair to everyone. As long as the guidelines are clear and equal for every player, so new editors can see just what the parameters are, then all should be well. As far as main articles go, every player article should reach a large size before splitting at all. First they spill into career statistics... then when Majors start piling up they go into seasonal articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough for me. Personally I don't feel appropriate to have a 2014 Marin Čilić tennis season neither as he spent 1/3 of the season off due the drugs ban. Any thoughts on injuries/time spent off to affect the notability? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 16:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well if you think that, then why is there a Serena article for a season when she only played something like 7 matches? (05) I think, but it was the one before the "fat" Aussie Open win. 80.42.86.184 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why this discussion is happening. Right now 2014 Cilic is allowed "if" his main article fills up. If it goes, then the Serena 2004, 2006, 2011, and Serena Williams early career articles are in jeopardy. We are talking about tightening the restrictions because a couple recent consensus votes by the wiki community have deleted some lesser seasonal articles. We would like to re-write our Project Guidelines so editors don't have to worry about expending efforts to creating new articles and then have them wiped away by a dozen voters. My thoughts on the injury/time is it's of little consequence to how we write the guidelines. There will always be a tiny fraction that will need to be looked at as a "special circumstance"... nothing will be iron-clad perfect. But as our rules stand this second, since Cilic won a Major last week, he is now entitled to season articles for every year he was a pro... even past trivial seasons... just like Serena or Federer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

---

So did we agree that a player's season is only notable if a Grand Slam was won in that given year by the player? Any objections? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

So we're clear, if that's the only wording we use in our guidelines then we must immediately remove Roger Federer junior years, Roger Federer's early career, 2011 Roger Federer tennis season, 2013 Roger Federer tennis season, and 2014 Roger Federer tennis season. If those stay (either by being left alone or consensus) then we must word our guidelines differently to encompass their inclusion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Fyunck, from my perspective, the fundamental error the creators of these articles have made is in attempting to document literally every tournament in which the subject athlete ever played in a given year, and, indeed, in every match in which the athlete played. Most of these matches are not even worthy of a footnote in the broad sweep of a hugely successful career like Federer's. If the overwhelming majority of these matches are not worthy of a single sentence of text in the article, one must question the match-level of detail included in these tables.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a stand-alone biography of Federer, where such match and tournament tables could be buried in an appendix in the final 20 to 30 pages of a 250-page book. An encyclopedia, by it very nature, is supposed to be a compendium of many topics, not the single definitive work about any single topic. With regard to any single topic, an encyclopedia sets forth the fundamentals and the major points of knowledge about a given subject; as an example, the Wikipedia article about Thomas Edison does not list every one of the 100s of experiments that Edison conducted before finally creating a successful incandescent light bulb. From the perspective of an encyclopedia, that's trivia. In the context of Wikipedia, it's also fan-boyish, which is something from which many of our sports articles suffer. If someone wants to write the definitive career history of Federer and include every match he ever played, then that writer has chosen the wrong forum in Wikipedia.

And, again, I gently remind you: WP:Tennis may adopt whatever internal standard it chooses for single-season articles, but unless the WP:Tennis standard approximates the same outcome as an AfD analysis using the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (i.e. significant coverage about the individual season -- not the athlete, not the individual tournaments or matches, but the season itself -- in multiple, independent, reliable sources), then many of those articles are still going to be subject to the same fate as the Maria Sharapova 2013 tennis season article when some random editor nominates it for AfD.

As for the example articles you mention above, my reactions are:

• Roger Federer junior years - should be summarized in one or two brief paragraphs within the main parent article; the detailed match table is of no particular value to the general reader.
• Roger Federer's early career - should be summarized in two or three brief paragraphs within the main parent article; the detailed match-level table is of no particular value to the general reader. Most of the alleged space issues would alleviated if the responsible editors would eliminate match-level detail tables, and instead focus on tournament-level detail tables.
• 2011 Roger Federer tennis season - No Grand Slam event championship. Again this level of match-level detail is overkill, major tournaments and other notable matches could be briefly summarized instead of trying to cover literally every match in which Federer played.
• 2013 Roger Federer tennis season - Ditto
• 2014 Roger Federer tennis season - Ditto

Also, creating tables of head-to-head statistics for every year/season is also a massive waste of space. If desirable, a single table of head-to-head stats for Federer's entire career could be created. The annual head-to-head tables are another example of a level of detail that goes far beyond what any reader would expect to find in an encyclopedia article; indeed, it is a level of detail beyond what any reader would expect to find in a 250-page hard-copy book biography of Federer. The problem you have, as sports editors, is not figuring out how to include every trivial statistical detail, but how to distill the key data, the most important data, and presenting the most important data in a coherent fashion useful to the majority of readers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Some are good points and some I disagree with. Fist let me say that in my statement above, I just wanted to be clear that editor @Lajbi: understands the ramifications of requiring a Major victory. I didn't say nay or yeah. You spelled it out to him even clearer on what will happen if that sentence is added to our guidelines. I don't concern myself with what "may" happen if articles are brought to afds. My only concern, as always, is that I ask myself what is best for our readers. What are their wants and needs. Most will know tennis and many will know tennis quite well. When they come here how can we help their experience. Wikipedia is advertiser driven also... we don't want to turn readers away if possible. Better too much than too little in most cases. As for Mr Edison, you do realize we have listings here at wikipedia for every one of his 1084 patents? I happen to use Federer's match details, and I know people at ESPN check those stats here also. We may not be the "average tennis reader" but I think some of your solutions are quite draconian in application. Space is of no consequence at wikipedia so that point is moot. Also I don't feel the same way about sports editors as you do. Whether it's the lives of every individual Simpson's character that was ever drawn by an animator's pen, or an individual article for every song the Beatles ever recorded, or every match played during Tilden's two year 95 match win streak, Wikipedia (as a non-paper encyclopedia) has the ability to encompass many wants and needs of readers. Details of a Federer season where he won Wimbledon doesn't seem like a major issue for Wikipedia. Probably what one of us needs to do is lay out three or four choices (including keeping it as is) and see what sticks to the tape. Maybe I'll do it tonight and post it here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I can gather, points being made in this rather small conversion can be broken down into several choices.

• Option 1:

  Keep all as it is now. Allow articles to be created for all seasons (or merged seasons) once a singles player has won a Grand Slam tournament title. Reasons why this works is that subjects such as Roger Federer already have had wikipedia-wide consensus !votes of approval for Roger Federer junior years, Roger Federer's early career, and the individual 2003–2014 seasons, with no problems until very recently.

• Option 2:

  Require a singles Grand Slam tournament victory for any created season article. This would allow the most fruitful years of a players career to be broken down into single seasons and stop articles from being created such as the 2014 Juan Martín del Potro tennis season where he barely played yet was allowed under current guidelines. This would however require the removal of Roger Federer junior years, Roger Federer's early career, and his 2011, 2013 and 2014 seasons. Also removals of 2014 Andy Murray tennis season, many Maria Sharapova articles, Serena Williams's early career, plus Serena's 2004, 2006 and 2011 seasonal articles.

• Option 3:

  Allow all seasons as per current standards but require that non Grand Slam tournament victory years be merged into prior season articles. The articles may be larger but with some content trimming and proper table of contents, this could also work. This would still allow an article on the 2011 Serena Williams tennis season but force it to merge with the 2010 Serena Williams tennis season.

• Option 4:

  1) Only allow season articles starting with a player's first Grand Slam tournament victory... none from before. This would allow articles such as 2011 Serena Williams tennis season provided there were Grand Slam tournament victories in both prior and future years.

  2) All seasons prior to that first grand Slam tournament victory may be combined into one early career article, provided there is enough content and the main page is already approaching wikipedia size limits (50–60k readable prose).

  3) All seasons after the last Grand Slam tournament victory may be combined into one later career article provided there is enough content and the main page is already approaching wikipedia size limits (50–60k readable prose).

  This would eliminate the Federer junior years but not his early career. This could be tricky in creating articles such as Azarenka's 2014 season. If she wins no more Grand Slam tournaments that should technically be included in her later career article. So tough for editors to know what to name articles after winning a Major.

• Option 4b:

  Same as Option 4 except include the limitation (as in option 3) of season articles with no Grand Slam tournament victory must be merged into prior seasons.

Am I missing something or do these options pretty much cover the many conversations we've been having? One thing is that I think we need to have an agreement with more than just 2 or 3 of us. I'd bring in the original framers of our current consensus from the large rfc at Roger Federer to see if they've changed their minds and want to now limit ourselves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, If a player such as Federer makes a grand slam final with other victories in some higher level matches e.g. Cincinnati, then it should satisfy GNG without it being considered overkill. We cannot accurately summarize his entire season body of work in just one or two paragraphs as part of his biographical page without causing the SIZERULE to be obfuscated. Right now, his tennis career needs a gigantic trimming in order to come in line with the SIZERULE, instead of an expansion. I'd say lets keep the season articles if the player has made a final with other significant victories on tour, for an established grand slam champion like Federer and Serena.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

So that sounds like Option 4 is closest for additionsubtraction? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I'll add some thoughts off the top of my head. Going off the list of options above, I would agree most with option 4. I am not comfortable with the idea of merging two seasons into one article. I do, however, support the idea of "early career" and "later career" articles as outlined above. Regarding Federer's article collection, I see no issue in retaining, as proposed above, the early career and season articles. The tough spot, as of right now, is his 2011 season article, but I don't think that it should be removed or merged, mostly for reasons which I expand on below. I do also agree that his appearance in the Roland Garros final and his win at the Tour Finals, among other titles, should still make it notable, as argued above.

I want to follow up on making considerations regarding season articles for "established Grand Slam champion[s] like Federer and Serena." I suppose this addresses the more general question of whether a player should merit season articles at all, though it may be a different discussion on whether a player's achieving a Major title merits a season article for that season. I do agree with AdditionSubtraction's point above, and I also feel slightly hesitant in allowing the creation of season articles for players if that player has won one Major. In my view, the season articles are well-merited and should be created only for players that have been major forces in the sport and are likely to be deemed among the greatest players of whatever era we consider. The season pages for these players are, thus, useful, given that the players' careers are sufficiently important to be explored in greater detail. Sure, it's a great thing for a player to achieve a breakthrough Grand Slam title, like Wawrinka and Čilić have, and also great to have thorough coverage for those events. But I hesitate to agree that their winning one Major title merits an article for the whole season (and in doing so, I agree with points made above regarding Čilić's season before the US Open). I believe that folks like Federer and Serena Williams definitely merit these season articles, and I would argue that it is also the case for Nadal, given his influence in men's tennis over the past decade, and Djokovic, in spite of the fact that he seemed only to be a major factor in tennis in the last five years. They have all had productive seasons throughout the courses of their careers, not just one-off seasons that are amazing relative to the rest of their career. So, in short, I think that the players' careers themselves should also come into consideration when deciding whether to create a season article or not.

Forgive me if I may have complicated things with my input, or provided a non-answer, but I felt that those were relevant points to make. The point I'm trying to make here is that there are some drawbacks to looking at setting up guidelines for the creation of season articles, though it is a very good idea. (And, on the same token, there are benefits for looking at this on a case-by-case basis). I feel that this could solve some problems that we are having here, but also potentially bring others up. (Of course, one issue I foresee arising would be where to draw the line in terms of which seasons should be considered for certain players. But, that's another discussion for another day.) As I mentioned before, if we're purely looking at which of the options is better, I would choose option 4. I'm saying that in choosing this option, I do think there's more to be considered than just the points made in the text of the proposed guideline. Let me know if I can make myself more clear. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Long story short I support option 4 too. As for the case-by-case proposal above AfDs mostly operate just like that. The most we can do is to set up a guideline to prevent the article mess that a new era of tennis could bring. Hopefuly the articles related to The Big Four will only benefit from a stricter guideline. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 22:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The current guidelines were put in place to curb the wild-growth of player season articles that was starting to occur with the creation of articles such as 2014 Roberto Bautusta-Agut tennis season. The requirement that only players who have won a Grand Slam tournament title are entitled to have season articles was sensible and elegant in its simplicity. It also reflected the consensus up to that point. Recent discussions made clear there is a need to further improve the guideline. Out of the options listed above by Fyunck option four seems the most sensible. There are however two scenarios which in my opinion should also be addressed. One is the '2014 Del Potro tennis season' scenario, a Grand Slam tournament winner who through injury, or other reason, is not active for most or all of the season. To address that we could add a minimum-match condition. The other is the 'One slam wonder' scenario where a player wins a Grand Slam tournament but does little of significance during the rest of his/her career. If there is consensus that such a player should not have season articles for (all) the post Grand Slam title years this could be covered by adding a performance clause of some kind. Thoughts?--Wolbo (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been open for over a month now. Have we reached a consensus that can be implemented? Seems to me there is a consensus for Fyunck's option 4, i.e. "Only allow season articles starting with a player's first Grand Slam tournament victory.". I would like to make it slightly more strict by adding the scenarios I mentioned above but would need more feedback to do so.--Wolbo (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wolbo: Wolbo, could you briefly summarize what you believe is the emerging consensus among WP:Tennis members, as well as any issues you believe remain to be addressed? Thank you for managing this discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The minimum consensus is that a player should not have season articles before the year of their first Grand Slam tournament victory. What exactly to do beyond that seems less clear. The later career part of Fyunck's option four appears less than practical to me for careers that are still ongoing. I would propose to allow season articles for all years following a player's first Grand Slam tournament win provided that they played a minimum amount of matches (e.g. 25) and achieved a minimum performance (e.g. Top 5 ranking) during a season. --Wolbo (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify my above proposed guideline, the conditions of a minimum of 25 matches and a top 5 ranking during the year apply specifically to any non-Grand Slam title year following the first Grand Slam tournament title. Grand Slam title years would always qualify --Wolbo (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wolbo, that may be a sensible compromise. Please remember, however, that external to WP:Tennis your internal WikiProject guidelines will still be back-stopped by GNG. So any internal guideline you adopt (and I'm happy to add my !vote to that) should be calibrated to satisfy GNG in the strong majority of individual cases. If you think your proposal does that, let's ping the previous discussion participants and call for an !vote.

Also, please be aware that discussion of this issue of stand-alone articles for single seasons of individual athletes (and several related issues) has been percolating, and that there are likely to be upcoming RfCs regarding stand-alone articles for sports rivalries, individual regular season games and matches, and sports seasons at WP:NSPORTS. I would be more comfortable starting that last RfC knowing that your internal WP:Tennis discussion had been resolved, and that your internal WikiProject guideline was unlikely to conflict with any other Wikipedia-wide standard. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to be the one agreeing to close or not to close since I was the one that took from what I was reading and compressed it into 4 choices for everyone. I have no problem with Wolbo's tweaking. As for GNG, it's hard to be all that concerned with it as I've found it thrashed time and time again by consensus votes. 99% of the time here, GNG comes up at tennis project because we are too strict in our allowances and someone finds a player in Bangladesh who has played one event and is in every newspaper in town. I wouldn't change our wording for that, as those cases are few and far between and GNG will take care of it when brought up for deletion. There are always exceptions at wikipedia, but final wording doesn't have to encompass every exception. Most know that GNG will often trump any other guideline, that policy will trump GNG and any other guideline, and that consensus will trump all of the above as long as enough !votes say it does. If you ping the above participants do it with the exact wording we want to enter into the guideline to make it easy on everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Fyunck, I agree that a guideline does not have to provide for every imaginable exception or contingency; guidelines should allow for the the unforeseen special case, and GNG does that. If you have really odd one and a strong majority agrees, you can always invoke IAR if you have a very good reason for doing so. That being said, there are ways to make a specific notability guideline tighter than GNG. One is to provide for another outlet for the content in another format, like regular season professional sports games being pushed into seasons articles. With regard to your locally famous tennis player who no one has ever heard of outside his hometown, there are ways of dealing with that, too. Coverage of a truly notable person should never be entirely local, or by definition, he's not really notable. That's already built into various guidelines. We can talk more. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is no further feedback we can update the guideline. It currently reads: "Allowed only for players who have won at least one Grand Slam singles title in their career." Proposed wording: "Can only be created for players who have won at least one Grand Slam singles title, onward from the year of their first title and provided they played at least 25 matches and reached a top 5 ranking during any year(s) without a Grand Slam title." Not exactly griping prose but is it clear and concise enough?--Wolbo (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I would prefer the term "Major" over Grand Slam, but if we put "at least one Grand Slam tournament singles title" and "without a Grand Slam tournament title" it would be more clearly defined from Laver and his two "Grand Slam" titles. Do we need the comma after title? Shouldn't it be removed with an "and" between title and onward? So it could read "Can only be created for players who have won at least one Grand Slam tournament singles title and onward from the year of their first title, provided they played at least 25 matches and reached a top 5 ranking during any year(s) without a Grand Slam tournament title." Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding 'tournament' for clarification. Not sure about the comma. At the risk of turning this into a punctuation exercise perhaps it should read "Can only be created for players who have won at least one Grand Slam tournament singles title, onward from the year of their first title and provided they played at least 25 matches and reached a top 5 ranking during any year(s) without a Grand Slam tournament title.". --Wolbo (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The article guideline has been updated to reflect the outcome of this discussion. Thanks to all participants. So, what's next? Formulate an RfC for WP:NTENNIS? --Wolbo (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that should work, Wolbo, and I think it will track the results from a GNG analysis in the overwhelming majority of cases. The formulation is not what I would have come up with on my own, but if it works for WP:TENNIS members and achieves the desired results, you will get no complaints from me. Thanks to you, Fyunck, Lajbi and others for seeing this through. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Tennis Season articles

In the early tennis season articles players from other nations except USA, UK, Australia, France and Netherlands are not listed in "Titles won by player" and "Titles won by nation". Why? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to some example articles to illustrate this? --Wolbo (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

1971 Women's Tennis Circuit, 1972 Women's Tennis Circuit, and so on.--Tomcat (7) 11:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No idea, I see no issue with completing the tables with title-winning players from other nations like was done for e.g. 1975 WTA Tour.--Wolbo (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: use of flag icons in sports articles

WP:Tennis members who have an opinion regarding the use of flag icons in sports articles may wish to comment in this ongoing discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Formula 1. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is now a formal RfC on the Manual of Style/Icon talk page regarding the use of flag icons for athletes in international competiton: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#RFC. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Article quality

I just came past 2014 Stockholm Open – Singles article. The article contains one sentence. Grigor Dimitrov is the defending champion. There is no other text. The word Tennis does not appear anywhere. There are large charts but no explanation as to what it means. The only references are to primary sources. There is no establishment of notability of the subject.

Are Tennis tournament articles normally this poor? --Falcadore (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The tournament is ongoing and will get another lead sentence or two when it completes tomorrow and the winner is known. Apart from that, this is the normal appearance of tennis draw articles. It's not a work of art but as a tennis fan who also reads a lot our tournament articles, they have what I want 90% of the time, and 99% when I read them more than a few days after the tournament ended. What a reader wants on a match day or the next day is not the best measure for an encyclopedia. We don't have subpages in mainspace but in practice it functions as a subpage of 2014 Stockholm Open. Maybe it should mention tennis itself but I assume nearly all readers know it's tennis if they get to the draw article. ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) is in a navbox and category but only at the bottom. Tennis-interested readers are expected to be able to read a draw table. They also look like this in many other works, and lots of other sports also use them. All results can be referenced together in a similar draw page at the official site of ATP/WTA or the tournament. This is the most reliable and practical reference. All ATP and WTA tournaments receive plenty of coverage to satisfy WP:N but editors rarely bother adding the sources. Every main draw match, 27 in this case, gets news mentions but if we only show the result then adding up to 27 inline references at individual matches does not seem worth the time. Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Tennis says that anyone who even plays in one of these tournaments is presumed notable. A few similar draw articles have been at AfD and been kept without problems. There is only doubt for tournaments below ATP/WTA Tour level, and for qualification tournaments to ATP/WTA which for a period got their own article but are now together with the main draw. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Tournament. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

So that's a yes, and its a yes according to Wikiproject's guidelines. I also note, the main article of the tournament, now complete, is just two sentences long, has no references at all, other than the tournaments official website. The two sentence article lead defines the subject but does not explain it. The content is pictographic in nature when wikipedias preferences has always been prose.

You're also telling me that any AFD I bring would fail. It is not my intention to do, or threaten such a thing. That having been said, all you typed about notability is based on assumptions and other articles.

If you are satisfied with the content, then OK. I can merely point out when I see articles that are pathetically below wikipedias standards.

Are you really saying an additional couple of sentencs describing the tournament winners with a reference to some news coverage is unneccessary? --Falcadore (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles are always better with a bit more prose and better references. No doubt about that. But lacking those things doesn't make an article un-noteworthy. See 2013 If Stockholm Open – Singles and 2012 If Stockholm Open – Singles or perhaps one of the four Major tournaments the 2009 French Open – Men's Singles. All similar formatting since they are branches of the full yearly events, which themselves are branches of the historical tournament. They are mainly to show the full draw. The draws are fully referenced on the 2014 Stockholm Open so no trouble there. But a few more ref'd prose sentences would be much better. You have to realize that no one comes directly to this article. It's really a subpage. They read about the Stockholm Open article, and if they want more they read about the 2014 Stockholm Open, and if they want the detail of the singles draw they come to this subpage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles on sports tournaments are often heavy on tables with results and statistics. If somebody wants to add more prose to the lead then please do so, but as a reader I come to such articles for the results, at least when it was more than a week ago. My search only found one ATP/WTA main draw AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Bank Austria-TennisTrophy – Singles. It was ATP World Tour 250 series like Stockholm Open, the lowest level of the Tour. The result was unanimous keep. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So it doesn't run afoul of WP:ROUTINE in its current form? How hard is it for the current article writers to add that extra prose when the article is composed? --Falcadore (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

When it's composed the tournament has just begun, with names filling out the early brackets. Each day more gets filled in but of course zero prose since we don't know the winner. When the final is over, of course the final score and winner and loser are put in prose. That would be when anything extra would usually be added to prose, but we aren't going to add items that are already in the singles main article, or the tournament main article. If something unusual happens in the final, sure. If it's a players' 4th victory in a row, sure. If a player reached No. 1 because of the win, probably. It just depends on the event itself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The question is why 2014 Stockholm Open and 2014 Stockholm Open – Singles are not merged into one; considering that these events are only written about during the week which the tournament is held, there is not much room to expand any of these two articles. These two articles could easily be merged without harming the content of either one, and the article could become longer. The only instance in which draws and tournaments should have separate articles are grand slams. --TIAYN (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If the singles article is merged then 2014 Stockholm Open – Doubles should also be. It's a brief article for this draw size so it wouldn't add much to the total size. But there are many combined events with four draws (singles and doubles for men and women). Merging all those could give a long article, especially for large draws like in Category:2014 Sony Open Tennis. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Primehunter is correct, and I'm guessing for consistency across the board for readers the editors of these articles have made them all the same regardless on if there's a men's and women's event at the same event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Unidentified tennis players

I've been doing some file work over at Commons, and am wondering if anyone could help identify →this player← There's also Category:Unidentified tennis players, plus trucks load of files which haven't even been categorised there, you just have to look for them in the various tennis-related categories. I also came across File:Alona Bondarenko in Albuquerque 2008.jpg which has been previously confirmed not to be Varvara Lepchenko; but despite the resemblance of Alona Bondarenko, she just didn't play at the event – leading me to believe it can't be her either. Any help in this area would be appreciated. Jared Preston (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

ITF tournament pages: 2014 $25,000 Rock Hill, 2008 $75,000 Albuquerque. If they aren't identified then maybe the links could at least be added to the file pages. The first image has time and date but it's during practice so the order of play doesn't seem helpful. The second ITF page doesn't show order of play. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Notable?

I'm wondering whether other editors think Jamie Loeb, the top-ranked US college female player and ITA National Player of the Year, is notable per GNG, at this point. There are a number of articles devoted to her.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Always tough when it's a collegiate champion. Per our guideline she is not notable. No main draws in a WTA event. No wins in any notable ITF tournament, though she did make a final in a $100,000 doubles event. So she got close. As a junior she could only manage a high of 30 for a ranking. Her pro ranking is a low 596 but if she can get to 150, because of her Collegiate wins, she'll get a wildcard entry to the US Open. That might be tough to manage. Some of those links are to very local papers or the USTA, so not really useful. There is a feature in the jewish paper on her success. To be fair, there is also an espn article that talks of her to, so she's borderline GNG regardless of our guidelines. I might wait, but others here could say she squeaks in right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Tx for your thoughtful response. I'm not pointing to the sports-specific guideline, but rather to GNG. If the topic meets GNG, it appears to be irrelevant whether it meets the sports notability guideline.

The "it fails our guideline" language seems to afford our second-test-if-it-fails-GNG-sport-specific-guideline an importance it doesn't have; our sport-specific guide is just a second test if GNG is not met, to ward off deletion. Specifically, our sports-specific guideline's FAQ states:

Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?

A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines ... do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available....

Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?

A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist."

Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. If it meets GNG our guidelines are irrelevant. I was just pointing out the guidelines, which she does not meet. GNG I find to be borderline but others may disagree. I personally wouldn't create the article, but then again if it was created I doubt it would get deleted either. Just my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That's generally true, Fyunck, but certain specific NSPORTS guidelines arguably impose a higher standard than GNG. See, e.g., WP:NHSPHSATH for high school athletes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Arguably true. But I have been told many many times... if a person meets wikipedia's GNG, it trumps anything in nsports GNG. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

$$,$$$ +H

I am trying to understand the points for various tournaments. What is the difference between a $50,000 and a $50,000 + H tournament?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

+H means the tournament offers hospitality, i.e. a free room for main draw players. [7] says men also get breakfast. It's not mentioned for women but I don't know whether there is a difference. +H gives a little more ranking points than the same prize money without hospitality. See ATP Rankings#Ranking method and Women's Tennis Association#Ranking method. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Added tooltips to '+H' on various ITF articles to clarify its meaning. --Wolbo (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Post dating rankings

Something has come up with a persistent editor and I wanted to know some thoughts. Our general guideline and consensus is we do not post date any rankings. We go by the official WTA rankings (or ATP) which come out on Mondays. It makes it easy and sourcable. Even we know a player can't really lose a particular ranking we go by the WTA. And considering we are an encyclopedia, not a tennis website, we need sure things to publish. Justine Henin retired and her ranking was removed the next day. No extra weeks of being ranked No. 1 even though it would have continued for awhile. Li Na retired yet her ranking is actually still listed. Maureen Connolly had her leg crushed between a horse and truck and never played again. Things happen. Now Serena Williams is No. 1 and was just given the trophy for year end No. 1. The season is over for her, though Fed Cup is still going where players get points. The WTA website has rankings as of October but it has also issued a press release of the number of weeks Williams will hold the No. 1 ranking as of Dec 28th. We know from the past that this is not 100% guaranteed but we do have this WTA source. I have to say it would be nice to not have to update every week in the off-season from a wikipedia bookkeeping standpoint. The trouble is we are an encyclopedia and I worry about legitimacy about weeks that haven't happened yet.

We also run into problems like this edit, where we always use "start date-present" for total weeks. This edit gives it an "end date" which may or may not be the actual end date when we get there, WP:Crystalball. Wolbo and I have tried to keep the post dating in check but this situation is a little different at the end of the season... though as I said there are actually events still going on. Should we allow post dating of rankings at season end? It would have to be for all players, not just Serena. Do we keep the rankings as per the WTA site? Do we keep the ranking as per the wta site but allow a sourced note on the appropriate page that acknowledges Serena will in all likelihood maintain her ranking till Dec 28 (barring retirement, injury, etc)? Here year end WTA title I have no issue with... she's won it regardless (though I don't think the ITF has announced there champion yet). Last season the men's ITF and ATP did not have the same champion. Just wondering what others think about this issue, if you might have a better solution to what we now do. I can live with either outcome, but I wanted to express my concerns. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

WTA's year-end no. 1 for Serena is not a projection about the end of December but her ranking now. WTA defines year-end ranking as the ranking after the last WTA tournament, i.e. today. See for example http://www.wtatennis.com/press-center where "Year-End Singles Rankings - 2013" links to the rankings from 4 November 2013. All ranked players are included even though lots of them were still playing 2013 ITF Women's Circuit (October–December) and changed rankings there. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. She is the WTA year-end number 1. That can be plastered everywhere. But her weekly rankings cumulatively adding up is a different beast. You'll note that press release page you linked to, at the bottom, shows weeks at number 1 with Serena at 221 for Dec 29. Should we post date that total and date everywhere we can? Should we keep it at November, should we use whatever the WTA uses at it rankings website? For all I know, tomorrow the WTA rankings website will also post date to Dec 29. Just wondering what's the best to use at this encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The year end world #1 ranking is set in stone after the last tournament of the year by the WTA. For all other weeks of the year, the WTA issues a weekly PDF. However, they do not do this after (usually) the beginning of November when the last tournament is played and when all is said and done for the tennis season. Like this year, they issue a statement about year end #1 and update the career stats. Please review the "Stats - Career" section of the WTA website following this link. http://www.wtatennis.com/press-center There, you can clearly see that they have already factored in Serena Williams' total weeks at #1 as 221 (through the end of the year). Articles here still list on a weekly basis which is not necessary at the end of the year. Also, please refer to their press release from October 25th stating the same thing along with consecutive weeks at #1. http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/PressReleases/2014/1026_Williams_Errani_Vinci_Year_End_No1s.pdf These stats articles are a reflection of WTA statistics. If the WTA states something as fact, then it is so. In addition, the rankings aren't actually updated after the last tournament in the beginning of November. The year end #1 rankings are subsequently issued at that time. Anyone can check the year end #1 data sheets on the WTA's website to view all the past year end rankings from 1975 including this years. You can view all the year end rankings in the Career Stats - Rankings section here. http://www.wtatennis.com/press-center. The 2014 Year End Rankings are dated November 3, 2014. http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Rankings_Stats/Singles_Numeric_2014.pdf It is stated that the year end and FINAL rankings have been memorialized on November 3, 2014. There is no reason why #1 tally cannot be post-dated especially when the tally is listed on the WTA website as an official press release. I hope that folks realize that when it comes to year end totals after the last tournament is played, these stats articles will be technically incorrect for the remainder of the year and every future year it does not update totals when as WTA does.Kube8 (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So you post here and yet go back to your old ways of simply post-dating against consensus? Why would you do this after your last blocks and warnings? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Longest match winning streaks during the Open Era

There has been dispute among some users what are the longest match winning streaks during the Open Era. According to the ATP these are the Top 10 streaks

1. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
2. Ivan Lendl 44 1981-82
3. Novak Djokovic 43 2011
4. John McEnroe 42 1984
5. Bjorn Borg 41 1979-80
6. Roger Federer 41 2006-07
7. Bjorn Borg 35 1978
8. Roger Federer 35 2005
9. Thomas Muster 35 1995
10. Rafael Nadal 32 2008

Here is the source http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/05/19/Shark-Bites-Big-Three.aspx 195.89.49.249 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see you made an error. The article you are referring to is List of Open Era tennis records... that is not a list of ATP sponsored records. That is a list of "Open Era" records. The ATP doesn't include Davis Cup in any of their totals. The Open Era does! If you check Borgs profile at here and here you'll see his record is 48 straight (walkover never included of course) in 79-80 and 49 straight in 1978. That's where you made the error. If fact, in the source of the revert you did, it even mentions that streak. You should have noticed that, but I fixed it so no problems. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Fyunck, how many reliable sources state that Borg holds the record for longest match winning streak in Open Era? If you go to Google you will everywhere see just one name and that's Guillermo Vilas. BoDu (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure... mine was easily pulled from the ATP website. It shows a list of Borg's matches and all one has to do is count. The thing is most places will show the ATP record... it's what they're fed by the ATP. By the way the ITF site shows the same 50 matches. And in looking at the list above, the Borg streak in 1978 was 43, not 35, per both the ATP and ITF archives. And it turns to 49 instead of 43 because because both websites forget to include Davis Cup during the win streak. They include it in other parts of their websites but simply missed it in 1978. Of course none of these records are historical records, but the page is question in an Open Era record article, not a complete historical record article. Nor is it an ATP record article. The ATP misses many events between 1968 and 1973 also, so we always have to recheck numbers from that time period. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to remind you what's the Wikipedia policy. We must put information based on viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. You have not provided proof what is the majority view. BoDu (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what policy you're talking about. The ATP and ITF websites clearly list the victories. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about this Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. I quote: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)". As I've already said, if you go to Google, it's clear that only tiny minority of sources say Borg holds the record in the Open Era. BoDu (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Google isn't the best for those things, especially when we are talking events from the 1970s. It's not like you can't look up an old newspaper and find Borgs 49 match win streak snapped. I will agree that there are more sources that when talking of win streaks talk of Vilas 46 win streak. But there are plenty of sources that tell of Borgs 49 streak in 1978, and 48 streak in 1979-80 seasons. The problem is the ATP site misses many davis cup events from that time period, or makes errors on walkovers. Then other places like CBS Sports look at the ATP site and makes the same error over and over. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen plenty of sources that tell of Borg 49 streak in 1978 and 48 streak in 1979-80. You've provided only one source. BoDu (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well you can always count his victories... but I'll add a couple more. Here's one and here's another. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You've provided 3 sources in total. That's not plenty but a few. BoDu (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to keep digging up newspaper articles for your whining. The facts are there for all to see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you do not provide enough of sources that tell what you claim, I will file a request for a moderated discussion Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/DRN. BoDu (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Tournament seeding

Why is a November 11 Futures tournament announcing seedings based on October 20 rankings per this story?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like sloppy research by the author of that story. There are no official draws or seeds yet at [8] or [9]. The latter shows the mentioned rankings under "Acceptance list" but that's on the date October 20 where rankings count for acceptance into the tournament. The seeds should be based on November 3 when they are published. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The seeds have been published. As expected, they are based on the November 3 rankings. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, I thought my guy (I am the primary editor of Jarmere Jenkins) should be a top seed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

ITF results

I have figured out how to "watch" challenger level results as the match progresses. Is there a way to watch ITF level results. What is the fastest source of information for completed ITF results.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

For the live ITF scores I am aware of this site: http://scores.itftennis.com/?alias=itf&layoutid=72&versionid=1&language=en Some tournaments also appear on flashscore, but I don't think that all of them are updated live. --Kompik (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been using the first one all week. It is adequate although I think some of the in game stats are done manually. Last night the first set of a match I was watching ended 6-3 and the break count was 3 to 0, which is impossible for a 6-3 set. However, as long as it gives me the set and game scores correctly, it is fine while I am multitasking.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)