Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Tennis (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Another article with way too much detail[edit]

I do congratulate the editors who put so much effort into tennis-related articles, but the near match-by-match narration of players' careers, such as is found in Eugenie Bouchard, for example, is just way too much detail for an encyclopedia article. If it is thought desirable to document match-by-match results within Wikipedia, these should be hived off to a big table somewhere. The "Career" section of the player's article should give readers a more accessible and digestible overview of the important events in the player's career, not this huge and virtually unreadable mass of minute detail. (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE: Persondata has been officially deprecated[edit]

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of tennis players and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve accurate data. Here are three examples of Wikidata for notable swimmers: Ryan Lochte, Mary Wayte and Dara Torres. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

New ATP website[edit]

The ATP launched a new website today. Haven't yet had the chance to look at it in detail but my first impression is positive, a nice and fresh visual design and it is easier to navigate than the new French and Australian Open websites. But of course for us Wikipedians the most important question by far is do the references and external links still work? The answer seems to be a resounding 'no'. The links to the player profiles, tournament profiles and tournament results archive all result in a 404-error page. The few news articles I have tested so far go to the wrong news item. Hopefully all links can be updated via an automated bot otherwise we have a repeat of the > disaster. FYI we currently have 18,804 (!) wikilinks to the ATP website.--Wolbo (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, all player profile links are now broken. I didn't find any way to make {{ATP}} work with the new profiles. For example is now And if you remove the player name or anything else in the address you get an error. --Stryn (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
You can actually write whatever you want instead of the name, the only thing that matter is the ATP code (1 & 2) for the {{ATP}} is it possible to add the PAGENAMEE variable like this{{PAGENAMEE}}/{{Trim|{{{1|{{{id|}}}}}}}}/overview
In seems to work fine. --Asdalol (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Asdalol for that info. Funny to see that actually works. We should though, before we start updating any templates, make sure we have a complete mapping overview of the situation. It does seem that the tournament draw pdfs (e.g. still work properly but that is the only type of functioning ATP link I can find so far.--Wolbo (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
No solution ? It looks very difficult... A.Gust14 (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Prize money WTA[edit]

On 2015 Topshelf Open or 2015 Aegon Open Nottingham, it is written 250,000 $ as prize money. But WTA rather indicates 226,750 $ if I'm not wrong, isn't it ? A.Gust14 (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

$226,750 is the pure prize money currently listed at [1] and [2]. $250,000 is the "Minimum TFC" listed in the next column at [3] which says: "Ω Total Financial Commitment (TFC) Draft MINIMUM LISTED - To Be Finalized - is the Tournament's investment in the event, including Tour Fees, Bonus Pool contributions and on-site prize money". WTA is inconsistent about which number to show. [4] from May 25 says $250,000 on page 1 but [5] from June 15 says $226,750 for similar events, although page 3 still says $250,000. This Google search currently says $250,000 in the undated Google blurb from a WTA page but $226,750 when the link is clicked. It's possible WTA is transitioning from displaying the TFC to the pure prize money but for the time being I suggest we keep the TFC and don't rush to update a lot of articles. If WTA becomes more consistent then we may decide to follow their convention later. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ranking templates[edit]

Although nothing new, I just wanted to re-ignite the discussion about the ranking templates, such as those at Category:WTA Tour navigational boxes. I like them a lot and they are useful as navboxes, but I'm getting sick at the thought of having to update them nigh-on every Monday. There are other things to do here. I feel I'm wasting my time, and am happy that a few colleagues help out every now and then and do a few, but it really isn't enough. I don't really know what to suggest, since getting rid of them all seems a bit drastic. We could, however, choose to delete some. Let me make an example of {{Top African female tennis players}}, the first one on the list. It hasn't been updated in over four months, and before that nearly five. What purpose does it serve? Another, {{Top Portuguese female tennis players}}, I have updated regularly since it was created last year, but there are (as of today) only five players with a world ranking, two of which aren't even notable. This really should be another candidate for deletion. Jared Preston (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A bot would be great but I once made a request with no takers at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 58#Tennis ranking navboxes. Maybe it sounded too hard and a request with simpler wishes would have a better chance. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I wonder about any of them, as they are all maintenance nightmares, and some are just of questionable value as being entirely too narrowly defined. The national ones definitely should go. It's a trivial intersection of loosely related things. The top 10 lists, maybe they can say, but I still don't relish the idea of updating them. oknazevad (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I think many templates can still serve their purpose (i.e. give a general idea of the best players in a country) even if they are updated only once every 2 months or so. In that case the order can be a bit off but the template should still list most of the relevant players. For those templates that are consistently updated too infrequently, we could either delete them or decide that they are important. In the latter case more editors should become involved in updating them. I would certainly get rid of the green, red, and blue symbols indicating change in the templates that are updated too rarely. That makes the updates quicker, but also the change relative to the previous week doesn't have much meaning if updates happen only once every few weeks or months. Gap9551 (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Tennis sidebar template - additions with no project input[edit]

I'm having a disagreement with an editor on proper procedure to create templates that will be used by multiple articles. This concerns the template at Template:ATP sidebar navbox. This is newly created. The original situation was that there was no template, that it was written as individual coding into each article... such as at [6]. No one complained about the coding, and it's size was pretty good, though it's use was actually pretty limited since we often have bottom navbars. Nonetheless he was bold and created a template that saved a little space and requires less work. It looked pretty good and since it was mostly identical to the original coding I let it be as a good addition to tennis articles (again even though the use was very limited). But then it was changed even more, making it wider, centered, and longer with all 4 Majors added. With that I reverted and asked the editor on their talk page, and the template talk page, to bring it here to discuss before re-adding any of those things. I was reverted back and it appears the editor has no intention of following wiki protocol in bringing it here to discuss. I think the addition of the 4 Majors simply makes it unnecessarily longer since those items will be found in the grand slam tournament link. We don't list the Master 1000 events or 500 events. I feel it makes the sidebar longer and more obtrusive than needed. That said I didn't bring this here because I'm right and they are wrong. Heck tennis project members may agree with the added length. What I objected to was the editor forcing the template on us BEFORE we can discuss it. All I want is to move it back to the editor's original version and discuss it here or there about what additions or subtractions would be appropriate. I don't like it forced upon us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing at Template talk:ATP sidebar navbox. I have explained my reasons for making the changes, without the WP:POINTY and destructive revert. The version is simply better from a technical standpoint. As for any layout issues, those vary so much between monitor and browser differences, that frankly I don't think one person's opinion of "too wide" can be objectively used without a broad survey. Blatantly reverting to a technically inferior version that does not use the standard templates for creating these things because one person has concerns about appearance is a mistake.
Also, remember that projects don't own pages. I hate to pull that one, because I think projects are a wonderful thing, but the idea that anything has to be pre-cleared with a project is wrong. oknazevad (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
If you start making major changes to something that will be on multiple articles (and it's questioned) you bet it needs other editor's approval, whether at the project level or wikipedia level. You are not following wiki etiquette with your edit warring. Put it back (I really don't care if it's with the VTE choice at the bottom or not). But if someone questions a new addition you do not keep adding it to ram it down our throats whether we like it or not. That's not working together as a team. You discuss and then change it, not the other way around with the cart before the horse. I see you reverted it again <sigh>. Wikipedia tells us "Making bold edits may sometimes draw a response from an interested editor – someone who may have the article on their watchlist. If no one responds, you have silent consensus to continue editing. If your edit is reverted, the BRD cycle has been initiated by the reverting editor. After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version and/or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page." That is being ignored here. You want your changes now and discussion afterwards and that's not the way it works at wikipedia. You should have long ago learned this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Two articles for Milan challenger[edit]

I started creating 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Singles (I have also started the article for doubles. I created those articles because they were redlinks in 2015 ATP Challenger Tour#June. Only then I found out that there already is an article 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI, which contains the draw for singles. Which of the two names be kept? --Kompik (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

By Which I mean: Should the names of the articles for this tournament be 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI, 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI – Singles and 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI – Doubles or 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup, 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Singles and 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Doubles? --Kompik (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yours are the more proper titles. The main article is "Aspiria Tennis Cup" and the singles and doubles should come from that title. Dump the Trofeo CDI ending. We try not to use any sponsored names in our titles but sometimes there's no way around it. All the sources I quickly found such as this one, use the Aspiria Tennis Cup title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I will add that the article for last edition was called 2014 Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI. When I tried to move 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI to 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Singles, I got an error message: "a page of that name already exists". (Which is not unexpected.) So I will leave this to some users which are more experienced with renaming/moving articles. (I should perhaps mention that 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI contains draw for singles which is more complete that the one I have created. It contains also seeds and results. I did not continue with editing the article I created after I found out that a duplicate exists.) --Kompik (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
yours has to be deleted first to make the move. I'll start the process. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done

Photography of the UK Grasscourt season[edit]

Hi WikiProject Tennis people. I just wanted to let you know, both as a courtesy and because it might be useful to you, that I've recently been photographing the grasscourt tennis season here in London and spent a busy four days covering the Wimbledon Qualification Tournament. Next week, I plan to visit Wimbledon for at least a few of the days to get even more images for Commons. I've been shooting with a high end camera and lens so the quality of the images should be (I hope) approaching professional level. I'm in the process of uploading all my photos to Commons over the next few days. There's about 600-800 photos to upload, covering almost 180 different players. Many of these lower ranked players have either no infobox image at all, or a fairly poor or old image, so I'm also updating the infobox as I go along. I tried to get a nice zoomed in potrait style photo of each of the players in addition to some action photos so they are more easily identifiable. If there's already a better image in the infobox, I won't necessarily update it, but that isn't the case for most articles. Some existing infobox images are good photos, but either quite out of date, or not ideal for identification purposes, and would be better suited to the body of the article if there's room for it so I'll move them down if appropriate. Anyway, I hope I don't step on people's toes with this fairly mass updating of articles with new images. Let me know if there's anything you want me to do differently. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

My only thoughts is that I'd rather have great out-of-date photos than fair new ones. IMHO the photos in the infobox should be from the prime of the player's career, not from the beginning and not from the later years. Take Bjorn Borg. The ideal photo in the infobox would from 1979. One doesn't happen to exist, but that would be perfect. Federer should be from 2007... his last prime year. Now if the photo from 2007 is iffy and one from 2014 is sensational then certainly use the sensational 2014 version. I think it actually stinks that the infobox photo we have of Martina Navratilova is from 2006 and not from 1985. But so many players don't have photos at all so your picks will be very very welcome for them. Thanks for doing this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't plan to replace great photos with only fair ones. Given the fairly average photography currently in use on Wikipedia, I'd like to think that most of my photos will be improvements on the existing ones. I think it's only arguable that an infobox photo of Bjorn Borg should be from his peak tennis years. There's a strong case both for an old or a new photo being his infobox image IMO. His article is long enough that there is plenty of space for historical photos from his career if an up-to-date image was used in his infox. This is just my opinion, but I think an infobox image should identify the person as they are (ideally their face clearly shown) and shouldn't necessarily be an action shot of them playing (not saying it can't be action, but not at the expense of identification). But I understand what you mean, I suppose in balance the infobox image should show what they are notable for, and Bjorn Borg isn't really as notable as a retired player as he was as an active player. An interesting one is Justin Gimelstob who now coaches John Isner. He was probably more notable as a player than he is now as a coach, but I added a recent photo of him in his coaching role to the infobox. It wasn't a very contentious change as his previous infobox image was very very poor in terms of identifying him (tiny and he wasn't facing the camera) and there aren't any better images on Commons either. Anyway, I'm mainly talking about current players with this photography work, not retired players. I'm happy to discuss individual cases where you think I've made the wrong decision though. These articles (particularly for the fringe players in the challenger and qualification tournaments) just don't get enough foot traffic to justify a pre-emptive request for comments prior to every update, so I'll be bold and see what issues if any stem from it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I had a brief look this morning at the first few files you had uploaded, they're great! Thanks a lot! Jared Preston (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Diliff, many thanks for taking all these (excellent) photos and uploading them to Commons! It is always good to get more tennis photos added to our articles. In the past two or three years we have been able to add a substantial amount of public domain tennis photos but there are unfortunately still big gaps in our portfolio, mainly from the 1970–1995 period.--Wolbo (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem. Unfortunately I can't help you with the historic photos though. Although I'd be happy to use a time machine if you can provide it. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project[edit]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest. --Lucas559 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

1877 Wimbledon Championship[edit]

Last month the article on the inaugural 1877 Wimbledon Championship was promoted to featured status (FA). It is the first featured article on a tennis topic (if we ignore two FA's on tennis video games), so in that sense it is somewhat of a milestone for our tennis project. On Sunday, 12 July (the day of the Wimbledon men's final) an abstract of the article, basically the lead section, will be displayed on Wikipedia's homepage as today's featured article. Last week's Signpost also made a brief mention of the article. Now that we finally have a tennis FA hopefully more will follow.--Wolbo (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty cool! Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It's on the homepage now.--Wolbo (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Woo hoo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox country designation[edit]

There was some questioning going on at the Bob Hewitt article that was actually brought to dispute resolution. It's really only one person having problems. It seems the old South Africa flag being used is confusing to him since it is only preceded by the word "Country". I tried to explain that it represents the international sports nationality at the time the player played tennis, which is almost always the only reason the person is notable. We don't use flags for any other purpose such as residence, citizenship, birthplace, tombstones, etc... in fact we can't per MoS. He still is confused and if he is there may be a few others. We aren't going to remove flags or they way we have always done things, but we could modify the descriptor.

Instead of "Country" we could use "Sports country" or perhaps "Country (sports)". It can't be too long since it will crush the wording in the infobox. "Sporting Nationality" would be way too long I think. Maybe "Int'l Sports" using the standard abbreviation for international. Since it would affect every single tennis infobox I thought it best to bring it here for debate on what we should do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick check and it looks like "Country (sports)" just barely fits. It can't be any longer and would actually be better if it was one character shorter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

If "Country (Sports)" is too long, "Played under" could work? From the information you have given me, "Sports" is not a good choice, since flag icon is used for tennis players specifically. Just a note as the "one person" getting "confused" - My main argument is that this practice is non-intuitive for people who are not part of the Tennis project, and "we've always done it that way" is not, to me, valid reasoning to continue a problematic practice. So far, this is the gist of the argument to keep using a flag with the label "country", for tennis players, representing specifically the flag they played under:

1. flags are only allowed for tennis players
2. tennis player flags in infobox represent always represent flags played under, not country of residence.
3. current, or other, nationality is never represented with a flag
4. we've always done it this way, and it's in MoS
5. therefore, when seeing a flag in a person's infobox, general wikipedia users should magically acquire knowledge of the above points, and know what the flag icon represents, despite it not even being labelled properly.

"We are using a picture, and not words, therefore" Seems unsatisfying to me. I'm going to leave this matter now, as I'm sensing a lot of conservative protectiveness from this sub-community for which I don't think I have the energy (nor ability) to tackle - but special practices in projects like these are ultimately not best practice for wikipedia in general. Tennis Project will not really suffer just by following a more standard format, or properly labelling that which deviates from a greater standard. Autumnox (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Input is welcome from anyone, so no problem at all. One thing though, the flag is not used for only tennis. Soccer and Auto Racing, and the Olympics, also use the flag for the same purpose. They can be used for all sports that compete internationally where sourcing often uses them to represent the player nationality. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Just in case a miracle happens...[edit]

The Garbiñe Muguruza is fairly cleaned up and linked properly. I see editor JayJ47 has just created her "career statistics" article too. Not really sure it was warranted yet since that is only supposed to happen after the main article is full, but no worries... I kept the basic charts on the main page so it didn't look sparse. It was actually pretty well sourced, but the personal life is a bit thin.... I guess expected from 21 year old. Today would be the time to do any last minute tweaks (just in case a major upset happens). Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


It seems recently some mergers happened across tennis tournament infoboxes by Alakzi. This has corrupted the infoboxes in older articles on the tennis tournaments as the infobox has been replaced by a redirect notice, as you can see for instance here, here or here. Tvx1 13:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry about that. Alakzi (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Ashe infobox[edit]

Hello, WP:TENNIS. I added an infobox to Arthur Ashe's article though I know nothing about tennis, so I'm leaving this notification so someone who does can fill out his infobox some more. Take care. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 05:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Digging back in to the article's revision history, I noticed that an IP wiped the lead, I restored the lead as it stood at 4:39pm (EDT) on June 26, 2015‎. Have a good day! TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 05:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Jr. results in infobox[edit]

At Jarmere Jenkins there is some disagreement as to whether junior results should be removed before he has reached the main draws of any of the Grand Slams. I am not a very knowledgeable editor in terms of Tennis so advice is welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of grey area in the infobox. We didn't used to show qualifying in the majors so it wouldn't have been a problem. The general rule we use is once they start getting results in the majors the jrs are removed as being too minor and trivial to include. But failing in qualifying is not being in a major. Borg lost in a special qualifying round of the US Open in 1972... no acknowledgement that he played in the '72 US Open by the ATP or newspapers. I would say it's certainly ok to include jr slam results and standard Q results in the same infobox. The jr results will probably be removed soon enough. Obviously if you read it verbatim "once any pro result is recorded in the infobox" then that is a pro result and it's been recorded, so if you are being a stickler, then no don't add jrs. It's not ideal and this is something that consensus on a case by case basis is probably fine. Those are my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Recalling our August 2014 discussion on how to handle Jenkins' infobox, that is what I was thinking was correct. However, Asmazif is insisting that qualifying rounds in the majors count as majors in a way that negates the need for jr. results in the infobox. We have been warring on this issue. Maybe he could comment here to help me understand his side.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Good thing my thoughts haven't changed since then... except I know he's a he. :-)
Sure thing, no worries. Maybe we should slightly edit the note in the infobox template on qualies just to verify this/make it less of a grey area? i.e. once any "main draw pro results". Asmazif (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2015 (GMT)
Asmazif, I am not sure if "any" is appropriate either. Even Cici Bellis seems to still have her junior results.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I really don't think she should have the junior results displayed once that US Open result was posted, but again, would be great to get a set in stone confirmation on this. Following this format, Guillermo Pérez Roldán, former French Open quarterfinalist and World No. 13, would have junior results displayed as he never played the AO or Wimbledon. Asmazif (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2015 (GMT)

Serena Williams' Rivalries[edit]

I would like to start adding a list of rivalries to the page to make it more complete. She has had several but I of course don't want to add them all. Her rivalry with Venus is already noted, which others are noteworthy? I think Henin, Capriati, and Hingis would all be good additions? Thoughts?

Williams vs. Hingis

Williams leads series 7-6. (1) One of William’s first rivalries was with Martina Hingis, who turned pro less than one year before her (Hingis in October 1994, Williams in 1995) They first played each other at the 1998 Miami Open where Hingis won in three sets {6-3, 1-6, 7-6(4)}. All but one of their matches was played on a hard court with the exception being a contest on clay in Rome 1999, which Hingis won in straight sets. Their last match took place at the 2002 Miami Open with Williams winning (6-4, 6-0). (2) Hingis was forced to briefly leave the sport citing ankle injuries. (3)

1. 2. 3.

Williams vs. Capriati

Williams leads series 10-7. (1) Once considered one of the best rivalries in women’s tennis (2), the competition between Williams and Capriati was stiff with 12 out of their 17 meetings going to three sets. The rivalry, starting in 1999, started off one sided with Capriati winning four of their first five matches. Serena would then go on to win the next eight. (1) Williams and Capriati played with similar styles, both known for using their power and athleticism to gain quick advantages in points. (3)

1. 2. 3. 4.

Williams vs. Henin

Williams leads series 8-6. Henin and Williams met 14 times, 5 of which were in tournament finals. In grand slams they have faced each other 7 times with Justine leading 4-3. (1) Opposite personalities and styles of play are often cited as what made their rivalry entertaining. (2)(3) In the semifinals of the 2003 French Open, when at 4-2, 30-0 on Williams' serve in the third set, Henin raised her hand to indicate she was not ready to receive and Williams then put her serve into the net. The umpire did not see Henin raise her head and thus did not allow Williams a first serve. Williams lost the game and would go on to lose the match 6-2, 4-6, 7-5. Their last match took place in the final of the 2010 Austrailian Open where Williams won in three sets, earning her 12th Grand Slam title. (1)

1. 2. 3. --TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:1968 US Open Series to 2003 nominated for deletion[edit]

I have nominated 36 categories for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 3#Category:1968 US Open Series. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Grand Slam infobox[edit]

I recently developed 2015 US Open (tennis) article. I would like to create further pages about all singles/doubles events, etc, but the current infobox is scandalous s**t. Look for 2014 US Open – Men's Singles, it looks terrible, "Mixed Legends"???!!!!! What?!!!!! There are NO legends comeptition at the USO.

We should revert to [THIS] and simply do not show red legends links. TheLightBlue (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The links are made by Module:Tennis events nav. I don't know Lua so I cannot edit it. You could try making a specific request to its author. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
There are legends competitions at the US Open. Here is the 2014 mens' draw and here is the 2014 womens' draw. Tvx1 14:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
But Legends? AnymoreTheLightBlue (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Legends would be a big no from me. But it's more than that. If you look at the 2014 US Open (tennis) article it shows all that stuff in the infobox... as it should since it's an article on the 2014 tournament. But the 2014 US Open – Men's Singles is about men's singles only. What the heck is an infobox doing on the page that shows more than singles? It seems very weird and repetitive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I consider it a combined infobox and sidebar. The "Events" part corresponds to a sidebar which would usually be a separate box like on Badminton at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's singles or Swimming at the 2015 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 50 metre freestyle. I'm OK with combining them in sections of the same box. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
That's fair enough. But legends are really an exhibition and don't belong in that box at all. And it should be extremely rare to have a red link in that box, like mixed. That should only happen if it is very likely that the red link will become a functional link in the near future. That will not happen here. Those should be gone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


FYI, there's a discussion at Talk:List of Wimbledon Open Era champions#Flag icons regarding the use of flag icons in that article. Tvx1 13:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What date should be given in list of finals?[edit]

For many players we have in the article list of ATP/WTA tour finals, (junior) Grand Slam finals (sometimes also Challenger/ITF/Futures finals). In this table there is also a column name date. What date should be given here? The date when the final is actually played or the date when the tournament starts. (I believe I have seen both. If needed, I can try to find some examples.) --Kompik (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Iv'e seen both too, and I'm not sure which to use either. I guess for me, if it's talking about the round-robin ATP Tour finals, I want the start date or date range. If it's talking about the actual final of the event, I want the end date of those finals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Serena Williams and her battle of the Sexes - editor problem[edit]

For awhile now we have had a separate section at Serena Williams titled Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters. It has worked fine and has a link to the tennis Battle of the Sexes article. There was some discussion on that talk page from 2 months ago and started by an editor who had 18 edits under his belt. It disappeared with more wanting it to stay. Now we have another brand new editor who blindly moved it. I moved it back and he moved it again. It's getting tiresome for me but maybe he doesn't know the ropes of wikipedia very well. He doesn't like it in it's own section. I tried to compromise and put it in a subsection of 1998, but that doesn't work for him either. He insisted it be blended in to Serena's regular events in 1998 (or eliminated). That can't happen with a Battle of the Sexes exhibition. Not sure what else to do without getting an administrator involved or without me getting hit with some 3RR stuff. As this article will be more and more important over the next week I need some help here. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to give my thoughts on this just to give both sides of the argument. I have the following issues with this section being included.
1. The section is poorly written and has a bias edge to it. Another editor commented in talk and said that it's written as if to take a jab at Serena.
2. For a exhibition match from when she was 16, although it is BOTS, its rather lengthy. This match does not ring in our memories like the King vs Riggs match does and certainly did not garner as much attention. So I don't see why it's mention should be longer than even her most monumental professional matches. This article is rather long as it is.
3. There is an entire article dedicated to BOTS in which Williams vs Braasch is listed. Why not simply briefly mention the match with a link to the BOTS article in order to help "it stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and use summary style."
4. Fyunck stated that it shouldn't be mixed in her normal WTA events. I get that. So maybe instead of giving it a subsection we could simply place it under her professional career and make it clear that it was a BOTS exhibition match. I think something like the following would suffice.
"During the 1998 Australian Open, Williams decided to take part in a Battle of the Sexes (include link to article) match against 203rd ranked Karsten Braasch. Despite being much older and a known smoker, Braasch was able to best the 16 year old 6-1."
Fyunck and I have had a rough time working with each over this but I hope there can still be a compromise.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
My thoughts are this. It is not too short... it could actually have another sentence or two. But it certainly should be better written. Right now the section at Battle of the Sexes says the same thing. Ideally, the section at the BotS should be tripled in size but keep what is already written. What is at Serena's article should be less negative but more informative and make a reader want to go to the BotS article to find out more. As was explained at Serena Williams talk page, Billie Jean's BotS has it's own subsection, just like Serena's. Margaret Court's BotS doesn't have it's own subsection, but it has it's own paragraph and it takes up 1/4 of her career biography. 1/4 of Serena's career biography would probably be 10 paragraphs or a page and a half. Do I think we need it to be 1/4 of Serena's bio? Not in the least. But it is important. There are zillions of exhibitions, but very few Battle of the Sexes in tennis history. It should stay where it is or perhaps be put in a subsection of 1998 when it took place (where I tried to move it) with the wording tweaked. Burying it in her 1998 WTA tennis events is unacceptable for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd go more like:

  • ==1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters==
  • main|Battle of the Sexes (tennis)
  • A young Serena competed in a tennis "Battle of the Sexes", along with her sister Venus Williams, against Karsten Braasch at the 1998 Australian Open. At the time Braasch was ranked 203rd. The Williams sisters had claimed they could beat any man outside the top 200, and he accepted the challenge. Not known for having an ideal training regimen, Braasch nonetheless defeated both Williams' sisters, playing a single set against each. The score vs Serena was 6–1, and vs Venus 6–2. Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance." The girls later tweaked the number to beating men outside the top 350.

A little more neutral in tone for Serena's own wikipedia article, and readers can find out more detail if they want to click the link. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Your wording is much better than what's in either article currently. If you're willing to make it a subsection again, I can certainly agree to that for now. Especially now that I've seen that Billie Jean's article also has one. Let me know. --TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, right this second it's a subsection of "On-court activities"... just not a subsection of "1995–98: Professional debut". You're saying you'd rather it be a subsection of "1995–98: Professional debut?" It's a compromise I think most would go for. I just tweaked a period in the above item I wrote since sentence one ran on a little too long. The paragraph isn't as detailed as some would probably like, but that (and any negative aspects) are best left to the Battle of the Sexes article rather than the Serena Williams article. At least in my opinion. So I'd go for it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I personally believe it would fit better under the 1995-98: Professional Debut because the On-Court Activities section is just weird and should just be "Controversies" for now.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just did the change to the more neutrally worded version. I added Battle of the Sexes to the sub-section title as that seemed a little more neutral too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Australian Open 1977-1986[edit]

The tables used currently to describe the Australian Open when it was held in December are confusing. I am proposing that we change this:

 Czechoslovakia  United States
Tournament 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995–2003 2004 WR W–L
Australian Open A A F A A A A A SF W F W SF W F SF QF A A A A A A A 3 / 10 46–7
French Open QF QF F A A A A A QF W 4R W F F F 4R A A A A A 1R A 1R 2 / 13 51–11
Wimbledon 3R 1R QF SF QF W W SF SF W W W W W W F F W QF SF SF F A 2R 9 / 23 120–14
US Open 1R 3R SF 1R SF SF SF 4R F QF W W F W W QF F 4R F 2R 4R A A A 4 / 21 89–17
WR 0 / 3 0 / 3 0 / 4 0 / 2 0 / 2 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 / 3 1 / 4 2 / 4 3 / 4 3 / 4 2 / 4 2 / 3 2 / 4 0 / 4 0 / 3 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 0 0 / 2 18 / 67
Win–Loss 5–3 5–3 17–4 5–2 9–2 11–1 11–1 11–3 19–3 20–2 23–1 25–1 25–2 20–1 25–2 18–4 16–3 10–1 10–2 6–2 8–2 6–2 0–0 1–2 306–49
Year End Rank 9* 3 4 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5 3 8 376 - -

to this:

Czechoslovakia United States
Tournament 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 95–03 2004 WR W–L
Australian Open (Jan) A A F A A Not Held F SF QF A A A A A A A 0 / 4 21–4
French Open QF QF F A A A A A QF W 4R W F F F 4R A A A A A 1R A 1R 2 / 13 51–11
Wimbledon 3R 1R QF SF QF W W SF SF W W W W W W F F W QF SF SF F A 2R 9 / 23 120–14
US Open 1R 3R SF 1R SF SF SF 4R F QF W W F W W QF F 4R F 2R 4R A A A 4 / 21 89–17
Australian Open (Dec) Not Held A A A SF W F W SF W Not Held 3 / 6 39–3
WR 0 / 3 0 / 3 0 / 4 0 / 2 0 / 2 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 / 3 1 / 4 2 / 4 3 / 4 3 / 4 2 / 4 2 / 3 2 / 4 0 / 4 0 / 3 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 0 0 / 2 18 / 67
Win–Loss 5–3 5–3 17–4 5–2 9–2 11–1 11–1 11–3 19–3 20–2 23–1 25–1 25–2 20–1 25–2 18–4 16–3 10–1 10–2 6–2 8–2 6–2 0–0 1–2 306–49
Year End Rank 9* 3 4 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5 3 8 376 - -

It conveys the chronological nature of what the boxes represent better. Now I can easily tell that Martina won 6 majors in a row in 1983 and 1984. 2602:306:CD5F:27A0:1D13:363C:896C:1BB9 (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not a bad idea. If it helps our readers even a little bit, it's a good thing. And it really will have no affect on newer players. However... I got rid of the flag icons as they are not proper in those charts. Any thoughts from some heavy editors around here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the flags satisfy the nationality guideline since that is what is being indicated here rather than location. 2602:306:CD5F:27A0:1D13:363C:896C:1BB9 (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I strongly support this change. I've been thinking about this in the past too, and it makes a lot of sense. The table intends to display the Grand Slams in chronological order per year, so the December AO really should be listed on the bottom. It's much clearer; I have seen several times that fans discussing stats on forums make mistakes when it comes to e.g. Ivan Lendl's semifinal streak, just because they either don't know the AO was held in December for a while, or weren't able to read the table properly due to its confusing structure. One extra row wouldn't take up much space in articles and I can't see any other potential downsides to this change. A similar change could be made in articles like List of Grand Slam women's singles champions and other historical overviews, by adding an extra column for the December AO in the table with champions. Gap9551 (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Something to consider is what to do with the two columns on the right (WR and W-L). I think these stats should be listed just once for all AO tournaments combined (like in the current tables), since there is no real difference in the Jan and Dec versions that justifies two separate WR records as in the example above (0/4 and 3/6). Maybe keep the combined stats in the January row, and leave the Dec row empty in the last two columns, or add a short note. The 'Not Held' in the rows could be replaced by 'Held in December' and 'Held in January', respectively. Gap9551 (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a trade-off between readability and accuracy. The extra row, the two rows for one tournament and the split (or merged) tournament totals do make the proposed table harder to read but it is undoubtedly more accurate and in my view that should carry more weight than readability. Incorporating Gap9551's comments and adding 'NH' (Not Held) for 1986 gives the following table:
Czechoslovakia United States
Tournament 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 95–03 2004 WR W–L
Australian Open (Jan) A A F A A Held in December NH F SF QF A A A A A A A 3 / 10 46–7
French Open QF QF F A A A A A QF W 4R W F F F 4R A A A A A 1R A 1R 2 / 13 51–11
Wimbledon 3R 1R QF SF QF W W SF SF W W W W W W F F W QF SF SF F A 2R 9 / 23 120–14
US Open 1R 3R SF 1R SF SF SF 4R F QF W W F W W QF F 4R F 2R 4R A A A 4 / 21 89–17
Australian Open (Dec) Held in January A A A SF W F W SF W NH Held in January Note Note
WR 0 / 3 0 / 3 0 / 4 0 / 2 0 / 2 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 / 3 1 / 4 2 / 4 3 / 4 3 / 4 2 / 4 2 / 3 2 / 4 0 / 4 0 / 3 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 0 0 / 2 18 / 67
Win–Loss 5–3 5–3 17–4 5–2 9–2 11–1 11–1 11–3 19–3 20–2 23–1 25–1 25–2 20–1 25–2 18–4 16–3 10–1 10–2 6–2 8–2 6–2 0–0 1–2 306–49
Year End Rank 9* 3 4 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5 3 8 376 - -
We could also add an {{efn}} note for the January totals to state that they include the December data.--Wolbo (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I like this chart by Wolbo. It's only going to affect those few players who played over that particular 9-year period in the 130+ year history of the sport. One comment though. This change, because it's north south, takes up little room in it's application, yet helps new readers understand when these events were played. But I disagree with Gap9551 that it can be successfully applied to List of Grand Slam women's singles champions. That would be an east/west addition and the chart is already really wide. Another column means extra scrolling for those with smaller screens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
There was also the calendar swap between the French Championships and Wimbledon in 1946 and 1947 but in terms of the handful of affected timelines (e.g. Doris Hart, Margaret Osborne duPont, Nancye Wynne Bolton) it is probably best to let that one be.--Wolbo (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
If the tables become too wide, then that's a good reason to leave them alone. The personal boxes are more important when it comes to chronology. Good point Wolbo, we should probably indicate that swap in the tables with a symbol. Gap9551 (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Gallery Section[edit]

good to see Nadal in the Gallery section. Shouldnt we also have Federer and Djokovic as well since they are in almost every singles record table.Perhaps Murray deserves a mention too sometime in future. We should reorganize this section with these changes, possibly arranged chronologically (acc to some criteria like first/last title) (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Article guidelines discussion[edit]

On the article guidelines talk page there is a discussion on tournament tables, specifically regarding referencing and linking. If you have any comments or feedback please add it at the talk page. --Wolbo (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI: 2016 Citi Open creation debate[edit]

I noticed that there is a discussion about re-creating the 2016 Citi Open article. Right now it is a redirect because it doesn't happen until August of 2016. The discussion is at Restore the 2016 Citi Open. An FYI in case any are interested. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fed Cup[edit]

I am proposing a change to Template:Fed Cup, namely which teams are included in the "Former World Group teams" list. Considering it's a widely used template, I didn't want to change it without notification. Please see the template talk page for more details. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


I took it upon myself to be bold and swapped in my new creation on the Wikiproject page, since reverted, sob. Why don't you like it? It has Wikipedia ball in it. ;)


In case some of you think better of it, I would be willing to make other versions of it with other players. Perhaps we could even engineer a mechanism where different players' versions would periodically replace themselves. Just a thought. I can also easily make other versions for Wikipedias where tennis is spelled differently ("tenis", "teniso"). Regards, --Mareklug talk 17:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for making that logo. I think it looks great, and wouldn't mind using it. Gap9551 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I like the wikipedia/tennis ball idea a lot. I don't know about showing one specific player, especially a current one who's still in the dawn of her career. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I certainly appreciate the effort of making a logo for our Tennis Wikiproject but I'm not convinced this is what we are looking for. It's a nice, creative idea to use the Wikipedia globe but if we do use it, it should in my view be recognizable as a tennis ball, i.e. have a yellow color and the characteristic seam pattern. My main objection is to use a particular and recognizable tennis player, in this instance Garbiñe Muguruza, for what should be a generic logo. Finally the font type and kerning for the title should ideally match the one used in the Wikipedia logo.--Wolbo (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Take 2 per Wolbo[edit]


Could we compromise on Garbiñe Muguruza? She represents the bright young future of the best in women's tennis. I carried out all other suggested improvements (albeit the SVG version of my work, File:Wikipedia-Tennis-logo-v3-Garbiñe.svg, failed to display as upload correctly from my Mac; downloading it back retrieves correct-looking file; PNG shown here). --Mareklug talk 03:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Wolbo, the logo should not have a recognizable player such as Muguruza. The picture on the current logo is neutral and that's what I believe we should keep. SOAD KoRn (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Take 3 per Wolbo, SOAD KoRn, Hermionedidallthework[edit]


I hope this version works for you. --Mareklug talk 15:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I like this one. It strikes a balance between being bold and being consistent with the established aesthetic of the encyclopedia. Thanks for your diligent work, Mareklug. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Me too. I can see it as the new logo. Thanks for the effort, Mareklug! SOAD KoRn (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it up some, and in the process, the SVG became correct, here it is:


I agree with others that neutrality should prevail over including a nice picture of a player, even though the latter might give a better impression of what the sport of tennis is about. Maybe a player that is not well known would be an option. This logo is very impressive, good job. Gap9551 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ana Ivanovic move attempt[edit]

FYI, there is a request to move Ana Ivanovic to Ana Ivanović. Comment if you wish. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Kyle Edmund career chart[edit]

What does the column headed "No." refer to? It's far from clear. Kyle_Edmund#Career_finals --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

At João Sousa career statistics, you may find in the Keys section a series of explanations for tennis tables, including "No.". Feel free to copy it. SOAD KoRn (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow. That's quite an answer. How many articles have tables without explanations and why do you think this is helping the reader? --Dweller (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
That column isn't standard so I removed it. As for the key, I just added the standard key that is required of all performance timelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Ta --Dweller (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Women and Pro tennis[edit]

Before the Open Era, occasionally (some) women played professional tennis. According to History of tennis (section Women's professional tennis near the bottom), there were women's pro tours in or around 1926-27, 1941, 1947, 1950-51, 1958, and 1967, but it seems these were a lot smaller than the men's pro circuit. Also, I don't see any information about whether women played the three Pro Slams.

Articles and sections such as

list only men's results, but never state clearly that pre-Open Era professional tournaments were for men only (unless I'm overlooking it). One of these two things needs to be done:

  • If it is true that women barely participated in pre-Open Era pro tournaments, this should be clearly stated in the lead of each of these (and possibly more) articles, especially in the Pro Slam articles. Then readers will know why no women's results are listed.
  • If women did play, then their results need to be listed too in these articles.

I'd like to hear what others who know more about the history of tennis think about this. Thanks! Gap9551 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The history of women's professional tennis was very different compared to the men. The main reason is that far fewer women players turned pro and their numbers were simply never high enough to organize a pro championship tournament with an actual draw. Most of the women pros played head-to-head matches on the infamous barnstorming pro tours (Lenglen–Browne, Marble–Hardwick, Betz–Moran). Often this was as the 'opening act' for the men's match. They did sometimes participate in a (men's) pro tournament but that was normally only a single match, i.e. the women's final. Mixed doubles were also played but to my knowledge never as part of a draw in a tournament event. We should at least make that distinction clear in the History of tennis article, if it isn't currently.--Wolbo (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, if women barely played pro tournaments, that raises the question why we need separate articles such as Tennis records of the Open Era – Women's Singles? In this article, as well as in History of tennis#Open Era, it should be explained what the difference was for women's tennis between the Open Era and the period before. Gap9551 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is a distinction in the women being paid with the start of the open era. It brought more gals into the game. But as far as there being a noticeable difference from 1967 to 1968... there really wasn't any for the women. Open era records and historical records blend pretty seamlessly. But we do have one thing... notable sources such as newspapers, tv and books often talk only of Open Era records, even for the women. So readers will come here looking for those Open Era records and not find them if we dumped them. That's not too good. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)