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.

Infobox Tennis HOF ID should be updated![edit]

Just a heads up the "tennishofid" needs to be updated as it's sending users to a broken link at the page.

For example, on Martina Hingis, currently it sends users to: which is a broken page. The current format should now be: Name-Last Name In the provided example, the current page is now:

Thanks, Dov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovaleh (talkcontribs) 19:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you did it on the template doc... thanks for the info. I corrected the main template so it should work now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
NOTE - I have reverted myself and your document entry. It seems the Hall of Fame has not really changed. All the older HoF members use the hall-of-famers/ location. New ones like Hingis skip that addition. So it's more complicated than a simple change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The Tennis HoF has just launched a redesigned website. Looks good and it seems that all inductees now again share a common url:<player name>. If we can confirm this it should be straightforward to update the infobox tennis biography and external link templates. Hopefully a bot can take care of all other link updates in e.g. references and non-template external links.--Wolbo (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Season article creations (again)[edit]

We have an editor who keeps creating 2015 Kei Nishikori tennis season... against the consensus we all compromised on. I nominated it for speedy deletion as has been done with others but apparently it's a non-starter this time. It has already been deleted before (perhaps more than once) so I'm not sure as to why it can't be speedy deleted. Place your comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Kei_Nishikori_tennis_season. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Lucky loser : more precisely...[edit]


On the article Lucky loser, it is written:

It is rare for a lucky loser to win an Association of Tennis Professionals tournament. [...] In total, seven men have done it from 1978 through 2010.

Could somebody precise who are these 7 men (besides Clavet, Miniussi, Stakhovsky and Ram ; 3 are missing). We have indeed a problem on the french article where only 6 players are indicated, and we would like to complete this list with the 7th.

Thanks. A.Gust14 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I added two of the others, plus the only female to do it. The 7th is elusive or doesn't exist. The ATP Tour is quoted as saying when Ram won he was the 7th male to do so (I listed the source). The ATP could have been wrong or misquoted. There have been none since Rajeev Ram won in 2009, so it's from before 2009. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. But if the 7th eventually doesn't exist, why letting "In total, seven men have done it from 1978 through 2010." ? A.Gust14 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
We have reliable sources that say there are 7 male winners and 1 female winner. What I may think makes little difference if the sources tell us otherwise. I added another source that says there are eight total men and women lucky loser winners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
A few edits ago there were two references, but they were removed (link rot). When I mentioned this issue on Talk:Lucky_loser, I have added link to Internet Archive version of one of the links from older revisions. --Kompik (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh I didn't have seen your discussion on Talk:Lucky_loser. We have the same problem at the same time on and
So I would precise that there are 7 male winners but that the 7th's name is unknown. Thanks for your help.
Another problem : sources don't precise if Andrea Jaeger won Las Vegas in January or in September 1980. In fact, she won both tournaments : in January, this source indicates that she was qualifier (not lucky loser) and in September, ITF website proves that she was seeded. So where is the lucky loser status...? A.Gust14 (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Two things... 1) the January Vegas event was an ITF futures tournament, not a WTA tournament, so I don't think that one counts. And 2) what does seeding have to do with qualifying? Players sometimes have to go through qualifiers to make a tournament roster even if they are ranked. In 1981 Borg wanted to play a reduced schedule because of burn-out and the tour told him no, if he didn't play enough he'd have to go through qualifiers to play each event. He retired instead. My recollection on the Vegas event (which might be hazy) was that Andrea Jaeger was only like 14 or 15 and zooming up the rankings and wasn't on many original tournament rosters. She had to qualify (even at that earlier futures event in January). Come September and the Vegas event is full except for qualifiers. Jaeger lost in qualifiers so she didn't make the roster. But I think Chris Evert got sick or injured at the last moment so they took the highest ranked losing qualifier.... Jaeger. She was given a 6 seed in the event. Anyway that's what I remember reading way back when. But the WTA and ESPN agree that she was a Lucky Loser in Vegas. They just don't say why. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Another thing. Some other guides have listed that player Kay McDaniel won a tournament as a lucky loser. It was the Atlanta Avon event of March 1980 where she beat Renee Richards in the final. But that was also a Futures ITF event that shouldn't count as a WTA event. I think the WTA media guide mixed up that tournament with the official WTA Atlanta event, the Davison's Tennis Classic, where McDaniel was obliterated in the first round. It's also possible that I'm remembering things wrong with Jaeger in Vegas and that the WTA media guide has been spewing out an error for years, which everyone under the sun picks up and reports. You never know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I trust you when you say the January Vegas event was an ITF futures tournaments. But do you have any source which could prove that futures were ITF tournaments at this time ? A.Gust14 (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, is there an article on en.wikipedia on the categorisation of tennis tournaments since the beginnings of ATP and WTA ? A.Gust14 (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually your source above shows it was a futures event. And we have articles on each year of the WTA tours. 1980 is right here with a box at the bottom that links to each years WTA events. Here is a link that tells of that Vegas tournament. What's amazing about that minor tournament is that Jaeger had no points at all to enter it, so she had to go through pre-qualifying just to get to qualifying. 5 matches in pre-qualifying, 3 in qualifying and then 5 in the main event. She had to win 13 straight matches. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I put 2 sources, but I don't understand how they prove that Futures were ITF tournaments at this time. If you mean this source, it is actually common to get WTA tournaments' results published on ITF website. See this current one for instance. Could you precise how it proves that Futures tournaments were part of ITF and not of WTA ? I'm sorry, it is because we have a controversy with that on fr.wikipedia and maybe you could help to solve it. A.Gust14 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
That event was not part of the WTA Avon or Colgate tour. Whether the WTA recognizes those Avon futures as WTA wins is their own business I guess. The 70's and 80s were the dark ages as far as competing tours, players being banned from events because they were part of the wrong tour, etc... The Avon Futures were absolutely a separate Circuit from the main tour... probably closer to the men's Challenger tour today. The mens Challenger today is part of the ATP but it's their minor league and not part of the main tour records. The 1980 Ladies Futures were something similar... sponsored by the WTA as their training ground lesser circuit. Remember the ladies even today don't really have tour like the men's Challenger tour. The ITF events for men end at the $25,000 level. From there you leave the ITF events and move to the ATP Challenger circuit with all kinds of levels of pay scale and payouts. Then the really good ones move on to the ATP main tour. The ladies today have the ITF events that pay from $15,000 to $100, real Challenger Circuit (although they do now have the WTA 125 events. The WTA 125 events are WTA sponsored and are similar to the highest level men's Challenger events. But back then the ATP Tour or WTA Tour didn't really exist. They were unions the players belonged to while the Tours were sponsored by the likes of Avon or Colgate or Virginia Slims. Very blurry as far as ITF or WTA when using hindsight. But they were different circuits for sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Another article about it is on page 24 in this Idaho newspaper. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)