Talk:2008 US Open (tennis)

This article says absolutely nothing

I think this article is useless. It says absolutely nothing that can't be said about 2009 U.S. Open (tennis), 2010 U.S. Upen (tennis), etc. I think it should be revised or deleted. Smartyshoe 13:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article told me the dates of event. I found it useful.--John Price (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Defending Champion not in Competition?

Going to link over to Template talk:TennisEventInfo regarding my discussion of a "defending champion" not in competition (such as Justine Henin). Not sure how much attention that page would get so perhaps someone viewing this page can take a peek at my comments there? Thanks! Gnowor (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at Wikiproject tennis

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Men's singles results

Why is there need for mentioning all the victories if a single word suffices for it? As for the linking to previous competitions, that's what the template at the bottom is for. Also, saying it was his 1st Grand Slam victory of the year is redundant since there are no Grand Slams left in the year. LeaveSleaves (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care that much for "1st" instead of "only", but I do believe "1st" is better. With "only", it seems that the sentence has a negative implication, while "1st" seems more positive, just saying it is the 1st time of the year he managed to win a GS.

As for the links to previous tournaments, there are important. It may seem a tad repetitive, but I think it is important for the readers to have a direct access to the tournaments in question - previous US Open are mentioned in the day by day summaries, and they are linked. And of course, linking the previous wins at the event in that section is the consensus (see Nadal's wins at the 2008 French Open, Federer's at the 2008 Gerry Weber Open. --Oxford St. (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, "only" seems really inappropriate as it implies "lack". What do you think ? --Oxford St. (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't our place to judge the tone of the article, as long as it doesn't convey a strong POV. More important thing is to convey information succinctly. As for linking, it might be relevant to link them in the prose in proper context (e.g. last year's Federer vs. Djokovic final). But here they serve no additional purpose, other than overlinking. LeaveSleaves (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:OVERLINK says "References to a page with more information" should be linked. Aren't those year links exactly that ? As for "1st" and "only", I precisely believe (but perhaps that's only me), that "only" conveys a POV. --Oxford St. (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was being slightly sardonic in my last comment: I meant that those links weren't purposeful, I wasn't actually referring to WP:OVERLINK. As for linking articles with more information, those articles provide additional information on respective tournaments and not specifically Fedrer's achievement. As for the POV, have you considered the statement "the biggest shock of the tournament was provided by world number 188 Julie Coin, who defeated Ana Ivanovic, the World No. 1" in the article? To me, that is a stronger POV (comparatively). LeaveSleaves (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I see your point in removing year links - but then the years should also be removed in the sentence about Serena's achievements, and in all other articles using that form (2008 Wimbledon Championships, 2008 French Open, out of many). And yes, the day by day section is full of strong POVs that should modified, but it is not a reason to keep a (lesser) POV in the men's singles results section. --Oxford St. (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is in its nascent stage and there are still a number of edits everyday. Once the dust settles, I'm sure the article would be closely copy-edited for such sentences. I personally intend to do that. LeaveSleaves (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I did want collaboration on this, and it's probably best to review it now, when the tournament is over. I was working on a time scale with a lot of these summaries, and am also not that confident about my writing at times (I realize that I've often had to resort to genericisms within the prose). Is commenting on whether someone had an easy or laborious win showing POV? When reliable sources are used? It's all backed up, and doesn't go overboard most of the time. To illustrate my point: if you look in Day 2, it says Berdych defeated by Querrey in a humbling scoreline. All these sources,[1][2][3][4] plus the one used, seem to back that up. WP:NPOV says an article should represent as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. In this case, I can't see any other significant views; it's not me making the commentary - when you said strong POV, did you mean in general (such as this), or that there are too many instances (such as Ivanovic) of it? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I'd like to commend you on your regular day reports Yohan, you did a great job. As for the POV, the thing that stands out in Ivanovic comment is the superlative degree ("biggest shock of the tournament"). Now in order to make prose more readable and flowing, you have to use certain adjectives which might convey unintentional POV. I feel this is okay, since otherwise such an article would make a boring and laborious read. But we should of course try and steer away from superlatives. Columnists of course tend to put their emotions and opinions into their writing, something we should avoid. I guess a way around this could be to quote a renowned columnists remarks on that match. LeaveSleaves (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Ivanovic thing needs to be sorted out, and that copyediting is required elsewhere to remove such superlative language (in defense of it though - it was technically the biggest upset). Perhaps I was swayed to writing in this manner because I've been reading some articles from Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 (i.e. the public domain one) recently that would almost certainly fail WP:NPOV. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Walk-overs are not counted as wins in tennis

Roger Federer now has a 34 match win streak and not the 35 you all want to give him because back in 2004 in the 4th round he advanced due to a w/o, and technically this is not considered a win and apart of his streak! bluedogtn (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it be okay if we say he has 35 matches undefeated streak? LeaveSleaves (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be okay but you have to preface that with the 34 match win streak and say that the one of the 35 came via a W/O.Bluedogtn (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

consistency

Please compare

It was his only Grand Slam title of the year, his 13th overall, and his 5th consecutive win at the event.

with

It was her 1st Grand Slam title of the year, her 9th overall, and her 3rd win at the event.

Can I change Serena's part to say

It was her only single Grand Slam title of the year, her 9th overall, and her 3rd win at the event.

?

Please feel free to comment. I will go ahead with the change but urge you to be bold and revert it if you deem it necessary to do so. Kushal (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics

I have undone an edit removing diacritics from the players' names. Their names are unambiguously what is on their birth certificates, and spelling "Amélie" (for instance) without an accent is just plain wrong.

If the system can handle it, as it obviously can, what's the problem? Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Two problems

1) The doubles team exits. Is there any way of knowing who went out on what day? Because it's currently unreferenced. I also wonder about the need for the bullet point about the singles, considering that it's easy enough to find out (just by reading the prose)... 2) Does anybody know what happened to the invitational events? Did they take place? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the only way to know of each day's exits would be to go through the event's website schedule of play, and see, day by day, who won and who lost - I think we should keep the bullet points for the singles, to allow readers who just want to know in a glance who was out on each day to do it. As for the invitational events, they did take place, but the USO website is making it difficult by not publihsing the draws - I have tried several times to go through the completed matches section, catching the Invitational results to see if I could recreate the round robin groups, but it is completely incomprehensible. Just look at the Invitational Women's Singles, there are only two matches, one labeled Semifinals, the other Finals, and both taking place between Navratilova and Novotna. I suspect that the 2008 Invitational events did not take place as scheduled, or that they weren't round robin events like last year (2007 U.S. Open - Women's Champions Invitational). --Oxford St. (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the bullet points probably should be retained...there is this [5] on the invitationals (see bottom), they were scheduled for Thursday and Saturday. That's still not very helpful though. I'll look around some more. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with citing from the schedule urls is that the address remains the same for the next year, so the information for 2008 is only available until then. I'll list the results of the 'Finals' matches (invitationals) on the main page for the time being. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems solved. Link for doubles results, and dates on which they were played, is here: USA Today schedule. I'll sort 'Seeded players out' into alphabetical or descending order (of seed) aswell. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Prize money

It'd be nice to see this article include prize money, like other articles on major sporting events do. --Dweller (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/draws/md/mddraw.pdf
  • In 2007 US Open – Men's Doubles on 2011-05-26 03:06:14, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 US Open – Men's Doubles on 2011-05-27 15:22:57, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 US Open – Men's Doubles on 2011-06-15 19:33:10, 404 Not Found
  • In 2008 US Open (tennis) on 2011-06-16 15:22:39, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 US Open (tennis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080912235927/http://www.atptennis.com:80/1/en/2008news/washington_sunday.asp to http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/washington_sunday.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 US Open (tennis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://sports.in.msn.com/tennis/stories/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1646229

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2008 US Open (tennis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://sports.in.msn.com/tennis/stories/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1646229

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2008 US Open (tennis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0%2C22606%2C24249907-12428%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0%2C22606%2C24254183-12428%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080901013631/http://www.tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=143298 to http://www.tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=143298
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/notebook?page=notebook%2Ftennis08282008
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://sports.in.msn.com/tennis/stories/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1646229
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080822150224/http://www.usta.com/sitecore/content/USTA/Global/Pro_Tennis/Grand_Slams/US_Open/PressRelease/US_Open_womens_wild_cards.aspx to http://www.usta.com/sitecore/content/USTA/Global/Pro_Tennis/Grand_Slams/US_Open/PressRelease/US_Open_womens_wild_cards.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)