Talk:2018 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles

Comment

Copying below the content of the discussion at my talk page. Deb (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Wimbledon draw page

So it's up to you above all people to decide what's relevant now? What makes your opinion more important than mine. I find it borderline rude dismissing one's editing without justification and accusing one of vandalizing when I've clearly given my reasons. Undergroundtennis123 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

To expand:

1. The draw page introduction should only include results, new records/statistics and information on the defending champion.
2. Andy Murray is not the defending champion, the information is more related to the player personally and should not be on the draw page.
3. There have been no precedents for this type of information: Nadal's withdrawal at the 2016 French was not mentioned, neither would you see a mention of Federer not playing at the French on the draw page.
4. You added this 2 days after Murray's announcement of withdrawal. If there were any consensus on this being relevant to the draw page we would have seen entries much earlier.

You've been insisting on re-adding the content, despite multiple users deeming it irrelevant and removing it. Yet you've accused us of being sock puppets and now of vandalism. You are the one making the disruptive editing and unwarranted accusations.

Undergroundtennis123 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect on all counts. If you persist in removing sourced content, I'll have no hesitation in blocking you. Deb (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Next thing you will be saying that you are not the same person as User:Underground123. Deb (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, you keep saying incorrect but not providing a valid reason. It's not about whether the content is sourced or not, it's about whether the information is relevant to the page concerned.

Account name was a typo during editing. Fixed. I do not have multiple accounts and I am sure there are ways to check this if you don't believe me. The other reverts on the draw page were done by independent accounts.

I'm more than happy to raise a dispute/ find a third-party to resolve this situation. But please refrain from this dismissive and self-righteous language that you're using.

Undergroundtennis123 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is about whether the content is sourced. An examination of the sources shows that Murray's withdrawal was huge news. The lead paragraph of an article should provide a full summary of the topic, not a couple of sentences that you choose to think are "relevant". Anything that affects the outcome of the Men's Singles championship is relevant. I would be very pleased if you raise a "dispute" because your editing patterns and those of other vandals like User:Arbeit10 - who has multiple warnings on his talk page for removing sourced information - won't bear close scrutiny. Deb (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Tennis draw pages has always had concise summaries up until the last couple of years when people start bombarding them with statistics. There have been multiple high profile withdrawals before, arguably a bigger shock than Murray's this year (which has been foreshadowed if you read his comments in pressers), none of these have been included in the draw page.
See for example: 2013 Australian Open – Men's Singles, and also 2016 French Open – Men's Singles, where the then 9-time champion's withdrawal was not mentioned in the summary, Federer's withdrawal was only mentioned because it was linked to a statistic of a historical nature, likewise other significant withdrawals like 2009 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles was only mentioned because of Nadal's defending champion status.

Your source links to BBC, which is a credible source, but then it's obviously biased towards Murray and so they will make it a big deal. His withdrawal was not a big shock at all, it was somewhat surprising but many expected it happening.

Undergroundtennis123 (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"Many expected it" is not a reason not to report something that is clearly highly relevant, nor is the fact that similar events may not have been included in other articles. 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles is not an article about a "tennis draw". The clue is in the name of the article; it is about the Men's Singles competition at the 2018 Wimbledon Championships and the lead paragraph needs to summarize that content. For someone who has only been on the project a year and has made a total of 274 edits, it is odd that you seem to consider yourself an expert on what should and shouldn't be in articles.Deb (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2018

Can we Add record eight time champion to Roger Federer 86.143.234.34 (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

LL in bracket

The bracket cannot be correct, can it? Why are six players listed as "LL"? There's only one lucky loser entry in a bracket, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.199.153 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It was done per the official Wimbledon draw. If you check the external link source you will find the pdf file draw sheet. There are actually seven LLs in the draw in 2018. They obviously had a lot of main-draw players drop out with injuries after qualifying. If you check the French Open of 2018 you'll see they had eight lucky losers, so you never know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)