Talk:Anthony Wilding

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Antipodenz in topic Tony
Good articleAnthony Wilding has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 19, 2016Good article nomineeListed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 9, 2018.

Tony?

edit

Any reason why this page is at "Tony Wilding" and not at "Anthony Wilding", which is the name by which he is far more well-known (certainly here in New Zealand)? I know there's a redirect at that name, but I think it would make more sense to reverse the redirect and have the article at Anthony Wilding... Grutness...wha? 10:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your question makes sense... Maybe it's because he is/was known as "Tony Wilding" in worldwide tennis circles? ...same as Jimmy Connors, Pancho Gonzales or say Tiger Woods in golf... Mrmarble (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hm... yes, a quick google search seems to suggest that he's Anthony here in New Zealand but Tony to the tennis world in general. Ah well, as long as the redirect's there it doesn't matter too much one way or the other. Grutness...wha? 18:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Grutness, just a ping to let you know the article has been moved to Anthony Wilding based on both quantity and quality of available sources.--Wolbo (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Referencing system

edit

I suggest we use shortened footnotes for this article, given that some books are cited several times with different pages. And given that there are so many references, it makes sense to differentiate the different references types. I'd structure this as per the referencing on the Joseph Brittan article. Any objections? Schwede66 22:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Article quality

edit

@Wolbo: The article is in pretty good shape. Is your intention to nominate it for GA review sometime soon? Schwede66 02:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Schwede66, thanks for recognizing the progress. It is indeed my aim to take it to at least GA level but the article is not quite ready for that yet. Currently reading his biography Anthony Wilding – A Sporting Life (an excellent book), and applying that to further improve the article. --Wolbo (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 12 February 2016

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Britty192 (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply



Tony WildingAnthony Wilding – Reliable sources for both spelling versions are available but in my view both the number (quantity) and weight (quality) of the sources indicate a clear preference for the spelling as 'Anthony Wilding'. A plain google search on "player name" or "player name" + tennis results in approximately twice as many hits for Anthony Wilding. Wolbo (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

An overview of the most authoritative sources shows
--Wolbo (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

---

  • Support - In most of the old newspaper clips I've come across he's referred to as A.F. Wilding or Major A.F. Wilding. The ATP and ITF websites are the most "in our face" when checking records so certainly we get exposed to Tony Wilding more often in researching, but the points/sources Wolbo brings up shows he was commonly called Anthony. The fact he was called Tony by his friends should be (and is) mentioned in the lead paragraph. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Anthony Wilding/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply


I shall be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  22:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    The lead was a bit disorganised and awkward to read, so I moved it around if that's OK
    Same with the Early life section, it can be seen as too long to read comfortably so a split might be in order
    "He missed the 1908 Olympics in London because of administrative bungling" - I don't understand this
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    No original research found.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Overall this is well written and comprehensive. The issues I brought up were very minor, so I'll pass this now as it meets the criteria.   JAGUAR  22:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Jaguar: You wrote ""He missed the 1908 Olympics in London because of administrative bungling" - I don't understand this." I tried to more fully articulate the error as it was written in the source given. Is it easier to follow now? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I understand it now. JAGUAR  23:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Rivalries section

edit

Hi would it be possible to add some his notable rivalries namely, against Josiah Ritchie 34 meetings between them Wilding leading 28-6, Max Decugis 17 meetings, Wilding leading 14-3, Arthur Gore 14 meetings, Gore leads 9-5 includes 4 Wimbledon meets 2 of which were in the Challenge round and Gordon Lowe, 13 meets, Wilding lead 13-0, Otto Froitzheim, 14 meets Wilding lead 11-3, these were his only rivalries that got into double figures if no one objects will briefly add with a source thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Navops47, think it would be fine to add a rivalries section, just be bold. Having said that, the term 'notable rivalries' begs the question what exactly constitutes a 'rivalry' and when does it become 'notable'?. Two sportsmen playing against each other a number of times does not automatically make it a notable rivalry. It would be helpful if sources can be found discussing Wilding's rivalries but that will not be easy given the period it deals with. The player most discussed in relation to Wilding is probably Norman Brookes even though they did not compete many times and were also partners in the Davis Cup. We also need to be sure that the h2h numbers are reliably sourced.--Wolbo (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Tony

edit

As the section above states, and the article name suggests, this person was 'Anthony' The fact that 'Tony' is a diminuation of that, and was occasionally used for this person, does not matter - WP:MOSNICKNAME is clear. Hence why we do not have articles which start "Abraham 'Abe' Lincoln" etc. GiantSnowman 19:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I look at that differently. I have no idea who called him "Abe"... I assume the press called him president Lincoln or Abraham Lincoln. Tony Wilding on the other hand was probably called Tony by the press and tennis authorities as often as Anthony, so it make more sense to retain Tony in the heading. Just quickly looking at the NY Times, the Tennis Hall of fame, the ITF, and the ATP shows that many will be looking up Tony rather than Anthony. In fact for years this article was situated at Tony Wilding because of these facts. We determined it was better to go with the full name of Anthony. While a common nickname should not be presented in quotes, that doesn't mean it should be present. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have raised this in other sites, he was occasionally known as Tony but using this has led to confusion even in one article in Wikipedia using both versions, so it has become confusing at times. A search on NZ Papers Past shows unique records for "Anthony Wilding" at 4,972 and "Tony Wilding" at 125. I have amended what was stated as "often known as Tony Wilding" to read "also known as Tony Wilding". Antipodenz (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Engagement to Maxine Elliott

edit

I'm not sure why the info on his engagement to to Maxine Elliot keeps getting removed by a brand new user. It's sourced multiple times, including newspapers and books. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

It was suggested I bring an edit to talk. I am not confident a rumour about marriage between Elliot and Wilding improves an otherwise factual page. I am also not sure about the associated footnotes no. 82, which is to a login required article which seemingly quotes from a modern day relative (not a historical source). No 83 references dating, but no engagement. No 84 is not authority for the rumour of engagement. Isn't it better to rely on the recognised three books on Wilding referenced at the end of the article, and keep this page factual by stating only that he had been dating Elliot, and leave out the modern day rumour of engagement or impending marriage? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith2018 (talkcontribs) 08:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
It is certainly not a modern day rumor. There is newspaper article after newspaper article in 1913, 1914, 1915, etc... Some say they were married secretly, some say they were to be married the winter in which he was killed. It was front page news back then because of her popularity. After his death she put herself on the front lines to help the wounded, pretty much disregarding her own life because she was in such despair. Her closest friend said she was courting death in 1915 because of her loss. Sure, only those two long dead people know for certain, but with the headlines it made in 100s of papers, it's worthy of this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. I think that if it is to be included, then it is best to say they were "rumoured" (in the day engagements were formally announced and this did not happen). The footnotes are not historical nor in two cases authoritative sources and ought to be deleted. Rather than citing a modern day article which appears to reflect a contemporary media interview with a descendant, can't we reference one of the articles to which you refer in 1913, 1914 or 1915. It is such a good page otherwise, it deserves to have authoritative historical references. Thank you. Smith2018
Rumored is fine, probably a better term. I do think the recent sources are just fine, but I took your advise and removed one of the recent sources and instead added a 1915 newspaper source with page number. So we now have 2013 and 1915 newspaper sources, plus a 2015 book source. That should be good enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
It reads nicely, thank you for the consideration. I can see editing is a tricky thing. Smith2018 —Preceding undated comment added 11:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply