Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

2007 Australian Open - Doubles

I was hoping that someone would change the doubles draws for the 2007 Australian Open from 16-Bracket templates to 8-Bracket Templates. At the moment it looks like they are singles because the double teams are in seperate brackets. I tried, but it got a little compliicated and frustrating.

Links:

• 2007 Australian Open - Men's Doubles
• 2007 Australian Open - Women's Doubles

Allied45 08:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WP Tennis

Finally, converted all articles tagged with {{WP Tennis}} to {{WP-Tennis}}... --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 03:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WTA Tour

What do you think about Infobox for WTA tournaments? --Göran Smith 20:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm what to create also for ATP, but first I need your input on this one? :) --Göran Smith 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The infobox looks good. - Nick C 17:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and added it to most of the WTA tournaments, and added one to the ATP tournaments as well. For the joint tournaments (Indian Wells, Miami, etc.) would it be better to have a combined box (like this one) to cut down on clutter? --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 06:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request Feedback on French Amateurs

I've put up a few French Amateur tournament/draw pages, based on the official PDFs available at the French Open site. I'd greatly appreciate any feedback, particularly on the article titles, what to do about byes, accent issues, flag issues, the Template:French Amateur tournaments template, etc. See 1925 French Amateur and 1967 French Amateur. --dantheox 07:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks good, and consistent with the modern draws. Some of the flags need correcting (South Africa especially sticks out). Most can be fixed within the flagicon template. The calls can all be found in Category:Country data templates. I've gone ahead and corrected 1925 Men's. The titles look fine (and consistent with the modern ones). On the template, the "WWII"s look a little wonky, maybe replace them with greyed-out or just non-linked years. Looks like a good start. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Is there any simple way of finding out what flag is appropriate to use for a country in a particular year? Did you have to develop some logic along those lines for your Davis cup work? --dantheox 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I just looked at the various wiki articles to find out what was used when. I'm kind of a flag geek, so I didn't really mind ;). Category:Davis Cup team templates may be of some use. The number is the last year that flag was used (with very few exceptions). The Olympic articles are a good reference, too. As for what calls are used in the templates, I don't know where to look besides the category in my previous post.

The short answer is, no, there is no simple way :). --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For your viewing enjoyment: User:Dantheox/flags.rb --dantheox 02:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Spiffy. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Davis Cup/Fed Cup project

First off, thanks to everyone who helped update the 2007 Davis Cup pages over the weekend. Secondly, I've been busy making pages for past DC years, and plan on doing the same with Fed Cup once I'm done. If people want to help out, there are plenty of associated pages to be worked on. Should I add a project sub-page to coordinate all this? --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! A Davis/Fed Cup subproject would be completely appropriate. --dantheox 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Sky of blue and Sea of...um...blue. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 06:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A page for every slam

Just a heads up on the Grand Slam project... there's now a page for every slam! See the sea of blue links at Wikipedia:WikiProject tennis/Grand Slam Project#Slams. Getting draws for all of those is an entirely different matter, unfortunately. If anyone's interested in helping with a sub-project, it'd be great to get succession boxes on all the Open-Era slams. I put them on the amateur-era tournaments (e.g. 1878 Wimbledon Championships), but they stop once you get to 1968 French Open. --dantheox 07:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Discuss

Standardize naming: "Wimbledon" vs. "Wimbledon Championships", "US Open" vs. "U.S. Open" and "French Open" vs. "Roland Garros"

Thought we should have a discussion regarding which name is more suitable before I use AWB to change all of them... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 03:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I say Wimbledon Championships, US Open, and Roland Garros —MC 00:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of Wimbledon instead... but agree with you on the other two. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 00:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion over French Open/Roland Garros on Talk:French_Open_(tennis). I would lean towards whatever is the more common name. In the US, you almost never hear "Roland Garros"; it's always "French Open". What is the situation in the UK and Australia? I also vote for just "Wimbledon" and "US Open". --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In Aus, we call it Roland Garros...I think. Not sure 'bout UK though. It's been some time since I've gone there. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald last week referred to the tournament as the "French Open."[1] Tennis expert 22:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It did? I might of got it wrong again.. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Something else to consider: should individual years be named 1972 US Open or 1972 US Open (tennis)? Same for 1972 French Open, etc. Also, what should the pages for pre-open era tournaments be named? xx Open clearly isn't right, since they were amateur-only events. I've gone with, e.g., 1938 U.S. National Championships, 1938 Australian Championships, 1938 Wimbledon Championships and 1938 French Amateur. Several people have suggested adding a "(tennis)" into those names somewhere: 1938 U.S. National Championships (tennis) and 1938 Australian Championships (tennis). Also on the table: US Open vs. U.S. Open. What do people think? --dantheox 07:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We traditionally call the pre-open era Grand Slam tournaments: "Australian Championships," "French Championships," "Wimbledon," and "U.S. Championships." We also put the periods in "U.S. Open." Tennis expert 22:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Can we agree that we call the UK Grand Slam "Wimbledon" as opposed to "Wimbledon Championships"? Personally, after seeing the article, I'm going for U.S. Open. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I always use "Wimbledon." Tennis expert 23:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll start changing them...Unless there's any objections? --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 23:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

None here, go for it! --dantheox 17:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Update I've fixed the links on all the players in the Wimbledon Champions category. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 03:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is still the issue of the Roland Garros tournament. On the talk page for French Open, there was recently a two-day surprise vote, whereupon it was decided to keep the incorrect name (to be frank, it is a French tournament, I really don't care what americans call it. In Denmark we call it De Åbne Franske Mesterskaber i tennis. I guess you don't care about that either). Some have objected to the "vote", and I also think it deserves further scrutiny. Personally, I am in favor of always using the names that is used locally; then one can add what they are known under in other major languages. What do the Chinese call the tournament?--HJensen, talk 14:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The tournament is called Roland Garros. The logo says "Roland Garros." It is one thing if "Roland Garros" translated into English as "French Open," but believe it or not, it translates as "Roland Garros." Espana translates as Spain, so the page for the country is located at Spain. But Roland Garros translates to Roland Garros. That is the name of the tournament in any language. It is refered to as the French Open. In golf, the Open Championships is referred to as the British Open, but the page is at the Open Championships. Why differ for a French tennis tournament? The page, without a doubt, should be at Roland Garros (tennis) for the sake of not just accuracy, but correctness. Bsd987 02:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I must maintain the irrelevance of what, e.g., americans have decided to call the tournament.--HJensen, talk 18:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that the official name isn't "Tournoi de Roland-Garros". But on the English wikipdeia, the official guideline is to use the most common name in English, even if it differs from the official name (note articles located at Munich rather than München, and Rod Laver rather than Rodney George Laver). There really is no consensus in English, although the common name in the US is "French Open", and based on the talk page discussion, it's mixed in the UK. The vote is indeed irrelevant, since we should try to reach a consensus.

As to your apparent dislike of Americans, I apologize for anything I personally have done to offend you. I'm sure most everyone else would, too. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry if I convey any "apparent dislike" of Americans. Nothing could be more wrong and unintended. Also, I have not been offended by anybody on this page. It takes more important matters than a discussion about the name for a sports arrangement to even raise my blood pressure. :-) What I had in mind was that just because there are more Americans, this fact should not be a decisive factor. So, for the record: I like and love many Americans, and I hate many of them. Just as with people from any other country, region, religion, race, and so on.--HJensen, talk 06:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your post just came off like that (who cares what the americans think?). I've seen people, on wiki and elsewhere, write off everything about the US just because our president is an idiot. I'm glad you're not one of those ;). At any rate, I agree that the US view shouldn't win just because it's the "majority", but it can't be ignored, either. If "French Open" is widespread in the US, and used sometimes/half the time/most of the time in the UK, it will be hard to get a consensus to change it. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note, regarding the U.S. Open vs. US Open issue that nowhere on the official web site do the organizers use the periods in US Open. See here. Doesn't that count? --HJensen, talk 18:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "US" is understood to mean the same thing as "U.S." in most cases, too. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. See [2], plus we've used "U.S. Open" or "U.S. Championships" hundreds of times in various Wikipedia tennis articles. Tennis expert 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Manual of Style, I think it refers to the cases where one wants to avoid writing "United States". Here, the letters U and S are part of a name or title. That could make it a different matter (we are not making short hand for a tournament called "United States Open"). Whether we have used "U.S. Open" a zillion times before, doesn't mean that we cannot debate the appropriateness of it now (and agree to undo it). So I don't buy that argument.--HJensen, talk 06:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for believing that the official name of the tournament is the "US Open" instead of the "United States Open"? And what we've done hundreds (or zillions) of times is relevant because it represents the current consensus. Tennis expert 06:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My source is, as mentioned above, the official home page of the tournament. In the amateur days the tournament was called, again according to the official web site, "U.S. National Championships". Note how they lose the "."s in the name change when the tournament becomes Open. Even though zillions of past edits reflect current consensus (implicit of explicit), this cannot and should not in my opinion be an obstacle towards reaching a new consensus, or at least debating current affairs. Or maybe I am missing your point?--HJensen, talk 11:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me! I'm interested in this discussion too. I've written Grand Slams by year, from 2007-1978 in Japanese Wikipedia. 1977, the biggest turning point of Australian Open, January and December events. I'll keep on researching, before Amateur Era events. Two sections above, French Amateurs mentioned: I've collected all the official drawsheets. About Australian Open, I'll recommend the best source, an official book -- "Our Open: 100 years of Australia's Grand Slam". I've been thinking for a long time, how to name Amateur Era events in Japanese. Your discussions may help me. By the way, where's official drawsheet information of Wimbledon and US Championships? My best regards. --Hhst 15:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming proposal

A complete naming system needs to address the tournament pages for each year and the draw pages for each year. How about this?

• Australian:
  • 1905 - 1926:
    • 1915 Australasian Championships (tennis)
    • 1915 Australasian Championships - Men's Singles
    • 1923 Australasian Championships - Women's Singles
    • (rationale: see Australian Open, this is what it was called back then. The (tennis) is necessary since there could have been Australasian Championships in another sport, such as Cricket. "Men's Singles" and "Women's Singles", on the other hand, make it clear that we're talking about tennis.).
  • 1927 - 1968:
    • 1938 Australian Championships (tennis)
    • 1938 Australian Championships - Men's Singles
    • 1938 Australian Championships - Women's Singles
    • (rationale: same as above, the name changed in 1927. I've already been pestered on my talk because I named them 1938 Australian Championships).
  • 1969 - present:
    • 2007 Australian Open (tennis)
    • 2007 Australian Open - Men's Singles
    • 2007 Australian Open - Women's Singles
    • (rationale: consistency. The (tennis) is necessary because there's also Australian Open (golf)).
• French:
  • 1925 - 1967:
    • 1938 French Championships (tennis)
    • 1938 French Championships - Men's Singles
    • 1938 French Championships - Women's Singles
    • (rationale: This title is well-attested on French Open (tennis), the official site, and elsewhere (see below). 1938 Roland Garros wouldn't make sense, since using that name would introduce an unnecessary name change in 1928 when that title began to be used.)
  • 1968 - prsent:
    • 2006 French Open (tennis)
    • 2006 French Open - Men's Singles
    • 2006 French Open - Women's Singles

(rationale: see discussion above. French Open (tennis) is already used consistently on Wikipedia, and apparently throughout most of the English-speaking world.)

• Wimbledon:
  • 1877 - present:
    • 2006 Wimbledon Championships
    • 2006 Wimbledon Championships - Men's Singles
    • 2006 Wimbledon Championships - Women's Singles
    • (rationale: Wimbledon is pretty unambiguous. The only dicey point is whether it should be Men's and Women's or Gentlemen's and Ladies' Singles. I favor the former for consistency, but the latter would be more officially correct.)
• US:
  • 1881 - 1967:
    • 1938 U.S. National Championships (tennis)
    • 1938 U.S. National Championships - Men's Singles
    • 1938 U.S. National Championships - Women's Singles
    • (rationale: This name is well attested, see for instance US Open (tennis)#History. I've never seen it written without periods. The "(tennis)" is certainly necessary here to disambiguate.)
  • 1968 - present:
    • 2006 US Open (tennis)
    • 2006 US Open - Men's Singles
    • 2006 US Open - Women's Singles
    • (rationale: usopen.org is extremely consistent in omitting the dots, and as demonstrated above, there's no strong precedent of using either form exclusively on Wikipedia.)

Thoughts/feedback are very welcome. The sooner we can reach consensus on this and start renaming articles, the better. I've got the pre-open French Men's and Women's draws ready to upload once we get this settled, as well as most of the men's draws from 1900-1967. --dantheox 00:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice job Dantheox! I have no problems with this. I was a bit in doubt about the French Open, but take the argument that this is the most common name in English (and that this is an encyclopedia in English).--HJensen, talk 13:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, HJensen. Looking at that list, the 1938 French Amateur looks out of place. I changed it to 1938 French Championships (tennis) to be consistent with the other slams, and because "French Championships" has much better support off-wiki (Britannica). I'll make some of the non-contested moves (e.g. YYYY Australian National Championships -> YYYY Australian National Championships (tennis)) and leave time for others to weigh in on some of the unresolved points. Is there a standard way to request a mass move? Moving potentially hundreds of articles by hand sounds like a terrible way to waste a day. --dantheox 18:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I still disagree, I accept this decision since opposition to the change has been well shown. I contested the previous vote because it took more than a year after the argument was raised for such a vote to occur and only four people responded. But now we've had more answers and I accept keeping it at French Open. Bsd987 20:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Final Decision

So the final vote is that we change U.S. Open to US Open, leave French Open as it is, at Dantheox's suggestion, and change Wimbledon Championships to Wimbledon? Correct me if I am wrong... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 05:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to change Wimbledon, I think it's fine as 1968 Wimbledon Championships. My only question on Wimbledon is whether it should be 1968 Wimbledon Championships - Men's Singles or 1968 Wimbledon Championships - Gentlemen's Singles (and similarly for Women's vs. Ladies'). --dantheox 06:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think your consistency argument pointing towards "Men" and "Women" rather than "Gentlemen" and "Ladies" is a good one.--HJensen, talk 08:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Before doing a mass change of "U.S. Open" to "US Open," I think it would be wise to nail down the official name of this tournament. The name used on the website is not necessarily reliable. The USTA might have chosen "US Open" for the website simply because a URL of www.u.s.open.org would have been cumbersome. Tennis expert 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's reasonable, but it seems odd that they'd be so consistent about it. See for example [3]. The fact that the main article text refers to the pre-Open tournament exclusively as the "U.S. National Championships" and the Open tourney exclusively as the "US Open" is quite convincing to me. A non-web example: [4]. Nobody knew what an URL was in 1988, but that tape is clearly labeled "1988 US Open". --dantheox 03:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the official name was anything other than "United States Open" or "United States Open Tennis Championships". However, US is just as recognized and used an abbreviation for United States as U.S. is. That, combined with the fact that the site and elsewhere use US almost exclusively, seems to point to using US Open. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 03:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put together a list of the moves that have been proposed: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Mass Move. There are 227 moves in that list. There's no big rush to complete this move, but it's worth discussing how it's going to be done. Is there a bot that can do all these moves for us? A simple move won't suffice though, because some of the text and links on the pages will have to be changed, e.g. "List of winners of the 1906 Australian Championships" -> "List of winners of the 1906 Australasian Championships". This could also be a good opportunity to make sure that each grand slam has a proper succession box, ala 1939 Australian Championships. --dantheox 03:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I say "Gentlemen's" and "Ladies'" for Wimbledon. I've never seen them referred to otherwise. Bsd987 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Would HJensen like to respond? Wikipedia:Naming conventions says that titles should favor readers over editors, and I think my consistency argument only makes sense from an editor's point of view. --dantheox 06:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, I found the following at the official Wimbledon site: "The 120th Championships were a resounding success, not least for the All England Club's seeding committee, since both men's and women's singles crowns were annexed by the number one seeds, Roger Federer and Amelie Mauresmo." [5] On the same page though, they use the term Gentlemen and Ladies. On the main page of the site [6] they mix it by stating: "The All England Club, Wimbledon, today announced that the Men’s and Ladies’ Singles Champions at the 2007 Championships (25 June-8 July) will each receive £700,000." So even officially, things are not completely fixed. I would therefore still favor the consistency argument, as these links show that the tournament itself do refer to the players by the common term "men" and "women". I also think that the consistency argument is in favor of the readers. It doesn't hurt them at least ;-) .--HJensen, talk 10:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! Barring any major objections, I'll move the pre-open tournaments this weekend and upload draws. We'll see about the open era, but I think it would be best if several members of this Wikiproject went over that move list manually. We need to add things like "Next/Previous Slam" and "Next/Previous Wimbledon" infoboxes to all the open-era pages as well. --dantheox 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would favor the "Men and women" over the "ladies and gentlemen" primarily because it seems to be the more common term... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The consistency argument can also work in favor of the readers, since not all will be familiar with Wimbledon's way of doing things. Also, given HJensen's research, even they don't always go as formal. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 03:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Update on the move

Well that was fun. I used a bot to make the moves discussed above. Since there was going to be some editing going on anyway (e.g. changing the links to the draws), I didn't actually use moves. I just did two uploads, one for the new slam page, one for a redirect from the old one. I only went up to the end of the Amateur era. The open era is a bit trickier, since I didn't create all those draw pages myself. Some may have real content, or links to doubles draws. Moves may actually be more appropriate. We'll have to look them over to decide.

While I was at it, I uploaded a large number of men's and women's draws. Women's coverage in the open era is essentially complete, on par with the men's. In the amateur era, coverage is mostly complete back into the 1930's, with some tournaments going back even further.

To get a sense of the progress of this project, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject tennis/Grand Slam Project and marvel at all the blue links. I'd really appreciate some spot-checks -- hopefully I didn't goof too badly anywhere. Verifying that the slam page and draw pages agree on the winners/runners-up and scores would go a long way. I'm aware that the 190x Wimbledon pages don't match up, and I'm fairly certain I know what the problem is. --dantheox 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I poked around and didn't see any issues relating to the move - good job. I did notice a few flag issues (and one of them isn't even nitpicky!). On Wimbledon '36 you had pre-1928 Chinese flags, instead of the newer Republic flag, and on Wimbledon '67 the Yugoslavian and Romanian flags were the post-Socialism versions. I've fixed those two pages, and I'll see about using a bot or something to fix the others. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I'm armed with AWB and ready to change some flags. While I'm at it, I'll fix some name links and accents. I do have one question regarding categories. Would it be worthwhile to move the draws out of the main YYYY in tennis category and into, e.g. YYYY Wimbledon Championships? I noticed that Category:2006 in tennis is already (mostly) done this way. It would keep the main categories a little cleaner, and I could also add the Davis and Fed Cup and Olympic categories to the years. Unlike 2006 though, I would rather leave the main pages in the YYYY in tennis category. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm indifferent. The YYYY in tennis categories are going to be pretty sparse for YYYY < 2000 or so, just the Davis Cup and slams. The subcategories would make them better organized, but probably harder to navigate. Whatever you think is more appropriate. While you're playing around with AWB, you interested in moving the open-era slam pages? =) --dantheox 22:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

DavisCup-stub

A stub type for the Davis Cup was created recently, which may (or may not?) tie in with the Davis Cup-Fed Cup Project. At any rate, it's currently listed at SFD, for renaming to conform to the stub naming guidelines. If, however, this isn't the sensible way to split after all, do please say so. Alai 02:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

News to me. A good many (~140 of 239) of the general tennis stubs are Davis Cup related. It might be nice to have them separated, but it would be a pain to go back and re-tag everything. It also doesn't (and can't easily) encompass Fed Cup, so IMO it's not really worth having. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 07:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it would be a good basis to split them, if there were any particular need, but given the rather moderate size of the parent, there certainly isn't currently. The retagging might be doable by 'bot, if the articles are in the Category:Davis Cup permcat. Or else we could keep the template (once renamed), upmerged to Category:Tennis stubs, delete the cat, and recreate it if needed later (i.e. the retagging proves wildly popular). As you say, a single stub type for Davis+Fed would be awkward, since it'd correspond to two different category trees. Alai 08:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5