Tennis Project‑class

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.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Tennis To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Take an item off the Cleanup listing Copyedit : Roger Federer, Leander Paes, Rafael Nadal, Justine Henin – to be used as examples for ideal page structures Expand : Grab a Start article and expand it, or peruse the List of articles. Photo : Add photos to Tennis or Tennis people articles Stubs : Bring a Stub up to our standards. Other : *Sign up as a member of the project. Tag more articles with our standard project template. Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I just wanted to notify the project of my AfD nomination of 2013 ITF Tennis Open and its associated articles as a hoax. I'd be grateful for any input. Jared Preston (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and now another: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 LN Tennis Open. Jared Preston (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed; articles deleted. Thanks. Jared Preston (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, nice catch. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, cheers Lajbi! Mind you, as you saw yourself, it was a bit of an eye-catcher and hard to miss! Jared Preston (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was just me and the lack of my involvement in WTA articles. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 11:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These things pop up from time to time, and this one was quite intricate. I wonder what the impulse is for this editor/editors to do this? Some look so good I wish they would use the effort to create something real. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: "They" are at it again. Leshnavoka (talk · contribs) / Libanorova (talk · contribs) / Svitochina (talk · contribs) all involved in creating hoax tournament pages, as well as an apparent Gabriel Pironko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Do you think this is one user? Certainly very fishy. Jared Preston (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Socialhistorian2013 has been making unnecessary edits to Serena Williams page. The user has been making certain edits like so:

• After a chance meeting with a young girl who idolized Serena, she signed up to play in Cincinnati. During her conversation with the girl Williams felt inspired and was informed that she could be even better at tennis. Williams went home and watched some of her old matches and started to believe that she could win again.

And

• "All I could think was that I so didn't want to be there, at just that moment. On the court. In Melbourne. Fighting for points I didn't really care about, in a match I didn't really care about. So what did I do? I cried. Right there on court... It started during on of the changeovers, but it continued when I went back out to play, an it was such a low, desparing, desperate moment for me. I don't know how I managed to keep playing, but I kept playing, because that's just what I did."

Williams in her biography talking about her meltdown on court.

If they are to be placed, certainly not in the main page but in the individual tennis season Dencod16 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary. Dear God! It's the truth of what happened and explained what happened and should not be in the individual article but in the main article. Dear God you need to get some idea of how to write an article. The essence of Wikipedia is to create high quality pages. Deleting information and making up rules is not helpful especially quotes which are important. The first quote of 06 makes sense. It does not make sense on the 2006 page which you wrote. It came at a time when she was depressed a dropped out of the season. The second is important in demonstrating the pressure she was under. The third and deleted fourth ones demonstrate how thankful Williams is to be playing. Why should this be deleted when most of the page bites are taken up by tables. Delete the rest of the prose not the quotes as it downgrades the article.Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea at all, i think you have been banned before and made a new account. It is not important to put them on the main page, you have no idea of making an article just because you found Serena Williams' book doesn't mean you have to put everything in the page. This is not a trivia page. The page are already too long, and your informations aren't tennis related and how she has done in a season, which the main page is all about, others details should be placed in the section pages. Even her deals are so unnecessary you have completely destroyed the page.

According to this section. Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Practical steps

Integrating trivia sections

Often the content in trivia sections can be better presented elsewhere in the article, either by merging individual items into the existing article text, or by creating a new section and moving items there. However, when creating new sections you should always be sure that it doesn't provide a framework for further miscellaneous contributions.

Integrated trivia content can still be presented in a list, because it is a good way to present some types of information. However, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, and new section should always have a limited scope. As an example, see Alex Trebek#Cameos, which lists shows/films on which Alex Trebek has had a cameo appearance. Other cameos can be added to that section, but general miscellaneous facts would not fit there.

Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Trivia articles

Trivia articles

Trivia articles most likely come up as forked-off trivia sections that have grown too large, see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Just as trivia sections should be avoided, trivia articles should be avoided. These articles solve the problem of trivia cluttering up the parent article, but this solution creates other problems. Unlike trivia sections, trivia articles are not especially useful as repositories of information to be integrated elsewhere. This is because trivia articles keep such information away from the main page on a subject. This presents an inherent challenge, because there is usually no text in a trivia article to absorb the disconnected items. Dencod16 (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What an idiot. I am not an old user I am a new user. You are being a bully. Stating a fact which led into her siging to a tournament is not trivia. Stating appropriate quotes are not trivia and if you read the talk page other users have no problems with it. You are nothing but a bully. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol at bully, you are not abiding by what was agreed upon, go look at the Roger Federer page that is what everyone's goal is, it is condense and brief. Dencod16 (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite "I am not an old user I am a new user." User:Socialhistorian2013 has been blocked as Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of KnowIG. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names was moved out of WikiProject Tennis space after the RfC closed - making it appear as if it was a personal essay rather than part of WikiProject Tennis. Can I ask, is that normal? Should the result not remain on record as part of WikiProject Tennis history? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Frédéric Vitoux (tennis). Is anyone aware now of any evidence since the RfC (none was offered in RfC) that an anti-foreign-accents policy really exists at ITF? There seems to be no WP:RS confirming Francesco Ricci Bitti is against foreign accents, and that it is not simply a website designer's decision. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is now an WP:IRC channel for collaboration between editors in various sports WikiProjects. It's located at #wikipedia-en-sports ^connect. Thanks Secret ^account 03:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right now our Guidelines state that "The full tournament title should always be used along with its location (e.g. Australian Open, Melbourne, Australia) rather than simply just the city and country in which the event is held (e.g. Melbourne, Australia)." This is common sense to include the actual tournament name where imho it's actually more important than the city location. But it turns out that many editors have missed this tidbit in the project guidelines under Career. This is really just a re-affirmation post that including the tournament name is the correct thing to do. Comments? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I for one think that the tournament title should be used along with the location of the tournament since this was the norm on wikipedia a couple of years back before a group of editors, mostly IP's began changing it to the city and country format which I really disagree with. An alternative could be separating the three into two columns, one for the championship alone and one for the location e.g. Column 1 = Championship: Australian Open, Column 2 = Location: Melbourne, Australia. Thoughts? JayJ47 (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the only problem is fitting into the chart. It's not always as simple as plopping in the name for when I change some to tournament/city/country it won't fit neatly in the column without wrapping. So we also would need to change the table size. So, an example with part of Federer's career stats. It looks very neat but lacking the tournament name it's against our guidelines as it stands:

Outcome	No.	Date	Championship	Surface	Opponent	Score
Runner-up	1.	February 13, 2000	Marseille, France	Carpet (i)	Marc Rosset	6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up	2.	October 29, 2000	Basel, Switzerland	Carpet (i)	Thomas Enqvist	2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner	1.	February 4, 2001	Milan, Italy	Carpet (i)	Julien Boutter	6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up	3.	February 25, 2001	Rotterdam, Netherlands	Hard (i)	Nicolas Escudé	5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up	4.	October 28, 2001	Basel, Switzerland (2)	Carpet (i)	Tim Henman	3–6, 4–6, 2–6

Per guidelines it should be:

Outcome	No.	Date	Championship	Surface	Opponent	Score
Runner-up	1.	February 13, 2000	Marseille Open, Marseille, France	Carpet (i)	Marc Rosset	6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up	2.	October 29, 2000	Swiss Indoors, Basel, Switzerland	Carpet (i)	Thomas Enqvist	2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner	1.	February 4, 2001	Milan Indoor, Milan, Italy	Carpet (i)	Julien Boutter	6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up	3.	February 25, 2001	Rotterdam Open, Rotterdam, Netherlands	Hard (i)	Nicolas Escudé	5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up	4.	October 28, 2001	Swiss Indoors, Basel, Switzerland (2)	Carpet (i)	Tim Henman	3–6, 4–6, 2–6

What you are suggesting as a possibility is:

Outcome	No.	Date	Championship	Location	Surface	Opponent	Score
Runner-up	1.	February 13, 2000	Marseille Open	Marseille, FRA	Carpet (i)	Marc Rosset	6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up	2.	October 29, 2000	Swiss Indoors	Basel, SUI	Carpet (i)	Thomas Enqvist	2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner	1.	February 4, 2001	Milan Indoor	Milan, ITA	Carpet (i)	Julien Boutter	6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up	3.	February 25, 2001	Rotterdam Open	Rotterdam, NED	Hard (i)	Nicolas Escudé	5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up	4.	October 28, 2001	Swiss Indoors (2)	Basel, SUI	Carpet (i)	Tim Henman	3–6, 4–6, 2–6
Bogus Entry	80.	April 18, 2010	Indian Wells Masters	Indian Wells, CA, USA	Wood (i)	John Doe	7–5, 3–6, 1–6, 4–6

I have no preference on either of the latter two. They both work in conveying the information. Whether we keep guidelines the way they are now or make a change to the extra column, I would suggest that since city/state/country names can be overly long, that we abbreviate states and countries with their two and three letter codes, respectively... as I did in the 3rd chart. I added a bogus entry at the bottom to show city/state/country. We could also allow either of the last two formats so as not to be a cookie cutter assembly-line. Another point is that sometimes we add a number afterwards to show multiple wins in the same tournament. That's hard to do if we keep changing the name of the tournament just because the sponsor changes. It is probably best if use the generic non-sponsored names (like Swiss Indoors) throughout these charts. Any thoughts from others? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this.

No.	Date	Championship	Location	Surface	Opponent in the final	Score in the final
35.	September 13, 2009	US Open (2)	New York City, United States	Hard	Caroline Wozniacki	7–5, 6–3
36.	January 9, 2010	Brisbane International	Brisbane, Australia	Hard	Justine Henin	6–3, 4–6, 7–6(6)
37.	April 3, 2010	Sony Ericsson Open (2)	Miami, United States	Hard	Venus Williams	6–2, 6–1
38.	August 15, 2010	W&S FG Women's Open	Cincinnati, United States	Hard	Maria Sharapova	2–6, 7–6(4), 6–2

That's where I remembered the two column format from. This was taken from an older revision of Kim Clijster's stats page in 2010. If the championship column is too long for the tournament name, city and country then why don't we just include the tournament name since technically its the only one that actually means "tournament" or "championship". JayJ47 (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table without the city and country. JayJ47 (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome	No.	Date	Championship	Surface	Opponent in the final	Score in the final
Winner	1.	January 16, 2009	Moorilla Hobart International	Hard	Iveta Benešová	7–5, 6–1
Runner-up	1.	October 18, 2009	Generali Ladies Linz	Hard (i)	Yanina Wickmayer	3–6, 4–6
Winner	2.	January 8, 2011	Brisbane International	Hard	Andrea Petkovic	6–1, 6–3
Winner	3.	February 13, 2011	Open GDF Suez	Hard (i)	Kim Clijsters	6–4, 6–3
Winner	4.	May 8, 2011	Mutua Madrid Open	Clay	Victoria Azarenka	7–6(7–3), 6–4
Runner-up	2.	June 18, 2011	AEGON International	Grass	Marion Bartoli	1–6, 6–4, 5–7
Winner	5.	July 2, 2011	Wimbledon Championships	Grass	Maria Sharapova	6–3, 6–4
Winner	6.	October 16, 2011	Generali Ladies Linz	Hard (i)	Dominika Cibulková	6–4, 6–1
Winner	7.	October 30, 2011	WTA Tour Championships	Hard (i)	Victoria Azarenka	7–5, 4–6, 6–3
Winner	8.	August 13, 2012	Rogers Cup	Hard	Li Na	7–5, 2–6, 6–3
Winner	9.	August 25, 2012	New Haven Open at Yale	Hard	Maria Kirilenko	7–6(11–9), 7–5
Winner	10.	February 23, 2013	Dubai Tennis Championships	Hard	Sara Errani	6–2, 1–6, 6–1
Runner-up	3.	April 14, 2013	BNP Paribas Katowice Open	Clay (i)	Roberta Vinci	6–7(2–7), 1–6

As per guidelines, Yes ... The full tournament title should always be used but the two column format seems perfectly okay. The first column with generic non-sponsored names (like Swiss Indoors) more appropriate. Even to show multiple wins in the same tournament is more readable. The second column with abbreviate states and countries with their two and three letter codes. The third table by user Fyunck(click) is more suitable. - Ninney (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another alternative, which would require little change from the existing format. It includes all the relevant information without exceeding page limits. JayJ47 (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome	No.	Date	Championship	Surface	Opponent in the final	Score in the final
Runner-up	14.	January 28, 2012	Australian Open, Melbourne, Australia (2)	Hard	Victoria Azarenka	3–6, 0–6
Runner-up	15.	March 18, 2012	BNP Paribas Open, Indian Wells, United States	Hard	Victoria Azarenka	2–6, 3–6
Runner-up	16.	March 31, 2012	Sony Ericsson Open, Miami, United States (4)	Hard	Agnieszka Radwańska	5–7, 4–6
Winner	25.	April 29, 2012	Porsche Tennis Grand Prix, Stuttgart, Germany	Clay (i)	Victoria Azarenka	6–1, 6–4
Winner	26.	May 20, 2012	Internazionali BNL d'Italia, Rome, Italy (2)	Clay	Li Na	4–6, 6–4, 7–6(7–5)
Winner	27.	June 9, 2012	French Open, Paris, France	Clay	Sara Errani	6–3, 6–2
Runner-up	17.	August 4, 2012	Summer Olympics, London, United Kingdom	Grass	Serena Williams	0–6, 1–6
Runner-up	18.	October 7, 2012	China Open, Beijing, China	Hard	Victoria Azarenka	3–6, 1–6
Runner-up	19.	October 28, 2012	WTA Tour Championships, Istanbul, Turkey (2)	Hard (i)	Serena Williams	4–6, 3–6
Winner	28.	March 17, 2013	BNP Paribas Open, Indian Wells, United States (2)	Hard	Caroline Wozniacki	6–2, 6–2
Runner-up	20.	March 30, 2013	Sony Open Tennis, Miami, United States (5)	Hard	Serena Williams	6–4, 3–6, 0–6
Winner	29.	April 28, 2013	Porsche Tennis Grand Prix, Stuttgart, Germany (2)	Clay (i)	Li Na	6–4, 6–3
Pending	30./21.	May 12, 2013	Madrid Open, Madrid, Spain	Clay	Serena Williams

This looks like original choice number two (as per guidelines as they stand now). It does seem to have too much color though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck(click), you and I both know guidelines can change if we work on developing a new consensus on them. I think we have to take into consideration those with color issues, and start to look at the way things are displayed.HotHat (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that this discussion is about the best way to display tournament names and locations (city, country) in tables, not about color usage. There was a fairly recent discussion on colors (one of many) that resulted in the current guidelines which are AAA-level compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Probably best to keep those two discussions separate. Of course we can always revisit the color discussion if we see further room for improvement.--Wolbo (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may sound like a strange user here but I see there are a number of tennis tournaments sponsored by AEGON. when I see article titles called AEGON championships or AEGON international or AEGON classic I have no idea what tournament is actually being talked about. I know these tournaments as their unbranded names far more easily such as Queens or Eastbourne. AEGON being used just confused me as to what tournament was being talked about I had the same problem with the BNP Paribas open or BNP Paribas Masters being used over and over in titles as I know the tournaments as things like Indian Wells or the Paris master. I have had some page moves recently reverted on the AEGON articles which makes them highly confusing to me now and no doubt countless others. Can this please be sorted so the unbranded and commonly known name is used so people actually know what on earth is being talked about in the articles from the title and not use some obscure titles which tells nothing of the tournament. Sport and politics (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the main pages of tournaments should be located at their non-sponsored names (if there is a common term used), per tennis guidelines. The yearly page is usually located at the full sponsored name. The non-sponsored name should be visible somewhere close to the sponsored name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All sponsor names are highly confusing in lists of tournaments and in the title especially in this case when tournaments have very very similar names eg AEGON Classic AEGON International AEGON Championships AEGON Open. The titles are very confusing as which tournament is being talked of in the year specific article space. It should go to the unsponsored name with "known for sponsorship reasons as ..." ten the confusion would vanish. The other way round is bafflingly confusing. It also reduces article access as it requires prior tennis insight to understand the title of the article which is bad in an encyclopaedia and frowned up in naming guides. The way association football articles are done is the best way in my opinion such as 2012-13 Football League Cup not 2012-13 Capital One Cup. Think on it which do you more easily understand? I am more than happy to go through and move every article if consensus changes so "the way it is" is not a barrier here. Sport and politics (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You all have to be kidding me! I am a greatly inventive person, and even I could not come up with this bunch of un-encyclopedic malarkey. This needs to be deleted do we have one for Agassi-Sampras-Courier-Chang, which is exactly what we are doing with the article in question about the made-up "Big Four", similar to Trivalry. This article's conceptualization is even worse, and rather mythical in nature if I can say so myself!HotHat (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not crazy about it either. The trouble is it can be massively sourced over multiple years by multiple major newspapers and magazines. They specifically use the term "Big Four." If Federer falls much further this may be it's last year of editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get some things ironed out here, so that we can move on as a project. Let's first take the "Big Four" players, and do they actually have rivalries or not? This can be done as a vote of Yes, No or Maybe. So, here they are in alphabetical order.HotHat (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Djokovic-Federer

• This might be considered a rivalry, so Maybe. They have only met in one grand slam final, but have played in many memorable matches.HotHat (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Djokovic-Murray

• This sould be considered a rivalry, so Yes. They have met in three grand slam finals, two wins for Djokovic and one for Murray.HotHat (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Djokovic-Nadal

• This is a true rivalry, so Yes.HotHat (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federer-Nadal

• This is a bona fide rivalry, so Yes!HotHat (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federer-Murray

• This sould be considered a rivalry, so Yes. They have met in three grand slam finals and all were won by Federer, but Murray took the Gold over Federer.HotHat (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I advise Fyunck(click) to peruse these souces ESPN, USA Today, Metro, Daily-Mail, and even the ATP World Tour.HotHat (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will be advocating for the recreation of this article because it is just as notable that Djokovic-Murray, and Djokovic-Federer is at the current moment, and it is back up with sourcing above and a bunch more, so it was wrong to have deleted it in the first place.HotHat (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murray-Nadal

• This is No rivalry at all. They have never met in a grand slam final.HotHat (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All except Murray-Nadal are major rivalries and should have pages. (Myrmecophagous (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I would support the reinstating of the Federer-Murray rivalry article as per above. Spiderone 10:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion seconded, they are recognised as having a very competitive rivalry, especially with regards to big matches. TheTradge 14:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question should be: "Are there independent reliable sources which describe the above pairings as a rivalry?" If yes, than there is nothing in the way of creating an article for it. Note, that news about their matches alone is not enough, just like the number of Grand Slam finals played against each-other alone is not enough. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Armbrust here. There is no magic number that creates an arbitrary rivalry. Per guidelines and Nsports, rivalries are not inherently notable and we can only have articles about them if there is SIGNIFICANT media coverage about that particular rivalry. So not just passing use of the term rivalry. That's a big no on Fed/Murray and Murray/Nadal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that is a big no on Djokovic/Federer because it is not considered a true rivalry in a significant number of press publications. Then, this means Federer's only true rivalry is with Nadal alone, and with no one else. Djokovic's only rivalry is with Nadal, and not with Murray if we go by Federer/Murray deletion debate.HotHat (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Kei Nishikori hit the headlines with his achievement today, that is being the first Japanese to reach the fourth round of th RG after 75 years, I think it would be nice to have his predecessor's page created here. I think a lot of people wanted to check it already. Anyone interested? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he played Davis cup so he's notable regardless of anything else. He does have a page at the French wiki so at least a stub copy would be helpful. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good idea to try and benefit from the attention of a news event so I created an article. There's lots of room for expansion but at least its a start.--Wolbo (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And five minutes later it's already indexed by Google and on the first page of the search results. Amazing.--Wolbo (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Nice job. Anyone up to DYK it in connection with the Kei Nishikori trivia? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 15:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

600 more characters is needed for that, currently it's a stub. I will add some info soon. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 16:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several Drawsheets (Boys Singles and Doubles at Grand Slams) link to the article Nikola Milojevic. See What links here. But the article is about soccer player not about a tennis player. Perhaps disambiguation page and a separate article for the tennis player should be created? I wanted to bring this to the attention of the people active in this WikiProject, since they are in a better position to assess his notability. --Kompik (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nikola Milojević (tennis) has been created, so no the tennis related articles can link there. If I did not miss anything, no more tennis-related links are going to the article about the footballer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Nikola_Milojevi%C4%87 --Kompik (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted some infobox information at Laura Robson just now because those old jr results look very cluttered to me. The infobox just gets bigger and bigger and harder to read. It's supposed to be a quick summary of career highlights and Jr results aren't highlights once a player makes an inroad at one of the Majors. Sure they can be mentioned in an early years section of a bio (we wouldn't want to completely censor sourced info), but not the infobox. If all they have played is juniors, that's a different story, but as things get more important these things naturally get moved down the list and are given the proper weight at wikipedia. Maybe others disagree but before this gets added to many articles I thought maybe a few of our esteemed editors might have an opinion? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an existing discussion on Talk:Laura Robson#Grand_Slam_results_.232_-_Jr_results_in_infobox please see there as it is already developed.Sport and politics (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this affects all of Tennis project articles it should really be moved here so everyone can find it easily. At the very least the results need to be placed here for future archive reference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree what you said. I don't like either the style, where junior results are listed like here: Tennys Sandgren. Best way is in my opinion mention junior results like they are now on Laura Robson's article, so just normal text. --Stryn (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with Fyunck(click). Adding Jr Grand Slam results to the infobox for a player who is already a senior and as a senior has a track record at the Grand Slam tournaments is over the top and leads to an overly lengthy and cluttered infobox. Additionally it gives undue weight to Jr. GS results vs. GS results. An infobox is meant to provide a quick overview of key biographical data and career results. It does not need to show ALL significant achievements, i.e. results at individual Masters / Premier tournaments are not listed in an infobox (only the Tour Finals). In this particular case less is more.--Wolbo (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bring this up again but at least 1 other WP tennis editor is enabling this. In between slow-burn edit warring on (a) flags, (b) colours, (c) junior results, I'd like to post a reminder of (d) the continuing (and expanding) addition of double-barelled "Björn Borg (1956) shown on rankings websites as Bjorn Borg.." type ASCII names leads counter WP:MOSBIO (counter WP:OPENPARA example) and contrary to 100% of non-tennis BLPs on en.wp.

• selectively editing another editor's talk (mine) to remove disagreement with these MOSBIO editions while leaving what looks like support on the flag issue.
• not following WP:BRD with slow-burn edit warring - no matter how many editors (including the BLP creators) revert the attitude appears to be WP:OWN regarding the entire stock of tennis BLPs and the attitude "once I make an edit it stays on top for ever" - this isn't how WP:BRD works in the rest of wikipedia.
• Latest action is trawling all of Wikipedia to take ć out of every(?) mention of Ana Ivanović. So consequently on en.wp we have one foreigner who has been Britishized/Australianized/ASCIIized (or whatever this practice is).
• Continuing to claim "tennis names" despite the overwhelming consensus and close of last years RfC, and the use of German umlauts on the WTA website.

None of this is the way Wikipedia works. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]