Talk:Hopman Cup

message: Please forgive the oddities in the history of the major update today. I had several blue screen of death incidents. Peter Ellis 03:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Does anyone have any idea what will happen to the tournament after 2008? Joey80 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hopman Cup beyond 2008 

message: Why is the Czechoslovak win of 1989 in the Records and statistics table added to the later Czech triumph? The squad of 1989 (Mečíř/Suková) is a Slovak/Czech one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.28.224.59 (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czechoslovakia > Czech Rep. ? 

message: In this grid, a lot of things are missing or simply wrong, some years only 6 teams are listed, although 8 participated, someone should fix it. --Siebenschläferchen (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participation details 

message: What are you doing. Serbia and Montenegro and FR Yugoslavia was one and the same country. Try clicking FR Yugoslavia and you'll be redirected to Serbia and Montenegro. So, saying that Serbia and Montenegro competed as FR Yugoslavia makes no sense, Serbia and Montenegro was FR Yugoslavia. It was discussed numerous times at Talk:Serbia and Montenegro and the consensus it that those were just two names of the same country. Your edits are directly contrary to the consensus. The All-time Olympic Games medal table article treats Serbia and Montenegro and FR Yugoslavia as one and the same country, as do all other articles. Why would this one be exception? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was the same country. However the name Serbia&Montenegro was not introduced until 2003. So we simple cannot claim there was a team called Serbia&Montenegro before 2003. Tvx1 23:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  But, you can't change the consensus here on this page. This issue needs wider consensus (see: WP:CONLEVEL), and consensus is currently that FR Yugoslavia was Serbia and Montenegro despite the name change. That practice is used by all other articles, on Olympics, FIFA World Cup, EuroBasket, they all count Serbia and Montenegro and FT Yugoslavia together although the name of the team was not the same. So, please, do not try to make this article different from all others. If you think that FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro cannot be counted together because of the different name, than you should start a wider discussion and establish wider global consensus. But, currently the consensus is that those were two names of the same country (or team in this case) as can be seen at Talk:Serbia_and_Montenegro#Split_proposal. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see a consensus in that split discussion. I see divided opinions in an unresolved discussion. This here is not about counting results but applying historically correct names. Tvx1 00:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe so, but nobody made any change in years, which means that the current practice is stable (that is called WP:EDITCONSENSUS). By Wikipedia practice, consensus is needed to change the stable version (as explained at WP:BRD). And the consensus was not reached anywhere to split data on FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro in two. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, it was stable here for well over a year until you started editing it. This is no a political discussion. This about the names of sporting team as credited by a sport's governing body. This can differ between sports. In football we have an England, a Scotland, a Wales, a Northern Ireland and a Gibraltar team, while in tennis we simply have a Great Britain team. The relevant governing body in this case is the ITF. On both their Fed Cup and Davis Cup profiles of the Serbian teams, they credit them as competing as Yugoslavia prior to 2003 and as Serbia and Montenegro between 2003 and 2006. We don't need a consensus to reflect reliable sources. Tvx1 01:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We do go by sourcing, and Davis Cup/Fed Cup are great examples of how the governing body of tennis feels about this issue. My problem, as stated below, is that Serbia did not compete in the Hopman Cup as the chart tells us. That chart appears to be flat out wrong. And any qualification rounds, just like Wimbledon qualifying, count for zero as far as the actual competition goes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Per the Hopman Cup site, that is not true. The Hopman Cup has to decide what 8 teams will particiapate (and only 8 participate). Those so called qualifying rounds are not part of the Hopman Cup proper per their own website from everything I can see. It's invitational and no version of Serbia was invited from 1992-2005. That chart is wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That same site does list the play-off rounds at the particular pages for the different years (e.g. here, here and here). We also tend to list that players lost in qualifying for grand slams on their career timelines. Tvx1 20:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but no Serbia in them...because they were not in the Hopman Cup. On their career timelines we tend to show if they were in the qualifying rounds, but on the grand slam page we don't say they were in the Grand Slam tournament. This Hopman Cup article has a chart that lists them as particpants, and it's totally wrong and must be removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbia and Montenegro / Yugoslavia 

message: The thread above caught my attention (not sure how I feel) so I was glancing over how Davis Cup and Hopman Cup officially handle it, since we have to source these things accurately. I noticed something else. There are "officially" only 8 teams that participate in the Hopman Cup every year. They are invited. No other teams than those 8 are shown in their records. Serbia is not even listed as having participated under any name in many of the years listed under the "Participation details" chart, yet the chart shows them as such. What gives with that mistake? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you talking about? That Serbia have not participated in the tournament? Which year? I don't understand your comment. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the chart under either Serbia or Serbia and Montenegro. Look across to the rows for 1993–2002. You see a flag that says they competed under the name "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." Per the Hopman Cup records, they did not compete under that name since they didn't compete at all in those years. That whole section should be a series of ndashes since no version of the country competed. In fact no version of the team played from 1992–2005, so no flags at all should be present, just dashes. It's easy to check this out at the Official Hopman Cup website. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right, I agree with you. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hopman cup invites 8 teams, and sometimes for the eighth spot they allow a qualifying event between several countries to determine who will fill the 8th spot. But the Hopman Cup is only 8 teams and those that are not invited or, who don't qualify, are not in the Hopman Cup that year. Serbia/SerbiaMontenegro/Yugolslavia were not invited for 14 straight years, just like players trying to qualify for a wildcard spot at Wimbledon are not officially at Wimbledon if they lose in qualifying. Certainly there could be a chart that shows qualifiers that lost pre-Hopman cup, but it is wrong to mislead readers into thinking otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Serbia participation?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hopman Cup. 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://hopmancup.com/?id=801
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120203021147/http://beta.itftennis.com/about/itf-events/hopman-cup/overview.aspx to http://beta.itftennis.com/about/itf-events/hopman-cup/overview.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120109233448/http://www.hopmancup.com/Results/Hopman-Cup-Champions.html to http://hopmancup.com/Results/Hopman-Cup-Champions.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, it is set to return on the calendar in 2023 in Nice? However, the Hopman Cup is not included in the 2023 calendar ATP. Kacir 18:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopman Cup 2023.Tvx1 19:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return in 2023