Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  2007 Australian Open - Doubles 

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

message: What do you think about Infobox for WTA tournaments? --Göran Smith 20:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looks good! --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox looks good. - Nick C 17:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: WTA Tour

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

text: Update: Sky of blue and Sea of...um...blue. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 06:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davis Cup/Fed Cup project 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A page for every slam 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Naming proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  That's reasonable, but it seems odd that they'd be so consistent about it. See for example . 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: . Nobody knew what an URL was in 1988, but that tape is clearly labeled "1988 US Open". --dantheox 03:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I say "Gentlemen's" and "Ladies'" for Wimbledon. I've never seen them referred to otherwise. Bsd987 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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."  On the same page though, they use the term Gentlemen and Ladies. On the main page of the site  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Final Decision

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Update on the move 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  permcat.  Or else we could keep the template (once renamed), upmerged to , 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)
thread_title:  DavisCup-stub