Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 3

message: On May 25, several bios have been edited to include sortable tables for tournament wins and losses. It makes some strange stuff, and I oppose it (see my comments on the Federer and Hewitt talk pages). Has it been discussed and/or agreed upon anywhere here? --HJensen, talk 22:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference you're talking about is comparing this to that? Personally, I don't see much difference. As for the discussion of the table, no we haven't discussed it here yet. --DarkFalls talk 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problems arise when you start using the "sorting facility"; not when you just look at the tables. If you sort by tournaments, then back to year, then US Open preceeds Wimbledon in time; not good. Also, sorting on scores, first names of opponents make absolutely no sense. Also, the idea of putting on a subscript on the tournaments is indeed to keep track of numbers of win of a given tournament; hence, no need to sort them. It only opens up the possibility of creating pure nonsense (try sorting on the dates for tournament wins of Lleyton Hewitt; it becomes a laugh). So I think it is a useless and potentially confusing feature, which should be reverted as soon as possible.--HJensen, talk 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the sorting on Lleyton Hewitt. One must use yyyy-mm-dd instead of dd month yyyy. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry. I just tested both of the sortings... and the latter made one helluva mess. I'd say that we revert everything to the original design.. --Dark Falls talk 11:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you not like my solution? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the current system at the Roger Federer article, not your solution... --Dark Falls talk 03:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think the dating in the Hewitt article looks awful. I still haven't got an argument for making anything sortable. Can't it just be reverted? --HJensen, talk 23:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortable tables??? 

message: I noticed that Andy Roddick#Singles performance timeline has the "W" for the 2003 US Open link to the men's draw for that tournament. Now that we have all the draws for the Open Era, should all the results in performance timelines link to the appropriate draws? It would involve a pretty large one-time effort to change all the existing timelines, but it would greatly increase the exposure of the historical draws. What do people think? --dantheox 02:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It makes editing the timeline too unwieldy.  Tennis expert 07:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in Grand Slam Performance timelines? 

message: As currently structured, this wikiproject seems to focus entirely on happenings within the professional or high-level amateur tennis world. This stuff is certainly interesting, but there's a whole other part of tennis that isn't covered by it, such as tennis as played for recreation, tennis as a business, the history of the sport, and articles on how to play tennis. Many Wikipedia articles already exist along these lines, e.g., :Category:Tennis organisations, :Category:Tennis shots. Could this wikiproject be adjusted to include them as well? --Sheldon Rampton 15:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are covering those articles, but most of us are currently focusing a bit more on the professional level, and the tags haven't been added yet. --Dark Falls talk 06:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other aspects of tennis 

message: Could someone flesh out Samantha Smith (tennis) - also isn't she better known as "Sam Smith"? PMA 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Samantha Smith (tennis)]] 

message: This was discussed briefly back in January on Talk:2007 Australian Open, Talk:2007 Australian Open - Men's Singles and User:Dantheox#2007 Aussie Open. I thought I'd reopen the discussion while people are still paying attention to the 2007 French Open page.
To summarize: when I uploaded all the historical draws, I made the "finals" bracket use Template:8TeamBracket-Tennis5, a three-round bracket. During the Australian Open, User:Captain Courageous put in a 4-round bracket instead. The French Open started with a 3-round finals bracket, but User:Tennisuser123 swapped in the 4-round bracket. I think we should discuss and make a decision. Here are the two possibilities:
Pros/cons:
* It's more spacious, so there's room for the player's full names.
* It actually is the "finals", since each round has "finals" in it.
* It's visually distinct from the brackets used for earlier rounds.
* Older slams (e.g. 1968 French Open - Men's Singles) use this format. It would be a hassle to change them.
* It doesn't give as broad an overview of the tournament.
vs.
Pros/cons:
* It gives a pretty deep overview of how everyone got to where they did in the tournament.
* Visual consistency: it looks the same as all the other brackets and follows the same naming conventions (Initial + Last).
* It duplicates information. The fourth round scores all wind up being listed in two different places.
Opinions? I tend to favor the three-round bracket, since it lets us show the full names of the most-successful players somewhere on the page and avoids duplicating match scores (which could get out of sync). But I could see it going either way. --dantheox 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the three-round bracket too! —MC 16:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that 3-round bracket is better. Kedarus 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am leaning towards the 3 bracket template, primarily because the fourth round will look really odd with the finals... --Dark Falls talk 06:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and made the changes. --dantheox 18:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Serena's name looks funny in the 2007 Australian Open - Women's Singles 3-round bracket. There is no seed box. —MC 01:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I'm not sure what to do about that. When I wrote Template:8TeamBracket-Tennis3, it was just like Template:8TeamBracket-Tennis5. No seed meant that an empty box was displayed. Then  added some logic to make the seeds optional and created the weirdness we have now. It looks like he's using this same template in various non-tennis Olympics articles (e.g. Badminton) where there are no seeds. If there aren't any seeds, it looks reasonable. It's just the mix that's a problem. Maybe we could ask him to create a new, non-seeded template? An alternative would be to specify Serena's seed as " " --dantheox 06:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the   is fine. —MC 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, my intent was to be able to make the same template work for both seeded and non-seeded events.  I don't like the proliferation of customizations in :Category:Tournament bracket templates.  For maintenance and consistency, it seems to me that it would be far better to make the same templates work for multiple situations (e.g. seeds or not, first round byes or not, third place match or not, etc.).  With that in mind, I changed the logic of that template so that if you specify no seed (e.g. RD1-seed1=), none is rendered.  If you have a seeded event and want a blank for specific unseeded players/teams, use RD1-seed1= .  Seems logical to me!  This also helps the situation shown in the bracket above, where the table looks ugly when no seeds are specified.  Hope this helps,  Andrwsc 23:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "finals" bracket: 3- or 4-rounds? 

message: I've noticed that TENNIS Magazine's 40 Greatest Players of the TENNIS Era is posted at Articles for Deletion. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD for [[TENNIS Magazine's 40 Greatest Players of the TENNIS Era]] 

message: This smells like a hoax. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is... What kind of tennis player has an image like that. A quick google search, and the guy is definitely a hoax. Every tournament east of France? (snigger). Delete it and add to BJAODN or something... --Dark Falls talk 11:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll pass on the BJAODN, given the current ruckus. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gregor Selinšek]] 

message: left this at Talk:Tennis performance timeline comparison (men):
== Style change from Women's timeline ==
The women's timeline is a lot more complete. However there are two major differences in the style that has been adopted for the men's timeline.
* The men's timeline only shows the last name and does not show the country flag.
* The men's tables are sorted alphabetically instead of being sorted by number of wins as the women's tables are.
Shouldn't we adopt the same style for both articles? Anurag Garg 12:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer full names and flags. —MC 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The men's table looks a lot cleaner and easier on the eyes but I don't believe adding flags would negatively affect that Wolbo 20:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as the creator and virtually the sole editor of the women's timeline, I disagree completely.  Putting just the last names in the timeline is very user unfriendly except for those already well-versed in tennis history.  Tennis expert 03:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tennis timelines 

message: The arguments on the talk has grown to a standstill, but more outside opinion is necessary for the addition of this topic, into the tennis article. Personally I feel that it should be removed, but will seek to gain consensus before removal. For the sake of convenience, I ask that comments be added to the talk, instead of here. Cheers. --Dark Falls talk 09:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, we have discussed this before.  There has never been a consensus to delete the greatest or most successful players information in the article.  Lest anyone get the erroneous impression from your post that the general subject is relatively new, it was first added to the article over three years ago, on April 4, 2004.  The fact that the information remains in the article and is added back to the article whenever someone comes along and deletes it is evidence of a consensus to keep it, in my opinion.  Furthermore, the information that is currently in the article is cited or based explicitly on factual criteria.  Tennis expert 06:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's never been consensus to keep the section either. It's age on Wikipedia does not necessarily determine its inclusion, as well as the fact that when it was removed, most of the time it was reverted by you.    I am asking for a proper discussion over the inclusion or deletion of the section, and am trying to resolve this issue before mediation. I apologize if you feel that I am being unfairly biased, but I have stated my opinion, and am trying to determine whether the section is considered encyclopedic or not. --Dark Falls talk 03:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greatest or most successful player information in the article

message: has created the 1988 ATP Tour and started the 1989 ATP Tour articles. I have added the rankings using a combination of Steve G's historical rankings and the ATP player profiles. For example Agassi's 1988 rankings. Style shamelessly stolen from 2007 ATP Tour thanks to ! ;-) I'd just like some comments on this. And ask for some help! ;-) It's very tedious work… —MC 19:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! I expect this process could be completely automated with some massive scraping of atptennis.com, but I'm really not up for scripting that right now. It'd be cool to have some way of seeing the rankings fluctuate over the course of each year, maybe a week-to-week chart of the top ten? That's probably asking a bit much. --dantheox 04:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might be better to use stevegtennis.com. I just used atptennis.com for the high/low stuff. I'm not sure we need that though… —MC 15:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical ATP Tour pages… 

message: I recently created a List of family relations in auto racing, which will be moved to the mainspace soon. The first response I got when I brought up the list (which was limited to Formula One at the time) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One was "I guess I'm going to have to ask...why?" I am also in the process of building a list of family relations in cycling and a list of family relations in Dutch football. I was thinking about creating a list of family relations in tennis soon, but I want to avoid the response I received, so I'm bringing this up here first. The list would include all family relations between notable tennis players, such as Marat Safin and Dinara Safina, Richard and Michaela Krajicek, the Williams sisters, John and Patrick McEnroe, Helena Suková, Věra Suková and Cyril Suk, the Bryan twins, etcetera. Any thoughts/suggestions? AecisBrievenbus 00:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me… —MC 00:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My first reaction is also: "Why"? If you continue, note that Kurt Nielsen is the grandfather of Frederik Løchte Nielsen.--HJensen, talk 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the reason I think this is worthwhile is also the reason why I think the List of family relations in Formula One was/is worthwhile. My main "inspiration" for the list is the List of family relations in the National Hockey League, which provides information, background and context, and has just been promoted to Featured List status. Many tennis players draw part of their claim to fame from their family relations, like for instance the Bryan brothers and the Williams sisters. Listing the family relations I believe provides a historical background to tennis. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 10:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's interesting, but it will probably come across as too Listcruft-y for some.  Also, don't forget Tim and Jörg Bergmeister. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 05:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of family relations in tennis 

message: Should we have last names only like in the historical draws or include initials like some editors have been doing recently (ie 2007 Wimbledon Championships - Women's Singles)? —MC 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd generally err on the side of including more information. After all, seeing "Williams" in a women's draw is completely ambiguous. I think full names would be even better, but there are plenty of names that won't fit on one line, especially when bolded. First initial plus last name isn't a bad compromise. --dantheox 16:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I like this compromise too. So, what about the historical draws? Should they be changed to the "first initial plus last name" format? —MC 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ugh, I'm really hesitant to go through and make major changes to all the historical draws, but I guess it should be done. Is there any standard browser width that Wikipedia pages are supposed to be designed around? If we increased the team-width param in each bracket, full names would be tenable. But that would make the brackets quite wide. --dantheox 20:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure — 1024×768, I guess? I think we should change it to  + "first initial plus last name". Also, we need to publicize this (and other) style guideline(s) somewhere… —MC 21:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, that should be an extra section of this wikiproject. We should have standards for brackets, player pages, tournament pages, etc. --dantheox 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Slam brackets... 

message: I am in the process of creating a couple articles for ATP tour tournaments by year. For example, for the Queen's Club Championships in 2007, I have created a page titled 2007 Queen's Club Championships, with details on the singles and doubles draws. 
Is this necessary to be doing this, should I be bothering creating these sort of pages. Please add your comments, to save me the trouble of creating any more pages that may be unnecessary. Allied45 03:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be great to have some non-slam tournament pages, especially for the Masters Series events. It's going to be incredibly tedious to do this manually though. Where are you pulling your data from? I have a number of scripts I wrote in association with the Grand Slam Project that may be useful to you. --dantheox 06:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual ATP/WTA Tournaments... 

message: Hey, am in my annual casual tennis following during wimbledon phase, and have noticed that neither the pages for Lleyton Hewitt or Kim Clijsters show their current ranking. Would this not be useful information to include??--Macca7174 12:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this was debated before; it would take a huge amount of effort to update all the rankings every week. - Nick C 14:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  do infoboxes show current ranking?? 

message: ... please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 27#Category:WikiProject Tennis Templates. Thanks. Mike Peel 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed renaming of [[:Category:WikiProject Tennis Templates]] to [[:Category:Tennis templates]] 

message: not an encyclopedic article, was simply copied from the tennis article . should be deleted. rawr, Tennis amateur 17:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've prodded it. It's a violation of GFDL anyway... --Dark Falls talk 06:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tennis greats]]