Talk:2011 Wimbledon Championships

Tennis Mid‑importance

This article 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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance 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.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Huh?

"Finally Lanson champagin will have 125 years stamped on the bottle."

What is this supposed to mean? Tad Lincoln (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why don't you look at the source and try to improve it. :doh: Good twins (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New points

I suggest new points to be written in italic, not in brackets, because this way new points can't be sorted in a good way. --Helios13 (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's such a huge issue (it all sorts out within a fortnight) - but I do note that the sorting of ranking points seems to occur based on the leading number (eg. a person with 11000 points will sort between someone with 1265 and someone with 1098, despite being above both). Is it possible to set the column to sort by ascending value, rather than alphabetically by number? 58.174.148.82 (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women

Wimbledon refers to the events involving female adults as Ladies' events, on their website and in their literature. Why do we call them Women's events here on WP? Ordinary Person (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Wimbledon also use the term Gentlemen? It's probably to be consistent with the other tennis tournaments on wikipedia, but you do have a point... Wimbledon has never wavered from using the term Ladies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the current Wimbledon terminology (Ladies and Gentlemen) results from a feminist/traditionalist war over the names. Feminists generally object to women being referred to as 'ladies', considering the term somewhat patronising. My guess is that, rather use the term 'women' the Wimbledon traditionalists decided to use the equivalent male form of 'gentlemen' in order to be seen to be treating the two sexes equally.

Should we follow their terminology here? I think we should, our job is to report how things are not to apply artificial consistency. What do others think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely - we should use the same terminology, i.e. Ladies & Gentlemen. FingersLily (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the change, let us see how it goes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are still changes that need to be made. The table of contents, Point distribution & Prize money sections have been changed but there are a huge amount of other areas that still say 'Men's' & 'Women's' (for example the table at the top, left, day-by-day summaries, Events & Seeds sections). Also, the linked pages will need to be changed such as [[1]]. FingersLily (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two new singles champions

When was the last time? Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2002 - Serena Williams' first victory & Lleyton Hewitt won the men's. FingersLily (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I came to the article because I thought it would tell me, but it still doesn't seem to be there. Instead I see someone has reinstated the obvious and ungainly opening sentence: "The 2011 Wimbledon Championships was a tennis tournament featuring six different championships held at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club in Wimbledon, London, England..." Rothorpe (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soe your changing an article and adding unsourced shit just because you wanted to find a random fact. Unsourced and needs to be removed. pathetic

Commercial content

What is the general opinion on whether we should list the commercial sponsors of this event? I think it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and have removed it but anons keep restoring it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropiate as several of the sponsors did special things. I.e. 3d coverage.

Inappropriate. Focus should be only on tennis, not on the names of all the sponsoring companies. This is not an advertisement article and hence should not be allowed in Wikipedia. Please remove all.
Anish Viswa 02:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterfinals vs Quarter Finals

Hi,

I know I'm a pedant but there is nothing I hate more than bad spellings or bad grammar. IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, using 'Quarterfinals' is incorrect. It should be written as either 'Quarter Finals' or 'Quarter-Finals'.

I have researched this (I told you I was a pedant) & I accept that all 3 forms are acceptable. However, 'Quarter Finals' or 'Quarter-Finals' is MUCH more common & acceptable. If you type the phrase into Google, the vast majority of results agree with me. One of these results was this very website which confirms this.

Now I have spent a lot of time & effort amending the Wimbledon 2011 Championship pages to display the more common form. I know it isn't a big deal to most people but it is hardly causing any controversy. I then discovered that, as soon as I could make the changes, they were being undone! I am extremely annoyed. If I had written anything incorrect or dubious then fair enough but why undo my changes if they are correct?

I openly admit that I am not that familiar with the rules around here so I accept that I went too far in getting my changes made. However, it was with the best of intentions. I am also grateful that the editor took the trouble to contact me to explain but I do not accept the explanation. If somebody makes changes that are correct, why go to the trouble of undoing them? What is the point of this site if that sort of behaviour goes on?

Therefore, I am asking that common-sense prevails (not commonsense) & that my (and Google's) preferred form is accepted.

Thank you. FingersLily (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My (UK English) dictionary (Collins 1994) lists both 'semifinal' and 'quarterfinal' as single, unhyphenated, words. The official Wimbledon web site also lists them that way. That was something of a surprise to me but it looks as though that is the preferred spelling. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all three versions may be regarded as correct (or six, with the capitals) but the uncapitalised one-word forms are the most modern (as language tends to simplify with time). Rothorpe (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing though, and maybe someone conversant in UK english could best say what is used more often, both semi-final and semifinal are used on this page and that should be a no-no. Usually I see the most common used term taking precedent but being from the USA I have no idea what that really is. This is a UK english page since it's a UK tournament and we should be consistent one way or the other on UK centric articles just like we are with the dates and spelling of words like "colour" and "centre." I'm not sure I'd go with the Wimbledon site since I'm always finding spelling errors on tennis sites. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, my UK English dictionary only gives the unhyphenated single words. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's the form we should use. Rothorpe (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We have discovered that there are conflicting results from wherever we look but a simple search on Google returns vastly more results in the format 'quarter-final' than 'quarterfinal'. The hyphenated version is also preferred by the Oxford & Cambridge dictionaries. It is pretty clear that 'quarterfinal' is the American English version. Therefore, using Fyunck's comment above, we should use 'quarter-final'. I am aware this could turn into a Lame Edit War! FingersLily (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official Wimbledon site uses 'semifinal', see [2] for example.

The tournament is British but the company (IBM) which operates the official site is US. So, the site my be in English (US), rather than in English (UK) used by Wimbledon officially.
Anish Viswa 08:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I am British and my initial thoughts were that 'semi-final' would be the likely spelling in British English. However, I looked it up in my Collins English Dictionary, which is normally very careful to note US spellings and found that they only gave the spelling 'semifinal'. I will have a look through the Wimbledon site and see if there is any sign that it is generally written in US English. Even so this will not be conclusive as it is quite common in the UK for US expressions, spellings, and pronunciations to find their way into UK media, probably due to US writers, or Brits who have spent time in the US. I do not think this one is worth fighting about though. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finals

Why to have a detailed write-up here on the Boys' Final and Wheel-chair Women's Doubles explaining from Round 1. Can't they be moved to their respective articles ?
Anish Viswa 11:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone have a look and confirm whether those sections are fine or over-detailed? The language or the description is not very much as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, I think.
Anish Viswa 04:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection?

Anons seem to be causing a lot of problems with this page. Should we ask for semi protection so that only registered users can edit? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Rothorpe (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)---Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone...it appears that our sockpuppet friend user:KnowIG may be back. Be wary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Wild Card' vs 'Wildcard'

I'm really sorry but I'm going to be pedantic again. On this page, 'wildcard' is written as one word. However, I believe that the correct format is 2 separate words, i.e. 'wild card'. If you refer to the links at the bottom of the page, they use the 2 word format. The official Wimbledon site also has the 2 word format as does every search result I have come across. Surely I am correct this time? FingersLily (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick look see on this. The dictionary spelling is certainly "wild card" but sports entities tend to take words and make them their own to describe there own particular rules. The majority of places I checked had "wild card" including Wimbledon, US Open, French Open, ESPN, etc... however there are notable exceptions for use of "wildcard" : Australian Open, BBC, Eurosport, The Guardian UK, etc... I checked official tennis club rules from several small tennis clubs and it was interchangeable. I would go with two words. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time & trouble to check. I couldn't find any versions of the one-word format but I didn't look too deeply. Kind regards FingersLily (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2011 Wimbledon Championships. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]