Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:54, 24 July 2009 [1].

List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions[edit]

Nominator(s): Don Lope (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I've done some work on the four Grand Slam men's singles champions pages, adding leads, refs, reorganizing all the tables, and adding plenty of images. I've based my work on golf majors champions FL like List of The Open Championship champions or List of PGA Championship champions. The tennis project doesn't really have any Featured content, and it would nice to start with these four important lists. Don Lope (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment

  • Color should be accompanied with a symbol; see the golf lists for example
  • Only need to color the name, instead of the entire row

Obviously, the same applies to all your tennis lists. (I am not adding the same comments to all nomination pages)—Chris! ct 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done on all four articles. I've also separated general and specific references, again on all articles. --Don Lope (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, what about the other tables?—Chris! ct 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.
  • What is "walkover"? Need to put a note there to explain jargons
  • Score column doesn't need to be sortable, IMO
    • I would have preferred to keep the sorting option, but since you're the second person to say it shouldn't be sortable - Done. While we're at it, I've also made the "Years" column of the "Multiple champions" table unsortable, as it wasn't absolutely necessary there either.
  • The dashes in empty cells should be emdashes
    • Done.
  • How is grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk a reliable source?

—Chris! ct 20:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, it probably isn't. I've removed all mention of the website on the French Open and Australian Open articles, and have tried to find other sources. I'll have to continue searching for the US Open and Wimbledon articles as none of the main tennis websites (neither Wimbledon's nor the ATP's nor the ITF's) publishes the early draws. "grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk" seems to be based on several tennis books though, namely 100 Wimbledon Championships for the Wimbledon draws, and Tennis Observed for the US Championships draws. Would it work if we had the books as references instead of the website ? --Don Lope (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Books would definitely work.—Chris! ct 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done that. I've replaced the "grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk" refs by the original sources, John Barrett's 100 Wimbledon Championships: A Celebration for the Wimby list and William Talbert's Tennis observed: The USLTA men's singles champions, 1881-1966 for the US Open list. --Don Lope (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Chidel (talk · contribs)

Oppose This article has many problems (refer to my edits, most of which were reverted by the nominator). Chidel (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is my revert of User:Chidel's edits : first, I don't agree with any of his edits in the first paragraph : we should not replace The Championships, Wimbledon by "Wimbledon", the former being the real name of the event and of the name of the tournament's article, we should not remove England, Great Britain of the line about the location (not the most important thing, I reckon, but it could prove useful to a reader), and we certainly should not remove the line mentioning The Championships is part of the Grand Slams, when it takes place, where it takes place, and when in history and why it didn't take place. All this info is perhaps obvious to Chidel, but it will prove very useful to readers who don't know anything about Wimbledon. Chidel also wanted to remove a couple of important references, which was perphaps a mistake. The rest of his edits is about rephrasing, and replacing a word by another ("to" by "through", "tie-break" by "tiebreak"). I don't think my text was incomprehensible and made comprehensible by these edits, so I guess it's a matter of Chidel preferring his prose to mine. Nothing wrong with that, but unless there are some needed clarifications in the lead, I don't think every user should change the text to his preferences. Of course I won't be stiff, and if these style changes appear necessary to others, I'll just accept them. I just wanted to discuss all of that before doing anything. --Don Lope (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To User:Chidel: Please list the problems in detail when you !vote oppose, thanks—Chris! ct 19:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Within the last 12 hours, I made 18 edits of this article that were promptly reverted by Don Lope. The purpose of those edits was to illustrate the problems I see with the article and why I believe it is far below standard. Either Don Lope is exercising improper ownership of the article or there is an unwritten rule prohibiting edits of featured list candidate articles. Which is it? Chidel (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you involve in a content dispute with Don Lope, please take it to talk page. What I am saying is that it is conventional for reviewers to list issues here, so that the nominators can try to deal with them.—Chris! ct 05:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You asked for the list of problems. I gave it to you. If you can't be bothered to look at it, well, there's nothing more I can do. The bottom line is that this article is far below featured article quality, and Don Lope won't allow any improvements. He says to discuss the problems here instead of editing the article. You say to edit the article instead of discussing them here. Classic catch-22! Chidel (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I never told you to edit the article. I told you to list the problems here on the nomination page, just like everyone else has done (look at my list above or other nominations for example). This is just a friendly advice. You don't necessarily have to follow it if you don't want to.—Chris! ct 05:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Chidel, as I wrote twice in edit summaries, and a third time here, I just think that some of your changes need to be discussed to find consensus about what to have in the article. This is not even a special FLC guideline, this is Wikipedia 101. Please list all the problems you have with the article, and perhaps write something more precise about why you think the article is "far below featured article quality" and we will address every issue. --Don Lope (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • As you know, I made 18 edits with detailed edit summaries, all of which you summarily reverted. That is my "list" of "all the problems" I "have with the article". Re-reading the list might prove helpful to you. Chidel (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear about everything, Chidel has left me this message :
"I think you should study WP:Own because repeatedly and summarily reverting others' edits just because they don't agree with the version you created in your sandbox is not a valid reason. The reverts are disruptive and counter-productive."
I have answered with this:
"No need to get testy. Re-read Wikipedia:Consensus : "When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on article talk pages". As User:Chrishomingtang told you, in the case of a GA, FA of FL reviews, "it is conventional for reviewers to list issues [on the review page], so that the nominators can try to deal with them." You should go through the featured list candidates page to see how the process works. Continuing to make major edits (including the removal of sources) while ignoring the review and/or refusing to take part in reviews or discussions as you did is counter-productive. Now, since you refuse to follow conventions and list your issues with the article on the review, I'll try to address your edit summaries, but we will get nowhere, and certainly won't be able to improve the article unless you accept to participate in a regular review/discussion process."

I don't know if he will eventually take part in the review, but I'm going to address his edits anyway. First I have to point out that Chidel's edits are inconsistent, as he has changed the wording of some sentences first, before removing them altogether. He also removed some references, and hasn't addressed that in his edit summaries.
I'm going to write "OK" where I have no problems with the edits, and add comments elsewhere: --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Apart from the removal of big parts of the text at (17), Chidel's issues are not extremely severe, so he has yet to say why he thinks the list is "far below featured article quality". I believe Chidel should have been the one listing his own problems with the list here. I did it in his place only because I want this candidature to move forward and his refusal to take part in the discussion while continuing to edit the page was counter-productive for this FLC process. I hope we can make progress from here. --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The text of all Wikipedia articles refers to this tournament simply as "Wimbledon". Avoid stilted language.

  • How can you say all Wikipedia articles use "Wimbledon" when the main article is named The Championships, Wimbledon ? By using both the real name (The Championships) and the common name (Wimbledon) in the lead, I was only trying to avoid repetition. --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read carefully what I said. I said that the "text of all Wikipedia articles use 'Wimbledon'". I am not talking about the titles of those articles. Using "The Championships" instead of "Wimbledon" is stilted and overly formal. Chidel (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Really don't need "London, England, Great Britain, United Kingdom".

  • OK. I removed "England" but kept "Great Britain", as most sources, including the ATP, WTA and ITF websites locate the tournament in "London, Great Britain". --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" are different names for the same thing. Chidel (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not the same thing. Great Britain is an island. United Kingdom is a state. From the Great Britain article : "the term Great Britain is sometimes used inaccurately to refer to the United Kingdom." --Don Lope (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assuming your are correct, why do we need to refer to the island? All we need is either "London" (my preference) or "London, United Kingdom". The rest is superfluous, just as "London, England, Great Britain, United Kindom, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Local Group" would be. Chidel (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I hope I'm correct because I'm only quoting the Great Britain and United Kingdom wikipedia articles here... Anyway, I see this is controversial so let's go for "London, United Kingdom". --Don Lope (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(3) "First week of July", not the "first of July".

  • OK. I think we end up with some repetition: "the last week of June and the first week of July", but I admit the previous wording was perhaps confusing. --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Fix various comma problems.

  • OK. --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't fix all of them. There is an extra comma in the sentence beginning with "Wimbledon is currently played each year". Chidel (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(6 (no No. 5)) Eliminate ambiguities resulting from imprecise usage of "between" and "to".

  • OK for the ambiguity around "between", but how is "through" different from "to"? --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "To" is ambiguous because it is uncertain whether the last date is included. For example, "John worked for Wimbledon from 1969 to 1972" is ambiguous because it is uncertain whether John worked there in 1972. No ambiguity results from, "John worked for Wimbledon from 1969 through 1972." Chidel (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe there is an ambiguity with "to". I have made some research, and found serious sources using "from...to" : The Guardian : "From Wimbledon 2005 to the US Open of 2007, Federer won eight of the 10 grand slam tournaments", The New York Times : "Sunday’s victory gave Federer his sixth Wimbledon title to go with the five he won from 2003 to 2007", The New York Times : "Bjorn Borg won Wimbledon from 1976 to 1980 without playing a warm-up event." - I'm not saying "through" can't be used, but it appears "to" can be used. --Don Lope (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then let's use "through". Chidel (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The use of "through" in this context is very American English. Since we're referring to Wimbledon, we ought to be using BritEng, and we'd say "from ... to" or "between". Not ambiguous. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Could you provide a source for those two statements (use British English on a Wiki article dealing with a British subject and that in Britain, the "from ... to" or "between ... and" construction is used instead of "from ... through")? Yes, it is ambiguous. Chidel (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Certainly for the first, by reading WP:ENGVAR, we get "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." As for a citation that British English seldom uses "from ... through ..." well, slightly harder as we all know the rules of English are pretty flexible, but having spoken British English for decades, I can assure you we never use that construction. And if, perchance, it appears on occasion, it would be down the Americanisation of the language, which is a great shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps something worthwhile, though, is a quick glimpse at a few British WP:RSs, such as the BBC- "from ... to", the Daily Telegraph - "between ... and", The Times - "from ... to", Financial Times - "between ... and", The Guardian - "between ... and". It seems that British-based reliable sources are more than happy to use either of these phrases so I don't see an issue with it being used here in an article which ENGVAR suggests should be using British English. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The policy also says, "This is primarily intended to avoid the (unlikely) case in which an article that will be overwhelmingly read by one nationality has been written in another national dialect." Wimbledon obviously is an international event, and I'd wager that there are many more non-Brit, English-speaking readers of this article than otherwise. Chidel (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks, The Rambling Man, for getting my account blocked via an email to User:YellowMonkey. Why would you do that, in secret? 190.146.244.52 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You were blocked for using open proxies. I very much expect this IP to be blocked also. If you need more advice on why this happens, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Open proxies. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It is you that doesn't understand the open proxy policy, which is somewhat surprising for an administrator. Assuming Chidel was using an open proxy, here is the policy that applies: "Open or anonymising proxies ... may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." Thus, the policy does not call for registered users to be blocked. 190.146.244.52 (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Take it up with the blocking admin. And "assuming Chidel was using an open proxy"... you are Chidel. You have admitted this. So you know you were using an open proxy. How odd. But this is irrelevant to the FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The Wiki Ombudsman has been contacted about this chain of events. I suspect you'll be hearing from him or her soon, given your role in this. Cheers. 190.146.244.52 (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(7) Grammatical problems with usage of "due to".

  • What's wrong with "due to"? --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's avoid this problem entirely by substituting the following language (or something very similar): "World War I prevented the tournament from being held from 1915 through 1918, and World War II prevented the tournament from being held from 1940 through 1945." (It's probable that those wars do not need to be linked.) Chidel (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We could do that but "Due to" or "because of" is more simple, I believe. "due to" is in the wiktionary. --Don Lope (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • When to use "due to" versus "because of" is controversial and confusing. That's why I suggested language that omits both. Chidel (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nothing controversial of confusing here. There's a grammatical rule surrounding the use of "due to"/"because of" and we should just follow it : actually you got it right with "because of" as it seems "due to" can't be used if the sentence is written that way. Changed from "due to" to "because of". --Don Lope (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(8) Grammatical problem with "constitute".

  • This is connected to (1). No problem here if we keep "The Championships". --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(9) Fix awkward phrasing with the winner of the all comers' singles competition automatically winning the tournament.

  • Changed to version proposed by Truco (talk · contribs):"Six editions, (1879, 1887, 1891, 1895, 1907, and 1908) crowned the winner of the All Comers' Singles as the defending champions were absents." --Don Lope (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Editions" do not "crown" a winner. In fact, the winner is not "crowned" by anyone. A gentleman simply wins the tournament. This is why the following sentence is better: "The winner of the "All Comers' Singles" competition was automatically the winner of the tournament in 1879, 1887, 1891, 1895, 1907, and 1908 because the defending champion was absent." Chidel (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to "The All Comers' winner was awarded the title six times (1879, 1887, 1891, 1895, 1907, and 1908) as the defending champion was absent." to try and address both your issues and Truco's. --Don Lope (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would be better to avoid the parenthetical, something like this: "The All Comers' winner was awarded the title six times, in 1879, 1887, 1891, 1895, 1907, and 1908, because the defending champion was absent." Are so-called "Easter-egg" links permitted in featured articles? 190.146.244.52 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(10) Fix awkward phrasing concerning the abolishment of the challenge round.

  • What's awkward with "The challenge round was eventually abolished"? --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Eventually" is unnecessary. Just say, "The challenge round was abolished with the 1922 edition." Chidel (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(11) Clarify the chronological order of the Grand Slam tournaments.

  • OK for "chronologically" but why use "but before the US Open."? --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(12) Fix another comma problem.

(13) It's "tiebreak" or "tiebreaker", not "tie-break".

(14) Misplaced "only".

  • It is really misplaced ? I'd like another point of view on that. --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your placement of "only" illustrates a common error in writing. Your location of "only" implies "he played and did no other action" when you are actually trying to say "he played only certain persons". This is why "only" must precede "against" instead of "played". Chidel (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(15) Fix very convoluted sentence concerning the introduction of the tiebreak.

  • I removed the "modified version"/"regular version" things. Changed to "until the tie-break was introduced at 8-games-all in 1971 and at 6-games-all in 1979, in every set but the last", per comment by Truco (talk · contribs). And why did you remove two good references to add one from "grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk", which, as Chrishomingtang pointed out on this page, is not a reliable source? --Don Lope (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better wording: "All sets were decided by a two games difference from 1884 through 1970.[1] In 1971, the tiebreak at 8-all in every set except the fifth set was introduced, with the tiebreak taking place at 6-all beginning with the 1979 event." (Fix the sources as appropriate.) 190.146.244.52 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(15-again) Fix awkwardly phrased last paragraph

  • OK for the first part, except I changed to "and he only won the event twice", per comment by Truco (talk · contribs). Probably not important, but what's wrong with "Without the challenge round"? --Don Lope (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(17) Wimbledon is the main article. Thus, we don't need repetition in this article, which is just a list.

  • Those bits about what the tournament is, when it takes place, why it didn't take place from 1915 to 1918, etc., or what it the prize of the champion are no different from what you can find on the List of The Open Championship champions FL. Why should we remove information useful to the readers? --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Featured list criteria 2 requires that "[the list] has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." 1 and 3 may also apply here.—Chris! ct 17:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a significant difference between those criteria and a mere list article that unnecessarily duplicates a main article. 190.146.244.52 (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(18) Delete extra quotation mark.

  • It was not an extra quotation mark but an possessive apostrophe (All Comers' Singles). But OK, I removed the real quotation marks to avoid confusion. --Don Lope (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(20) The table needs to specify which score the table is talking about, e.g., "Score in final".

(21) The sentence about the trophy needs to be fixed by substituting "has received" for "receives" and deleting the space before the colon.

(22) The prize money sentence needs to be simplified to read as follows: "The gentlemen's singles winner in 2009 received prize money of 850,000 pounds sterling."

  • Changed to "In 2009, the gentlemen's singles winner received prize money of 850,000 pounds sterling."
Comments from Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs)

I tried a more subdued color choice. I kept your hues and simply cut the saturation by 75%. It looks more professional and easy on the eyes to me but after taking a look revert it back (or not) and comment. Otherwise on first pass I do like your work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've got no problems with that. I've only changed the "no competition" color, because it looked too close to the "Challenge round" one after you cut the saturation. If you agree, I'll change to these colors on the other three articles - but tell me what you think of the red/pink used in List of French Open Men's Singles champions, you may want to cut the saturation there, too. --Don Lope (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
General
  • Dabs, external links check out fine.
Lead
  • The Championships, Wimbledon is an annual tennis tournament, created in 1877, and played on outdoor grass courts[1] at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (AELTC) in the Wimbledon suburb of London, Great Britain, United Kingdom. -- No need for the commas before and after created in 1877 and unlink the countries per WP:OVERLINK
  • The Championships are currently played each year in the last week of June and the first week of July, and constitute the third of the four Grand Slam tournaments, after the Australian Open and the French Open, and before the US Open. -- is the after the part listing the priority in which The Championships fall in?
  • Changed to "The Championships are currently played each year in the last week of June and the first week of July, and are chronologically the third of the four Grand Slam tournaments, after the Australian Open and the French Open and before the US Open." --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be best, for length's sake, to cut the sentence after of the four Grand Slam tournaments. No need for the rest of the info.--Truco 503 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gentlemen's singles draw at Wimbledon has expanded from 22 players in 1877 to 128 today. -- The link should come earlier, not here to the 1877 event
  • Placed the link at the first occurence of 1877. --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Six editions, in 1879, 1887, 1891, 1895, 1907, and 1908 crowned the winner of the All Comers' Singles as the defending champions were absents. --> Six editions (1879, 1887, 1891, 1895, 1907, and 1908) crowned the winner of the All Comers' Singles as the defending champions were absents.
  • From 1877 to 1883, the system used to score sets, in every match but the All Comers' final and the challenge round, was to award the set to the winner of the next game at 5-all. The commas are throwing me off, needs rewording, also what is 5-all?
  • Removed the commas and changed to "5-games-all". --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma before and the challenge round and do you mean 5 games in all?--Truco 503 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sets were eventually decided by a two games difference starting in 1884, until the tie-break, in each set but the last, was introduced in 1971, at 8-all, and at 6-all in 1979. -- The commas are once again throwing the sentence off, reword
  • Removed the commas, changed to "until the tie-break was introduced at 8-games-all in 1971 and at 6-games-all in 1979, in every set but the last." --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still confused, if the tie break was introduced in 1971, what's the point of mentioning 1979? In addition, what does in every set but the last mean, I see no relation to it with the rest of the sentence. It could be me, but the wording is just throwing me off.--Truco 503 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tie-break was introduced in 1971. From '71 to '78 it was used at 8-all, and since '79 is has been used at 6-all. "in every set but the last" means it's used the first four sets but not the fifth. I'm going to try another wording : "until the tie-break was introduced in 1971 for the first four sets, at 8-games-all until 1978, and at 6-games-all since 1979." --Don Lope (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since 1949, the gentlemen's singles champion receives a miniature replica of the event's trophy, a silver-gilt cup created in 1887, with the engraved inscription : "The All England Lawn Tennis Club Single Handed Champion of the World". -- Remove the comma before with
  • Renshaw's wins, however, from 1882 through 1886 came within the challenge round format, and he only twice won the event after going through a complete draw, in 1881 and 1889. -- The links should come earlier when they are first mentioned (the 1886 link). Reword the and he only twice won --> and he only won the event twice
Table
  • What's the purpose of the bold for the names?
  • This is the common practice in the tennis project. The winners' names are bolded so that they catch the eye better than the runner-ups'. --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bolding is neither necessary nor desirable. Chidel (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree because per MOS:BOLD, there should be no other boldface text in the article except in some circumstances: this is not one of those. Now, if the boldface stood or meant something, then that would be different, but it serves no real purpose.--Truco 503 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the stats, I see no purpose of bolding the entire row, the name will suffice.
Images
  • American Pete Sampras won a record seven titles without the challenge round -- 1)Needs a period 2)Unlink American per WP:OVERLINK
  • Unlinked and changed text to "American Pete Sampras won a record seven titles without the challenge round, from 1993 to 1995 and 1997 to 2000." --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the captions are complete sentences so you need to go through and fix that accordingly
  • What do you mean here ? All captions should have a period ? --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the captions need periods, not all.--Truco 503 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Some of the publishers are not correct, the publishers are not the URL of the website. Take Wimbledon.org for example, the work field should be Wimbledon.org but the publisher would be.. IBM Corp., AELTC
  • What do you mean ? "wimbledon.org" is in the work field. None of the references, except the citebook one, use the publisher field. --Don Lope (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you need to add the publisher fields.--Truco 503 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link all publishers with articles or don't link them at all.
  • I see no need to have 2 columns for these refs.

--Truco 503 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Pawnkingthree (talk · contribs)

A couple of points:

  • I'm unhappy that the Titles By Country section misleadingly has the United States above the United Kingdom because of User:Don Lope's insistence on distinguishing between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and thereby listing Fred Perry's three wins separately. It's been raised by a number of editors on the talk page, including myself, but has not yet been resolved. I really do not see the problem with using "GBR" throughout - it's the same country, no matter what the political status of Ireland at the time.
    • I actual agree with this. Perhaps a note can be add to clarify that 3 wins are from the time when United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland still exists.—Chris! ct 23:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also agree with Pawnkingthree. In either time period, the country was the United Kindom. It's geographical boundaries don't matter. Chidel (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I wrote on the article's talk page, we can't change from GBR to BRI for the early winners simply because that would be going against the main source. On the subject of adding up British Isles and UK in the champions by country table (which is a different problem), I'm perfectly willing to do it, and add a small lead to the Statistical info section to explain all that, but then what should be done with the Western Germany and unified Germany, with Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic & Slovakia. What should be put together and what should be kept separate ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just a small note : I have added a version of what could be done with the table should we have several state forms in the same row in Rambo's Revenge's comments. --Don Lope (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • On second thought : I've just seen that the Wimbledon website separates the UK wins from the British Isles wins ! --Don Lope (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • We don't have to slavishly follow what the Wimbledon website does. They're just presenting the same data in a different way. You ask further down if we can "go against the sources" on this, and I believe we can, because it is a style issue rather than a content one. Original research doesn't apply in this case: we can present it how we like. I would say, present in a way that isn't pedantic and confusing! I think your first table is ok, as at least it shows the US correctly in second, although I still think that Rambo Revenge's initial idea of using the modern day equivalents is the best one. I don't like your second attempt I'm afraid -- it's way too complicated. I'm afraid I've had to come out and Oppose because it's clear that the Titles by Country column is going to have the US with the most titles, which is just incorrect.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor issue perhaps, but the image of Sampras is clearly not from Wimbledon as he's not playing in all-white. Is there any way to get hold of an image of him actually playing at the tournament? (I appreciate there may not be a free image available).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only is that picture not from Wimbledon, it's not even from the time period that Sampras played on the regular tennis tour. The picture was taken in 2008 while Sampras was playing on the old man's tour. Chidel (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Apologies if I have repeated anything above, but it fell under WP:TLDR.

  • Very picky but you could argue that Centre Court is no longer strictly an "outdoor grass court"
    • True. But then most the players never get to Centre Court, and most players on Centre Court don't get to play under the roof (who did it this year ? Safina/Mauresmo, Murray/Wawrinka). I suspect there will be tough discussions about that on wikipedia the day a final is played indoors. For the moment I think we can agree Wimbledon is still an outdoor grass court event. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the single-elimination phase, you haven't mentioned what the "single-elimination phase" is. I assume it is the "knockout format" bit, but it isn't clear
  • Am I right in thinking in 1880 John Hartley was victories in one match to retain the title, whereas the following year William Renshaw had to win a knockout tournament, then beat Hartley. If so, it seems a bit misleading to use the same notation for their wins, because one involved more matches.
    • You're probably right, though what you said could be true in many, many tennis events, even today, as you often have seeded players who have one less match than the others. Perhaps we could have a symbol, like a (D), next the defending champ's name, so that readers can see more clearly who played through several matches, and who was just waiting for the challenge round. What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would it be difficult to switch to a tri-colour system. 1) For won All Comer's Singles & Challenge Round. 2) Just won Challenge Round (i.e. defending champ) and 3) Won All Comer's Singles (and was overall winner because lack of defending champ meant no Challenge Round)? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very interesting. I had applied the (D) idea to my sandbox version of the Wimbledon list to see how it would look but your option seems much better. Done that. (and will do it on the List of US Open men's singles champions, that also used a challenge round system for a while) --Don Lope (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tweaked one colour to give more contrast, but I think that this is a much better system of doing things. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should be using IOC codes but the more generic ones. So I think TCH -> CSK
    • Is it necessary ? Because IOC codes are the ones used nearly everywhere on the tennis project, not only in articles but also using the 'flagicon' template, and some sources (including this very article's main source). --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was getting confused as for some reason I thought SUI was ISO and I knew that SUI looked correct. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just observation, and probably doesn't have the backing of WP:TENNIS but I'm interested in some discussion. To me 6–7(10) is completely ambiguous, unless you know the convention. I think the confusion is added because in 7–6(9) the bracket refers to the opposition score (i.e. won 11–9) and in 6–7(10) it refers to overall winner's score (i.e. lost 10–12) yet the bracket is in the same place. This is confusing to a newcomer: Wouldn't 610–7 7–69 be clearer. I notice this is what this years tournament bracket does.
    • This is what the bracket does, but we would not use the "sup" thing in prose, and we wouldn't have the tie-break score after the "6", as in your "610–7" example. 6–7(10), 7–6(9) would be the format used in all articles, and, as far as I can tell, in every reliable source. I don't think wikipedia should come up with a way of writing score different from everything readers could see in sources, so the best I can propose would be to link the "Score in the final" column to the Tennis score article. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually the Wimbledon RS uses the whole tie break score in parenthesis following the set score. My point is someone could easily think that in AvB, 6–7(10) would mean B got 7 sets and 10 points in the tie-break. But it doesn't, the parenthesis following players B score is actually player A's score. This is quite unnatural so would be confusing for those unfamiliar with the system. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, the Wimbledon article writes things differently. So let's say most sources would use 6–7(10), 7–6(9). I completely agree with your point, this system can be confusing if you're unfamiliar with the convention - but that is true of many, if not all types of sport scoring systems. Using 6–7(10), 7–6(9) is still the most common form of writing TB scores in sources and on wikipedia so I believe we should keep that. I saw that the List of The Open Championship champions FL had a link to par so that's why I proposed having the "Score in the final" header linked to Tennis score to help readers. What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um, a link to Tennis score#Scoring a set might help, however if you adopt the Wimbledon source method, and give the complete tie break score that would eliminate any ambiguity. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I prefer to keep the current score system. Doing otherwise would probably create inconsistency within the tennis project. I've linked the column header to Tennis score#Scoring a set. --Don Lope (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • No offense, but I think being unambiguous is more important than what the Tennis WP uses, as lets face it, WP:TENNIS doesn't have any existing featured content to set a precedent. Again if consensus is against this I'll back down. TRM do you have a view on this, because I know you review featured content and are active at WP:TENNIS? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • No offense taken. I thought we should follow the tennis project's most common practice, but if we can go against it then I guess wimbledon.org's option is the best. I was looking at a USTA document about US Open champions yesterday and saw that the early 70s tie-breaks were not stopped at 7 w/ a two-points diff, but at 5 w/ a two-points diff, and I realised that the List of US Open Men's Singles champions had "2–6, 6–4, 7–6(2), 6–3" for the 1970 final score, which could lead a reader to think the 3rd set TB was won (7–2), when it was actually won (5–2). So perhaps full TB scores is the best option. --Don Lope (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think that would be best. I've asked The Rambling Man to comment, but in the light of your revalation about tie-breaks previously going to 5 that makes me more against the existing format and in favour of full tiebreak scores. Also, as the first (potentially) featured tennis content I think we should set a precendent for these things. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Let's set a precedent then. I've written all TB scores the way it's done on the Wimbly website. What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I've always been concerned by the assumptions tennis articles make with non-expert readers when it comes to tie-breaks. I think the current solution is by far the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • That's what I hoped you'd say. Striking this and, to Don, keep going because there is some really good progress being made despite the mass of comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think for "Champions by country" the better method would be to only use current countries i.e. Czechoslovakia -> Czech Republic, West Germany -> Germany, British Isles -> United Kingdom. This is especially because the same player, Borg, represents both Germany & West Germany in this table.
    • I don't think we should replace former countries by current countries in the table. What could be done, on the other hand, would be to stack two names, like this:
Country Amateur era Open era Combined First title Last title
United Kingdom British Isles ¤
 United Kingdom		 35 0 35 1877 1936
 United States 18 15 33 1920 2000
    • But even though I can imagine having "British Isles" and "UK" together, or even "West Germany" and "Germany" in the same box, I really believe we shouldn't have "Czechoslovakia" and "Czech Republic" in the same row. It would make no sense, should Wimbledon have Czech and Slovakian winners in the future, to have their wins counted together. --Don Lope (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought : I've just seen that the Wimbledon website separates the UK wins from the British Isles wins ! --Don Lope (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes but that Wimbledon source combines W Germany & Germany. I agree that you shouldn't have Czechoslovakia and Czech Rep. in the same column. What I'm saying is for "By country" you should attribute the Czechoslokia win to what that country has become, the Czech Rep. (and if the had been a Czechoslovakian winner from what has now become Slovakia it would be attributed to Slovakia). Just like West Germany is accredited to the county it became, German. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand how West Germany and Germany could be in the same column, as FRG and GDR "merged", if you could say that, into one country. But it's not exactly the same thing for countries that "split". I believe it would be a little misleading (and confusing) to imply that Jan Kodeš won a title for the Czech Republic, or, had his opponent, Tbilisi-born, Soviet Union competitor Alex Metreveli won that year, to have it count for Georgia. Take Martina Navratilova : there is already a heated discussion on the tennis project to determine if she was playing for Czechoslovakia, for the United States, or was stateless when she won Wimbledon. It would become even more confusing if her wins were listed for Czech Republic in a "Champions by country" table. I thought that my system was the most simple : Arthur Gore won for the British Isles so that's one title for the British Isles, Fred Perry won for the UK so that's one for the UK, Becker won in '86 for West Germany so that's one for West Germany, and Stich won in '91 for Germany so that's one for Germany. I never thought it would be so controversial. In the end, I think that Czechoslovakia winners, and eventual Czech and Slovakian winners should be counted separately, I can accept the idea that FRG and Germany wins can "merge", and for the British Isles/UK problem, well... I've found plenty of references (see Andrwsc's comments below) showing the British Isles as a clearly different entity from the current United Kingdom so I'd be inclined to do what WP:No original research says : "stick to the sources". What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still think going with present-day named countries is the best option. (For your Georgian competitor they still had the Georgian SSR back then). I've always thought go with the then country when you're in the year-by-year table, but when you're summarising I'd have taken modern-day equivalents, however if consensus is against this then so be it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm happy with the current compromise, but for future reference (and possibly FLCs) here is my closing view. In this example, if a player from the Czech Republic was to win a title in future, I'd hope to see a similar sort of note and grouping explaining past winners represented Czechoslovakia etc. But that's something for another day. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've capped my initial comments. All stuff now from me should be minor and easy to fix. Good work so far, because you've been give alot to deal with at this candidacy.

More Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

  • Any refs that are PDF (e.g. 2nd general, [1] & [9]) should have format=PDF in the citation template.
  • Please read Wikipedia:Captions#Wording and add periods to image captions where appropriate.
    • Done. --Don Lope (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there are a few where there shouldn't be now, but hopefully another reviewer has the time to explain, or do it themselves. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the key you've provided the 1913 in the second table should be italicised because of Title defended in the challenge round. I don't think that is sensible because the second table gives no context for the challenge round, so the key probably needs a reword.
    • I'm not sure I understand. 1913 is italicised in the second table. --Don Lope (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I meant the "Champions by country" table. The key aplies to both those tables but I'm not suggesting you italicise the year in the latter table, just reword or split the key. 19:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There might be a tiny bit more tweaking needed to the lead's wording but other than that it is looking really good. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off on a break now so won't be able to see this come to fruition and support, but I give you moral encouragement while I'm away. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Andrwsc (talk · contribs)

Oppose for now, as long as "British Isles" (and the invented country code of "BRI") appear on the page. Yes, I see that the Wimbledon web page uses those terms, but I have never seen "British Isles" listed as a nation anywhere else. I think that either "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain" is acceptable, with an explanatory footnote that lists the totals for the UK of GB&I and UK of GB&NI periods. As for the other country codes (per comments above), I am certain that tennis is a sport that consistently uses IOC codes (e.g. SUI instead of CHE), so I am comfortable with those (including historic codes for URS, FRG, TCH, YUG, etc.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: I think it would be better to swap the player name and country columns in the main table (name first), as currently there is more emphasis on the country, but these are individual players. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the subject of British Isles/Great Britain is quite complicated. Can we go against the sources ? Wouldn't it be original research ? (these are genuine questions by the way, I don't know what the policy is when it comes to questioning the sources)The entity "British Isles" and the code BRI seem to be common in tennis : they were also used in Davis Cup (see this of this). --Don Lope (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other reliable sources using "British Isles"/BRI : an article from CBC, a champions list from CNN/Sports Illustrated, a document about Davis Cup from the USTA, an article from The Guardian, using the info from wimbledon.org. For what it's worth, here is a discussion at the tennis-warehouse forums (not a reliable source, of course) in which BRI-G (for British Isles-Great Britain), and BRI-I (for British Isles-Ireland) are used, and a two-year old wikipedia discussion, apparently based on a reliable source, also using BRI, BRI-G and BRI-I. --Don Lope (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am aware of the "British Isles" designation for Davis Cup competition from my editing there—indeed, I made this edit to {{DavisCupbox}} specifically to support the display name of "British Isles" for the wikilink to Great Britain Davis Cup team. But that's the difference: the "British Isles" at the Davis Cup were (retrospective) team names, not the name of any nation. I cannot support a wikilink to the British Isles article (especially with all the turmoil associated with it!) in the "Champions by country" table. I would prefer something like {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|British Isles]], with an appropriate explanatory footnote, if those totals must be kept distinct from the current "GBR" totals. But as written now, showing "British Isles" as a "Former country ¤", is entirely inappropriate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken. So you would agree to something like that ?
Challenge round win
Active player +
Former country ¤
Country Amateur era Open era Combined First title Last title
 United States 18 15 33 1920 2000
United Kingdom British Isles ¤ 32 0 32 1877 1909
 United Kingdom 3 0 3 1934 1936
      • Perhaps we can add "entity" next to "country" in the key and/or in the first column header to avoid possible confusion ? The only thing is I'm not sure what the term "British Isles" exactly covers, tennis-wise. I first thought that is was only the UK of Great Britain and Ireland, but if it includes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, then a link to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is not entirely accurate. This is why linking to British Isles seemed appropriate to me. What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Better, but I think it needs a more detailed explanatory note than just the "¤" link to the legend note calling it a "Former country" (which isn't accurate). Take a look at the footnotes at All-time Olympic Games medal table to see how we handled this sort of thing there (esp. #17 for GBR). I'm looking for something that says to the reader that "British Isles" is a term used by Wimbledon (and Davis Cup) to denote the UK of a century ago, for whatever reasons. It's just too "bare" and incorrect to display "British Isles" with the only explanation that it is a "Former country". Footnotes could also help explain why FRG and GER are not combined. I also think that something ought to be done to the top table to explain the unusual "BRI" abbreviation, as that is undoubtedly a "country code" that many readers would be very unfamiliar with. I've spent countless hours on Olympic articles, flag articles (using country code templates), etc. and this is the first time I've seen that one!! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright. What about a note saying "Entity used by tennis players from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands until 1922, and represented by the abbrevation (BRI)." ? We could put a link to the note next to "British Isles" in the "Champions by country" table and next to the first occurrence of "BRI" in the main table. --Don Lope (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, something like that. But "British Isles" is a name or label, not an "entity", and it is used now to refer to those players, but I doubt it was used at the time. Also, I think it is pedantic overkill to mention the Isle of Man or Channel Islands since none of the players listed in the table came from either of those locations. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • No "Isle of Man" ? OK, what about "Label used for tennis players from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until 1922, and represented by the abbrevation (BRI)." ? --Don Lope (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yeah, that will work. I had checked all player articles for "BRI" to confirm all birthplaces, and none were outside England, Ireland, or Scotland. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Done. Other users currently dispute the use of Czechoslovakia, West Germany and Germany, so I'll wait to see what's decided and eventually I'll add similar notes for these countries. --Don Lope (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think it would be much more preferable to use "GBR" throughout and then add a footnote to say, "known as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until 1922, and then "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 1922 onwards" or something like that. This would solve the problem of the Titles By Country totals being incorrect. Like Andrwsc, I have never seen "BRI" anywhere else, and like he says, "British Isles" is not a nation, never has been never will be - it refers to two land masses, the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland. Just because the Wimbledon website uses this bizarre label, does not mean we have to. Just keep it simple. 99% of our readers will not care about the pre and post 1922 distinction, and for those who do we can put in a footnote. Believe me, the country that I am from in 2009 is the same country as Fred Perry in the 1930s and William Renshaw in the 19th century. It's ludicrous to have it listed as a "former country."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Pawnkingthree, I think I understand the problem: we're simply not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about what country/team/label/entity the players are representing, while you're talking about what country they are from. These are two entirely different things, which explains why we can't seem to find common ground. Of course Renshaw and Perry both came from the UK, but one represented the "British Isles/BRI" label (like other players represented the "Australasia/ANZ" label), and the other represented the UK. I have no doubt that the main table should mention what countries/labels the players were representing, but perhaps the "Champions by country" table should be different. If this table reflects what countries/labels are represented (the way it is done on the Wimbledon website), then it should stay the way it is now, with 33 wins for the US and 32 for the British Isles. If, on the other hand, this table simply says are countries were the champions from, then I guess we do have 35 players from the UK, and the question shifts to the status of Becker's late eighties wins, and of Jan Kodes' '73 title. Becker was from West Germany before being from unified Germany, and Kodes was definitely from Czechoslovakia. So, should go for that type of table, and should we have UK-35, West Germany-3, Germany-1, Czechoslovakia-1 ? --Don Lope (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • OK, I think I get where you're coming from now. I'm not sure your argument really holds up, as tennis isn't a team sport (Davis Cup excepted) and certainly at Wimbledon the the players aren't "representing" anything other than themselves - especially not in Renshaw's day when all the players were from the same country anyway. Their nationality is an interesting bit of extra information but not anything official. Hoever, in the interests of getting this resolved, if we go with your UK-35 West Germany-3, Germany-1, Czechoslovakia-1 suggestion, in the Champions by Country table, I'll strike my Oppose. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I would agree with this. My preferences are:
                          1. Use "GBR" exclusively (i.e. {{flag|GBR}}) in the table of winners. For the first instance, it is ok to add a footnote that says the Wimbledon website uses "BRI" to refer to "British Isles", meaning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
                          2. In the summary table, show both the country names and country codes. This serves as a sort of legend for the upper table, especially if the page is printed and the wikilinks aren't available. For example: {{flag|United Kingdom}} (GBR). Again, this entry ought to have an explanatory footnote stating that these totals include both pre-1922 and post-1922 winners, and that the Wimbledon website refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland era as "British Isles (BRI)".
                          3. I would not be opposed to combining West Germany (FRG) with Germany (GER), and this is probably consistent with the UK. (It's the same country, but with different territorial limits in different eras.) But if you keep them distinct, that is ok with me. But in either case, it is essential to have explanatory footnotes to say that totals are combined or not. A simple "former country" legend key is insufficient.
                          4. Kodeš win for TCH must remain listed as such. There are no Czech Republic champions to combine with (or not), so it wouldn't make sense to use anything other than Czechoslovakia. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I've changed the table to have "UK-35, West Germany-3, Germany-1, Czechoslovakia-1", and added country codes and footnotes similar to the ones from the all-time Olympic Games medal table. I still think keeping "BRI" in the main list with an explanatory footnote is a more accurate option. I've kept Germany and West Germany separate but I would not be opposed to combining them too. --Don Lope (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Could you change footnote 'e' from:
                              Thirty-two wins by players representing the British Isles (BRI, 1801–1922), three wins by players representing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (GBR, 1922–present).
                              to:
                              Thirty-two wins by players representing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1877–1922), designated "British Isles" (BRI) by the AELTC, plus three wins by players representing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (GBR, 1922–present).
                              I think combining FRG with GER would be uncontroversial here (unlike the Olympic pages, where GDR results get in the way of doing that), as that would be cleaner, and more consistent with the UK treatment. I also don't think you need to say much about Czechoslovakia, especially about not combining results with those of CZE and SVK, as there aren't any! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Changed to "Thirty-two wins by players from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922), plus three wins by players from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (GBR, 1922–present)." They represented "British Isles" so we if mention the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the footnote instead, I think it's better to switch from "representing" to "from" and remove the bit about "British Isles". I merged Germany/West Germany, updating the footnote, and removed the Czechoslovakia footnote, which is probably unnecessary until a Slovakian or a Czech wins this. I think it's good now, and it shouldn't be too controversial. I'll adopt the same system on the US, Australian and French Open champions lists. --Don Lope (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Great, this is really close!! I think it might be good to also attach footnote 'b' to the UK row alongside footnote 'e'. Perhaps change the text of footnote 'b' to: The AELTC uses "British Isles" (BRI) to refer to tennis players from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922), distinct from "Great Britain" (GBR) for players from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1922–present). I think that last change would make everything crystal clear for the reader. You could remove the need for "GBR" to be mentioned in footnote 'e'. The other thing I see on the AELTC abbreviation list is that they do not use FRG to refer to West Germany, and combine that era into "GER". So perhaps we should use {{flag|West Germany|name=GER}} in the upper table, and omit the country codes from footnote 'f'. I think that would complete the task from my perspective! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • I'd rather keep FRG in the main table, I believe it's more accurate. Done all the other UK/BRI/AELTC/GBR things (except I changed The AELTC uses "British Isles" to refer... to "British Isles" (BRI) used for players... - I thought mentioning the AELTC made it sound like only Wimbledon uses British Isles/BRI. --Don Lope (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 00:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Oppose – As a longtime tennis fan, it greatly excites me to see a drive to get tennis-related pages featured. Unfortunately, I saw many problems and confusing elements when I read the list. Any page that does something original is going to have rough edges, but the FL standards must be upheld either way, and I don't feel that this meets them at the moment.
  • "The gentlemen's singles draw at WImbledon has expanded from 22 players in 1877 to 128 today." Try to avoid having a time-specific element like "today" in here.
    • I removed the sentence, which I don't think was necessary. It didn't give sufficient information about different draw sizes over the years, and I don't think a list's lead is the right place to give the number of competitors year-by-year for 122 editions. --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The All Comers' winner was awarded the title six times as the defending champion was absent." When the parenthetical bit is removed, it becomes clear that "as" doesn't work well here.
  • "In 1968, Wimbledon entered the Open era, allowing both amateurs and professionals to compete." Who wasn't allowed to compete beforehand? I know that it was an amateur-only tournament, but the general reader will be confused.
    • You're right. Would it be clearer with "In 1968, Wimbledon entered the Open era, allowing professionals to compete alongside amateurs" ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning that Wimbledon is the only major that has no tie-breaks in the fifth set? That's come into play a few times recently.
    • Actually the Australian and French Open have no TB in the fifth. It's the USO that's outside the norm, being the only major with a fifth set tie-break (it will be worth mentioning it on the USO champions list). --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is what happens when you bring a tennis list here so soon after Federer–Roddick. :-) Giants2008 (17–14) 02:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at 8-games-all until 1978, and at 6-games-all since 1979." Change numbers to words per WP:MOSNUM.
  • Remove space before colon in third paragraph.
  • "850,000 pounds sterling." Usually, dollar amounts are given in this form: $850,000.
  • Not sure if two columns with the same header (Country) is acceptable.
    • What would be the problem created ? --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe it creates accessibility issues, but I could be wrong on that. On the other hand, I'm certain that having multiple sub-headings titled Key does create accessibility issues. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old images need to be checked. For example, the person who uploaded the Anthony Wilding photo had his facts wrong; the given license demands publication before 1923, not creation.
    • All the others seem fine. I'm going to see if I can find further info about that Wilding photo. --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I knew I had seen that Wilding photo elsewhere. It is part of the George Grantham Bain collection of the Library of Congress, on which there are no known restrictions. So I've uploaded this version, and switched to it on the Wimbledon list. --Don Lope (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked at the images myself and found a couple of concerns. The William Renshaw image lacks evidence that the author has been deceased for more than 70 years. The same applies for the Doherty brothers photo, and there's no proof that the Fred Perry image was made publicly avaliable more than 70 years ago. The Bjorn Borg photo has a speedy deletion tag for lack of source info, and it looks like a copyright violation. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the captions, I see informal words like "recordman" and "Grand Slammer".
  • Why was there a walkover in 1931? That might be worth explaining in a note.
    • I added a footnote, which is itself referenced, and I did the same thing for the 1911 final, in which a player retired because of fatigue. --Don Lope (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cites needed for the photos of the court and last year's final. The lead has no verification of either.
  • There should be a note saying that year links go to articles on tournaments. Otherwise, readers may assume that the links are only for years, which aren't useful.Giants2008 (17-14) 14:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The FLs on which I have based my work (the golf majors lists like List of The Open Championship champions) don't have notes like that. Is it really necessary ? (perhaps am I so used to having such links in tables that I don't even see the potential confusion) --Don Lope (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • First I've ever heard of this idea Giants2008. Not sure it fits in with our regular way of linking things. Is this a precedent? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is most certainly a precedent. See the lists at Template:NBACoach for example. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some do, some don't. I think it's optional. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps a more elegant solution would be to rename the column "Championship" rather than "Year"? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Most that have been promoted in the past year are. Your second option is a good alternative. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Championship" is a good idea but it would make the column really wide for its content. What about having a note next to the first occurrence of a year link ? It's more elegant than a link in the header, and less disturbing for the column width than using "Championship". I did that in my sandbox version of the page. --Don Lope (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Perfect, but I would put the note in the header of the column rather than the first occurence. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Alright, I tried something else in my sandbox version: the note is in the header, and I've centered all year links, the way it's done in the golf majors lists, to avoid having unelegant blank space. What do you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got a beef with the US Open one, which since you have Agassi-Australia, Borg-French, Sampras-Wimbledon, then the US one needs to highlight the open era at the top with Federer-US Open because he is the only one to win five consecutive in the Open Era, which I assume and is the standards for the other ones because their was greater champions pre-open era. Thanks, I will and have changed it! Furthermore, I added an open era sentence because it is relavent in the opening like the pre-open era.TW-RF (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm going to ask for a withdrawal of this nomination, per suggestion by The Rambling Man, only to restart the process immediately and give a new boost to this list's review. --Don Lope (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, withdrawn (even I had an attack of the WP:TLDRs).... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "1884 Wimbledon Championship draw". grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-06-28.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Wimbledon_Gentlemen%27s_Singles_champions/archive1&oldid=1143898807"