Talk:Wimbledon Championships

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeWimbledon Championships was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 6, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

Requested move 2 November 2021[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Men's/Women's singles/doubles titles. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus to move to Men's/Women's titles. Consensus to move to lowercase singles/doubles is narrower, but there is a consensus and it is firmly grounded in policy. BD2412 T 05:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Consistency with all Wimbledon draws post-1903, and all other tennis draws, which use "Men's"/"Women's". Sod25 (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I was almost thinking that all the others should be moved back to gentleman and ladies. That's what Wimbledon has always used so it's easily soured. The last time I could find it discussed was back in 2009 where Tennis Project went with gentleman's and ladies'. The invitational events are still tiled under "Gentlemen's Invitation Doubles." Did this get listed at Tennis Project since it surely is in their interest? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that all others should be moved back to gentlemen and ladies per the naming used by Wimbledon.  oncamera  (talk page) 10:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click), If you want to notify the tennis project you can. Having this one tournament as an exception is not a good idea - all the tennis templates assume the events use "men's"/"women's" for linking them. News sources use "men's"/"women's" at an 8:1 ratio to "ladies'"/"gentlemen's" for Wimbledon [1][2]. And the official Wimbledon site itself uses "men's"/"women's" nearly a thousand times [3] which shows they accept that naming as well. Sod25 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 8:1 ratio given above shows that "men's"/"women's" is the common name... but is it the common name for 1903 and earlier, or just for post-1903? O.N.R. (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This tournament is the exception because that's the terms they use, and have always used. You are asking us to go against the sourced term used by Wimbledon. Templates can be modified if need be. Now, you say it's 8 to 1 for M&W in press use, which is why I posted it at Tennis Project (which it should have been right off the bat). Perhaps they made a choice already that I couldn't find, but it is certainly something that needs to be discussed there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I referenced, Wimbledon itself uses the terms interchangeably nowadays. M/W were apparently decided to be the terms used on Wikipedia in this 2007 discussion - why the pre-1903 articles didn't follow this consensus I don't know. Sod25 (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. Barring any more recent discussion I would agree with your proposal. We should use ladies and gentlemen for prose or headers within Wimbledon articles, but these article titles should be moved to men's and women's for consistency as was decided in 2007. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sod25 and Fyunck(click): I agree with unifying the draws' names across the board, so they all meet the criteria. Since a discussion did take place in 2007 which you presented as proof, then I see no reason why to not go through with renaming said draws to remain consistent with the other Slams' draws' names. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it should be either 1884 Wimbledon Championships – men's singles or 1884 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles (depending whether this is seen as a two-part title or a single phrase with a dash in the middle). But either way, "Men's Singles" is not a proper name as we'd define it at MOS:CAPS.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru I choose the second option, because uppercase naming for Major's draws subpages is prevalent for the other 3 slams, as well. Whereas, having the name in lowercase would just look weird and be inconsistent nomenclature. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be, but very-longstanding consensus is "Men's Singles". Tennis tournaments at multi-sport events (e.g. the Olympics) use "Men's singles", but they are the only exceptions. Compare:
    hastemplate:"Infobox tennis tournament event" intitle:/– (Men's|Women's|Mixed) (Singles|Doubles)/ (4900 results)
    hastemplate:"Infobox tennis tournament event" intitle:/– (Men's|Women's|Mixed) (singles|doubles)/ (300 results - all at MSEs excluding redirects)
    hastemplate:"Infobox tennis tournament event" intitle:/– (men's|women's|mixed) (singles|doubles)/ (0 results excluding redirects)
    A mass-move of all draws to "Men's singles" could be requested for consistency across the board, but the pages in this request should be moved as proposed based on current tennis article naming conventions. Sod25 (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per longstanding consensus and proper term used by tennis events, in should be "Men's Singles." Any change in that would need a large rfc at tennis project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Confirming my !vote is to Move to 1884 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles per the response by Qwerty284651 above, that the second part of the title can be capitalised in sentence case in its own right. I don't see any reason not to lowercase the "Singles" though, given that this term is not at all routinely capitalised in sources. See for example The Guardian, BBC Sport, NY Times etc. No RFC is needed at the tennis project, as MOS:CAPS is a sitewide rule and enjoys wide and longstanding consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles with "Men's/Women's/Mixed Singles/Doubles" have existed for 14 years, with millions of views and edits by many administrators, so that title capitalization also enjoys longstanding consensus. A separate request needs to be made for your desired capitalization change; this one is just for "Gentlemen's" → "Men's" and "Ladies'" → "Women's" for these 50 articles. Sod25 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to make a separate request when this is such an obvious open-and-shut case. The guidelines on this say only to capitalise if a substantial majority of sources capitalise it. Yet in fact, ngram evidence shows that a substantial majority do not capitalise: [4]. I'm not even sure what rationale you have for arguing it should be title case, because there doesn't seem to be any reason to do so. The same goes for other tennis articles.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I never argued it should be title case. I'm just asking that the Gentlemen's → Men's and Ladies' → Women's change be made first, and then a separate request be made for all of the thousands of articles to be moved to the different capitalization at once, rather than just these 50, so the decision is clear and not muddied by this move request which has a completely different motivation and scope. Sod25 (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @Sims2aholic8 who created many of these, and @Wolbo, in case they've missed this discussion and have an opinion on the matter. Sod25 (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lowercase singles and doubles please. See related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tennis#Capitalization of Singles and Doubles and such. Dicklyon (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I understand the reasons for wanting lowercase singles/doubles, but that change if applied across Wikipedia would involve up to 17 thousand other articles, and significant changes to many templates. Please can we just move these 50 as requested, and then someone make the much broader request if desired. This request is about the "Gentlemen's" vs. "Men's" and "Ladies'" vs. "Women's" difference only. Sod25 (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we're going to move these articles to the sentence case version because that is what Wikipedia's guidelines say. To put them at a new title case name would be incorrect, and there is no reason not to move them immediately to the correct titles as part of this move request.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we'll see what the closing admin decides. I understand your position, but any capitalization change should be made to all draws at once, not just a small fraction of them. It also requires many templates to be modified as I said, so even if it is an "open-and-shut case", I think the discussion for it should be separate and it should be made clear from the beginning that it is for all tennis draw articles to be moved, rather than just these 50, which are being moved for a completely different reason. Sod25 (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be happy to help with "all at once". I'd had success in the past getting some bot guys to help with such. Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quick survey of a couple of the subject articles indicates that the terminology is not consistent with parent article for each year - see for example 1902 Wimbledon Championships, where the terms "women's" and "men's" are used instead of "ladies'" and "gentlemen's". There appears to be a prior consensus in 2007 for "men's" and "women's", which is being upheld in this discussion. The subsequent issue is that of capitalisation after the dash in the title. This is essentially a matter of title case v sentence case. Some styles would capitalise after a dash or colon. This is not WP style per MOS:SENTENCECAPS. It also appears more common in independent sources to lowercase the full term. It is perfectly reasonable for the scope of a move discussion to evolve. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing us there. I agree, no need cap men's, women's, ladies', or gentlemen's. This not just in tennis, obviously, but we're started here so let's work on getting it right. I was just noticing similar things (cap after dash) in curling where I had a couple of edits. Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, but use lowercase for "singles" and "doubles". Renerpho (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree as requested per all the other thousands of tennis articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wimbledon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abolition of Sunday rest day - Manic Monday should be past tense?[edit]

In the Schedule section, the abolition of the traditional Sunday rest day as of 2022 is explained, and it is implied that the objective is to avoid a Manic Monday on which 32 players played each year prior to 2022.

If I have understood this correctly, then this following sentence should be in the past tense: 

Before 2022, the second Monday at Wimbledon was often called "Manic Monday", because it is the busiest day with the last-16 matches for both men's and women's singles, where fans have a pick of watching on a single day, any of the best 32 players left; which is also unique in a Grand Slam singles competition.

like so: 

Before 2022, the second Monday at Wimbledon was often called "Manic Monday", because it was the busiest day with the last-16 matches for both men's and women's singles, where fans had a pick of watching on a single day, any of the best 32 players left; which was also unique in a Grand Slam singles competition.

Could someone please confirm that I am right? Thank you. 2A00:23C6:549D:C301:8403:BDEF:CF98:57DB (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination of SW19 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SW19 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SW19 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Vpab15 (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest ranked winner[edit]

The current revision in the section Records § Miscellaneous lists Markéta Vondroušová among unseeded champions with the comment "ranked 42nd". At the same time, Venus Williams is listed as the "lowest-ranked winner" with the comment "31st (23rd seed)". Shouldn't Vondroušová be the lowest-ranked winner? Kompik (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wimbledon_Championships&oldid=1194047733"