Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiProject Tennis (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

More fundamental problems[edit]

You should not place links in the bold face reiteration of the article title in the opening sentence of an article. And yet, this is done for hundreds and hundreds of tournaments. And when I fixed some, a user reverted my fixes, saying things like "we need the link". Evidently, they are not familiar with the manual of style. Tennis articles are never going to stop being severely deficient if editors are not prepared to familiarise themselves with the basic guidelines. (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not actually true. Links can be put in that position if there is a good reason to do so. You'll find that it's not done only for tennis tournaments. Deb (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead. I do find that the mistake is more widespread than just tennis tournaments, but a mistake it certainly is. (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know it says "should not" and describes it as a "mistake", but that is a guideline, not a rule. The MoS proceeds to suggest ways by which this can be avoided, i.e. by paraphrasing the title, but there could still be circumstances where it is more helpful to have a link in the title. I think " [[Mexican Open (tennis)|Mexican Open]]" is a good example of this. Deb (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Those links are the links to the main article and it is important to have a link to the main article in prose. If for some reason you don't like it where it is then find a way to incorporate it elsewhere by writing something new. It can be handled in prose... it can be done by using the "further" or "main" templates at the page top... etc. Don't just remove it and leave readers with nothing. Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Then change it in all Wimbledon articles for previous years because none of them use that format. All the others are done the same way. (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
You can do that as well as anyone else. Please help us fix these items as it would be much appreciated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, during the last three years, a little band of editors has been systematically changing the leads to their own preferred format, which doesn't comply with the guidelines on lead paragraphs. If someone corrects them, they change them back. And this guy is one of them. Deb (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Lady, you're paranoid. If I'm "one of them," why would I suggest to Fyunck to change it in all the previous articles? Uh? Take your anger, threats and accusations somewhere else. And Fyunck, there's no way in hell I'll make those changes in the prior year articles. I'll get attacked by people like Angry Deb if I even try it. You seem experienced. You do it. But it makes no sense to have all those articles layed out one way and then this one article a different way. Who knows, maybe Deb will take a break from her attacks and do it. (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow, "angry" is one word for what you are. Read Wikipedia:Etiquette. In case you've forgotten the past few days, let me remind you that I did start doing it and you stopped me. Deb (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Then I guess we'll get to it when we get to it. There are thousands of articles that need help so correcting all those old ones will take time. Thanks anyway. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. I would help if I knew that other editors wouldn't swoop in quickly and change it back in every article for which I did it. But you know that's exactly what will happen unless there's a prior agreement by a significant group of editors to make that change. It would be a huge waste of time. Only someone with your experience and knowledge on the subject would have any chance of succeeding with such a mass overhaul. (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I think there is something you are missing. A significant group of editors did write the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and certain things are required. Bold of some items, leads that absolutely describe the article title, etc. That's a done deal at Wikipedia, and going against it will eventually end badly for that editor. But the exact wording in accomplishing that is fluid and up to the editors writing the article. Every Wimbledon article does not have to have the exact same wording in the lead, but it must convey the same information. Each article must stand on its own, we don't have sub-pages. I've had readers tell me they didn't know what sport they were reading about... well then we didn't do a good enough job in writing that article. It should be written as if they can't see the title at the top of the screen and that they came to the article directly, perhaps from a Google search. I always think of our readers first which is why we need to work together as a team to make an article the best as we can. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
What ^^^ said.--Wolbo (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope, I didn't miss anything. I already understood everything you just said. You basically repeated things you or others have already explained. My point is that an IP like me trying to make such widespread changes would have been futile because editors who you say reverted those things before don't care, and they'd claim a misinterpretation of the relevant policies and guidelines. And they would have absolutely no trepidation about reverting an IP editor on those changes and forcing an endless talk page discussion. That's why I said an editor, like you, who's very experienced and has a lot of knowledge about the subject should do it. (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────────────── I just went through ALL the Ladies yearly Wimbledon articles (XXXX Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles) and made sure it said tennis, the year/name of the championship, and ladies singles, and put it in some manner in the lead sentence. I liked the way someone worded it in the early years so that's what I stuck with. Surprisingly, many did not need correcting. Some only needed last years winner info moved down a sentence or two. It got worse as I moved to the present. I guess if we at least get the womens and mens four majors done it will help since so many editors use them as a template to start other tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I have now done the same for the French Open Women's Singles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • US Open women's articles are now completed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Australian Open women's articles are now completed. Men's majors to be done throughout the next week. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Men's Australian singles now complete. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Men's Wimbledon now done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Men's French is now done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Men's US Open singles is now also complete. So that completes the all the mens and womens singles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI, minor guideline chart update[edit]

I just updated the WTA performance chart to contain current Premier 5 events rather than old ones. I added a note about the Dubai/Qatar rotation in the tier. That's all I did but I wanted to make note of it here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

New Guideline Proposal for "Greatest of all time" Mention in Lead Sections[edit]

Hi everyone, I thought I'd bring this up because over the past few years, especially since last year, there have recently been issues across the tennis articles in Wikipedia regarding mention of tennis players being considered among the "greatest tennis players of all time" or the "greatest tennis player of all time" in the lead section of such articles, which has especially been a major issue in the articles of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Rod Laver. I personally didn't have a huge issue with it being mentioned in the lead sections of the tennis articles but since I took part in this discussion in the Roger Federer talk page last year (partially encouraged by this discussion in Rod Laver's article), it was then agreed that we should not mention Federer being the "greatest of all time" (or even to some extent, "one of the greatest") within the lead and keep that to the legacy section on the basis that this was too subjective and unencyclopaedic to be mentioned in the lead, which I can understand better now due to "greats" in tennis constantly changing each era (Federer might be regarded as the greatest now by many but it could change if Nadal or Djokovic overtake his Slam record) and this is a matter mostly fuelled more by opinion than fact (even if sourced to reliable references). Not to mention another issue with these "greatest" statements are that anyone can reword "one of the greatest" to "the greatest" or vice versa and I must add that before it was considered to remove "greatest player of all time" from the lead and relocate to a legacy section, there were some talks on whether it should be mentioned at the top or bottom of the lead.

And it was also decided that the same applied to Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic's articles and it wasn't a major issue towards the end of last year (with User:Fyunck(click) in particular ensuring the "greatest players" were not mentioned in the lead and kept to Legacy sections), however since Wikipedia users have still been readding this statement from time to time which has become more prominent this year, especially in Roger Federer's article, I later decided to remove the "greatest" statement from the leads of most of the other tennis articles of players considered among the greatest (e.g. John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Venus Williams, Martina Navratilova etc.) in order to maintain consistency for this matter and I added a notice in the Federer, Nadal and Djokovic articles against added such statements in the lead without consensus but even that still didn't stop it getting readded into Roger Federer's articles (User:Hippo43, who was very vocal against these changes to the lead section of Federer's article and endlessly reverted my edits and removed my added notice, said that there was no proper consensus based on the talk page discussions about mentioning "one of the greatest" in the lead). I have looked at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy carefully and it does state that "greatest" is subjective and somewhat out of place in an encyclopaedia (one of the reasons why Encyclopaedia Britannica in particular avoids these terms) but also states that it can be mentioned as long as prominent people or the general public consider the person as such. while the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch states that "great" or even "best" are both peacock/puffery terms. I might also note that articles like William Shakespeare, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Muhammad Ali, Lin Dan etc. have this mentioned without similar issues like what is currently encountered across the tennis player articles which creates another issue here.

With this in regard, the main issue for the tennis player articles to me is that there is no guideline in place within this WikiProject Tennis article for whether subjective or peacock statements like "greatest of all time" can be mention in the lead which means Wikipedia users can do whatever they like with it, and if it still can be mentioned, should it be mentioned in the top or bottom and if it can't be mentioned, should it just be kept to a Legacy section? So due to these endless issues, I propose adding a new Guideline here about adding subjective terms such as this into the lead of tennis articles (e.g. "Should it be mentioned in the lead or kept to a Legacy section?" or "Can it be mentioned in the Lead but maybe kept towards the bottom of the Lead rather than Top?" or "Mention in Top and not Bottom of the Lead" or "He/she is considered one of the greatest, with many considering him/her the greatest tennis player of all time") because to me this is the only way to really help resolve this issue and I invite all tennis fans in Wikipedia to take part in this discussion and give your opinions on the matter until a consensus is hopefully reached on the matter. Many thanks. Broman178 (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC - placement of "greatest" in tennis article leads[edit]

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. Although it is noted that there is no reason why articles should not include statements of this kind (WP:SUBJECTIVE), opinions are evenly divided on the question of whether such statements should be included in the lede of articles concerning tennis players. It is therefore clear that there is WP:NOCONSENSUS on this issue. (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shall we place somewhere in the lead of tennis player Roger Federer, and many other tennis players, the sentence "He/She is considered one of the greatest tennis players of all time?" This includes variants on this theme.

There has been back and forth on this issue for a lot of tennis players leads as pretty much every player in the Hall of Fame of tennis history is in this category. In the recent past we have been eliminating any subjective terminology such as this from all tennis bio leads and been putting them in legacy sections of prose of the bio, with sourcing of course. When present, these leads get fought over with wording regularly. "One of the greatest", "the greatest" widely considered the greatest", "some call one of the greatest", etc. Encyclopedias such as Britannica don't use these subjective terms at all with Federer, let alone in the lead. I have found that past players and critics who dole out these subjective headlines to sell papers and magszines, change their minds frequently. It's great for the water cooler but I'm not sure it's great for the lead of biography articles. As long as all tennis player bios are treated the same at wikipedia (such as Rod Laver, Steffi Graf, Helen Wills, Pete Sampras, Chris Evert, Jack Kramer, Bill Tilden, etc...) then I'm ok with whatever decision is made here, however it is probably easier to maintain with no mention in the lead for subjective terms such as "one of the greatest." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


  • Oppose as nominator. I think it best to keep "greatest" mentions to player legacy sections further down in prose, not in the lead sections of a player biography. It's more trivial in nature and more baseball-card-fascination than actual fact. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support variants, but weak oppose to the specific phrase "one of the greatest of all-time" in most cases for being too vague. This kind of statement should be more specific. Here are some good examples from featured articles of athletes regarded as the best in their respective sports:
  1. Babe Ruth: "Ruth is regarded as one of the greatest sports heroes in American culture and is considered by many to be the greatest baseball player of all time."
  2. Michael Jordan: "His biography on the official NBA website states: 'By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time.'"
  3. Wayne Gretzky: "Nicknamed 'The Great One', he has been called 'the greatest hockey player ever' by many sportswriters, players, and the league itself.
  4. Don Bradman: "Sir Donald George Bradman, AC, often referred to as 'The Don', was an Australian international cricketer, widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time."

I agree that it isn't so helpful to just have the phrase "one of the greatest of all-time" in 100 different articles. If this type of statement specified (1) who considers someone the best, (2) what they are the best in, (3) where they are ranked, and/or (4) why they have that ranking, then that would be much more helpful. For example:

  1. Roger Federer: Federer has been ranked as the greatest men's tennis player of all-time by
  2. Rafael Nadal: Nadal has been called the "King of Clay" for having the most clay court titles in the Open Era and the most French Open titles in history.
  3. John McEnroe: Along with Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors, McEnroe was one of the most dominant male tennis players of his era.
  4. Bjorn Borg: Borg is widely considered one of the ten best male tennis players in the history of the sport.

While it may seem biased to call someone the greatest of all-time, it is even more misleading to leave that kind of phrase out. For instance, did the person who cut down Nadal's lead do so to conform to the manual of style, or were they trying to hurt his reputation? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The phrase isn't being left out, just out of the lead. Plus the Borg statement is likely untrue, and Federer statement then should also include the fact that other sources rank him lower. It will cause so many edit wars of tweaking just like it did before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support obviously, subject to policy and guidelines. This should be early in the lead if it is especially significant, as in the examples User:Sportsfan77777 gave. --hippo43 (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very conflicted over this matter but still I'm more inclined to oppose than support because, yes while policy guidelines lean towards supporting mention of "greatest" mention in articles, mentioning it in the lead potentially in the longer term can lead to the issues which Fyunck(click) mentioned in his statements. However, it can definitely stay in a Legacy section. Broman178 (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Surely any mention of "greatest" is POV, and the relative status of any individual player can easily be judged by his/her tournament record? Deb (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
No, mentions of who is considered the greatest, if they are reliably sourced, are consistent with WP:NPOV. See here - WP:SUBJECTIVE, which Broman also linked to above. --hippo43 (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Even if sourced, it can only ever be opinion and it certainly doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. Deb (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC
According to NPOV, it does belong in the lead, sorry. --hippo43 (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I see no support for that statement, and you cannot argue that "is the greatest", even if backed up by references, is the same as "is widely considered the greatest". Deb (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I never did argue that. Actually the opposite. Maybe read my comments again? --hippo43 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, Bo99 (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Sportsfan77777. oncamera 19:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Sportsfan raises excellent points. Levivich 03:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I think you may have missed Fyunck(click)'s response. This is not about whether the phrase can be included in the article, but whether it should be in the lead paragraph. Deb (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
If it wasn't already clear, I'm clarifying that I did mean it would be misleading to leave that kind of phrase out of the lead specifically. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Deb, I would argue in favor of the "one thing" test when it comes to leads. If there was one thing, and only one thing, that you could tell someone about a particular topic, what would it be? That should be in the lead (and of course the article). (If there were two things, what would the second thing be? That should be in the lead. And so on.)
So, if there was one thing I could tell you about Michael Jordan, it's that he is considered to be the greatest basketball player of all time. Tom Brady is the greatest quarterback. Babe Ruth is the most famous baseball player, if not the greatest (Ted Williams is the greatest hitter, and Nolan Ryan is the greatest pitcher, but I digress...). Pelé is the greatest footballer. All of these should be (and are) in the lead of those articles. It would be a huge omission, in my opinion, if we didn't tell the reader right away that Pelé is known as being one-of-if-not-the greatest soccer players of all time. No different for Federer.
I understand the concern Fyunck raises about edit wars of tweaking, but the solution to that can't be that we don't tell the reader the most important thing about a topic, right in the lead of that topic. Leads are hard–really hard–and often subject to a lot of disagreement, and, unfortunately, this is not going to be an exception. But we can't have it any other way. We have to tell our reader that Federer is one of the greatest–it's the "one thing". (That said, of course extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. Any claims of "greatest" would need to be extremely well-sourced.) Levivich 18:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, I can only say I'm surprised by that. To me, all those examples are pretty subjective. "Considered by many to be the greatest" I might accept, but I think there's usually a better way of expressing it. Sport is far too competitive for most of these statements to be simply accepted as fact. If Babe Ruth really is the most famous baseball player - which is probably true - you'd hardly need to tell the reader that. Pele's intro actually only says "He is widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time". Deb (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Funny, I would say the same thing Deb and not put greatest of all time in any of those player leads. I'll bet if you went up to 100 little league 12-13 year olds, none of them would pick Babe Ruth as the most famous. The rest are all really debatable, and while fun to think about, doesn't really belong in the article lead. If I were to pick from that list of six, five of my choices would be different. I actually don't find tennis article leads to be hard at all. Almost all the leads I see are pretty stable without infighting. That's because most players aren't the greatest and don't have that subjective item in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's really that subjective at all; I think Jordan, Gretzky, Brady, etc., are considered the greatest players in their fields by overwhelming consensus of reliable sources (not 12–13-year-olds), and also by objective statistics, e.g., the records they hold. And even if "the best" is tough to substantiate, certainly "one of the best" is indisputable. Levivich 03:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I would think there are plenty of sources that disagree with Jordan and Brady, not so much Gretzky. I still see plenty of Joe Montana as goat. And heck, I also see plenty of Wilt Chamberlain votes over Jordan. Even Jordan's teammate Pippin picked Chamberlain. These things are not cut and dry, and to say they are just invites edit wars from those who feel differently. It's water cooler fluff. It is reasonable to say players are among the greatest in their sport. In tennis you'll have plenty. Tilden didn't lose a match one year and won 57 consecutive games. No 1 for many years. Renshaw won Wimbledon 7 times. Budge won a Grand Slam and 6 consecutive majors. Lew Hoad was amazing and Rosewall won more majors than any male player. Kramer, Borg, the Doherty bros, Sampras, Emerson, Wilding, of course Laver... and on and on. The ladies have even more dominant players than the men. It's almost inconceivable how dominant Helen Wills was. Her and Lenglen would be the Wayne Gretzky's of tennis, with numbers so out of reach as to be laughable in ever catching them. I think the numbers speak for themselves without having to add some persons greatness scale to the lead. It's like the poetry greatness scale Robin Williams scoffed at in Dead Poet's Society. But if more editors would like to add greatness sentences to the lead, I'll do what the majority wants. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, you said it with the phrase "objective statistics". Objective statistics are given close to the start of the article if not in the lead, and are far preferable to a comment like "he is the greatest [whatever]". Deb (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
No one is arguing to include a statement like "he is the greatest [whatever]". --hippo43 (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too subjective. — Ched :  ?  — 12:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose These statements are far too subjective. And in case of players like Federer, Nadal or Djokovic, who are still active and performing to the top level, far too susceptive to ongoing events. A fine example is a 2014 interview with former player Andre Agassi who then considered Nadal "the greatest of all time" which is often use to justify that claim in Nadal's article. Since then however, Federer won another three majors thus becoming the first man who won 20 of these tournaments. Likewise Djokovic has racked up quite a number of major titles since then is now very close to tying Nadal. These are all events that hadn't occurred yet in 2014 and which Agassi could possibly take into account. Needless to say, he has no reaffirmed his 2014 stance since. Therefore these statements are too subjective and basically POV. We really should let our readers make their own assessments of the players' importance.Tvx1 19:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that Agassi quote is a good example - a single quote is not a strong enough source for the statement that "X is (widely) considered the greatest". I don't think anyone here is arguing for including that. A good quality reliable source which said that Nadal was generally considered the greatest would be a different matter altogether. --hippo43 (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support if verifiable that it's a general opinion. Per WP:WEASEL regarding use of considered: The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the no original research or neutral point of view policies. I would require sources that have analyzed and made a verifiable statement about who is generally considered [fill in blank]. A statement that it is one person's opinion, or multiple sources each holding the opinion, is not the same as it being a general opinion. General (or the equivalent) needs to be stated explicitly. Finally, it's a given that these statements are subjective. While there are alwasys opponents of a general opinion, that does not preclude a general opinion from being included.—Bagumba (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if sources have analyzed and made verifiable statements, "one the greatest" is still subjective and sensitive to ongoing events. Why not just let the awards and stats in the body speak for themselves? Comatmebro (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
    • 'one the greatest' is still subjective: There's nothing wrong with subjective. WP:NPOV does not mean no POV. sensitive to ongoing events: That's why editors update. For example, we don't say people are not living because they might be dead for days or weeks without an update.—Bagumba (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
      More like subjective opinion from people who change their minds a couple times a year. It's fun to compare, but should it really be in the lead summarization of articles rather than in some prose legacy section? We can certainly verify a lot of info, but that doesn't make that info the best choice for the lead of a biography. And if you've ever been a part of maintaining these tennis bios, words such as "some", "many", "one of the", or "generally", become fighting words that can be interpreted multiple ways. We sit there through weeks of reverts and finagling, only to wind up back at square one. I'm not saying this is an easy choice for players like Federer, Wills, Laver, Nadal, Tilden, etc... but like Encyclopedia Britannica, I'm not convinced that it is lead-worthy material. Hence the reason I opened this conversation to see what other editors would reasonably conclude for Hall of Fame level players, and whether we should change from keeping those terms out of the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • Comment As I raised this topic in the first place, I can say I'm personally mixed about this whole issue because the term "greatest" was mentioned in articles like Federer's or Nadal's for many years and it is mentioned in the articles (from William Shakespeare) outside the Tennis world which I've listed in my long comment above, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states that while terms like "greatest" are subjective and unencyclopaedic, it is appropriate to be featured in the article as long as there are "verifiable public and scholarly critiques" available. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch mentions that words like "greatest" or "best" are both peacock/puffery words which should both be treated carefully as they both can introduce bias. In any case, its not just whether "greatest of all time" should or shouldn't be featured in the lead, Nadal's "King of Clay" and "greatest Clay court player" were also removed from the lead in his article, which also brings the "greatest of all time" in an individual surface (e.g. Grass, Clay and Hard - Indoor and Outdoor) along with valued nicknames into here. I can say that while I'm conflicted, at the moment I'm leaning a bit towards opposing its mention in the lead because anything featuring "greatest" can indirectly introduce bias and can be reworded according to what other editors prefer in their own opinions as Fyunck(click) mentioned above. Whatever agreement/consensus is reached here, I think a rule on these subjective terms needs to be featured among the WikiProject Tennis article guidelines. Broman178 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    This edit here is an example of why including even "one of the greatest" in the lead can be problematic in the longer term. This is because even if it is sourced to reliable references, other editors can act on their own opinion and reword it according to what they prefer, as User:CharisTra did there before Fyunck reverted it. Broman178 (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
That's not really problematic though. If consensus is established at an article based on what sources say, and someone changes it, they can be reverted, discuss, etc. Same as any article.
Right now, the same thing happens if the statement is left out. People come along and add their preferred version, because some version of it should be in the lead. This really isn't a special case. I think Sportsfan77777's examples above are useful. --hippo43 (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
That's your opinion and it doesn't change my views. I still am more inclined to oppose than support it, though if the majority support its mention, I am okay with that. Broman178 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Leads should summarize the articles. I think the leads could include "greatest" or "one of the greatest" if it's well sourced, nicknames (King of Clay is well-known), endorsement information, playing style and business ventures if it relates to the sport, using the featured article Michael Jordan as an example. I don't think Federer's or Nadal's article leads properly summarize their articles since (some of) that stuff is missing. Then again, neither are featured articles. Milos Raonic is a featured article and it has borderline nicknames listed in the lead ("the real deal", "a new star", part of "a new generation", and "a future superstar") so I don't know where the line is being drawn with subjective terms in the lead. *Shrug* I tried to update Nadal's article so it summarizes the article, but the info was deleted back to its current condition. Does Wikipedia Tennis exist in its vacuum where the lead doesn't summarize the contents? I suppose I could take that up on the talkpage of his article lol oncamera 22:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    But in summarizing of course some of the stuff is missing... that's what summarizing is. You don't include a players family in the lead, even though it could be important in the family section. You don't write about the racket manufacturer or coach in the lead either. And something as water-cooler fun as the level of greatness is more a trivia item, and while sometimes important enough to be included in the article, is probably not best in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    Sure, not everything needs to be summarized in the article, but their articles are still lacking in comparison to others. And back to the main topic, featured articles Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan, Jack Nicklaus, Babe Ruth, Jim Thorpe, all include some variant of GOAT of their respective sport. I don't understand this vacuum Wikipedia Tennis lives in where it's soOoOo subjective to call a player like Federer the GOAT or even "one of the GOAT". oncamera 23:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    Probably for the same reason other encyclopedias don't do it. Plus we have readers scratching their heads at all the tennis player goats over a 150 years of the sport. Every decade we add another goat to the mens and womens articles. Every year we add another "one of the goats" to the same. It gets confusing. Plus the retired players and sportscasters calling players the greatest, change their minds every other Grand Slam tournament. It's not reliable. But as I said, if everyone loves these things at the tops of articles, so be it, as long as all tennis players get the same courtesy as Federer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    Sure, spread the GOAT love around and added it to where it's warranted. oncamera 00:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree completely with User:Sportsfan77777 and User:Oncamera. They make great points. Tennis is not a special case. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines in place which cover this question just fine.
User:Broman178, your comments about Britannica are irrelevant and untrue. Irrelevant because we are not discussing writing for Britannica. And untrue because Britannica uses the term "greatest" all the time. Maybe you didn't actually look at many of their articles? For example: Shakespeare - "considered by many to be the greatest dramatist of all time", Gretzky - "was considered by many to be the greatest player in the history of the NHL", Jordan - "widely considered to be the greatest all-around player in the history of the game" etc.
In addition, Britannica has published related articles that would not survive scrutiny on Wikipedia - The 10 Greatest Basketball Players of All Time for example.
We are not really talking about subjective statements at all. It is not subjective to say that "X is widely considered to be the greatest player of all time" if reliable sources state that X is "widely considered" to be the greatest. If a reliable source says "X is the greatest", then including that in the article without any attribution would be subjective.
Further, your misreading of WP:NPOV is a concern. To quote it at some length:
"Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language. Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art."
This policy simply does not support leaving out well-sourced opinions of experts.
WP:PEACOCK likewise is clear: "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." No serious editor here is suggesting that we include unprovable proclamations.
User:Fyunck(click), you have introduced some red herrings, which are not helpful.
First, statements of opinion by sports commentators or ex-players, even magazine opinion pieces, are irrelevant. They are not reliable sources.
Next, edit warring. The fact that these are contentious issues does not mean they should be buried in a later section. That is what page protection is for. The fact that a lot of editors have kept adding this to the Federer article for a long time just shows that people disagree with your view, and there has never been consensus to keep it out.
Next, the GOAT changes over time. This is true. All sporting records also change over time. Articles need to be updated as things change. This is not a problem at all. We just stick with what reliable sources say.
Finally, "all tennis players should be treated the same". On this we agree, at least insofar as all players' articles should be based on what reliable sources say, and consistent with policy. What the sources say about Federer, for example, is different to what they say about Borg, or whoever, and the articles need to reflect that. --hippo43 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You keep talking about "leaving opinions out" of the article. That is patently false. Those opinions are in the article in a legacy section. As for your edit warring, that is policy and you subjugated it by putting the cart before the horse in discussing, demanding it stay until discussed. That is unacceptable. Next, statements by sports experts are not irrelevant as long they are presented in context and properly sourced. You also mention that we shouldn't include "unprovable proclamations" about a player's importance. Well, trying to rank the level of a player's importance is unprovable. It is extremely subjective opinion to say so-and-so is ahead of what-his-name on the greatness scale. Is there a place for it in the article? Sure there is. Should it be in the lead? That's very debatable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Where do I "keep talking about "leaving opinions out" of the article"?? I don't think I ever wrote that.
"Unprovable proclamations" basically means "unverifiable statements". We have a policy - WP:V - which covers this very well.
You are right that it is subjective to say X is greater than Y, but again you have missed the point. It is not subjective to say that "X is considered to be greater than Y" if reliable sources say that "X is considered to be greater than Y". --hippo43 (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
And another thing. I don't know whether you are a member of Tennis Project or not, but I am and I have to handle ALL these "greatest" additions all the time. I go through all the edit wars of the tiniest little changes. Djokovik is the greatest, Nadal is the greatest, Federer is the greatest, Williams is the greatest, etc... It has been much quieter since the removal of this item in the lead. I sure hope you will be sticking around to handle all the issues that "will" come up with their reintroduction. As I originally said long ago, I favored a simple "one of the greatest" in players leads but was overruled a couple times. That's cool as I can go with the flow, but it actually has helped keep things quieter as far as edit warring. If it changes to including it, again that's cool, but I sure hope that everyone defends the additions to all the articles and keeps check on the wording and edit warring that may begin again. So many times in the past there have been hit and run change that leave a very few project members the unenviable task of cleanup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, being a member of the tennis project does not give you some special status. Anyone is free to edit these articles, or not. No one is forcing you to "handle ALL these "greatest" additions all the time". Articles change as the facts change. If sources emerge which contradict earlier ones, we have to deal with it as editors. If people disagree about a particular article, there are mechanisms for handling it. We don't make decisions on what to include based on what is convenient for you. --hippo43 (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Never said there was some privilege with Tennis Project. But dealing with hundreds of such articles is part of the deal that you don't seem to care about. You can complain about the Roger Federer article, change things by edit warring, and then run away and hide from the tennis world, and just leave it to others to handle the later edit wars and crap. I don't do that. I try to listen to everyone and then come up with something that will actually work to some degree. You're right, no one is forcing me to do that. I could let any chaos just go on and on. But in being a member of the Tennis Project I take a certain responsibility to tennis readers and my tennis editing peers. And those "mechanisms for handling it" you mentioned, are the very mechanisms you went and broke. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, you're arguing for your own convenience. If random people want to insert new stuff into the lead, they will do that in any case, whatever we agree here. Your opinion does not count for more because you are volunteering to spend more time on this than others might.
You broke with policy by dishonestly writing that consensus had been reached for your view. That was clearly untrue. Being part of the Tennis project does not exempt you from the broader consensus that already exists (WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD etc). You disagree about the significance of these statements, but your opinion is not widely shared. --hippo43 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
That's a load of condensed all-soup and you know it. You may have gotten away with your non-guideline edits, but that doesn't make it right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
You're not making a lot of sense. The policies I cited above make it right. --hippo43 (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
If you think that you can keep on reverting multiple editors just because you feel there are policies, dream on. It may have worked here, but I feel a 3RRR block will be coming your way if that continues in other articles. Good luck to you though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
LOL... never mind, I see you have already been blocked 11x for edit warring and 3RRRs. I'm sure it will happen again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I respect what you have stated Hippo43 but I have to respectfully disagree with your statement that I misread the WP:NPOV policy because contrary to you saying you believed I mentioned leaving well-sourced opinions out - "This policy simply does not support leaving out well-sourced opinions of experts.", I definitely did mention in my comments above that "greatest" statements can be mentioned if supported by well sourced opinions by experts: "but also states that it can be mentioned as long as prominent people or the general public consider the person as such" (I only believe they should be left out if there aren't any reliable sources to support it's mention) and "it is appropriate to be featured in the article as long as there are "verifiable public and scholarly critiques" available" although since it gave you the impression I misread it (if I said above "greatest" statements can be removed, I mean from the lead as long as it's in a Legacy section, not whole article), maybe I could have worded that better in my comments, and since you quoted most of that paragraph in that WP:NPOV policy, I might as well quote the first sentences of that paragraph in WP:NPOV because you didn't mention them in your quoted comment: "Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia.".
And also while you claim the articles you mentioned in Britannica (The 10 Greatest Basketball Players of All Time, Shakespeare etc.) feature greatest in them, yes that is true but it doesn't change the fact that some of the tennis articles in Britannica (Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic) have avoided using the term "greatest of all time" or even "greatest". And while its your opinion if you believe the comparison with Britannica is irrelevant, you can't just say its entirely "my comments on Britannica" when it was mainly Fyunck(click) who made the comparisons with Britannica in the first place. If most people support the mention of "greatest" in the Tennis article leads, I am okay with that as long as there is a new guideline here to support it, but having experienced those problems myself over the last year, I also agree with Fyunck(click) that it's mention in the lead can potentially create problems later on which is the reason why despite my mixed opinion, I am more inclined to oppose its mention in the lead (as long as it's still mentioned in a Legacy section) then support it. Broman178 (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I find it hard to understand what you're saying with these really long sentences. You are right, it wasn't just you that mentioned Britannica. --hippo43 (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Its not that hard to understand if you read it carefully but anyway, I'll summarise my above comment a bit for you. I do disagree with your claim that I misread that policy because I did mention that policy states if reliably sourced, mention of "greatest" can be included in an article. Though I maybe didn't word it that well which gave you the impression I misread it. However, while I believe it can be included in an article if supported by reliable sources, I can understand Fyunck's points that mentioning it in the lead can be problematic in the longer term which is why it could be more suitable in just a legacy section. And also, even though some Britannica articles (e.g. The 10 Greatest Basketball Players of All Time) feature "greatest" in them, it still is true that some of the tennis articles there (e.g.Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic) have avoided using the term "greatest of all time" or even "greatest". Hope thats easier for you to understand and you can disagree all you like, but I still stand by my points that while my opinion is mixed, I'm more inclined to oppose than support these mentions. Though if the majority support this mention in the lead, then I will accept the consensus given here and add a new guideline here about it. Broman178 (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Many of User:Sportsfan77777's comments above are sensible, but one of the examples cited: "Sir Donald George Bradman, AC, often referred to as 'The Don', was an Australian international cricketer, widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time" strikes me as a particularly bad one. The word "acknowledged" means that you accept a fact. "Widely believed to be" might be acceptable, but not the present wording, which implies universal acceptance. Yes, Bradman has come top of polls, and yes, in terms of his test average he is way ahead of anyone else, but there are many other candidates for the title, especially bearing in mind the limited competition Bradman was up against at the time he was playing. One day Tests, which would certainly have lowered his average, didn't even exist until 1971. Better to say that "He has the best batting averages of all time in Test and first-class cricket" and let the reader decide whether that makes him the greatest batsman ever". Deb (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

My point is that all four of those examples have faced intense scrutiny and survived. In Bradman's case, the article underwent a peer review and a FAC review. The question about the neutrality of that sentence was raised by Tony (who was a very harsh FAC reviewer), and it was discussed here. In the end, the wording of "widely acknowledged" was agreed upon to satisfy NPOV based on the sources they had by about a dozen editors (between from the Cricket project and FAC reviewers), and passed with no opposition. That doesn't mean a similar statement is true for another athlete, but it is was found to be justifiable in Bradman's case. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I know zero about cricket so I can't comment on Mr Bradman's prowess. I can say that there are always exceptions... nothing should be etched in stone. But exceptions should be of the 6-mile meteor hitting the earth rarity. In sports, the only player I can think of with that type of assuredness is Wayne Gretzky. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Now before the current comfort zone of no mentioning subjective greatness in the lead, there was an RFC at the Rod Laver talk page that also encompassed all tennis players. It was a small RFC but the decision at that time was "has been described as one of the greatest players of all time" is appropriate for articles as not being too out there in it's subjectivity. This came about because past generation players were being treated unfairly compared with current era players. That happens all too often with younger editors feeling current era is always best (ceib). It was discussed that the first paragraph of the lead with that was not too good... somewhere near the bottom was best. I still think that subjective thoughts of old players and newscasters don't really belong in the lead (it makes us more tabloid than encyclopedic), but as long as we follow the same pattern for all players that was decided in the Rod Laver RfC, then 40-50 men and 40-50 female players with that sentence near the bottom of the lead can be handled. Of course if it changes if would really help if others chip in when troubles arise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, Fyunck(click) , this is simply dishonest. The RfC on Rod Laver did not reach consensus at all that this should be at the bottom of the lead. In fact, users Meatsgains, Scolaire, Zerilous and Aircorn all explicitly supported keeping the sentence at the start of the lead. No one supported moving it to the end of the lead section.
Second, I don't see any support for having the same text in 80-100 articles. Reliable sources treat players differently, so the articles have to reflect what sources say in each case, as in Sportsfan77777's examples above. --hippo43 (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't see that at all. But yes, 100 articles will have it because it can be sourced. I have a lot of newspaper articles that tell me so. With 150 years of tennis there will be many. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, no one has argued to include the "subjective thoughts of old players and newscasters" in the lead, or to include statements based on a single newspaper article. You are arguing against a straw man. --hippo43 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well so far I don't see a consensus for change from the status quo. I tried to get more eyes on this from outside projects but they seem uninterested. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no status quo. Lots of users have put "greatest" and other variants in the lead of plenty of different articles, and lots of other users keep removing it. That's why we're having this RfC. The last established consensus was that "has been described as one of the greatest players of all time is appropriate" in the Rod Laver RfC. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually the articles where most of the problems have occurred (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Williams) have been greatest of all time free for over a year I think. Only minor issues since, mostly with anon IPs till this go around. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The last time I checked, those weren't the only players affected by this RfC. And there has been one major issue of course: that this info shouldn't be removed from the lead. That's what was decided in the last RfC. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
This is true... a hundred articles could be affected. These several articles, because they are current players, have just born the brunt of sparring over the terminology, especially "goat" battles. It's been much calmer for a year. I'm not saying that keeping things to some form of "one of the greatest" wouldn't work, but we'd all have to be diligent in our article patrolling. I do feel that its placement in the lead would be better towards the bottom, as a final roundup of the summary. But I still don't see the info as being very encyclopedic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Sportsfan77777 Since you just reverted some of the changes I made for the lead section in a few Tennis player articles (e.g. Jimmy Connors, Margeret Court), I would definitely suggest you do the same for all the other Tennis player articles in which GOAT statements were removed from the lead because it would help keep the consistency rather than revert a few I changed just because consensus wasn't made. I'm not changing it myself unless there is a consensus in this Rfc as I'm more for opposing this mention than supporting it. Broman178 (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Considering there hasn't been a single update to this survey/discussion for nearly a month, looks like there won't be any consensus generated out of this as it currently seems to be a tie between supporting and opposing mention of terms like "greatest" in the lead and hardly anyone seems to be interested in adding further to this conversation (unless I'm proven wrong after this point) which is a real shame as I really hoped this would finally solve the problems the tennis player articles have faced over the last year through generating a consensus which we can all agree on. Broman178 (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD about Junior Grand Slam qualifying draws[edit]

I was hoping the article alerts would pick this up, but as it hasn't; I'm informing anyone watching here that there is an WP:AFD discussion ongoing about whether or not Junior Grand Slam qualifying draws are notable enough for their own articles. Your views are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 US Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying. IffyChat -- 19:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Grand Slam Cup status?[edit]

I noticed an anon IP adding the defunct Grand Slam Cup to players totals for ATP year-end-championships. An example is Pete Sampras career stats article. Multiple other articles have been affected too. I can't recall if this was ever discussed as appropriate or whether sources agree with these new totals. Minimal mentions in the archives such as in archive 11. Should the Grand Slam Cup be in the same color yellow and added to player totals as if they are year-end championships? Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems logical to me that the Grand Slam Cup falls into the same category of year-end championships as the ATP Tour final and the WCT Finals. All of them are season / year ending championships which feature a select group of players who performed best throughout the season at the respective events. What other category would it be part of if not the year-end championships? On the player statistics page all three tournaments could be be listed under the header of Year-End Championships but each tournament could have its own table to show the reader that they are distinct events.--Wolbo (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Just because something occurs at year-end is not the same as the "Year end championships." I just went through a bunch of old newspaper articles from the time period and I could find no sources that called it a year end championship. Maybe someone else will have better luck, because right now that can't be sourced. I did find this article from the NEW York Times blasting its importance. It had no importance, but it sure did have a lot of money. Should it be listed on a player's career statistics page, yep. Should it be given the same level as the year and championships?... per sources, no. As for a category, it really has none. It's in a category all it's own. Per the sources, the players used it as their warm-up event for the upcoming season. Then they moved it in '97 to right after the US Open in September. There were still a couple Masters level events to be played so it was not season-end. The ATP retroactively gave it status, and that's fine, but I don't think that means we move it up to Year-end championship status. Year-end championship as a category in tennis means a lot more than just the printed words. It has a certain stigma just like the four majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
If everyone likes them lumped together under the same color scheme (and therefore the same value tier), then that's what we'll do. But as an encyclopedia I'm not sure that's being truthful to our readers. I guess we could relabel the category as a generic "Year-end tournaments" and lump any such events (Grand Slam Cup, WTA Elite Trophy, WTA Tournament of Champions, Next Gen Finals, etc...) into the yellow we now use only for the ATP/WTA Finals. It's not my preference since I feel that devalues the ATP/WTA Finals, but we could. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)