Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis article format: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 125: Line 125:


::Probably best to not have it. The whole trivia thing ruffles some people's feathers around here. And if it's not important enough to warrant mention by this point in the article, it's probably not worth mentioning. --[[User:Armchair info guy|Armchair info guy]] ([[User talk:Armchair info guy|talk]]) 01:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
::Probably best to not have it. The whole trivia thing ruffles some people's feathers around here. And if it's not important enough to warrant mention by this point in the article, it's probably not worth mentioning. --[[User:Armchair info guy|Armchair info guy]] ([[User talk:Armchair info guy|talk]]) 01:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
::Agreed, avoid what is essentially always going to be a [[WP:TRIVIA|trivia section]]. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 06:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


==In popular culture==
==In popular culture==

Revision as of 06:40, 28 April 2009

WikiProject Tennis/Tennis article format

This is a space for working on the article format for highly notable (Category 1) singles tennis players.
I envisage that a set of guidelines would be laid down for (what for the purpose of this discussion I will call) Category 1 players. Then a set of guidelines can be laid down for lesser players meeting other criteria (for now I'll call them Category 2 players), and then a set of guidelines for minimally notable players. Editors can then interpolate between these categories. These criteria, too, are obviously a matter for discussion.

For openers I am suggesting:
Category 1: ranked No 1 or won at least one Major
Category 2: ranked in top 30, or won at least one WTA/ATP event
Category 3: ranked in top 200, or won at least one ITF event
So, Mauresmo would be a low end Category 1 player, Tanasugarn would be a medium Category 2 player.

My suggestion is that we establish suggested format articles for Category 1, Category 2, Category 3 singles players, and maybe a couple of similar standard articles for doubles-specialists. The idea is that an editor can check these out to see whether or not the article is in the right ballpark of length and detail. A particular player might merit treatment outside the guidelines, but if the article is way outside the guidelines for a player of that ilk, some explanation should be given in discussion.

An alternative would be to use the same guidelines for doubles-specialists, but downgrade them to reflect the fact that (for instance) someone whose biggest achievement is a Wimbledon doubles win is not as noteworthy as someone with whose biggest achievement is a Wimbledon singles win. No-one without significant achievement in singles would be Cat 1. The combined dealie would then be: Category 1: ranked No 1 or won at least one singles Major
Category 2: ranked in top 30 in singles, or won at least one singles WTA/ATP event, or ranked No 1 in doubles or won at least one doubles Major
Category 3: ranked in top 200 in singles, or won at least one ITF singles event, or ranked in top 30 in doubles or won at least one WTA doubles event
This would mean Stubbs would be a Tanasugarn, which feels right to me. Ordinary Person (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NAME (PRONUNCIATION, NATIONAL NAME VERSIONS; born BIRTHDATE, in BIRTHPLACE died DEATHDATE) is a FORMER/CURRENT PEAKRANK MALE/FEMALE tennis player.

250 word introduction.
Includes:
name, pronunciation, DOB, (DOD), nationality, profession (obviously)
Peak singles ranking, number of weeks at number 1 (if ever), current ranking (preferably with a particular date attached)
Number of Majors won, number of Tour Finals won, number of ATP/WTA tour events won
Significant records and awards (no more than about 100 words on that: comprehensive record lists could be placed in more detail elsewhere, if notable)
Monumental features or events (eg Seles being stabbed and winning a major thereafter, the defection of Navratilova: big, big events)
I'd add to "Monumental features" such things as Nadal being widely considered the greatest clay-courter ever (with important numbers to justify the claim, as his intro currently reads) and Federer among the greatest players ever. Any really big distinction or event, like you wrote. --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis career

300 words per year of professional career, up to 3000 words
(By this, I don't mean 300 words for every year: obviously some years will be more quiet than others.) The level of detail will depend on the richness of the player's career: Navratilova for instance won so many tournaments that an article would be tiresome if each was mentioned specifically, whereas someone with a briefer or lesser career could merit specific mention of each WTA/ATP win. The tables below include more thorough information on results, so they don't all need to be mentioned in the Tennis career section.
It should include:
specific mention of up to 20 important tournament results
major injuries
major reversals of form
personal firsts (both at junior and professional level)
significant changes of coach
returns from hiatus
personal events that significantly changed the career
decline and retirement
For some very important players, a separate, more-detailed article on their career may be appropriate.
I like the final suggestion. The all-time greats (particularly Rafa, Fed, Serena, and the current greats) deserve detailed career profiles. I don't like the overly-abbreviated summaries of some years in Fed's bio, for example. You could justify several paragraphs for each of his 2004-07 seasons, IMO, because they were that significant. --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playing style

500 words.
Every statement should be attributed to a respected source and specifically referenced.

Major sections on specific aspects of career

This is for things like the Federer/Nadal rivalry, the Williams sisters' boycott of Indian Wells etc.
1000 words each, maximum. If more is needed, and the topic is genuinely notable, make a separate article.

Equipment, apparel, and endorsements

300 words
NOTHING without a respectable reference

Achievements

500 words'
specific list of records and awards. If more is needed, and the topic is genuinely notable, make a separate article. (Discuss: should we codify what can be considered a noteworthy achievement or record? If you tried you could probably come up with 100 records for Sampras or Graf: not all of them are important.)

Record against other major players

(Discuss: is this needed?)
I like these h2h lists. Some of the women's bios have nice lists of h2h against all players that were top-3 or top-5 during the player's career. Good stuff. --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so keen. The WTA/ATP websites have this information, linking to that would be enough, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss: what is a major player? Maybe someone who has won a Major or been ranked No 1.)
against all opponents ranked top-3 or top-5 during the subject's career, ordered by number of matches. really it's a matter of how much research the editor(s) are willing to do. Even top-2 is better than nothing. --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the problem of selecting a subjective cut-off point. I would stick to linking to the WTA/ATP head-to-head page where all statistics for all match-ups against anyone can be found. Thus no subjectivity applies. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

(Discuss: should Personal life come before or after Tennis career? Some editors seem to prefer an "Early life" section before Tennis career. I would prefer to see Personal life material after Tennis career and Playing style etc.)
I don't think it should be a strict either-or. I appreciate this guideline but to me it's a guideline, not a hard template that must be followed. If there's a good amount of useful info on 'Early Life', then why not put that before 'Career'. But if it's all in a 'Personal Life' section that's fine too.
An example: Rafa's page has an 'Early Life' section makes sense because of his uncle being his coach and forcing him to play left-handed. This is obviously really important info and logically should preceed his 'Career' section.
--Armchair info guy (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, and yes, these should just be guidelines, and individual players will need treatment outside any set of guidelines we agree on.Ordinary Person (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


500 words, up to 1000 words if someone has had an unusually "notable" personal life.
Should include:
Births, deaths and marriages
Truly important out-of-tennis events doings

Poltical activism/Writing career/Controversies/Modelling career etc

500 words each, or up to 1000 if this aspect of the person's life has been very noteworthy. If more than that, and the topic is genuinely notable, make a separate article.

Playing statistics

Complete lists of wins

Career timeline tables

Career earnings table

Miscellaneous facts

Discuss: do we need this section?
500 words maximum.
Probably best to not have it. The whole trivia thing ruffles some people's feathers around here. And if it's not important enough to warrant mention by this point in the article, it's probably not worth mentioning. --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, avoid what is essentially always going to be a trivia section. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss: do we need this section?
500 words maximum.
Not for bios. Tennis stars are a part of pop culture. --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also

References and so forth