Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis article format

This idea is in the brainstorming stage.
Feel free to add new ideas; improve, clarify and classify the ideas already here; and discuss the merits of these ideas on the talk page.

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]

I also encourage the creation of specific articles to deal with more important player's careers. The main bios, however, should be written in a summary style which will be accessible to those who love tennis and those who have just a passing interest. Dozens of paragraphs with hundreds of scorelines should be avoided, but could find a home in a more specific career fork... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see the career sections broken into phases, not years. e.g. "Junior career", "Early success", "The slump", "Return to glory" etc, rather than 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. I suppose it would depend on the structure of the individual player's career, though.Ordinary Person (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to The Rambling Man's suggestion, I personally think that to create separate articles on the detailed career history of a player whose history is existingly summarised in a shorter article would be an unnecessary overcomplication. It makes much more sense in my opinion to retain all information within a single page, but divide that page by topic and subtopic in such a way that it is easy for the individual reader to choose how much detail he or she wants to read. One section entitled 'Career Summary' (or similar) can contain all the salient points needed to satisfy the casual sports fan who does not take a more in-depth interest. Then the detailed career analysis year-by-year can follow. Anyone not interested in this level of detail can easily skip over this, but it is there and readily accessible for anyone who does take an interest. This is the method I have consistently adopted in the individual player pages I have worked heavily on, several of which TheRamblingMan has recently mistakenly tagged as 'fan pages' when in fact they are just more thorough and yet still entirely objective and neutral articles. I see no point in splitting player articles into two when the existing topic and subtopic structure already serves the purpose of giving readers full freedom of choice in how much or how little they want to know. Regarding Ordinary Person's suggestion concerning the titles of the career phases, the problem I see with this is that it is open to subjectivity. When I originally heavily developed the article on the player Li Na several years ago, I began by giving each year a topical theme alongside the year identifier, which made it a more journalistically appealing article. But as soon as she reached the quarter-finals of Wimbledon, along came an experienced Wikipedia administrator and removed all the topical names, leaving just the years, on the grounds that it was not objective or impartial for an editor to identify the themes of the player's year in that way. I accepted this ruling and have abided by it since. Philip Graves (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made no "mistake" in tagging these pages as containing excessive intricate detail. An average reader does not need to know the scores of each set (including tiebreaks) of every match that each player was knocked out or won. My analogy is the featured topic of Ipswich Town F.C. whose main article has a history overview of around eight or so paragraphs written in a summary style, with a fork to History of Ipswich Town F.C. which goes into much greater detail, but still maintains a summary style for the topic, with 27 paragraphs. And by the way, it doesn't appear to me that an admin "made a ruling", he simply disagreed with your edits. You could discuss the topic on the relevant article's talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 30 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.)

Particularly agree with forking this kind of thing. As you say, with Graf/Sampras you could go on and on and on. The last thing we need is another section which could be considered a list of trivia, albeit important trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This and subsequent "stats" sections should be forked if required, i.e. if they became ungainly. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

In popular culture