Talk:Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships

Scoreboard

I changed the scoreboard from Isner-Mahut to Mahut-Isner, because that's the way the draw was, but they change it again. In tennis, the results, are always shown just as the actual draw. In this case, Mahut was at the top and Isner at the bottom. then why change it? --201.199.71.26 (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I understand the title for the article but not the order in the scoreboard. --201.199.71.26 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Nicolas Mahut v. John Isner (2010)

They both seem to be about the same topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I just merged the histories into this title since the other one wasn't that complicated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The title should be "Mahut-Isner match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships" since the game in Wimbeldon is Mahut vs Isner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.172.167 (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's "Isner-Mahut", in alphabetical order, per the articles in Category:Tennis rivalries. —Lowellian (reply) 16:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Total Match Time So Far?

What is the exact total time in term of minutes? can't seem to find it anywhere.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.32.50 (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

598 minutes, iirc. (ETA: and 426 of that was the final set alone.) Insane. Morhange (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

665 minutes 78.131.104.243 (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Search for details from the match itself for 'key moments'

It may be wise to collect as much information as possible regarding some of the key moments of the match and incorporate them into the article. I'm sure there are various blogs out there detailing the match very closely. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This could help --KrebMarkt 20:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mahut aces

Mahut has had 95 aces, not 94. There are numerous sources, including the Wimbledon website. Also see this. Enigma^msg 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wimbledon website here says 94. Half Price (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the Wimbledon website must be wrong. I watched him record #95, and the sources I've found agree. [1] [2] Enigma^msg 23:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm it is a tough one. You'd generally rely on the official website, but I think with so many sources disagreeing, we can probably say 95. Half Price (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, here are two British sources which agree as well: [3] [4]. Enigma^msg 00:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Mahut has 95 aces, watch this video (time 4 mins 36 secs). The live score failed yesterday. After approaching 50 games all in final set the scoreboard was out of order and official live score on Wimbledon.com showed only 0-0. The duration of final set was also unavailable. Rl91 (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems Mahut indeed had 95 aces after the second day, despite what the earlier mentioned Wimbledon website article said. I remember Wimbledon's SlamTracker having 94 as well when the match was suspended after the second day. But when they resumed on the third day even Wimbledon's SlamTracker had Mahut's starting count as 95, not 94. Either way, there seems to be no disagreement about his total count, once the match was concluded. 173.168.177.217 (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent statistics

The "Receiving Points Won" lists "105 of 447 = 23%" and "95 of 459 = 21%" for a total of 447+459 906 points played. However the "Total Points Won" lists 449 and 428 which is only 878 points. At least one of these has to be incorrect. Mikeyo (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking more deeply, for Mahut, we list 291 first serve points and 148 second serve points and 20 double faults, which totals 459, agreeing with the "Receiving Points Won" for Isner, For Isner we list 323 first serve points, 115 second serve points, and 9 double faults, also agreeing with the 447 receiving points for Mahut. So it seems that the "Total Points Won" line is more likely to be erroneous. Mikeyo (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Your 878 points should be 877 but that's not the issue. We follow the source in External links: Match statistics from Wimbledon.org - except we say 95 aces by Mahut and they say 94 but other sources say 95 and this isn't the issue either. The real issue is that Wimbledon's official match statistics apparently don't include double faults by the opponent in Total Points Won. There has been 29 double faults in all which is the difference between your 906 and your other number which should have been 877. Excluding double faults appears odd to me but we should probably follow the official source. I haven't examined whether Wimbledon always does this (they did in the only other match I tested), or whether other tournaments also exclude them. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense for them not to include them as the player loses the point rather than the other player wins the point ClarkF1 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK/In the news

When the match (finally) comes to an end, it would quite good to put this forward for a Do You Know or an In The News item. Bob talk 08:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Already listed and approved on WP:ITN/C. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 09:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Technology Failures

On the wimbledon website, the match time froze at 507 minutes. It appears that it crashed at 507 minutes once the set five timer got to 333 minutes. Perhaps the counter couldn't handle more than 333 minutes.

The online scoreboard was reset to 0 when it hit 50 games each. An anonymous Wimbledon source advises that the "slamtracker" cannot handle more than 52 games and the decision was made at 48-48 to subtract 50 off the score when it got to 50.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.223.55 (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The limit of 52 sets was due to the data protcol used by IBM. To minimise internet traffic, while keeping the data in an ASCII format, the set count was sent using a single lowercase or uppercase letter giving 52 values (0-51 sets). The "slamtracker" has been updated as as at day four of the championships, it is now reading beyond 60.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.223.55 (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can back up that explanation with a cited reference, this would be great to add to the article!

Also, any idea why the physical scoreboard crashed after 47-47? It's weird; 48 isn't even a power of 2, and you would expect that a power of 2 is what it would crash on, due to bit overflow.

—Lowellian (reply) 16:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

48 is 32+16, though, so 1.5 times a power of 2 (in this case 32). So, maybe they used 6 bits for the number of games won, but (as some kind of parity/checksum check), only used that number if the highest 2 bits were not "11". Who knows? I'll bet it's something like that. They probably tried to save on the number of bits/bytes they have to transfer and decided that they did not want to waste even a "full bit" on parity/checksum, so they went for "a highest bit of 1 is valid if the next-highest bit is 0, but not valid if the next-highest is 1 as well". For 6 bits used in this fashion, that would result in something that amounts to 48 valid states, with only 48 out of 64 combinations of bits being valid. 173.168.177.217 (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

From www.reddit.com/.../could_someone_explain_why_wimbledons_scoreboard/

I overheard a conversation where they said it all came down to the size of UDP datagrams. As the game progressed, the datagram got larger and larger, exceeded the MTU and was fragmented. This should have been fine except that the checksums were being calculated incorrectly at the refs PDA and a switch/router/firewall was dropping the invalid packets. Not sure what the fix was. Going on the quote from the NY Times article, it sounds like they "changed the route the signals travelled" by removing some form of packet inspecting switch/firewall so that the packets with incorrect checksums were let through.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.222.64.215 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 2 July 2010

That is an almost accurate explanation. It came down to the size of datagrams, it was fragmented, and checksums were incorrect on PDA because of Windows Mobile bug :) Fix was not about changed route or packet inspection. Gabrysb (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The URL given above is incomplete. For reference, here is the correct complete link: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/cikow/could_someone_explain_why_wimbledons_scoreboard/ —Lowellian (reply) 22:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

New category

Shouldn't we create a category just for articles about a single tennis match. There doesn't seem to be a category right now so it might be helpful to make one. Remember (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there many other articles that would fit in the category? It sounds like a good idea. Half Price (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Done: see Category:Tennis matches. —Lowellian (reply) 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

'The 1973 Battle of the Sexes' might be the only other tennis match which has its own article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.203.66 (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have also added Battle of Surfaces so there are now three matches. It's a shame there is no article about the 2008 Wimbledon Men's Singles final. That deserved it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% there should be an article about the 2008 Wimbledon Men's Singles Final due to the many elements involved (Generally regarded as the Greatest match of all time, between two of the greatest who ever lived, the clay court specialist prevailed, last match on roofless centre court ,etc, etc). Somebody should start one. Another suggestion for an article worthy match would be the Gonzalez - Pasarell match at the 1969 Wimbledon Championships as this match was the reason for the introduction of the tie-break —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.203.66 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started a page for the Federer-Nadal match at 2008 Wimbledon Men's Singles final and already done a fair-sized write-up, focusing on background and significance. Please come help expand it, especially with details of the match itself! —Lowellian (reply) 18:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There should also be a page on the Wimbledon gentleman's singles final in 1980 between Borg and McEnroe, possibly the most famous match at the Championships (sorry but I don't have the time to do it). Ericoides (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've found a bit of time and just started it at 1980 Wimbledon Men's Singles final. Please add to it... Ericoides (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The tie break of the 1980 used to be guaranteed to shown on the BBC in the UK whenever they suffered a rain delay at Wimbledon. There should be plenty written about it. Shouldn't be too hard to do a good sized write up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.203.66 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Another for the category should be the AO final 2009, regarded by many fans as better than Wimby 08' except in GB all we here about is Wimby match being the best as it is our slam and exclusive to the BBCKnowIG (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was any better, it could do with its own page though. Half Price (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the 2009 AO Final being better is ridiculous. Sure it was a great match, but it was on a surface that both men had had success previously, it lacked a greater narrative as neither man was chasing a bit of history (6 consecutive titles or the little achived French-Wimbledon double) and the final set lacked the drama of the 2008 Wimbldeon final, being something of a damp squib with a single break early in the set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.147.108 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the first 4 sets were superior to anything seen at Wimbledon, partically the 5th game of the 4th set, and it did have narrative, Rafa's first HC GS and coming off a marathon match, most thought that he would be squashed by FedererKnowIG (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Removed a few violations regarding a NPOV. I was unsure whether or not the word "numerous" in the lead might have qualified as well, so I left it there and now ask someone to remove it if needed. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You removed the phrase 'long' twice. Is that really POV? In both cases it was true that they were much longer than the norm. Half Price (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at User:Ericleb01's edit at [5]: "Thrilling" is POV, yes. However, "long"/"lengthy" and "numerous" are factual, not POV. It is a statistical fact that the two matches described as "long" or "lengthy" were much lengthier than the norm for a tennis match, and thus User:MickMacNee (see diff [6]) and I (see diff [7]) have restored those two words. —Lowellian (reply) 16:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for image

If a free version turns up, we should use the one with the umpire, Mahut, and Isner standing next to the scoreboard. Enigma^msg 16:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that would be the ideal picture to put at the top of the article.  Burningview  ✉ 01:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the image from the official wimbledon twitter page: http://twitpic.com/1zkjg9 I dont know if it is legal to upload or not. SmashHits (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I very much doubt that is a free image. So no, it cannot be uploaded under Wikipedia policy. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

Does anybody know why this match went on so long, it would be helpful for non-tennis experts if an explanation was given DjlnDjln (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Because there is no tiebreaker in the fifth set at Wimbledon for men's matches, so it keeps going until someone wins by two games. Since you alternate service games with the other player, you have to break your opponent to win. If you have two players serving very well and their return games are not up to snuff, it can keep going and going and going... Enigma^msg 17:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, both players had a very strong serve, which meant they both kept holding their serve games. Half Price (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I said. :) Enigma^msg 19:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So you did! My apologies :) Half Price (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

further while Wimbledon has made some changes that reduced the effect grass is traditionaly the fastest surface around making good serves even harder to counter.©Geni 22:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Another very interesting point would be, for the same reason, and since it lasted so long, why and how did this match end?--195.57.146.182 (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that interesting? I think it ended for the same one or more reasons any tennis match ends. Which can be any combination of a number of factors: (1) Because of injury of a player, (2) disqualification of a player, (3) forfeiture, (4) one player faltered enough (even if just for a short while) that the other player could take advantage (this could be due to fatigue, distraction, lack of skill, lack of experience, nervousness, and many other things), (5) luck (having to quickly react to a shot that hit the net, for example)... and so on. It was probably a combination of (4) and (5) in this case, but that is also the case in a most other matches, so it is the norm and not very interesting IMO. 173.168.177.217 (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Tennis Single Game Infobox

I would suggest that we make a single game infobox similar to Template:NCAABasketballSingleGame for these types of articles. Any thoughts? Remember (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. Could be easily converted. Maybe a sample should be posted here...Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried working on this but I couldn't get it to work. If anyone else has the skills to create this box (or knows who to ask), please let me know. Remember (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have these skills. What do you want in it? I think we could use {{5-set tennis}} as a starting point. — Timneu22 · talk 13:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Essentially an infobox that would be good to use on all single match tennis articles. Check out Basketbowl or 1993 Florida State vs. Notre Dame football game for the sort of thing I am looking for. Remember (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Easy enough. I'll work on it. — Timneu22 · talk 14:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me know where you are working on it and I will try to help out. Remember (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's almost done, give me until noon EST. — Timneu22 · talk 15:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I could see three immediate articles for this: this, Battle of the Surfaces, and Battle of the Sexes. I'll have to add a place for a logo (surfaces). — Timneu22 · talk 15:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice infobox! Every article in Category:Tennis matches could use it. Also, you might want to take this infobox off this talk page so that this talk page doesn't show up in Category:Tennis matches, since it looks like this infobox is transcluding the category. —Lowellian (reply) 04:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Though I could imagine a version looking more like a head-to-head divided table (H2H record before this match, coaches, left/right handed playing style indicated, year turned pro...). Also I would include their ranking positions and seedings in brackets.Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 12:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job Tim! Thank you so much for setting this up! Your hard work is much appreciated! Remember (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• I have already added this infobox to the other Category:Tennis matches articles.
• I'm not sold on all these: head-to-head (okay), coaches (nah), left/right (nah), year turned pro (nah), rankings (okay), seedings (okay).

My reasons are: coaches don't seem relevant to the tennis match. Playing hand, and year turned pro are available on the player articles themselves. I'll add the other optional paramters in a few minutes and post more comments. — Timneu22 · talk 12:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be finished. I've added seedings and rankings to both the infobox and this page. I added previous head-to-head to the infobox but not to this page; anyone know that information? Also, I added all these parameters to this article only; if someone else knows this info for the other articles in Category:Tennis matches, I hope you'll please add them! — Timneu22 · talk 13:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Celticninja, 24 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Can you change UTC to GMT after the time. UTC is used when times of fractions of a second are required to be measured, this is not the case here.

Celticninja (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done:. Actually UTC is the correct format, see WP:TIMEZONE. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. GMT timezone == WET timezone (Western European Time) and is the sibling of the BST (British Summer Time) and WEST (Western European Summer Time). GMT clock is almost identical to UTC and Universal Time, but not quite. Officially legal time in Britain is still the GMT clock, but in practice everyone around the world now uses UTC to synchronize their clocks and all standards are defined relative to UTC. UTC is the convention that Wikipedia uses as well when discussing events. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

records

I guess it would be good to merge the first and last paragraph, as the same facts are mentioned twice in the same section. --81.151.98.17 (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request for inclusion of Matt Harvey poem

Suggestion to include the haiku Matt Harvey, Wimbledon's official poet laureate, created to celebrate this match.

• High performance play.
• All day and yet no climax.
• It's tantric tennis.

Link from NPR: [[8]] 74.103.41.149 (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to ignore this request because it is obviously about sex, not tennis. 173.168.177.217 (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Does not seem to me that the NPR link qualifies as reputable... wjmt (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

More records?

Looking at The Official Wimbledon Statistics, I find it hard to believe that the records mentioned in the "Records" section of this article are the "only" ones that were broken. For instance, "Winners" (246 by Isner) and "Total Points Won" (502 by Mahut) are probably records too. But, I admit, that for these (and more) to be mentioned as records, we need references... 173.168.177.217 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Some more reactions

People should read this epic and hillarious live blog of this match at the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jun/23/wimbledon-2010-tennis-live

I hope someone will add it to the article. If necessary, numerous news articles on the web can be found commenting on that live blog by googling.

Lots of reaction collated by the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8753437.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.219.72 (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 91.84.209.119, 25 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The match also holds the fastest serve ever at Wimbledon of 143 mph, set by John Isner 91.84.209.119 (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please could you state the exact sentence you would like to add to the article, along with a reliable source which supports this claim. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not the fastest. Fastest recorded tennis serves#Men lists it at number 20 with several from Wimbledon above it. The listed Wimbledon record by Taylor Dent is 148 mph two days ago.[9]. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

British English Corrections

It says in the discussion that the article should be written in British English; there a couple of American English spellings.

Under "Scoreboard failure" it reads:

"An IBM programmer worked on the computerized scoring system until 11:45 pm to accommodate the match's scores for the next day, although it would have again malfunctioned had the match gone beyond 25 more games."

"computerized" should be "computerised"

Under "Match statistics" --> "Session times" --> "Thursday 24 June 2010" the second dot point reads:

"4:48 pm – Match ended in favor of John Isner, who won the final set 70–68. The match lasted eleven hours and five minutes."

"favor" should be "favour"

It is locked so I cannot edit it, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.13.85 (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Computerized" is just as correct in UK English as "computerised", see the OED. Ericoides (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Computerized is not as correct in UK English as computerised - at all. Just because the OED includes it doesn't mean anybody else adheres. Half Price (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. Not only does one of our most respected dictionaries cite "-ize" endings before "-ise" endings, many – perhaps most – UK academic publishers use "-ize". In general trade publishing, one of the UK's biggest publishers, HarperCollins, uses both endings; which one is used is down generally to the whim of editors such as myself (until sometime this year, "-ize" was indeed HC's house style for UK-sourced books). It's simply a matter of preference – neither one nor the other is more correct. Ericoides (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks - ise is used in the UK, not as a matter of preference, but as in common usage. ize is American usage. Neither may be 'correct' - but it's horseshit to say that both are used in the UK... they're not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.61.158 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You must surely agree though that the majority of British people would not even consider using -ize, and that -ise is much more popular. Half Price (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree. I find it interesting that HC have switched to -ise, although I have no preference either way. It's certainly possible that in the future -ize will become incorrect, but who knows? So many things are becoming Americanised; I can understand the wish to resist this, even if, as in the present case, the wish is based on a misunderstanding. Ericoides (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Page needs updating

Not really sure why it's even locked, but it needs to reflect the fact that Isner lost his second round match to de Bakker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.123.11 (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

The result of the move request was: I'm closing this as a waste of time. There's no point if people just want to pretend the guidelines don't exist, even admins. This is how Wikipedia in 2010 discusses a Main Page article. It's amazing tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is pretending the guidelines don't exist. Others are just not interpreting them the way that you are. Four other users, three of them administrators, stated a disagreement with your position. Also, in regard to guidelines, you did not follow those outlined in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, which states "No user, whether an administrator or otherwise, should ever close a requested move discussion they participated in except if the discussion reaches a unanimous result after a full listing period (seven days)", though, to be fair, I do think it is reasonable to be able to withdraw your own request. That said, your closing statement is needlessly inflammatory; please respect Wikipedia's civility guidelines. —Lowellian (reply) 00:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. Here is an example of the sort of 'interpretation' that made me close this request this way:

• Guidelines: Do not disambiguate for future events. Opposition: Keep this title because it disambiguates against future events.
• Guidelines: Keep titles as precise as is necessary to disambiguate from other notable subjects which readers of Wikipedia, as a general reference work which incorporates some aspects of specialist almanacs, would reasonably expect to exist. Opposition:Wikipedia is a tennis almanac, and thus someone will be writing an article about their one previous encounter, so we should keep this long title so as not to confuse the reader with that match.
• Guidelines: Descriptive titles should be kept as short as is necessary to identify the topic to the reader. Opposition:The fact it happened at the 2010 Wimbledon Championship was a major part of this match, so it should be included in the title.
• Guidelines: Consider the arguments made by the proposer of the move, and provide a reasonable counter argument, so that consensus can be judged. Opposition: You are obviously arguing for this to be made as short as possible, meaning that it could just to be moved to "Isner v Mahut", so we should oppose you because you are mad for proposing such a thing.

I think it's pretty clear there was no intepretation going on here, not least because the opposers failed to come up with any evidence that their view is supported by the guidelines I quoted, let alone come up with other guidelines I might have just missed. Normal practice is for the consensus which is inherent in the guidelines existing should, unless extraordinary justification is given, to over-ride any unusual conclusions that might be made by a small amount of people in a discussion on a local page. This is again, something that admins should know, because bizarrely on this evidence, they are entrusted to be able to sensibly call these discussions by following that principle. However, I became so dissapointed by the lack of clue shown by the admins who already commented here, I had no wish to wait seven days and hope a competent closure would occur, so I closed early. Frankly, it's beyond funny to be worrying about whether in doing that I followed the closing guideline correctly - and my closure is actually fine if you compare it to the speedy close guideline for Afd. Assuming you don't know that either, they allow closure by withdrawal by the nominator if there have been no supporting votes. That's what I did here, because I've got better things to do with my time than trying top get admins to read guidelines. MickMacNee (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships → Isner–Mahut tennis match — I'd already done this as a pretty uncontroversial move, but Lowellian (talk · contribs) has reversed it, stating "the newer title could refer to any Isner-Mahut match (yes, for now, they've only played this once, but what about ...)". Now, he hasn't left a note here, so I've no idea what the possible future match "..." is supposed to refer to, but the old title satisfies WP:TITLE irrespective of what it might have meant. As of right now, no other past match between these two is notable. And per WP:CRYSTAL, we do not introduce uneeded WP:PRECISION into titles 'just in case', and the extra five words in the title is one hell of an over-precision, for zero benefit. For anyone who is not aware of our naming rules, and thinks maybe the extra words are helpful to the reader who may not know that this is the only notable match between the two, I would point out that "2010 Wimbledon Championships" are the third, fourth and fifth words of the article's opening sentence. There was absolutely no need for that move to be reversed, and it should be undone. This is Wikipedia disambiguation 101 franky, it's a shock to me to find Lowellian is an admin (although due to the protection, he had to be an admin to reverse it). MickMacNee (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeash, what a rhetoric. By that reasoning we can drop 'tennis' from your proposal as well, because they don't compete in other sports. I'm all for keeping things short, but when we are really 'coining' titles because there is nothing else we can base the titles on, then having them a bit descriptive is useful. I prefer the current title, though I am not sure if the addition of 2010 is really needed. And as a fellow admin I resent the tone towards Lowellian, that you present in this opening of the discussion. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer shorter titles, but the current title seems appropriate. — Timneu22 · talk 13:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion that my rationale means we can also drop 'tennis' also is just, well, ridiculous. Your and his status as an admin is utterly irrelevent, except of course that both of you are supposed to have a clue about the policies referred to in the request. If pointing that out upsets you or him, so be it. Deal with it. We do not choose titles based on people's knowledge of tennis players, in the exact same way we don't add extra precision where it really isn't needed, using real examples, not idiotic straw men examples. MickMacNee (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why you are dragging individual editors into this discussions. That said, there is no reason why an administrator has to know all the editorial guidelines (which would be impossible), or why he cannot be an editor when he is also an administrator. An article being protected has no effect on that either. It would be different if the page was move protected due to a dispute, but it was protected in order to prevent pagemove vandalism. As such all your arguments reflecting on Lowellian are unnecessary and the only thing that is relevant is having a discussion on which name is better. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If he wasn't an admin it would not be possible to revert. If it were not move protected, a simple mistake can be corrected by anyone without it becoming a move war and without having to start this tedious discussion, where the etiquette of not calling out an admin for not knowing policy is more important than him not knowing the policy in the first place, or knowing that with protection in place it was more prudent to start a discussion to seek clarification first as to whether he really does know the relevant policy or not, before reverting. Is it irrelevant he's an admin to the issue? You tell me. Is another admin turning up now and reverting getting into a wheel war or not? Or is he just correcting a mistaken revert in the normal consensus model? It's one thing to make a genuine mistake, even worryingly if you don't know all the rules but are an admin, it's another to know already that there was a reason for the move, and decide that you know better, and use your status as an admin to reverse that, even though you want to assert he's just another editor in this issue. MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are making way too much assumptions. There is no danger of a problem persisting, because it is a mainpage listed article and actively watched by many editors. The protection is also short and the article can be moved by anyone in the near future again. Well not atm, because now there is an active discussion in progress, but in general. Also the original move might be uncontroversial, but by someone opposed and reverted. Now a discussion is being held. The same would be required if both of you had the same access rights. There is no boo man and MoS guidelines are not policies. So just calm down and hold an actual discussion. You could start by inviting a certain interested party for instance. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea I haven't begun the policy discussion, look up, it's at the start of the section, as is normal. You are the person fixating on the admin aspect, and I'm just resplying by telling you how it's relevant. And sorry, but Just A Guideline is not a strong argument, the guideline works fine for a million and one naming decisions every day, why is this one any different? And who is this 'interested party' btw? MickMacNee (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Can we please get back to the discussing the requested move? The match doesn't have a common name currently and we don't know whether it will get one later, so I think a descriptive title is OK now. Many people will only see the article title in a search engine or category when deciding whether to click it and read the first line. Apart from its length, the match may be better remembered for the tournament it was part of than for the non-top players who were in it, and articles about a part of a sports tournament normally include the tournament name and year in the title. If we only went for brevity then we could have dropped both "tennis" and "match" from the suggestion and chosen "Isner vs. Mahut". This is similar to many in Category:Boxing fights, but those fights are usually individual events and not part of a tournament. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Isner vs. Mahut would not satisfy TITLE, that's a strawman argument, and not remotely relevant. Sure people might remember it for having happened at Wimbledon, but Wimbledon 2010 Mens Singles Round 1 Court 18 is not likely to be of any use as a title without the names, and as soon as you add the players names or some further clarification, the Wimbledon part again becomes redundant over-precision. This title takes up two lines on smaller screens, for no benefit. It's ridiculous. MickMacNee (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not just rename to Longest ever tennis match? 91.110.195.86 (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is about a particular match which just happens to currently be the longest professional tennis match. If Longest ever tennis match isn't a common name for this match then I don't think it would be a suitable title but it might be a redirect. However, we already have Longest tennis match records which is a general page about records where the matches can change. See this old version for a non-professional endurance record which is called the longest tennis match by many sources (Google Perkins Watkins "longest tennis match"), although "tennis match" seems a silly term to me for something with no end criteria and only stopping when a length record had been broken at 65-3 in sets. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title is both exact and descriptive, while the proposed title is neither. Courcelles (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Titles are not supposed to be exact, they are supposed to be precise enough to be identifiable, that's it. There is a difference. I could write a five line long title for this article that would be both descriptive and exact, it's already two, but it would still be over-precise. If you honestly think that people don't know what Isner–Mahut tennis match refers to, why do we even have an article on it? Adding Wimbledon 2010 helps those people how exactly? And assuming it helps them, which I doubt, how is it any more helpful than reading the exact same information in the first line? MickMacNee (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. "Isner–Mahut tennis match" is ambiguous and could refer to any Isner–Mahut match. What if they play another match in the future? Not only could they play more matches in the future, but they have already played another match in the past. The article needs to identify its subject, hence the "Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships" title. Redirects of simpler titles already make it easy to find the article. —Lowellian (reply) 03:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"What if they play another match in the future?" - there is no guideline anywhere that says that article titles must cater for possible future events. This is basic Wikipedia, CRYSTAL, DAB, NC, TITLLE, take your pick, they all go against doing this, for very good reasons. And besides, it is highly unlikely they will ever play another notable match together in their lives, except of course as a staged rematch of this, in which case it would go here anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually Mahut beat Isner in the second round of 2008 Artois Championships – Singles. Maybe this should be mentioned in the article. It's their only previous match.[10] PrimeHunter (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That should definitely be mentioned in the article. Thanks for digging that information up! —Lowellian (reply) 04:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

But it's not going to get its own article is it? nobody is going to see 'Isner–Mahut tennis match' as a title and confuse it with that match are they? MickMacNee (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A major part of the audience of an encyclopedia article is those new to the topic and not informed on it (hence why they're looking it up). "Isner-Mahut tennis match" could refer to any future match, or to that previous match at Artois. It is ambiguous. —Lowellian (reply) 04:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I just cannot believe how out of synch with ordinary practice you seem to be. As an admin no less. First off, the guidance is extremely clear - we do not set article titles to disambiguate from future events. The only exception I can ever think of, is for predictable events, like coincidentally, Wimbledon, where nobody is ever going to claim there won't be a 2011 Championship so we don't have to use 2010. If you think I'm just talking bollocks here, go and ask at any of the guideline talk pages for advice, if you won't read them yourself. Do not simply restate your opinion here as to what should happen if you genuinely don't know what happens elsewhere, because I know for a fact through many examples that it is simply not normal, or even IAR type exceptional, practice. People have considered the possibility of future events as they wrote those guideines, it is all in there. We are not into some new title creating territory here by suddenly having to write about a tennis match, and yes it is a descriptive title, but right now it is easily in the upper bands of length I would guarantee. I probably encounter maybe 1 or 2 new pages a week where the title justifiably takes up two lines on my screen. Secondly, there is no way on Earth that anybody has even heard of that 2008 match, let alone will they be expecting it to have an article here. What if they had met five times previously, what then? It's bizarre to even suggest we need to disambiguate all those. Only the most tennis obsessed person would even remember their previous match in 2008, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a specialist tennis almanac - again, these are not scenarios that have not already been considered and incorporated into the guidelines. In the real world, these are minor players, we don't even have multiple match articles for the top ten tennis players ever, so there is not even the slightest possibility that there could be a confusion, not from a Wikipedia stand-point, and not from the average reader stand-point. MickMacNee (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

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.

Match points

It's worth listing the number of match points each player had. Isner had 5 (won on his fifth); this is sourced anywhere. How many did Mahut have? I saw "had a couple" in some reliable source, but I'd like a number, not prose. — Timneu22 · talk 13:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mahut had none. I have seen claims he had 2 match points (including unsourced in our article where I removed it) but it's not true. He had 2 break points in the 101st game of the fifth set, at 50-50, 15-40. At the time he had held serve since the 1st set so it seemed very likely he would have served the match home after a break (indeed he also held serve the next 28 times), but he didn't break. I guess some sources confuse these break points with match points. Isner won 6–4, 3–6, 6–7(7-9), 7–6(7-3), 70–68, and always served first in the 5th set. Mahut only had 3 break points in the match [11] and only won 1, in the second set. Isner's 7-3 tiebreak in the 4th set could not have given Mahut a match point there, and then there are no places left for potential match points. If he did have match points then I'm certain lots of sources would have mentioned it, like with Isner's 5. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Mahut has none as far as the possible score would indicate. Why? See this. Notice it doesn't even mention break point conversions in that set; I could only construe that to be that there were none. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II visit

Re. ths. If it wasn't for this match, the visit of the Queen to Wimbledon would have been front page news in Britain. While some people might think this is 'irrelevant' to this article, plenty of people will value the context, both now, and years in the future, as a reminder of the general events of the day. God knows this article is already short and patchy at best, for what is supposed to be the tennis match of the millennia, without removing information some people will definitely find relevant. I won't edit war over it, but it should be restored if the justification for removal is just a couple of editors opinions as to what is and isn't relevant to other readers. MickMacNee (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you also just an editor with an opinion? You really need to calm down on this talk page. You seem to be pushing to WP:OWN. I just saw that sentence and felt it's irrelevant, so I removed it. Nothing more. — Timneu22 · talk 14:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the pages you link to please before making accusations. If I was owning the page I would have begun an edit war over the issue. But no, having reverted once already with an explanation as to how it was relevant, when I saw you simply re-revert saying it wasn't, I remained perfectly calm, and came to post here, hoping you would come up with a better explanation than simply restating your edit summary. MickMacNee (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith Timneu22. There is no need to accuse someone of WP:OWN right of the bat. And Mick, don't claim that you have a singular notice of what all readers in the world will be interested in, it equally isn't useful. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

My comment is simply in regard to his rants on this page about things his way. He's quite adamant. I won't lose any sleep about this article. I wish he'd calm down. — Timneu22 · talk 15:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I read somewhere that they considered moving courts so that the Queen could watch this match from the Royal box, but that they decided against it. Perhaps in that context it is worth a short mention. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs a Summary

Call me "not a tennis fan", but I've read 3 or 4 news articles on this topic and still can't figure out why this game lasted so long. I mean, this article simply needs a sentence in the first paragraph that states what rule wasn't being fulfilled.Mrcolj (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The final set needs to be decided by two clear games, and these guys just kept going mathcing 1 game for 1 game. And tennis does not recognise draws, so there has to be a winner, no matter how long the match takes. Is that what you are looking for? MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

MMMM. Doesn't that info belong in the intro in longest tennis match records? — Timneu22 · talk 20:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

2008 Artois Championships

If anyone could find some info about their previous matchup, that would work really well in the arcticle. 24.87.40.201 (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Right here is the link to the matchup!69.137.121.17 (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Stats Page for this match!69.137.121.17 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles to dig through on the match.69.137.121.17 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Quote From Guardian

I am reverting to, and reposting, the complete quote that MickMacNee (talk) keeps editing back to one line. I have already reported him to admins for edit warring, and the admins consensus was to return here and get a consensus for changing from the original quote and post. Please do not remove the entire and complete quote until a clear consensus has been reached. I originally added the entire quote because it encapsulates what many others were saying about the match. Please read it and state what you think about the quote. I think the entire quote is important, as gutting it as MickMacNee (talk) has repeatedly done completely changes the meaning of the quote. Please let me, and the discussion board, know what you think and then a consensus decision, based on all the comments offered (and not just one editor's opinion as was happening before) can be reached about the entire quote remaining, being reduced or removed. It is in the "Reaction" section of the article. Themoodyblue (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee is right and you are wrong. Your quote is far, far too long for the article, and MickMacNee's one-line version appropriately captures the historical significance of the match. YLee (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the quote is too long. Half Price (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, it's a great quote and not excessively long. I'd keep it. Ericoides (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a better link for reference? I'm not able to find the original quote. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Nor I, despite a search on their website. I've tagged it with {{full}}. For what it's worth, I think the full version of the quote is better, but it certainly needs an accurate reference. Modest Genius ^talk 22:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The reference was in the Comments Section related to the specific story that has already been archived. I am trying to find out how one can reference the archives. Until then, I did change the reference to the Guardian archives section. Apparently they archive the comments when the next production cycle is posted on the paper's mainpage. I will keep researching how to reference and access it from the archival section. Obviously, I think the longer quote is better; partly because if you start cutting it down, no matter how it is done, it starts losing important parts of its meaning, which is why I thought it was so powerful in the first instance. Themoodyblue (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• First off, the conclusion of this AN3 report was not as you claim, to put the material back and have a discussion. It was to get consensus on your insertion of disputed material. I will point you one last time to the WP:BRD page which outlines how this is supposed to be done. The 'B' part, is your insertion of a huge and NPOV violating comment into the article, for what appear to be editorialising reasons. I am perfectly entitled to oppose it by removing it, the 'R' part. The 'D' part, the discussion, comes next. There is no second 'R' part where you get to reinsert the material, that is what is edit warring, and the discussion does not open as you have done here, by demanding that it not be removed by anyone until the discussion concludes. Still, this is all process wonkery, and I don't want to waste any more time on it when I'm really not convinced it's sinking in with what appears to be a very novice editor. So, to the content. The quote is ridiculously long, it is so long infact it could almost be a copyright infringement, if it were a reporter's work (which I will come to next). The justification for adding the whole thing is apparently, according to what the article says right now, was that it "seemed to sum up most of the comments". I initially thought this referred to all the other press reaction to the match, but it appears it wasn't(still coming to that). And even if it was, it is a pretty blatant peice of editorialising, which is not Wikipedia's role, as well as being a direct and blatant violation of WP:NPOV, by notionally putting this one random newspaper's opinion of the match above all others using such a massive quote, on the basis of editor's views of it. But lastly, which is something I am just annoyed for myself as much as anyone for noticing at the start, is that it now appears that this was just a quote from some random person in The Guardian story's reader's comments section. This is no better than some random Wikipedia editor deciding to insert his own views of the match into the article. As such, it is simply inadmissable period, whatever size was used. So for all these reasons, I'm removing it again. MickMacNee (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize the quote was from a random commenter. In that case you are absolutely right, the quote does not belong in the article. Tbellum99 (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

While the response to this match was overwhelmingly positive, it's had its fair share of detractors who criticized the players for being unable to break each other, and the match itself for being too boring. The response section now, especially with the hyperbolic quote, is too one-sided. I think it would improve neutrality if we could dig up some good sources who have a different view of this match. Tbellum99 (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy Roddick

Why is Roddick mentioned? Nothing to do with the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George Machiavelli (talk • contribs) 02:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking about. His relationship to the match is explained in the very sentence in which Roddick is mentioned: as the article states, "Isner drank a 'recovery shake' and took an ice bath. Andy Roddick brought take-out food for him and his coach, including 'three boxes of pizza, all sorts of chicken and mashed potatoes'." —Lowellian (reply) 21:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio table

Is the section of Wimbledon statistics not a WP:COPYVIO? Do these statistics "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and [their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I think not. Even though this information is referenced does not give us the right to take all this information verbatum from the Wimbledon site. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Originally, not all of the info was there. I do think the information is necessary, or at least the initial version of the chart, to show the enormity of the match's scope: aces, points, etc. — Timneu22 · talk 18:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

IANAL but I would personally dispute that bare stats such as these, that could have been derived by anybody who watched the match, are copyrightable as original works. And if they are, fair use because removal is detrimental is a reasonable case imho, given the topic of the article. However, the material may also come under database right, which is a UK law but not a US law, which is just a whole other kettle of fish in terms of Wikipedia/editor liability. MickMacNee (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

P.s. That's not to say I don't object to removal on a precautionary basis, unless or until editors with more experience in copyright can weigh in. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This information, like phonebook information, are plain facts and not copyrightable per for instance Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service. They are copyrightable in the UK where there sweat of the brow and database copyright, but this is a US based website. Still, i'm not sure if the presentation of this is the best presentation we could have. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Scoreboard

I changed the scoreboard from Isner-Mahut to Mahut-Isner, because that's the way the draw was, but they change it again. In tennis, the results, are always shown just as the actual draw. In this case, Mahut was at the top and Isner at the bottom. then why change it? --201.199.71.26 (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I understand the title for the article but not the order in the scoreboard. --201.199.71.26 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The scoreboard should be like this:

Line Score:

	1 (32')	2 (29')	3 (49')	4 (64')	5 (491')
Nicolas Mahut (Q)	4	6	7	63	68
John Isner (23rd)	6	3	67	7	70

--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

records

Can anyone tell me what this means?: "John Isner served his 79th ace to take the final set to 39–38 with serve.[36]" Doesn't make sense to me...E2a2j (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

John Isner served his 79th ace to take the final set to 39–38 in games with both players holding serve so far in the set. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The 36 refers to a reference someone has placed. Simply south...... 21:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-prot

I put a semi-protection on this for 3 days due to people unable to resolve where to put the information regarding the rematch in the article. Can we resolve the differences here? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Mahut's book

Mahut wrote a book about the match, called "The match of my life" (it's in French, but I forgot the French title). Surely that's significant enough to be mentioned here. 128.12.240.253 (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Could have met up in 2012...

Looking at the Mens draw for the 2012 Wimbledon Championships, it appears that Isner and Mahut could have met in the second round had Isner beaten Alejandro Falla. Should this be mentioned in the article? —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Where's the tweet button?

This is one of those things I would link to on Twitter, therefore displaying Wikipedia's need for a tweet button.67.142.179.23 (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828004907/http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/schedule/schedule12.html to http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/schedule/schedule12.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828004907/http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/schedule/schedule12.html to http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/schedule/schedule12.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828004912/http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/schedule/schedule13.html to http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/schedule/schedule13.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207111944/http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/stats/day11/1160ms.html to http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/stats/day11/1160ms.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625201130/http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/schedule/schedule11.html to http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/schedule/schedule11.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207111944/http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/stats/day11/1160ms.html to http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/stats/day11/1160ms.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/draws/qs/qsdraw.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100626215350/http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/articles/2010-06-24/201006241277407979788.html to http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/articles/2010-06-24/201006241277407979788.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2011-05-27/201105271306517303402.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100629143315/http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/stats/day12/1230ms.html to http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/stats/day12/1230ms.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110619001947/http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/stats/day12/1304ms.html to http://2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/stats/day12/1304ms.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100626104049/http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/john-isner-nicolas-mahut-make-history-with-wimbledon-epic-062310 to http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/john-isner-nicolas-mahut-make-history-with-wimbledon-epic-062310
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080427015810/http://montecarlo.masters-series.com/1/en/news/newsarticle_1033.asp to http://montecarlo.masters-series.com/1/en/news/newsarticle_1033.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Isner Aces

I just watched the match on Wimbledon's youtube channel, and according to both the commentator (McIntosh) and the text overlay, Isner scored his 112th ace at 15:30 in the 69th game (his last service game). The score card says that he scored another ace on his next point (30:30), but the film clearly shows he didn't! Mahut failed to return the service, but it was no ace, and neither were the remaining two points (40:30 and the game point). So, as it seems, Isner's world record should be reduced to 112 aces, or was the earlier count of 112 already wrong? --2003:E2:3728:DD89:107A:414:EBDD:A6ED (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)