Talk:Wimbledon Championships/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ball Boys & Ball Girls

I remember watching a mini-documentary on ball boys and ball girls at Wimbledon last year, I thought this article could do with a little section on them? But I cannot think on what to include, any ideas or help? Thanks. --JJMan 12:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• What about a précis of the material to be found here - [3] Ericoides 20:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

TV coverage

Any chance of mentioning its travails on US television since HBO had to give up its daytime coverage during the week? --Sephiroth9611 16:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Miscellaneous

Any idea who sponsors wimbledon? Slazenger? They seem to have very few endorsements on court. How is that possible?

Does this help you: http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/officialsuppliers/index.html DavidB601 21:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Where is the doubles?

---

well i have added the doubles champions however don't know opponets or scores. But this page really needs to be tidied up as it is now very big with results. - fonzy

---

I think the historical results would be best moved to a separate page, maybe List of Wimbledon champions. matthewmayer

More than that, I think the lists could reasonably be divided up into mens singles, womens singles, mens doubles, womens doubles, and mixed doubles... (with appropriate see alsos on each page for easy navigation) Evercat 23:23 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Though admittedly, now that I think of it, that would make it harder to see all the winners from a particular year... Evercat 23:24 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

The opening sentence "The British Open is an annual lawn tennis tournament also known as Wimbledon" suggests that it is officially called "the British Open" is it? I'venever heard it referred to as this. I don't think the term "British Open" has ever appeared on any official promotional material that I've seen. Mintguy 18:46, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

---

I went last friday - i'll do some work and add a photo or two after my last A-Level tommorow! -ricjl 19:13, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

"No. 2 Court bears the nickname The Graveyard, since it is here that many seeded players are knocked out." This is a myth not a fact! -ricjl 19:17, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Changed (ricjl 18:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC))

---

Can we get the \/\/ alternative logo in here too? They're often shown together. (ricjl 18:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Military / Services Personnel

Wimbledon traditionally has uniformed Military personnel acting as stewards in addition to a Police presence. This seems pretty unique in UK sporting events, but I have no idea why it is the case. I can't find anything on the official Wimbledon site. Does anbody know how this came about? --Bryces 18:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I should think that heightened security at Wimbledon is a result of the 07/07 Islamist terrorist attacks on the London Transport networks. With so many people visiting and with so much going on, as well as the space being so crowded, Wimbledon would be a key target for any terrorist operating within the borders of the mainland United Kingdom. Although you may not know it, most major tournaments have some kind of severe protection, particularly within the United Kingdom. Several vans of riot police are always on standby whenever there is a football match that could be particularly antagonistic on. The Olympics in 2012 and the UEFA championships in 2009 will also warrant higher-order protection from the UK security services, particularly MI5. You're probably safer within a major sporting event in the UK than you are walking the street. --JavaJawaUK 21:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I've been going to Wimbledon annually for the past 10 years and can confirm that the police/services presence has always been high. What has changed is the level of security checking on entrance to the grounds since 11th September 2001 and 7th July 2005.

According to [4], service volunteers on leave have been used to provide crowd management since 1946. Drc79 09:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Borgs 5 consecutive

Always mentioned by commentators as one of the greatest feat, but not on the list of records. Why? Should Borgs strike be labelled most consecutive wins since Wimbledon became international (if that's the case) or most consecutive wins in the last 100 years?

Surely the records table should mention it is the last 100 years, or in the Open Era or something, since William Renshaw got 6 in a row in the 1880s. He can't just be wiped from the records because of the era he played in. Ben davison 13:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In Willie Renshaw's day Wimbledon was not a tournament, but a challenge match, wherein everyone else competed to play last year's champion. Borg's (and now of course Federer's) five are thus a tournament record. Another frequently-cited statistic is that this is an open-era record, since before 1968 only amateurs were allowed to complete.

(This is also assuming, of course, as usually seems to be the case, that women don't count: Martina Navrátilová won six in a row (1982–87)). Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Money

There is some problem with the conversions to US$.

Currency values change. For example, Jan 2006 and £1 was worth between $1.55 and $1.75. Now in Jan 07, the £1 hovers consistently near the $2.00 mark. There are always fluctuations in currency, especially when they are not tied down to an RSS feed.--JavaJawaUK 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Attendance figures ?

I am looking for the 2006 attendance aggregate but can't find it. Any chance of adding a history of attendance to this article ? --Rulesfan 03:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates

How about putting in the actual dates, not just 'every June and July'? blucat AT optusnet.com.au

The dates are very rarely the same, as it always starts on a Monday. I have change it with respect to this. --81.178.69.196 12:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the edit made by 192.63.62.252 to include at least the <ref> to the dates link. I think this is a good compromise, between being clunky and accurate. --81.179.123.35 12:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Champions section

I am not sure about this section. It contains a lot of slang and POV. It is also very Brit-centric and could do with a general tidy. I may give it a go. Nda98 07:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

3rd fastest surface?

Is this true? I know that speed is reduced to what it used to be, but I believe it is still fastest of Slams. And I've looked at statistics which may be seen as indirect proof of what I'm saying. At WTAworld one of the users made comparison of Slams and here are results for combined 1st and 2nd round (all of this was to begin with taken from official sites of Slams):

    Return games won:               WTA  40.24% RG 07, 39.43% AO 08, 38.51% AO 07, 35.34% USO 07, 31.53% Wim 07
                                    ATP  24.03% AO 07, 23.78% RG 07, 23.46% AO 08, 21.93% USO 07, 17.31% Wim 07
    Server points won:              WTA  54.37% AO 08, 54.56% RG 07, 54.75% AO 07, 56.43% USO 07, 58.06% Wim 07
                                    ATP  61.86% RG 07, 61.98% AO 08, 62.20% AO 07, 63.32% USO 07, 65.61% Wim 07
    Aces (out of total points):     WTA  02.49% RG 07, 02.67% AO 08, 03.25% AO 07, 03.55% USO 07, 04.05% Wim 07
                                    ATP  05.25% RG 07, 06.58% AO 08, 08.28% USO 07, 08.53% AO 07, 08.59% Wim 07

Legend: RG 07 is Roland Garros 2007 (Red Clay), AO 08 is Australian Open 2008 (Plexicushion), AO 07 is Australian open 2007 (Rebound Ace), USO 07 is US Open 2007 (DecoTurf), and Wim 07 is, of course Wimbledon 2007 (grass). Also WTA is for women and ATP is for men. Anyone with knowledge of tennis can see that Wimbledon's grass is the fastest. Aces are easier hit on faster surface, server will win more points on faster surface and returner will win fewer games on faster surface. So where did someone get the information that Wimbledon is now slower than USO and AO, when in fact as one can see new AO surface is almost as slow as red clay. By speed of surface from this statistics they go like RG 07, AO 08, AO 07, USO 07, Wim 07. Requiem mn (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to delete that comment now since obviously nobody can cite anything to support it.76.124.8.58 (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User "8.58", i wonder if you would please consider restoring the text you deleted today -- you only put the citation-requested tag on the text today, and a reputable media source did report somewhere that Wim has the third-fastest speed. I will try to find that source. The above WTAworld stats might be explained by the also media-reported point that Wim has the first-lowest bounce height. User "Requiem", please give the exact Web address of those stats. Thanks both very much. Bo99 (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the following section, which is a continuation of this one, because I had to add extensive material. So this discussion continues next: Oconnell usa (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

CONTINUATION OF 3rd fastest surface?

From the main article, I removed the following section, so that it can be parsed and analyzed here, so that it can be rewritten, authenticated and then reinserted into the article.

Disputed Section re Speed

The following paragraph is disputed and was removed from the main article so that it can be discussed, rewritten as necessary, authenticated with scientifically-verifiable cites and then reinserted into to the main article.

"The speed of 100% rye grass is much slower than the 80% rye grass mix previously used. This change has made the Wimbledon court surfaces fall from being the "fastest" (slickest) Grand Slam tournament surface to the third fastest, behind the U.S. Open and Australian Open. This slowing of the surface tends to disfavour serve and volley players and tends to favour baseliners. However, another feature of grass tends to favour serve and volley players -- grass is the least bounce-producing of the Slam surfaces. Probably as a result of the changes in the grass, the serve and volley strategy has been less common among men at Wimbledon since around 2002. Among women, the serve and volley strategy has been uncommon at Wimbledon since around 1980."

Contradictory Cites

Without having taken a significant amount of time to reserach the question, I found two cites that provide data which seemingly contradicts the above disputed section.

First, Wimbledon's own site contadicts some of the statements. It states that "The courts are sown with 100% Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward so that it can better withstand the increasing wear of the modern game, [and] Independent expert research from The Sports Turf Research Institute in Yorkshire, UK, proved that changing the grass seed mix to 100% Perennial Ryegrass (previously 70% Rye/30% Creeping Red Fescue) would be the best way forward to combat wear and enhance court presentation and performance without affecting the perceived speed of the court." Thus: 70% (not 80%), and "performance without affected the perceived speed of the court".

Second, I have been reading a book, Technical Tennis, by Rod Cross and Crawford Lindsey (2005, Racquet Tech Publishing, Vista, California USA). It's full of scientific analysis of "racquets, strings, balls, courts, spin, and bounce". Concerning "ball bounce off the court" at pages 97, the authors write, "COR [the coefficient of restitution] is about 0.75 for grass, 0.8 for hard courts, and 0.85 for clay courts. . . . The ball's vertical bounce will be highest and fastest on clay, lowest and slowest on grass." (Note that here the authors are referring to the vertical speed, not the horizontal speed.) At pages 99-100, concerning the horizontal speed, the authors state, "The horizontal speed immediately after the bounce from the court depends primarily on teh amount of sliding friction generated between the ball and the court and its duration and direction. Figure 3.7 shows a good example of the effects of friction for different courts on the horizontal speed of the ball. If the ball is incident on the court at a low angle, around 20 degrees or less, which is typical of a fast first serve or a low, hard groundstroke, then the ball will slide throughout the bounce. In that case, the horizontal speed of the ball when it bounces will depend on whether th ecourt is rought or smooth, and it also depends on teh angle of incidence." Figure 3.7 at page 100 shows the following: if the horizontal speed is 80 mph immediately before the bounce (which is the typical speed for a serve of 100 mph) then the horizontal speed after the bounce is: 48 mph on a clay court; 53 mph on a hard court; and 58 mph on a grass court.

However, at this point, I am not going to insert the above facts into the article, because more research is needed. In particular, we need to determine if there are any scientifically-valid studies, not of the clay versus grass in general, but of the specific courts at issue: the acrylic hard courts at the USTA Bill Jean King Tennis Center, the plexicushion hard courts at Melbourne Park, and the grass courts at Wimbledon.

So, please review the literature, insert your results, and let's together try to get a definitive answer to this question about relative speed.

Thanks Oconnell usa (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(the below was added by Bo99 (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC):)

==References in the surface-speed section==

Hi Oconnell usa. Thank you for pursuing accuracy on this matter. The matter might be entirely with you -- my contribution is mostly done -- a user had quickly deleted the description that another user had written, which was a description that i too had seen supported by the Aus Open fellow's statements, so i found those statements and added the seemingly coherent picture back into the article. But indeed on a skim the sources you have added do look contradictory to the AO fellow. So just a thought -- maybe the article could just admit and describe an unclear state of the public commentary. No true need to reply to me. Keep up the good work. Bo99 (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Here's some grist for the mill: "But the biggest change at Wimbledon, of course, was to the grass. In 2001, Wimbledon tore out all its courts and planted a new variety of groundcover. The new grass was 100% perennial rye; the old courts had been a mix of 70% rye and 30% creeping red fescue. The new lawn was more durable, and allowed Wimbledon's groundsmen to keep the soil underneath drier and firmer. A firmer surface causes the ball to bounce higher. A high bounce is anathema to the serve-and-volley player, who relies on approach shots skidding low through the court. What's more, rye, unlike fescue, grows in tufts that stand straight up; these tufts slow a tennis ball down as it lands. ... baseliners have excelled since ... ." <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1815724,00.html> Bo99 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Serve and Volley

While wimbledon is still probably the fastest grand slam, the courts are now not that conductive to serve-volley play. you tend to see more net play at the USO and AO then WMBDN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.50.47 (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Avoid personal and nebulous comments

Quite a bit of the article relies on personal observations and nebulous comments.

For example, "The tournament duration is subject to extensions for rain." Well, that's pretty much true of any tennis tournament. So what? Perhaps it would have been better stated as, "The tournament tends to be interrupted by rain.", which, admittedly, is also a "so what?". But, if it's followed by a chart or similar indicating years where it was significantly delayed by rain (i.e., entire days were missed), at least it would prove the author's point.

Another example, under "Champions": "Among the four major titles, Wimbledon is the one that generates the most anxiety for the British." That's a personal observation, for which there is no scientific evidence. I'm not saying it isn't true, but it doesn't belong in an encylopedic entry.

And don't get me started on the lack of punctuation! (e.g., "In 1875 lawn tennis" should read "In 1875, lawn tennis")

There are more, but I'm getting lazy in my old age!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaizun (talk • contribs) 21:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

um, no sorry that comma after 1875 is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.124.175 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Draw Procedure

This article should have a new section on the draw procedure. This year (2008), the men's and women's singles draws include a total of 128 players. Of these, one-fourth of them (the top 32, as determined by the seeding committee) are seeded. However, in the draw sheets, these 32 players are _not_ assigned positions 1 through 32 on the draw sheet. Instead, the procedure is much more complicated:

Seed 6 is placed at the top of the top half of the draw, and Seed 2 is placed at the bottom of the bottom half.

But the placement of Seeds 3 and 4 is not an automatic assignment but is drawn at random. As a result, in 2008, in the men's draw, Seed 3 (Djokovic) was drawn into the top half (Federer's half), while, in the women's draw, Seed 3 was drawn into the bottom half.

This year, and almost every year I can remember, this draw procedure causes lots of confusion and discussion. ERGO: this article should have a new section on the draw procedure at Wimbledon. In fact, if the draw procedure at Wimbledom is the same (basically) as that at the other major tennis tournaments, this should be made into a separate articles.

I'd like to help, but I have two problems.

First, I myself do not understand the exact procedure. It was broadcast this morning (June 20) from Wimbledon, but the procedure was not described in detail.

Second, I do not have any good references. I have searched unsuccessfully for an explanation. I am exchanging emails with a representative of AELTC and have asked for a copy of the actual rules book.

I will continue to monitor this work and would be grateful for the help of other experts.

Oconnell usa (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ground Section

This should be reorganized more logically and with subsections. I'll help when I can. Oconnell usa (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What's significant about 1968?

The chart at the bottom shows an entry for "Before 1968" and "After 1968", but it doesn't explain the significance of 1968. I'm assuming (based on search for "1968" within the body of the article) that this is because that's when the "open era" began, but I think the chart should somehow make this more clear. Can someone who's more familiar with the sport clarify the chart? Cogswobbletalk 15:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Because before 1968 it was old people that we don't care about any more, so they don't really count. It's a bit like England's 1966 World Cup winners - they're old, and don't really count either —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.150.223.43 (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Guitar Instrumental Theme Tune on BBC Wimbledon Match of the Day in the mid 70s

What was the opening and closing theme(s) for late night Wimbledon MoTD in the 70s (the Nastase/Connors years)? I am specifically thinking of a guitar instrumental, maybe the Shadows or something like that? Please tell me someone, it's driving me nuts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.194.219 (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Logo query?

Why is the "W" logo included? The badge of the All England Club is the crossed racquets; if I recall correctly, the "W" is a trademark of Wimbledon sportsware, which has no connection at all with the Championships except that it paid the Club a bunch of money for unfettered use of the name.

Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wimbledon, current year, in template?

In the opening template, to the right, there should be a wikilink to the article covering Wimbledon the current year, i.e. 2008 Wimbledon Championships for this year. Could somebody improve the template with this feature? However, I've added a link under the See also-headline now, and in the article's opening paragraphs. Mårten Berglund (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I found a non-used variable in the template, "Current", which have this feature mentioned above. So I have now completed that variable with this year's tournament. The US Open tournament, uses this feature as well. And I also made some graphical improvements to the template, making the current year link (conditionally) appear in the bottom of the template instead, and changing place on the Grand Slam-bar and the Official Web-bar (felt more logical). Mårten Berglund (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The terra cotta warriors picture

Hello to the editors who keep this page on their watchlist. I have a question re this picture. I am wondering why it is in the article as there seems to be no context or information to go along with it (at least not any I could find and my apologies if I missed it). It isn't particularly representative of the grounds so I am wondering if it needs to be here. Now I am not necessarily asking for its removal but I think that it should have some information to explain its presence. I notice that it is from this years tournament so the question is are they a permenant display or were they only here for this year? If the answer is the latter might this pic go better on the wikipage for the '08 tourney? Thanks in advance for any help that you can give. MarnetteD | Talk 05:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the warriors are the top eight seeded men of 2008 in order, the picture definitely belongs in the 2008 Wimbledon Championships - Men's Singles where I've added it. Given the history of the terra cotta warriors, it probably is a one time tie-in with the Beijing Olympics. I'm not certain of that, so I'll leave it to others to judge whether the picture should remain in the general article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The real terra cotta warriors were being displayed in the British Museum at the time.--62.189.165.198 (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"prestige is the greatest": wikipedia seems to require multiple sources for that:

the guideline:

-- "exceptional claims in Wikipedia REQUIRE high-quality reliable sourceS; if such sources are not available, the material SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources>, block-capitals and capital s added

-- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is ... that material added to Wikipedia has ... been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability>

application of the guideline:

The factual claim that Wim is "the most prestigious" seems to be an "exceptional claim", which thus "REQUIRE[S multiple] high-quality reliable sources", block capitals added.

There is not yet a single cited source, so the Wim article does not yet have integrity on this point. I like Wim, but i like Wiki more.

Let's try to avoid or delay the required removal or re-wording of the unfootnoted exceptional claim, by adding a support-required tag, i.e. "{{fact}}".

Does anyone have any wikipedia-valid issue with that limited proposal, which they can support with detailed analysis based on wikipedia policies, text, etc., with specific webpage citations?, as i have given here. I would be very open-minded to seeing any such analysis. Thanks very much in advance. Bo99 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your contentions and I think removing your request for a citation was wrong on several counts. I was going to revert that change, but rather than start a revert war I have reworded the intro and added some citations for a slightly weakened version of the prestige claim.

My feeling is that, while Wimbledon's preeminence was unchallenged till the end of the amateur era, it had been seriously called into quesion by the early 90s, when its grass was anachronistic and some of the top clay players didn't bother turning up. The impact of Sampras and Federer has restored some of the gloss. That's just my impression. Others may have very different views, but as long as they're not backed up with reliable external sources, opinions don't belong in the article. If something is very obvious, then it should be easier to find a verifiable source to add as a citation than to spend time arguing that there is no need to do so or to question the motives of those who request such. jnestorius^(talk) 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is and was eminently obvious [5] [6] [7] [8], hence my edit summary, to all but the most tiresome of POV pushing, wikilawyering users. The user above evidently spent more time drafting his wiki-lawyering and reverting other users who clearly see his tagging as the pushing of a non-controversy, rather than actually looking for sources himself, for his "extraordinary claim", despite his "love for wiki". I have rewritten the lead, further in line with the lead section summary guideline than your extremely short version, and have restored the prestigiousness claim to its previous correct position. MickMacNee (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But it remains an opinion, and I find it particularly galling that "most prestigious" finds itself next to something as blatently factual as it being the oldest. Perhaps, in the history section; "Wimbledon is often considered the most prestigious of the Slams", give reasons why people feel this way, and present a small counter-argument. Personally, although my greatest affection lies with Wimbledon and the French, the fact that at these two Slams half the field can't get to grip with the surface make them less prestigious. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In the 2008 tournament, five major events were contested, as well as four junior events and four invitation events. The longest final ever played was the gentlemen's singles on 6 July 2008 lasting 4 hours and 48 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decanted (talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Layout Problem

There is a problem with the layout of the top-right summary. There are two columns, and the right column is spaced too far to the right. I've compared the top-right summaries of the other Majors and cannot figure out what causes or how to fix this. Ideas? Oconnell usa (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Final Set

I have corrected a very common mis-statement about tie-breaks not being played in the final set. In 2003 Roger Federer beat Mark Philipoussis in a tie-break in the final set to win the Championship. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

They do not play a tiebreaker in the final set at the Australian Open, French Open or Wimbledon. Only at the US Open, do they play a tiebreaker in the final set. The match you were referring to was only 3 sets. At Grand Slams, men play best of 5 sets thus the third and final set of that match could have a tiebreaker. If you look at the 2008 Wimbledon final between Nadal and Federer, there was tiebreakers in the third and fourth set but no tiebreaker in the fifth and final set. The score was 6–4, 6–4, 6–7(5), 6–7(8), 9–7. The final set refers to the last set possibly played. This means the third set for women at Grand Slams and the fifth set for men at Grand Slams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.172.78 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Dress Code

It is mentioned in the introduction that there is a "strict dress code for players", this isn't mentioned at any other point in the article, could someone elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.131.62 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It means that players have to wear mostly white. I believe their outfits have to be 90% white. They have to wear white even during the practices on the grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.172.78 (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Graveyard of Champions

Any decent image of a former Champion losing on No. 2 Court would be welcomed for the article No. 2 Court (Wimbledon) Francium12 (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of the pony roller?

The first championship was held to raise money to buy a pony-drawn roller for the croquet lawns. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/bh_wimbledon.html MidlandLinda (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

This article could, like many others, do with a map. Mentions of 'Court Number 1', 'Aorangi Park', 'Somerset road' and so on, are no good unless (a) you have a map or (b) you know the area intimately.

That photo

When I saw the terracotta photo for the first time, while reading the article (also for the first time), I was dumbfounded. As Users Marnette and Caerwine (above), both point out, it should either have more information or be moved or both. It was only after some investigation that I realised that the picture was from 2008 - the present caption is no help at all. IMO it should be moved to the 2008 article. I'd do it myself, but I don't know how.

RASAM (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiLink References

It is very awkward to reference this article. Quite often people use [[The Championships, Wimbledon|Wimbledon]]. But, [[Wimbledon (tennis)|]] (implementing pipe-trick) would be shorter. I know it uses re-direct, but really would shrink some articles. I would like to change some of the larger tennis articles to use this reference. Any complaints? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Roddick 7 Time Winner?

Why does it say that Roddick won the title 7 times? I think it should be Sampras. Someone might want to change that :)

---

Fixed some stuff

I took out the stupid "trivia" section. Anyone with a brain should be able to guess the movie wimbledon is about wimbledon. I also changed the prize money into dollars next to the pounds.

Senior Tournament Accurate?

Does the tournament still have both a 35 and over AND a 45 and over gentlemen's doubles tournment? I don't see any reference to more than one "senior" tournment on the official website this year.

Coordinate with Other Grand Slam Articles

My last comment today: we should develop a template/outline for all four grand slam tennis tournament pages. This would make is easier for readers to navigate and compare them, and it would also make it easier to contributors to add information. Thoughts? (I'm especially interested in editors' thoughts.) Oconnell usa (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you. This would make Wikipedia's Grand Slam coverage better esthetically and practically. It might be difficult to change everything so we have to first come up with a general template. ANarayan 20:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hawkeye

Why hasn't hawkeye gotten a mention on this page? It is used on 3 courts after all, and I think its the only grand slam that uses it (i'm not sure though). Can anyone add it? Thanks Bineye (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all the grand slams use hawkeye . . . especially on stadium courts. I know Australian Open does for sure. Ashwin N (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

senior mixed doubles

Does anyone know when this event was instituted?Kwib (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Match ending time?

What happens when a match does not conclude by nightfall? The article says absolutely nothing about it. For eg., what would have happened to the 2008 Federer vs Nadal final had the match not concluded till absolute darkness? 67.87.220.121 21:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This happened with a men's doubles final a few years ago. When the chair umpire determines that it is too dark, he/she will announce, "Ladies and Gentlemen, play is suspended for today," and the match will resume the next day. (This was over the protests of the players - I think John McEnroe was one of them - who asked if they could finish the match (it was something like 12-all in the final set) with a tiebreak.) -- That Don Guy (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As there are no floodlights, a match that is not completed at dusk continues the next day. There is no arbitrary time that such a match takes a break for the night; the judgement of when the amount of light becomes insufficient for play is decided by the umpire on the evening of such an occurrence. Jim Michael (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Beginnings section plagiarized

The beginnings section comes almost word for word from the official Wimbledon tennis website, found here I do not know who has plagiarized, but I'm guessing that it is this article because no sources were cited. Free87 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Free87

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wimbledon Championships/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 6, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail. Has {{clarify}} and {{whom}} tags. There are many short, stubby paragraphs preventing the prose from flowing.

2. Factually accurate?: Fail. Much of the article is unreferenced. Many of the references that are there are unformatted, being raw urls.

3. Broad in coverage?:

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.

Xtzou (Talk) 20:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Play on the second Sunday?

Isn't scheduling the men's singles final for the second Sunday a somewhat recent event? I thought the women's singles final was on Friday and the men's on Saturday, until one too many years when they were moved to Saturday and Sunday by rain resulted in the club making Saturday and Sunday the scheduled days for the finals. -- That Don Guy (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A few years ago, the finals were moved to a day later, as you say. I don't know the reason, but I think the most likely reason is to allow more people to be able to watch the finals both at the venue and on TV, as millions of people have to work on Fridays. This article should say which year this change was made. Jim Michael (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean?

The part that says

Men's draw 128S (128Q) / 64D (16Q) [1] Women's draw 128S (96Q) / 64D (16Q)

needs to be made clearer. I'd do it myself, but don't know what it means! I am not a tennis fan, so perhaps to tennis fans it is clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.140.152 (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Champions' Ball

What happened to the Champions' Ball, and why? Perhaps that could be mentioned in the "Traditions" section? Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Still exists, just it's not that significan, to talk to the players about it. KnowIG (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Name Move from "The Championships, Wimbledon"

Why was this article moved from "The Championships, Wimbledon" to "Wimbledon Championships"? Isn't the proper name of the event the former, as noted in the article? If there was a previous discussion on this already, I couldn't find it in the archives. Starwrath (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That is kinda odd. The guy who did it, Dhruvhemmady, edited maybe one or two other tennis articles in his entire time on wikipedia and I don't recall it ever being talked about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Since I couldn't figure out why the move was made I moved it back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch of the missed move of the archives Msw1002. I had read it too (to make sure moving hadn't been discussed) so it's not like I didn't know it was there. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved