Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

Template:Maintained

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Wegner

I've nominated Oscar Wegner for deletion. You'll see why when you visit the page and read my comment on the AfD entry. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 19:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

lol...The guy who started the page has only that article to his editing credits. Me thinks Eztennisswing=OscarWegner. Pretty much all the googling hits lead to his own pages or his published books on Amazon. The Scientologist arena seem to have written about him also. That said, he is published and is in a couple tennis forums...he has talked on espn and "says" he has worked with major pros. It needs references and it's not like it's a massively long self bloating article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Oscar Wegner page should have been deleted as it did not comply with Wikipedia rules for writing a biography of a living person. However, Oscar Wegner is a notable person in the tennis world and there should be a Wikipedia page on him. The comments of Bushranger, MLA, Armbrust, Undertaker, MBelgrano and Fyunck are inaccurate or inappropriate. Mr. Wegner would like to write the text for his own page but I have explained to him that this is strongly discouraged, so I volunteer to write an unbiased, accurate, referenced article about him. As I am new to Wikipedia I need help in how to do so correctly and also need guidance on how to contact others and be contacted here on Wikipedia. Thank you for your help in this regard.Operalives (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel my comments were inappropriate or inaccurate and I searched for quite awhile to verify notability. What I wrote is what I found. You'll note that what I wrote here played devils advocate and mentioned some good things too. No rules I know of against him writing his own bio but with a living person the references should be plentiful and ironclad. They need to be printed or internet references that can be easily verified. Your best bet is to create it in a subpage called User:Operalives/sandbox. There you can edit, experiment and do whatever you like until you think it's ready. Then ask others here to check it out and make comments and suggestions to help out. I always found it easier to start an article by finding someone similar already in wikipedia. I would then edit, copy everything, and paste it into your sandbox page. Then tweak it and rewrite it to work with the new person. When you think it looks pretty good that's when you would again copy it and create the official page. Other help can be found at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The main problem is that there must be a third-party publication about him (e.g. interview). Still some claims that makes him notable has to be said within it. For guidance please look up Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article Guidelines where you'll find the notability criteria as well. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 09:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I thank you, Fyunck and Lajbi, for your suggestions. Question: Is there any way to correspond privately with those of you who are editors and/or administrators, or are all discussions "out in the open"? Operalives (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Some have private mailing available... I don't. You would mention the article here but ask for answers on the article's talk page. That way everyone who wants to can comment and help. You would do that when you think it looks reasonably good. So you would write the query on the article's talk page and let people know about it over here to begin with. Once comments start flowing on the talk page some/many will comment and click the "watch" tab on top of that page to keep track of followups. Some wiki people will be very critical, some will be very friendly and helpful, and some will write a lot but not say very much. :-) That's the nature of the beast around here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Fyunck. I am starting to get t he hang of it.Operalives (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

List of non-Grand Slam tennis statistics and records

I think this requires major modifications. It does not contain list of most number of ATP singles titles (only given details of Jimmy connors with 109 but does not list top 10 in the list) which is much important. There should also be a separate section on most number of ATP match wins. Also detailing is needed on all the sections. I think the same should be arranged in the following way

• ATP Wins / Titles
  • Most Number of ATP singles titles
  • Most Number of ATP singles match wins
  • Most Number of consecutive singles title wins
  • Most Number of consecutive final wins

• Winning Streaks
  • Longest Match Winning streaks (all surfaces)
  • Longest Match Winning streaks on Hard-courts
  • Longest Match Winning streaks on Clay-courts
  • Longest Match Winning streaks on Grass-courts

• ATP Masters 1000
  • Most number of ATP Masters 1000 titles
  • Most number of ATP Masters 1000 match wins
  • Most number of consecutive ATP Masters 1000 titles

• Year End Masters
  • Most number of Year end masters titles
  • Most number of Year end masters wins
  • Year End winners who does not loose a set

• Tournament Stats
  • Most number of titles in a particular tournament
  • Most number of consecutive titles in a particular tournament
  • Most number of consecutive wins in a particular tournament

I think Player records can be moved to separate page. Please let me know ur thoughts before proceeding with the changes. Fahidka (talk) 15:34 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The ATP records I disagree with. There is already a page with much more detailed info at ATP World Tour records. There are also now 2 masters 1000 articles. And while we could have a singles titles list it should not be limited to the ATP years... it should be historical. I also happen to like the players records here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thimking the same recently when I looked for a specific record and found this... Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 15:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I missed out the same. What a great article is this ( ATP World Tour records )!!!. I can found all which I was looking for. Tennis WikiProject team is doing great work here. I have added ATP World Tour Records to Template:Tennis records and statistics. Fahidka (talk) 14:58 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This might help. It can also be helpful in List of ATP Tour Grand Slam tournaments and Masters singles champions.Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have made some changes to make it more user friendly - giving flag icons in all, changing the arrangements etc. Please check the same. Fahidka (talk) 10:26 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that wikipedia frowns on "flagicon" but that if you do use it.... the first time a particular flag appears you should use "flag" instead of "flagicon." Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Longest match winning streak - match wise details

I think it is good to have a separate page containing match by match details of longest match winning streaks, especially for the top 10 winning streaks listed here. Let me know your opinion so that I can create separate page containing the details. Fahidka (talk) 16:40 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume one page per winning streak? I see one major problem with it. As an article it is noteworthy ONLY because it's a top ten winning streak so if someone new comes around and knocks them out of the top ten the old article would need to be deleted from wiki. If all on one page it seems like it would be an incredibly long set of charts for men and women. It would need to be linked to the player's career statistic page and I would think each would need the two losses listed... the one that started the streak and the one that ended the streak. Actually it it might be better to make the chart and plop it into the player's career statistic page rather than make a separate page for each streak. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be too much detail to list all matches in these winning streaks. I have linked the Federer years to existing articles where the streaks can be seen. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Added Federer's winning streaks under his career statistics. Please let me know if you have any comments on the same before proceeding to other winning streaks. Fahidka (talk) 07:54 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The tiebreaks are done incorrectly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done I fixed em up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Short tennis

I came across the article short tennis, and I was wondering, since the article states "it is recognised as a common training method by the ITF", why there were no interwiki links. So, I looked around, and found fr:Mini-tennis and de:Kleinfeldtennis, but I am not sure whether they are the same or a different variant on tennis. Please could someone clarify this? All three are played on a smaller court than normal, and are designed to be helpful for beginners and small children. Coyets (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I speak all three languages and what is common in them that they describe the sport as having a smaller court. Only the German version mentions the metric parameters, while the two others mention a softer ball too. Neither the French nor the German have references, while the English has four but none of them is significant. While Google translator translates Kleinfeldtennis as Mini-tennis in French as well as in English, I assume it's the same as short tennis. But with such few information available so far it could happen that these "training" tactics differ although they are all designed for children education. Maybe we should ask Pretty Green the creator of the page for clarification. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 16:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Or you could look on the ITF website. never seen any mention of it there, seems to be something that could be attributed to the new tennis 10s thingy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.252.47 (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, I've been away for the past few weeks. My comment that 'it is recognised as a common training method' is based entirely on the source here, in which the ITF endorses a couple of books on short tennis as ways of teaching the sport. 'Common' could perhaps be removed - on reflection that's probably my own addition and isn't necessarily supported in the source. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

10-and-under tennis was mandated by the ITF in August 2010 ITF RULE CHANGE and is practiced in countries around the world ITF PLAY AND STAY Other names for this program include QuickStart Tennis, Mini Tennis, Little Tennis. This is a huge development in tennis teaching worldwide (especially in the USA) and there are copious amounts of data available on it.Operalives (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Conforming to current accepted MOS

Would it be worth me going through all of the old tennis tournament draw articles and changing the draw templates to the ones currently in use? For example, 2011 Grand Prix Hassan II – Singles has the tennis3-v2 template with a top and bottom half, and also a finals section at the top, where the finals draw has full names, and the main draw has first initial, then last name. However, 2006 Grand Prix Hassan II – Singles has a different and inconsistent layout. I'm perfectly happy to go through all the old main draws, as a majority of them are simple to fix, but I just want to clarify that we have the tennis3-v2 layout as the preferred. Sellyme^Talk 00:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

They both look ok to me though only the 2006 Grand Prix Hassan II – Singles gets the tiebreak notation correct for wikiproject tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So adding both scores is correct? I'll go around and do that then. Sellyme^Talk 08:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct Sellyme. It was decided that many readers would not understand tennis notation so both scores are required for simplification, even in the draw brackets. They should be in superscript format. For me it's a pain to do because a lot of the notation is different... did they use "&ndash" script or simply "–", if there are hyphens I have to change them too and of course the tables are filled with "|-" so you can't change those hypens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Tennis event Template for Multi-sport events

I've created a template for tennis events at multi-sport events like the Olympics, PanAm Games, etc., called {{Tennis event MSE}}. It's similar to the tennis event boxes at Masters 1000 events, with the addition of the mixed doubles event (in preparation for the 20122 Summer OGs and the 2011 PanAm Games). But, the links to the other events below the champion information are repetitive if the events have an infobox with links to the other events (see Tennis at the 2011 Pan American Games – Men's Singles for an example). Also, some previous tennis events' singles and doubles competitions are named differently than the ATP/WTA events are (i.e. Men's singles instead of Men's Singles. Should they be capitalized or not capitalized? Thanks! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Tournament names

Should we begin to name the articles of tennis tournaments by their common name. In F1 articles, we don't use the sponsored names, just the common names, eg. we don't use name Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix, we use Malaysian Grand Prix. Hardly nobody speaks about BNP Paribas Masters or Heineken Open, instead we talk about Paris Masters or Auckland ATP tournament. --August90 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been discussed many times most recently here. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 17:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Seems that generic names are recommended. But what about the report pages? E.g. Queen's Club reports don't have the sponsor's name whereas e.g. Miami Masters reports have. IMO the sponsor's name could be used in report pages especially if the tournament has no own name, like in BNP Paribas Open and AEGON Championships' cases. But if the tournament has an 'own' name, then the sponsor's name could be dropped, e.g. SkiStar Swedish Open -> Swedish Open. --August90 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume by report pages you mean the links to something like 2010 Queen's Club Championships – Singles? I would think the sponsor name could be used in these cases. It's a specific year and a specific tournament. There will always have to be some exceptions but it will need to be case by case. Heck Queens was always the "London Grass Court Championships" for me and the world saw it that way for 90 years. No one called it the Queens Club Championships before that because it housed more than one tennis tournament. But it has slowly morphed into the Queens Club Championships in today's lingo. So while generic is recommended we will need to remain flexible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should mention both the sponsored and official name on the tournament reports. I think this article should be edited.

2010 Queen's Club Championships

Here's how it starts:

"The 2010 AEGON Championships was a tennis tournament played on outdoor grass courts. It was the 39th edition of the AEGON Championships..."

I think the generic name should also be mentioned. There hasn't been 39 AEGON Championships, instead there have been 39 tournaments at Queen's Club in the open era. IMO the article should start like this:

"The 2010 AEGON Championships was a tennis tournament played on outdoor grass courts. It was the 39th edition of the Queen's Club Championships..."

Another thing is naming these pages. I think that generic names could be also used in the names of tournament reports, as we never speak about e.g. 2010 AEGON Championships, we speak about 2010 Queen's Club Championships. But the first bolded name in the article should IMO be the official (sponsored) name. --August90 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully support using a mix of the two. For article naming, I recommend that if the sponsor is well known and has been sponsoring the tournament for a long time (e.g. Sydney Medibank International) then the sponsor's name can be used in the lead, whereas otherwise the common name would likely be the original name of the tournament, where one exists. Sellyme^Talk 01:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be better but also incorrect. It was always the "London Grass Court Championships" held at Queens club. In '79 it got sponsored and in '08 it got sponsored again. So saying there were 39 Queen's Club Championships is also incorrect. Queens Club has held other championships besides this particular tournament. It would be better written as "The 2010 AEGON Championships was a tennis tournament played on outdoor grass courts. It was the 39th edition of this tournament, held at Queens Club, in the open era." Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Still, if you say "Queen's Club Championships", everybody thinks about the Queen's Club ATP tournament, not other tournaments hosted by Queen's Club. I haven't seen the name "London Grass Court Championships" anywhere else than in Wikipedia. In Queen's Club Championships' discussion page one argument is that BBC uses name "Queen's Club Championships".

Anyway, in most cases generic name is the best option for the article title. Sponsored names are IMO OK if it's the common name of the tournament. And IMO the the title doesn't necessarily have to be the former non-sponsored name if it's not used in common speech. In some cases a good system is just naming articles like ATP Buenos Aires. --August90 (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that everyone calls it the Queens Club Championships and I have no problem with that being the generic name, but there have not been 39 Queens Club Championships just as there have not been 39 Aegon Championships. If you had grown up in the 60's and 70's you would have talked about the London Grass Court Championships at Queens Club, or the London Covered Court Championships at Queens Club. The name should be the Queens Club championship here but we need to be careful and accurate how we word the sentences within the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. There is not and has never been a tournament called "Queen's Club Championships". It would be interesting to know the name of the trophy. If it's London Grass Court Championship trophy, then we could call the tournament with it's old name "London Grass Court Championships". --August90 (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This site calls 2010 AEGON Ch'ships as Ch'ships of London. The history of London Ch'ships is explained here. So maybe the 'formal name' of this tournament is 'London Championships' or 'Championships of London'. But maybe we should also take into account the editions of this tournament held at London Athletic Club. --August90 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I checked two books I have, one of them the "Encyclopedia of Tennis - 100 Years of Great Players and Events" by Max Robertson & Jack Kramer. They call it the "London Grass Court Championships." However I think most call it Queens Club Championships today so maybe that's where it should stay for now. I emailed Queens Club to see what the trophy is named and I also asked what the tourney is officially named minus any sponsor. We'll see if they get back to me with a response or give me a link. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Queens Club just emailed me with a short answer... the name of the trophy is called the "The Queens Cup." I tried to find a source by googling the name but came up dry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So would it be a good system to refer to a certain year's tournament with its official sponsored name and to refer to a tournament in general with its non-sponsored/generic name? --August90 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's pretty reasonable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Another tournament whose name I've been wondering is Canada Masters/Rogers Cup. Its article calls that tournament with three names; the title is Rogers Cup, the first bolded name is Canada Masters, and the title of the infobox is Canadian Open. I don't know whether that tournament is anymore even formally the Canadian Open ch'ship, or is it just the tourny that used to be the Canadian Open. If it can still be considered to be the Canadian Open, then it would be relevant to talk about that tournament as Canadian Open. But if it's not anymore the Canadian Open, then I think the generic name should be Canada Masters. Of course, women's tournament isn't a Masters event, but Canada Masters would at least be a non-sponsored generic name. --August90 (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

attention on Oscar Wegner

As you can see the Oscar Wegner article has been recreated by Operalives. After having a first look on it I've easily found a dozen errors regarding its references and fetched a dozen tags on them. I follow the good faith principle, and assume that the creator lacks enough Wikipedia experience, otherwise I would nominate it for deletion for the second time though. I'll give it a grace period for a month or so and see if it improves but if not, AfD will be inevitable. In its current form the article is so gappy in its references that it equals as almost having none of them. Please read it for yourself because I'm afraid I'm too bold with a newbie. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 08:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Lajbi for your attention on the new Oscar Wegner page. It is intended to educate readers and to counter the previous suggestions that Mr. Wegner is not a notable person in tennis. Having spoken personally with or been privy to conversations with many of the greatest names in tennis regarding Mr. Wegner there is no doubt that he is very significant as both a witness to and participant in the pre-open era international circuit as well as a keen observer of the open era and major contributor to the development of modern tennis teaching techniques. The problem lies in published sources to validate statements of people such as Rod Laver, Charlie Pasarell, Ray Moore, Bud Collins, Butch Buchholz, Patrick McEnroe, Jose Higueras, Cliff Drysdale, etc. Since I do not have such material in writing I have used whatever I could find to substantiate events and opinions regarding Mr. Wegner. I appreciate any and all help in improving the page's content and citations as it deserves to remain on Wikipedia for the edification of readers. I am a newbie so I want to learn from you all through this. Please be specific in your comments with solutions, not just problems with the article. This is a learning experience for me, and hopefully for you as well.Operalives (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone identify this tournament?

Check this out: 2011 Samsung Championships Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I personally think it's a hoax... (Gabinho^>:) 10:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Check out Section 4 and Section 5. It has Gréta Arn twice and it changes flag color from the actual Hungarian to Indian. And it also a draw with a size of a Grand Slam with only women singles as "It was a singles only tournament. Many top players took part as it was a big tournament". Sound childish, isn't it? And most of all Google finds the Wikipedia page only. It IS a hoax. Must be deleted. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 13:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a hoax to me too plus we now must be suspicious of everything Saihimesh has attributed to wikipedia. I'll ask him/her about it nicely on their talk page and also ask if they've made any other hoax edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a hoax. Bally was nowhere near LA on that date. She came home after losing in Miami to prep for the clay |Oh and Venus is injured —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.216.40 (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted it as a blatant hoax. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Hagist

I nominated, but then withdrew my nomination for deletion of Fred Hagist after further consideration. He lost a Cincinnati Masters final back in the 1950s before it was a Masters (was known as the Tri-State Tennis Tournament), before the Open Era and the well organised ATP tour. The question comes down to how does the WP:NTENNIS apply to pre-Open era tennis players? Does criterion #3: "The player has competed in the main draw in one of the major professional tournaments" also apply to the amateur precursors of the current major tournaments, or not? You're opinions would be appreciated. The-Pope (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to be flexible on the pre-open era notability. To be honest I do think the list is already too liberal...just being in the draw of a 250 tournament is notable? I think not and I don't know who put that in the requirements. But back to Fred Hagist, he also played in several US Opens, making it to the third round in 1952. Being in a slam draw and being notable is debatable... but if you are notable for it in 2002 then you must be notable for it in 1952. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, and I don't want to appear to be canvassing, but you really need to add it to the article and the AfD to make your opinion count. The-Pope (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done on both AfD and the main article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Lilian Watson

The spelling of this player's name was discussed before, but no conclusion was reached. In addition to 100 Years of Wimbledon, by Lance Tingay, and The Official History of the Championships, by John Barrett, her name is also spelled Lilian in the 2010 Wimbledon Compendium, by Alan Little, published by the AELTC (who should know). I would submit that these sources carry greater weight than 21st. century newspapers, which seem to be the only source for the spelling Lillian. Rmallett (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Radarsnobles

Keeps conterversally merging the ATP International series and series gold pages into the 250 and 500 series articles. This has not happened on the WTA side i.e. tier 1 and 2 haven't been merged into the premier pages. He also had the cheek to say that he had discussed this somewhere, which he had not. I checked his contributions, the talk pages of said article the tennis page and this page and there is diddley squat of this 'so called consensus' So it's really a heads up keep an eye on him please 194.66.216.40 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Women's tennis in the United States

I created Women's tennis in the United States. It is very much a stub. Would love some help improving it. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Tennis articles in breach of MOSFLAG

It appears that tennis articles are in breach of MOSFLAG in that they are using flags in infobox and also to show the birthplace of the players. Is not the goal of wikiprojects to promote their article to featured article status which can't be done as long as they are in breach of our style guidelines. Mo ainm~Talk 11:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you per Wikipedia:MOSFLAG#Use of flags for sportspeople (except for the place of birth, which is indeed unnecessary). Since a tennis player will become notable if he/she represents his country in the Davis Cup, it is inevitable to include it his infobox as flags are allowed in representing the mother country in the Olympic Games. As Davis Cup hasn't got an bottom infobox extension on its own and it would be highly inadequate to add one so the nationality flag applies for his ITF affiliation as highest governing body as per "Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with.". See Michael Venus (tennis) for example who became notable when he switched nationality and thus played in an international level. For tennis events the exception mentioned here applies to us as well (FIFA World Cup equals the Davis Cup, they both are dedicated for the same purpose). Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 12:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The page you linked to is a prime example of why flags shouldn't be used in an infobox, I know nothing about tennis players but when I look at that infobox the 2 flags do not explain anything to me. Did he represent the USA in the Davis Cup and now represent New Zealand? And what extra information is added with the flag that the text doesn't convey? Also I would say the exception you also link to would do for articles on the Davis Cup not on individual tenni players.Mo ainm~Talk 13:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Oh my word. Talk about interpretation of the rules. Just because YOU think that it doesn't add anything does not mean that it shouldn't be there. Every sports person page has a flag for identification of the nation they repersent in their info box apart from snooker which doesn't include them for an entirely different reasons. 194.66.216.40 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Calm down IP take a chill pill, don't make statement that are incorrect no every sports person do not have flags in their respective infobox. Mo ainm~Talk 13:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Example which isn't snooker then. 194.66.216.40 (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney, Ronan O'Gara, Geoffrey Boycott, on a quick look need I get more? Mo ainm~Talk 13:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem none of those boxes have parameter for nationality as you play for a national team, now go and pick people with boxes which have the nationality parameter and stop taking the piss and bending stuff to your view. 194.66.216.40 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So you admit you are edit warring to insert a flag to represent someone's nationality? What about the reverts you did on 2009 SAT Bangkok Open – Singles and 2009 Internazionali di Tennis di Bergamo where are the nationality fields in those infobox, if that is the criteria you are using to make your judgement or are you jut following my edits and reverting? Mo ainm~Talk 14:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Someones throwing their toys out the pram cause they can't get their own way! Bless. How about you respond to my last edit. And perhaps if you didn't go I@VE GOT CONSENSUS when you hadn't then you wouldn't get reverted. But I see you just want to ban me so you can have your own way. But I ain't going to go through your edits so I guess your going to have to work harder to get rid of me. 194.66.216.40 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would I want to get rid of you? You are responsible for your own actions and nothing I could do could get you blocked only you would bring about that situation. You made a statement which I showed to be false, now why did you revert the two articles I listed above when they don't have the "magic" nationality parameter that you are using as your defence? Mo ainm~Talk 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah! now your moving the arguement from biography pages to tournaments. Be consistant in your arguement what are you exactly saying. But I see that you felt you couldn't be BOLD on any recent article and had to go to 2009 articles which no one is looking at cause you knew you'd get shouted down that your wrong. pathetic. 194.66.216.40 (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

My stance hasn't changed no flags in infobox is my stance according to MOSFLAG, I see again you are trying to deflect away from my question to you obviously you have no reasoning why you reverted or I'm sure you would have shouted by now also the articles I removed the flags from came up when I hit the random article link. Mo ainm~Talk 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop deflecting you changed the arguement from biblography to tournaments so fail yourself. One man campaign jog on son your a joke 14:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)