NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

Talk:Tennis/Catalogs/Famous players

From Citizendium
< Talk:Tennis
Revision as of 02:49, 5 November 2007 by Robert W King (Talk | contribs) (I see it.: new section)

Jump to: navigation, search

&uotCheck out Catalog_of_religions for I think a superior method than having just a list! Stephen Ewen 17:22, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I gotta say I don't think I've ever heard of a ;catalog" of human beings of any kind, although I suppose they do exist. "Catalog" make me think of Sears-Roebuck. But if you think this is a useful renaming, I have no objections. But I don't understand what more you think should then be done -- should each article about the individual tennis player then be put under the list of players in the "catalog"? It's possible, of course, but I don't see the utility of someone doing a "search" for Pancho Gonzales being sent via Redirect to that article under Catalog of prominent tennis players. By the way, is there a Catalog of presidents or Catalog of American presidents, just to find something similar? Hayford Peirce 18:16, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

"Famous" works. However, it's still a catalog of them, per a dictionary def.  :-) --Stephen Ewen 04:43, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Define famous

What would you consider a famous tennis player? Would it include all professional players that are notable, or only players that were World No. 1 at one point in their life? --Charles Sandberg 20:21, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

This is an obvious can of worms with no real answer. When I first came to CZ a couple of months ago and, on the Main Page, clicked on "Sports" there was a long red list of non-articles. Tennis was linked, but went only to a single, rather strange paragraph. I heavily edited the WP tennis article and imported it, then started creating CZ articles about some of the great old tennis players. I listed those under Tennis on the Main Page until Nancy objected and I created a new article called Prominent Tennis Players, which I put under the tennis listing on the Main Page. In the Prominent tennis players article, I then started listing the articles I had created. Stephen suggested that since Larry likes "Catalogs" I turn it into a "Catalog of Prominent Tennis Players". I objected to "Catalog" and Stephen, I believe, moved it to Famous tennis players. Then Larry added some header info about the project. And I've been adding various players since then. It struck me at some point that nearly all the "famous", or "great", or "prominent" old players had at one point been No. 1 in the world. So I figured that I might as well include all those who ever had been No. 1, even though some of them don't particularly interest me. Anyone who's ever been No. 1 probably is going to be famous enough to eventually merit an article for himself AND be included in the catalog or whatever it's called.
Another issue though: Until about 1972, when the ATP or whoever they are started issuing their own rankings, there were no official world rankings. Each country had its amateur rankings, but the pro rankings were completely unofficial. And world rankings, even for the amateurs, were unofficial. But a couple of autoritative newspaper writers and others, at the end of each year, would compile their rankings. If you look at the WP articles about this, you will find all the details in *exhaustive* elaboration. These rankings were for the best player *over the course of the year*, NOT the guy who was No. 1 for this specific week, or even for the guy who was No. 1 on the last week of the year -- he might have been No. 3 for the previous 51 weeks....
Eventually I will port over and rewrite a lot of the WP stuff. I originated it over there and put in a ton of work -- it then got out of hand, with a lot of POV and OR and other issues and I gave up on it. Hayford Peirce 13:27, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
I'll write some stubs too, so far I've written Roger Federer and Pete Sampras which you are welcome to contribute to. Also, though he was never No. 1, would you think James Blake should be on the list? --Charles Sandberg 16:30, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
Absolutely. This is NOT just a list of No. 1 players. Frank Sedgman, for instance, a great, GREAT player, was clearly the No. 1 AMATEUR in the world a couple of years, but when he turned pro was just a *little* less good than Jack Kramer and then Pancho Gonzales. And maybe even Pancho Segura. So he was never a World No. 1, although pretty close. Pancho Segura wasn't much as an amateur but became a great pro for many years and is *arguably* the co-No. 1 for a couple of them, or even the sole No. 1. He was reasonably famous for a long time even though he is forgotten today. Just the way the truly great Pancho Gonzales is forgotten, even though he was probably the World No. 1 for 7 to 12 years, depending on whom you listen to.... So Blake, who is, of course, famous today, *should* be there. Maybe if this catalog ever turns into a WP-type laundry list of everyone's favorite players, it should be weeded out a little. But, of course, that will then upset the people in put in various names. For the moment, though, the more the merrier. If Larry wants a Catalog -- let's give him a Catalog! Hayford Peirce 17:01, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
Okay then I'll add Blake and Rafael Nadal. --Charles Sandberg 17:15, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Table please

This really needs to be converted into a table. Each row of the table can be a template. You might consult CZ:Workgroups as an example and see if perhaps User:Chris Day will help out. --Larry Sanger 12:48, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Just noticed this comment from Larry. If you want to see the power of templates relating to this page see the following link: User_talk:Chris_Day#Tennis_templates. Chris Day (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
Hayford, I commented out the rest of the section below with <!-- -->, but the tables are filled in as much as I could. The rest below are unsorted.--Robert W King 14:23, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Okie, thanks for all the help! I'll get to work on this and do a little more editing. Evidently, though, Chris is still working on the final format. Hayford Peirce 15:22, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I'm done. I think the best thing now is that you mull it over for a bit. We can make more changes later once you have a better idea of what is annoying. Chris Day (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I think it's fantastic that we managed to almost knock this out in one day.--Robert W King 15:30, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow! The list is looking great now! Good job Chris. --Charles Sandberg 16:24, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, but Robert did most of the finishing off. Chris Day (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Just added to the list

I have my nerve, I know, because I'm a spectator, not an expert, and I could only take a rough stab at chronology and nationalities.

Sorry, but I just couldn't handle a list of "famous tennis players" with no women on it.

Aleta Curry 19:10, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

well, newk belongs there. ditto the women. maybe the article should renamed to Famous Male Etc, with a separate article for women.... Hayford Peirce 15:44, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
I for one don't have strong feelings about that either way. My gut feeling is one catalogue, with separate sections if need be, on the basis that a "famous player" is a famous player, regardless of sex. But, really, whatever the majority thinks works for me.
Aleta Curry 21:30, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
One article, two lists, is probably the easiest way to handle it. I'm out of town for a while and don't have access to my info sources so I won't be adding new material until I return. In the meantime, I'll add "Male" to the top list. Hayford Peirce 12:44, 17 July 2007 (CDT)


This really needs to be moved to Tennis/Catalogs/Famous players. --Larry Sanger 17:23, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

High priority

This is a high priority Google search item. --Larry Sanger 16:52, 11 October 2007 (CDT)

Also, I'll be linking to this in an upcoming essay. The more of it you can finish, the better! --Larry Sanger 08:51, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

Well, my interest here has just about maxed out. Aside from the fantastic work done by the Template Masters, I'm about the only person who has contributed anything to the individual tables. I'll insert Richards, Austin, Shields, and Nusslein in the next day or so, and then retire for a while.Hayford Peirce 18:30, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

Alphabetized Table of Contents

This needs one, I think. A-E, F-J, and so forth. Stephen Ewen 17:54, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

You mean like a Table of Contents up at the Right Top -- or some other obvious, and useful, but unobtrusive place? I *hate* white space! Have you noticed that I have been putting {xTOC-right}} in some of Professor Jensen's political bios? Hayford Peirce 18:30, 30 October 2007 (CDT)
Making one like you can see at Category:Cc-by-nc-nd-3.0 is what I have in mind. Stephen Ewen 22:08, 3 November 2007 (CDT)

Ann Haydon (Jones?)

The Margaret Smith Court article at WP is having a tremendous argument about her name; is it Court, Smith Court, Smith-Court, Smith, or what? I don't want to go there, hehe. I did do a quick check on Ann, however -- she was born in 38, had successes in the late 50s, married Jones in 62, and won Wimbledon, *surely* her major success, well after her marriage. Being a 'Merkin, I always thought of her as "Jones". But I trust your judgment on this. Hayford Peirce 15:04, 1 November 2007 (CDT)

Indeed, it was I who edited out the 'Haydon', which was seldom used after about '64. As for Margaret, first she was Smith, then she was Court, never double-barreled, simple as that. So in CZ she shall be Court! - Hope you got my email - Ro Thorpe 15:11, 1 November 2007 (CDT)
One of the argumentative WPers found some Wimbledon references to Smith-Court, apparently. Court is fine by me. Yes, I just replied to the email.... Hayford Peirce 17:22, 1 November 2007 (CDT)
Yes, shortlived attempts at Smith-Court, I seem to remember. Thanks, I got the email, reply demain - Ro Thorpe 18:37, 1 November 2007 (CDT)

I see it.

Gotta get tacos then I'll take a look-see. Brb. --Robert W King 20:49, 4 November 2007 (CST)