This article is ready to be reviewed in accordance with the good article criteria. Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review the article and decide if it should be listed as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and then save the page. See the instructions.
WikiProject icon This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports
Assess: newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis
Other: *Sign up as a member of the project. Tag more articles with our standard project template. Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
The BBC has lots of coverage of Wimbledon in its tennis section. This is freely accessible to me as I'm in the UK but is there a paywall for people in the US?
We may get more ideas from the 2024 article which was posted at ITN and so seemed adequate.
I am not in the US. BBC articles are free for me, but they don't cover the non-senior tournaments as much as they do the senior tournaments, especially for non-finals matches.
Also, the Wayback Machine appears to be having trouble properly saving draws from the Wimbledon website. The page gets saved, but the bracket does not load at all in the archive. We might need an alternative source for the tournament draws. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The work of TheVoicelessWriter in adding so much prose so quickly is impressive -- well done! I'm reading through it all and making minor copy-edits as I go. The main issue I'm seeing is that the lead needs some expansion to summarise the outcomes of the various tournaments but I'm not sure how that is typically done when there so many of them. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I believe the winners in the infobox is enough to justify not writing all of them in prose in the lead section. Maybe if we do mention winners in prose, it would just be the senior winners, particularly Sinner and Noskova. I also think that significant accomplishments and other notable occurrences should be put in the lead section like Sinner going back-to-back, Djokovic surpassing Federer's record, Serena Williams' return, Eala's victory over Swiatek as the first Filipina to reach the third and fourth rounds of a major in the Open Era, etc. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, these highlights sound good but we should mention the minor events in some way too so that the reader understands that there was more to it than the big name events. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Agree! A sentence or two is fine, but it is duplicating whole other articles. What's is there now is bloat and I removed it. A sentence or two is fine... but not a trivia dump when we already have separate articles. That's why we made those split articles to begin with. Show us two sentences for each discipline and we can all look at it here and add back when we agree. Also, what is ITN? You do realize that the governing body of tennis uses ITN as the term for the registration of all professional tennis players. It's a bit confusing what it means here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have reverted the removal of the extensive prose as there is no consensus for this action. Repeated discussion at ITN indicates that extensive prose in such articles is both expected and appreciated. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is also no consensus to add it when that stuff has already been split off. That is recently added material and if it gets reverted it must be discussed before readding. It's bloat and trivial. And it's also in the day-by-day article. How much duplication do you want? I will certainly trim it to two sentences if you like. Put it into a sandbox and I'll take a look. Then everyone can take a whack at it before re-adding. But it can't stay the way it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Take a look at the 2026 French Open article as an example. You have some information in the lead section, with highlights of the tournament, and the rest of the article is about special events and the results of each draw, and nothing more. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Fyunck(click) and Haddad Maia fan: The extensive prose was done as a fix for the criticism of the article not having enough prose as cited in the article's In The News nomination. That criticism pointed out the 2024 Wimbledon Championships as being the only time that a Wimbledon Championships article had good enough quality worthy of In The News. That article also contains extensive prose, which was used as the basis for the extensive prose that was added and then removed in this article. Meanwhile, you are using an unassessed article that failed an In the News nomination as a reference point. That article failed the nomination because it lacked prose. Here's one of the opposing statements: As it stands the article consists mostly of lists and tables - it would seem that the prose in the lede is more than in the rest of the article! These tables are not well sourced either. So, for posting both the prose length and referencing needs to improve. Which one do you think is a better reference point given this context? The 2024 Wimbledon Championships article or the 2026 French Open?
By keeping the prose that I wrote out of the article, the article will definitely fail its In The News nomination because it is currently up to the standard of a failed nominee instead of a successful nominee. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I understand your "in the news" concerns but I have to look at readers and structural integrity and working with other article concerns for our readers. "In the news" is a one time thing where we have to look at it as an entry for years and years. The article is way too large and bloated with all that info so we split it off into full individual articles. You've put more trivial prose into this article than we have in the split-off articles, so we are going backwards in a big way. As I said, one or two sentences might be fine, but large multi-paragraph additions has gone way overboard. I suppose if ITN needs the bloat and trivia, it could be placed back for the day it is actually in the news, but would then need to be removed afterwards if that's possible. It might be better to have like what was done at 2006 Wimbledon Championships where a "Notable stories" section was added. You'll also note that 2006 mentions the mens and womens winners in prose, as it should since 99% of all readers are coming here for that reason. I have no idea why 2026 does not. That list of events section should really remain just that, and prose should be more like the lead and two other sections... "Men's and women's champions" and "Notable stories" where the absolute biggest stories between all the other disciplines would be placed (but no more or not much more than the 2006 article has). Make a draft of that and we can all look and give input. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
In the news isn't just a one-time thing. It's an acknowledgment that the significance of the event and the quality of the article is worthy of being put in the main page. That recognition must stay in the article's talk page so long as the article or the platform exists. I point back to the 2024 Wimbledon Championships article as it still contains the prose that made it worthy of being put on the main page two years ago. Thus, we can't just put the prose in just for In the news and then get rid off it when the article is no longer on the main page.
By the way, all of the information in the prose that I added to this article are already in the individual articles. They are simply just presented in prose instead of tables, lists, and brackets. I did not add any information that did not already exist in the individual articles. If you don't believe my words, go ahead and check. In no way are we going backwards by keeping the prose that I added because all of the individual articles combined would still possess way more information than this article. These are neither bloat nor trivial prose; these are simply summaries of every event which is essential when using Template:Main.
Also, the expanded prose does not make the article too large, not even close. By Wikipedia's standards per WP:SIZERULE, the article with the expanded prose would have 3,047 words in readable prose (this is based on the article revision from my last edit), which is well within the range for the length alone [...] not [justifying] division or trimming and is far below 8,000 words, the point where the article may need to be divided or trimmed. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is going backwards. We specifically do not have all that detail in the 2026 Wimbledon article so it is split out to the individual articles. Otherwise we would have no reason for the more detailed individual articles. The 2026 Wimbledon article becomes a mess to wade through in my opinion. I 100% disagree it should have all that trivial prose. What you wrote for the boys doubles or girls singles is all that should be there for the mens and womens singles if it's kept in sections. The 2026 Wimbledon prose should be highlights of the event as a whole, not highlights of each individual discipline. That's for the separate articles. To be honest the layout has strayed a bit from multiple discussions. It is supposed to be more like:
Lead section (prose)
Singles Players section (since that is the reason 99% of readers come for. It should show the winner of both mens and womens final and doesn't need a prominent link to the gentlemen's singles article since it's already in the link for all the events)
Notable stories (prose)
Events (all discipline scores with no prose)
Special events (prose)
Points and prize money (with a sentence or two of prose)
With that you have enough prose, but not too much, and the winners list isn't buried in trivia or too far down to be found. We had a lot of complaints though the years about having the list of winners buried in prose or too far down. We don't need prose for "Girls' 14&U singles" but it still needs to be listed for completeness. So it could definitely use more prose but it should be in the notable story section, not in each and every discipline. The most notable things about 2026 Wimbledon in general. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
So you are saying that what I wrote for the men's singles and women's singles make their individual articles obsolete? The prose that only mention 20 out of 128 women's singles participants and 15 out of 127 matches makes the individual article obsolete?
How would the list of winners be buried in prose when the list of winners is in the infobox? I also question your navigation issue because Wikipedia has a feature on the left side of the webpage that allows you to go to a specific section.
Also, you keep ignoring my discussion relating it to the 2024 Wimbledon Championships, which also have individual articles for each event of the 2024 tournament. How would prose there be good while prose here is bad?
I realized this is a case of what should prevail: a standard practice of the Tennis WikiProject—which was discussed and decided upon a long time ago—or what this "In the News" thing says it should be? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
As the original creator and writer of the prose that is in contention at the 2024 Wimbledon page, here are my thoughts: A Wikipedia article should include prose and information about the event took place and just place and should not be just tables and graphs which is exactly what thousands and thousands of tennis articles are. Wikipedia article should provide information in written and explain what happened at the event otherwise those articles are just score checking point, which can easily be done on any other third party tennis website or ATP/WTA site or website of all four slams. Removing this prose by claiming to be bloated is completely false. As can be seen above, the article prose length is completely fine and the article is this length is not even scratching the Top 20% of longest Wikipedia articles. And claiming that these two (2024, 2026) articles are the only ones out hundreds is also wrong. This how it was done back to the day but those editors lost interest and therefore stopped putting prose in, as did I when I encountered hostiles back in 2024 from some users that is why I stopped interacting with the tennis articles. Removing all this information claiming that it is not how "we" did things is wrong and discouraging editors from contributing. Information is which is useful is supposed to added to the article and not removed just because that information has not been added to other articles. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)04:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are incorrect in your assumption of what needs to be fixed and how it needs to be fixed. It isn't prose or no prose. It's how to present it and how not to go from no prose to bloated trivial prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's your opinion that it lowers the quality. I think it raises the quality if it's done correctly. It should incorporate the most important aspects that happened in the event, not include trivia or bloat. I look at things that are best for our thousands of readers. We get suggestions/complaints through the years and use those to better our articles. I don't profess to know about the restrictions of ITN and I really worry myself about it. I care about our readers and what is best for them. That's always number one for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
And you think "In the news" does not care about our readers and what is best for them? As stated in Wikipedia:In the news, ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia., and the goals of "In the news" include:
To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
It is not just an opinion; it is a judgment based on criteria that not only is established and enforced in "In the news" but also in article quality assessment. This criteria is used when reviewing and evaluating the quality of an article. It is also the criteria I use as an experienced reviewer of good article nominees. Have you looked at the List of tennis articles by quality and importance? If you check the lists of Good articles in the WikiProject, there are only two tournament articles: 2020 US Open (tennis) and 2009 Sony Ericsson Open. Both of these articles contain prose for each event. I suggest you read PrinceofPunjab's comment as they properly explained the importance of prose in not just Wikipedia in general but for Tennis tournament articles as well. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's because of good article guidelines. There were times we talked to other about good articles and found out the article would suffer as a result, so it got nixt. Then there is the fact that we now have so few Wikiproject tennis editors and all they want to do is work on creating new articles and not so much making articles better. We are not going to agree on this at all, and I've made my suggestions, so I'll move on from here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Maybe it’s time to ask yourself why so few tennis editors have remained. Discussions like these give a good indication why....Tvx1 11:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'll also move on from here, but before doing so, I just wanted to make clear that simply not liking what is used as standard practice for a Wikiproject doesn't make you to have the permission to go and edit against it. We can always discuss about standard practices, but never just go our own way and do things as if standard practices weren't discussed before existing, because that would defeat the purpose of wikiprojects as a whole Haddad Maia fan (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not seeing anything in the Tennis project's article guidelines which justifies the gross removal of prose. Looking at the project's few FA, note that one of them is 1877 Wimbledon Championship and that's mainly prose with few tables. In any case, it seems apparent that there is no consensus for the removal of prose amongst the active tennis editors and there certainly isn't amongst those whose focus is ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
No one needs permission from a wikiproject to edit articles. A certain practice being the habit doesn’t mean there is no better way. Tvx1 11:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
For the record, note that the article has now been posted on the main page as the lead blurb at WP:ITN in the following form:
.jpg){kind=link}