Talk:Wimbledon Championships

Abolition of Sunday rest day - Manic Monday should be past tense?

In the Schedule section, the abolition of the traditional Sunday rest day as of 2022 is explained, and it is implied that the objective is to avoid a Manic Monday on which 32 players played each year prior to 2022.

If I have understood this correctly, then this following sentence should be in the past tense:

Before 2022, the second Monday at Wimbledon was often called "Manic Monday", because it is the busiest day with the last-16 matches for both men's and women's singles, where fans have a pick of watching on a single day, any of the best 32 players left; which is also unique in a Grand Slam singles competition.

like so:

Before 2022, the second Monday at Wimbledon was often called "Manic Monday", because it was the busiest day with the last-16 matches for both men's and women's singles, where fans had a pick of watching on a single day, any of the best 32 players left; which was also unique in a Grand Slam singles competition.

Could someone please confirm that I am right? Thank you. 2A00:23C6:549D:C301:8403:BDEF:CF98:57DB (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of SW19 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SW19 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SW19 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Vpab15 (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Lowest ranked winner

The current revision in the section Records § Miscellaneous lists Markéta Vondroušová among unseeded champions with the comment "ranked 42nd". At the same time, Venus Williams is listed as the "lowest-ranked winner" with the comment "31st (23rd seed)". Shouldn't Vondroušová be the lowest-ranked winner? Kompik (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Commonly called Wimbledon"

Do we really need "commonly called Wimbledon" in the lead when its name, "Wimbledon Championships", is already stated? Feels like clutter as a painfully obvious contraction; it's not really informative. MB2437 21:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I think so. No one calls it anything more than Wimbledon about 99% of the time. The only reason it's not placed there is because we have a city of the same name. So it was Wimbledon (tennis) or Wimbledon Championships, which at least is something used on tv. The wording could be changed to "colloquially called simply Wimbledon" or something like that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

And also because the official name of the Tournament is not "Wimbledon" so it is better to state that although it is not the official name, it is what most people call it Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

My point, however, is that "Wimbledon" is in the official name. MB2437 22:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Or "also called simply Wimbledon". It's still a very obvious contraction that doesn't add much and clutters the lead, similar to "Harvard", "Chelsea", and "Queen's". It would make sense at All England Lawn Tennis Club but less so here. A compromise could be to move it to the efn alongside the former name. MB2437 21:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem is "Wimbledon" is used throughout the article, not Wimbledon Championships. Because it is used continuously it should be front and center at the top so readers know why we use the shortened version. We always use French Open, US Open, Australian Open... we don't use French, US, and Australian throughout those article. But with Wimbledon it's very different. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The contraction being used as early as the second paragraph supports trimming it in the first sentence, in my eyes. It could be naturally introduced in the second/third sentences by replacing "it". MB2437 22:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Just using the term isn't enough. Somewhere we should explain why we shorten it. I'm not saying we can't do it all in the second paragraph, but it needs to be said. It's why many publications start off saying the same thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)