Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Russian/Belarus flags

Since March, the WTA, ATP, and ITF, have instructed individual tournaments not to show Russian or Belarus affiliation for those players. The individual tournaments have agreed so those players have no country listing next to their names. It is like Taiwan at the Olympics. Wikipedia has followed suit by those tournament sources and not shown the nation for the affected players. All fine and good... no problem per sourcing. But yearly rankings are a different matter. The rankings are based on the whole year (in fact 12 months) and not only since March 2022. Rankings should show the country. What's weird with the WTA/ATP is that their software simply removes the players country no matter what... it's just gone. No matter the year. Results from 2019 show no country for Russian or Belarus players so it is unreliable as a source because of software limitations. Previous yearly rankings show the same mistake. I feel we should continue to keep out the tournament national affiliation but not the ranking national affiliation. Especially since the rankings templates are inserted into many articles. I've come across some conflicting edits and wanted to spitball the topic here amongst peers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the rankings are calculated from twelve months, but they are only valid for the specific monday they are attributed to the specific players. So ranking positions of 18 July 2022, for instance, should not have flags for these players. Of course articles that deal with events or ranking positions from before the sanctions should include the flags. The Taiwan/Republic of China example is different, these players simply compete under a different flag, Chinese Taipei, in most Tennis events. Moreover Russian players competed under a neutral flag at the last olympics, comparable to Taiwan, and were treated here the same way.Tvx1 12:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem is these charts are used in other articles and other templates. The points accumulated are from all year... not just a particular point in time. They should absolutely include the country of the player because of that widespread use. ESPN rankings, FOX rankings, Post rankings, Tennis Abstract rankings. The individual tournaments make sense but not ranking removal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The rankings do reflect a certain point in time and wherever they are used, there is a date showing to which day these rankings apply and thus there is no problem. Rankings from after the sanctions became effective should not include these flags. These players have been competing without national affilation since and be listed as such. You are overly focusing on the points aspect. And please stop reinstating reverted edits without any form of consenus.Tvx1 21:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. The ATP/WTA also show no flags for prior years so we would need to go to all our past rankings and remove the flags per the WTA and ATP. And that would not be correct. Please get consensus on removal of flags because sources don't support it, and neither did the WTA and ATP statements. They only really talked about nation removal for tournaments. I'm not sure where you are getting the reason for removal because I pointed out the ATP and WTA error with their software. The ATP source also tells us what the rankings were in December 0f 2020... and those are also missing the flags because of software error. That is wrong and we all know it's wrong. We are getting editor complaints about the missing nation and while we can point to Tennis authority statements and individual tournaments for sources, the rankings are a completely different thing. It really needs to be discussed before deviating from past years here at Wikipedia, because sources tell us to keep them. I'm not sure why you would want to remove a standard Wikipedia item with no consensus and with no source other than a known faulty software source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No, we would not have to go back to change any prior year’s rankings because we are under no obligation whatsoever to copy our sources to the letter. We are more than intelligent enough to work out and prove that these players represented something back then. Our priority is to provide correct facts and the only correct fact here for the current rankings is that these players were not competing with a national affiliation on 18 July, or any other week since March, and listing Medvedev and Rublev as representing Russia on that specific ranking is a complete falsehood. The others sources you list appear to go by legal nationality or birth country which is not the aspect of nationality we have chosen to go with. We have always listed represented nationalities, which is why Ivan Lendl is listed Czechoslovakian in some years and American in others for instance and why we don’t have any flags for Russian and Belarussian players in tournament articles since March. There is no difference and you can’t have it one way in one place and the other in another. I cannot see why such simple and logic reasons for the absence of these flags are so difficult to understand for you.Tvx1 22:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Consecutive weeks in the Top 10

I'm new here. Regarding the following article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/WTA_rankings May someone tell me why Simona Halep has unofficialy 448 consecutive weeks in the top 10 and how it was calculated that number? Wouldn't be a good idea to specify that reason also inside the article page? Simioniuc (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m guessing the discrepancy is because the tour and the rankings were suspended for a long while due to COVID. But I agree that the remark doesn’t really add anything.Tvx1 17:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

No idea what it is. It is a number that was added in March by editor Fspyros and they keep changing the number every so often. The only edit this person has ever made to tennis is Halep's ranking and I think these numbers are made up. I removed it unless sources say otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Halep was in top 10 between 27 January 2014 and 8 August 2021, which is exactly 393 weeks. Since the Wta ranking was not published between 23 March 2020 and 10 August 2020 (which is exactly 20 weeks) due to Covid pandemic, it means that she was in top 10 for 373 consecutive weeks. So 448 unofficialy consecutive weeks makes no sense for me. Simioniuc (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK?

Hi. Is anyone interested in posting this DYK, and getting the DYK credit? I can't apparently as an IP. Interesting story. I'll be happy to do the "other dyk review."

Eva Duldig

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Eva presenting a flower to an Officer, pencil drawing by her father Karl Duldig

Eva presenting a flower to an Officer, pencil drawing by her father Karl Duldig

• ... that even though Eva Duldig was held by Australia in an internment camp as an enemy alien from ages two to four, she represented it at Wimbledon two decades later? Source: https://www.jewishpress.com/sections/features/holocaust-footnotes-escaping-to-singapore/2019/09/04/
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: An alternative image would be File:Eva Duldig with parents in Tatura c1941.jpg

Created by 2603:7000:2143:8500:CD4B:DD83:2234:A6CF (talk). Self-nominated at 20:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC).

RfC: Shall we remove all Russian/Belarus tennis player nationalities from our ranking templates?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached keep flags in rankings Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

---

The situation. On March 1st the governing bodies of tennis (ATP,WTA,ITF) told the world that no Russian or Belarus player can play a tennis tournament under their nation's flag because of the attack on Ukraine by Russian forces. All tournaments agreed and since that time you will see no player nationality listed at any tournament. No problems there. However, authorities did not say they would remove all nationality from rankings, nor did it say that we should erase the nationality of a player for other reasons. The ATP website software seems to have a problem in that it removed all traces of nationality of Russian/Belarus players... everything. Daniil Medvedev's bio shows no trace of his Russian flag. Rankings from 2020 also show no nationality. This is a software error and makes missing nationality from rankings on the ATP and WTA unreliable at the moment.

If we use other sources for rankings we see a different picture. ESPN rankings, FOX rankings, Washington Post rankings, Tennis Abstract rankings... these all show a nationality... as they should. Individual tournaments, which we can source, are a different matter. Nationality is not allowed for the tournaments and those affected players are not allowed to enter team events.

These ranking templates will be affected:

• Template:Current ATP singles rankings
• Template:Current WTA singles rankings
• Template:Current WTA doubles individual rankings
• Template:Current ATP doubles individual rankings

Joint governing body March 1st statement is right here

These templates are used in multiple articles and inside other templates, and readers have complained about missing nationalities where I have no good answer for them. Since I see no large discussion of this, and another editor and I are at a complete impasse, I have started this RfC here (since it affects multiple tennis articles). Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• No, keep Russian flags on rankings - Via the ATP statement, Russian and Belarusian players were banned competing in tournaments under their flag. At no point did it mention rankings and this is backed up in external sources. I assume this is due to the fact players don't compete in the rankings, it's a rolling system compiling of tournament points over the past 52 weeks. All removal of Russian flags on the ATP website is a boycott of using Russian symbols whilst the war is going on. Xc4TNS (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Is there a full statement about the flag removal, and a source for the software error? Sorry if I missed the links if they're somewhere. CurryCity (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@CurryCity: The joint statement from March 1st is right here. The software error is simply apparent since if you look at any time period prior to March 1st all flags have been removed. see Nov 2020 as an example. Or look at the 2020 Paris Masters draw. The draw has the flags blanked out when it should not. This is a software error/limitation that make the ATP/WTA sites unreliable for this info, and why we have to look elsewhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It is strange that even retired Russian players such as Dmitry Tursunov and Pavel Chekhov have their name and flag of nationality erased. CurryCity (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@CurryCity: There's a lot strange about this. I'm not even saying that they don't deserve to have their nationalities removed from the rankings list. I'm just saying that the governing bodies websites shouldn't be used as a source on this specific item. If we were to say their websites are law on this, then their law also says our wikipedia listings for prior years should be changed to conform to the ATP/WTA websites...since their word is law... and we know those prior years are wrong on the ATP/WTA sites. A couple random editors complained in asking why a some of our rankings charts were missing the nationality, and in looking into it, I couldn't give them a good answer as to why. It hadn't been previously discussed at Tennis Project. That's why we are here. Perhaps that good reason will present itself in this discussion and we'll put in the blank flags just as the ATP/WTA websites do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stats gone from WTAtennis.com profiles?

There used to be singles and doubles record (win-loss) and career prize money stats, but not anymore - not on all profiles (i know higher ranked players still got them). Is there an alternative way to see those stats? I only found a seperate source for prize money [1]. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

We have web archives for a reason.Tvx1 15:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You can not update pages of active players using web archives. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Davis Cup infobox, side effects

Why does the Davis Cup infobox cause the word "Found Nickname" & other such wordings, to appear before a national team's opening? GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess you need to show us what you mean. When I look at Template:Infobox tennis cup team I see no parameter for found nickname. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The "Nickname" parameter was the cause. I see you've removed it from the United States men's national tennis team page. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a few other parameters causing the same type of problems. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

SWinxy used Module:Check for unknown parameters in {{Infobox tennis cup team}} without specifying what to do in the rendered page for unknown parameters .[2] I have created Category:Pages using infobox tennis cup team with unknown parameters and specified the page should be added to it.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The module emits a preview warning for it, and I didn't bother making a category because I was lazy. SWinxy (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hamburg tournaments

Hello tennis community.
Wanting some help/consensus with regards to Hamburg European Open and German Open (WTA) articles. As far as I can tell, these tournaments were actually a combined men's and women's tournament (German Championships) until 1979 when the women's event moved from Hamburg to West Berlin. Due to this, a new women's Hamburg tournament was created for 1982–83, returned in 1987 before being discontinued in 2002. A third women's tournament was then created with the same name as the men's in 2021.
My question is in regards to previous champions and number of articles that should exist. There was already a third article titled WTA Hamburg with information regarding the women's tournament from 1982 to 2002. This was somehow merged into Hamburg European Open without, from what I could see, any discussion to reach consensus.
As they were clearly the same tournament, run simultaneously up to and including the 1978 tournament (for 60-odd editions), I'm not sure that is seems completely appropriate that they are separated whilst the WTA Hamburg tournament became absorbed into the Hamburg European Open article. The WTA Hamburg tournament only had 18 editions and were not even run concurrently with the men's tournament. From 1979, the German Open men's and women's events, whilst not held at the same venue, were usually run in consecutive weeks. The WTA Hamburg event was held at times a few months after the men's tournament in Hamburg.
I'm not quite sure what the solution should be. As there are now men's and women's events at the Hamburg European Open, I don't think that there is an argument to merge the two articles, unless having two separate articles (1. German Open, with men's and women's history until 2018, and 2. Hamburg European Open, men's and women's history from 2019 – which hardly seems ideal). Looking at the respective official pages, the Hamburg open seems to cite tradition of the men's event without mentioning the women's event ([4]) and on the women's German Open page, they seem to only acknowledge the event since the move to Berlin ([5]). This could support the following changes:

• German Open (WTA) with history from 1979 (Berlin championships only)
• Hamburg European Open with shared men's and women's history until 1978. Include WTA Hamburg (1982–2022) and Hamburg Open (women's) from 2021 on this page.
  

I could not find any information on whether when women's German Open moved to Berlin, that they also continued to compete for the same trophy as this should support that all history be inclusive in the same article.
For the time being, I think both articles need expanding (and keeping as is might just be the way forward anyway). Hoping to hear all your thoughts on the topic. Thanks in advance. Eccy89 (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This has been done with lots and lots of tournaments e.g. the Belgian Open (showing as a WTA event only) from 1987 was another combined event called the Belgian International Championships (f. 1899), They have been created by just using the ATP or WTA sites as source without bothering to research the tournaments histories properly IMO, another case in point the mens mens Swiss Open and womens WTA Swiss Open were combined events who's history is directly linked to the Swiss International Championships (same tournament) which ive just created recently to address this issue.--Navops47 (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Mens Belgian Open Championships womens Belgian Open (tennis) two seperate articles, first called the Belgian Championships it became the Beligian International Championships sometime later, should be a merged to one page, I dont know how you do it though.--Navops47 (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Tennis rankings templates

Nomination for deletion of Template:Current ATP singles rankings

Template:Current ATP singles rankings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Current ATP doubles individual rankings

Template:Current ATP doubles individual rankings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Current WTA singles rankings

Template:Current WTA singles rankings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Current WTA doubles individual rankings

Template:Current WTA doubles individual rankings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: Why would you want to delete them? ForzaUV (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, see the discussion here at the bottom of the page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651 I made a new rankings draft in case the consensus is to delete them. Move the draft to the main space if I'm not active and please do not put the tables side by side because these tables need to be updated weekly and it's much easier to update them via the visual editor which doesn't work when the tables are next to each other. You can though transclude them side by side in the ATP/WTA tours articles. Best. ForzaUV (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, if you have display:inline-table set in all tables without col-begin or valign=top, you can have them side by side and still be able to edit them via the visual editor. I've tried it and it works. And why are we having this discussion here and not at the TfD? If you place your vote in the TfD nomination, you might outweigh the vote or reach a draw. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I know it works with inline tables but I kinda wanted to keep each ranking in its own section so there would be no need for labels when the ranking tables are transcluded. I made the changes anyways but I'm not sure anymore if we should move the draft to the main space when the templates are deleted or just keep it as a draft/sandbox page. I commented here so TennisProject members become aware of the new page and there seems to be a consensus already at TfD, just a matter of time. ForzaUV (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, you only need 4 labels for 4 templates aka tables, not 8. The race leaderboards were never templates to begin with. They have been just tables for race rankings, that's all. Also, I would first copy paste the respective rankings tables to the 2022 ATP and WTA Tours, not the races tables, because they are already there. And then use labels to transclude them to all articles that use the ranking tables. Darn shame we can't transclude subsections without labels, like we can with whole sections. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

So you want to keep updating the race tables in the ATP/WTA tour articles, but the rankings tables to be updated together in a separate page? I thought the the whole point of your proposal is to make it more convenient and faster for editors to update the rankings without hopping from article to another. So why 3 pages when one page is all what we really need? ForzaUV (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV You must have misunderstood me. With "Also, I would first copy paste the respective rankings tables to the 2022 ATP and WTA Tours, not the races tables, because they are already there. And then use labels to transclude them to all articles that use the ranking tables." I meant copy paste as in replace the transcluded ATP singles and ATP Doubles templates with their actual wikitext as if they were tables to 2022 ATP Tour and replace the transcluded templates WTA singles and WTA Doubles with their actual wikitext to 2022 WTA Tour. AND THEN add labels in both 2022 ATP and 2022 WTA Tours pages. Why labels? Because the current 4 templates are transcluded on 6 pages: ATP singles, ATP doubles, WTA singles and WTA doubles need to be replaced. So, FROM the ATP and WTA Tours TRANSCLUDE via labels to the pages listed. So, no need for a new page. The transclusions will be from 2 already existing pages, the 2022 ATP and WTA tours. Makes sense? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Let me break it down for you. 2022 ATP Tour has a Race singles table, a rankings singles template transclusion, underneath ATP race doubles table and a Race doubles template transclusion.

Step 1: Replace the actual {{Template:Current ATP singles rankings}} template transclusion with its wikitext and {{Template:Current ATP doubles individual rankings}} template transclusion with its wikitext so they become regular tables in wikitext.

Step 2: Then add labels before and after both tables INSIDE the 2022 ATP Tour page.

Step 3: And then TRANSCLUDE both tables FROM the ATP Tour page into the pages, that their templates equivalents were transcluded TO.

And then repeat the same for WTA Tour. Which makes it only 2 articles: 2022 ATP Tour and 2022 WTA Tour, to edit to update the ATP Race and Rankings singles and doubles leaderboards for both ATP and WTA every week. You get it now? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok I got it without the need for the steps lol. Not that bad but I still feel it'd be better to have all the rankings centralized in one article and the page I made looks neat and clean compared to the long and messy ATP/WTA tours articles. That's my two cents. ForzaUV (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Templates to be soon deleted per consensus reached at TfD. Permalink. @ForzaUV:, I'll take care of the transclusions and everything. Don't worry about it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Champions list enigma

I made this list of WTA 1000 singles titles and how many times the top 20 has won each tournament.

Singles champions list

Singles Titles Player BOC DUB DOH IND MIA MAD CHA BER ROM CAN SAN CIN PHI MOS TOK WUH ZUR BEI Years 23 Serena Williams N/A - - 2 8 2 1 - 4 3 - 2 N/A - - - - 1 1999–2016 17 Martina Hingis N/A 1 2 N/A 2 1 2 2 - N/A - 1 5 N/A 1 N/A 1997–2007 15 Steffi Graf 1 N/A 1 3 N/A 1 5 - 2 N/A 1 - 1 N/A - N/A 1990–1996 14 Maria Sharapova N/A - 1 2 - 1 - - 3 - 2 1 N/A - 2 - 1 1 2005–2015 11 Lindsay Davenport - - - 2 - N/A - - - - 1 N/A - - 4 N/A 4 N/A 1997–2005 10 Justine Henin N/A - - 1 - - 2 3 - 2 - - N/A - - N/A 2 - 2002–2007 Victoria Azarenka N/A - 2 2 3 - - - - - - 2 N/A - - - - 1 2009–2020 9 Conchita Martínez - N/A - - N/A 2 2 4 - - N/A 1 - - N/A - N/A 1993–2000 Monica Seles - N/A - 2 N/A - 1 2 4 N/A - - - N/A - N/A 1990–2000 Venus Williams N/A 2 - - 3 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1 1 - 1998–2015 Simona Halep N/A 1 1 1 - 2 N/A 1 3 N/A - N/A - - N/A - 2014–2022 8 Petra Kvitová N/A - 1 - - 3 - - - 1 N/A - N/A - 1 2 - - 2011–2018 7 Kim Clijsters N/A - - 2 2 - - - 1 1 - 1 N/A - - - - - 2003–2010 6 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario - N/A - 2 N/A 1 - 1 2 N/A - - - N/A - N/A 1992–1996 Amélie Mauresmo N/A - - - - - - 2 2 2 - - - - - N/A - - 2001–2005 Jelena Janković N/A - - 1 - - 1 - 2 - - 1 N/A 1 - - - - 2007–2010 Caroline Wozniacki N/A 1 - 1 - - - - - 1 - - N/A - 1 - - 2 2010–2018 5 Gabriela Sabatini 1 N/A - - N/A 2 - 2 - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A 1991–1992 Mary Pierce - N/A - - N/A 1 - 1 N/A 1 - - 2 - N/A - N/A 1997–2005 Dinara Safina N/A - - - - 1 - 1 1 1 - - N/A - 1 N/A - N/A 2008–2009 Agnieszka Radwańska N/A - - - 1 - - - - 1 N/A - N/A - 1 - - 2 2011–2016 Iga Świątek N/A - 1 1 1 - N/A 2 - N/A - N/A - N/A - 2021–2022 ^ Players with 5+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in bold. 67 champions in 278 events as of the 2022 Guadalajara Open.

N/A's indicate the tournament was not a 2nd tier, while such and such player was active. If they participated in the event but never won it I put —.

The ??? are about the player's absence from a tournament. What troubles me is when a player has never played a tournament, which was categorized as a 2nd highest tier tournament: Tier I/Premier Mandatory/5/WTA 1000, and their record is 0–0 at said event, do I put — or a N/A.

An interesting case is players coming back from retirement, for instance, Kim Clijsters. When she retired back in 2012, she had not played any subsequent tournament that were instated after her farewell. Having become active again, she hasn't played any of those new tournaments and am not sure whether to put N/A or — in their place. Hopefully, someone can help me clear up this dilemma of mine. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Put a dash. What does it matter whether they played it or not? They didn’t win it, period.Tvx1 10:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of placing a dash instead of the ???'s, but I'll wait for input from other editors before going through with that decision. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer blank for both dashes and ???. Anything displayed is a distraction from the wins and it's a big distraction when it's most of the cells. I would make the table sortable with Help:Sorting#Sorting buttons in a separate row. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I made the table sortable, but I feel having empty cells instead of dashes would make the table look weird. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, I noticed Chicago and Guadalajara, the first and last tournaments columns, were won by players with not enough titles to be included in the list. Chicago and Guadalajara were both one-off events. Do I still keep the columns, so all events are listed, or since nobody's won them I remove them to avoid having columns without any titles listed in them? Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked at this chart a dozen times now and I just can't figure out it's use. Do other press related outlets ever talk about how the top 20 have done at these events? Do we have any sources that tell us this is relevant? It is extremely convoluted and jumbled to my older eyes, and those triple ??? marks don't help at all. On what article is this supposed to be placed because it seems like a chart that has no real reason to exist. I keep looking for the silver lining as to why we need it and I simply don't see it. Convince me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), this is what is formerly known as a single titles matrix table. Similar tables are used in the ATP Masters singles records and ATP Masters doubles records articles as well as WTA Tier I page. The aforementioned pages all use these kind of tables, which indicate of the top 20 players, who has won which tournament how many times. I could have listed all the players who've won a title, but that would have made the table waaay too long, so I limited it top 20, i.e. players with 5+ titles, it could be 6+ titles...Anyway...

The ATP articles have only had 12 different events, so those tables are more compact (you know, the one with the Strike Rate). WTA, on the other hand, has had 20 so far and one has to include them all somehow. We, I need it, because I am planning on making a women's WTA 1000 records and statistics articles for both singles and doubles, similar to the men's. And this represents an overview of who won the most titles at what tournament and the overall dominance spread out across the events. I know it's a wide table, too many events, but I am trying to keep it as tidy as possible. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the ??? and em dashes with hyphens. It should look better now. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

That much better. I was also very confused by you wording "how many times the top 20 has won each tournament". That was telling me this is only for players in the top 20 rankings... not a top 20 cutoff. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tvx1, PrimeHunter, and Fyunck(click): I guess the table is visually more appealing with the hyphens instead of with the em dashes. Since I will be making a WTA 1000 records pages for both singles and doubles in the near future, I didn't want to start a new topic so I decided to post the question here. Does the title "WTA 1000 series singles records and statistics" sound good, or not? Instead of "series" it could contain "events", "tournaments" or leave them out and just have it as "WTA 1000 singles records and statistics". Thoughts? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Days of the Year

I have begun the task of adding tennis players to the WikiProject Days of the Year under notable Births. So far, I have added the entire WTA top 200 or so players. This includes many notable players like number 1 Iga Swiatek and number 3 Anett Kontaveit. I have also added a few notable ATP omissions such as Andrey Rublev, Matteo Berrettini, and Carlos Alcaraz. The criteria for inclusion in this project is having a Wiki page and an externally verifiable birthday. As a result, I will be looking to include as many players currently in the WTA and ATP rankings as I can as well as those in older editions of the rankings that have somehow not been listed as notable birth so far.

The eventual goal of this project will see every Birth and Death mention come with an in-line citation, as such I have taken it upon myself to start adding citations for players I notice when adding new players. I have also begun to work backwards from the 31st of December to include in-line citations for absolutely every tennis player added to this project already.

What I ask of you is a few things:

1. Is there a list of players that WikiProject Tennis has created pages for? This seems like it would be a useful resource to source players from.
2. Where do I go to suggest the creation of a player page? I just found that WTA 217 Rose Vicens Mas has no Wikipedia article and as such I cannot add her to her birthday, the 25th of June.
3. Thirdly, sometimes players don't have a date of birth listed on their WTA page, the ITF fail to provide an exact date of birth, and external sources like ESPN, Eurosport, Wimbledon etc. have not created a page for them. These players, however, still have Wikipedia articles in which their birthday is listed. I would appreciate a list of sources that WikiProject Tennis accepts to verify their date of birth.

Sources:

Rosa Vicens Mas | Player Stats & More – WTA Official (wtatennis.com)

Rosa Vicens Mas Tennis Player Profile | ITF (itftennis.com)

Kxcii (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

1. There are loads of tennis player with biographies, the super-category Category:Tennis players contains all of them but trawling through them for the ones you're looking for isn't going to be easy.

2. The tennis notability guidelines are based off WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Most tennis players who meet one or both of these already have articles; as Rosa hasn't currently met the NTENNIS requirements, you would need to meet GNG before an article could be created about her.

3. Articles should include the sources for dates of births themselves, in the past many of these articles weren't ideally sourced and the source for the dates of birth my lie in archived versions of sources, or may not have been properly sourced at all. For BLPs you can just remove the dates from the article if you can't verify them. Iffy★Chat -- 20:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

ITF used to list full dates of birth but switched a few years ago to age only, perhaps due to the GDPR. This means many articles will now have unverified birthdates as the ITF external link was the sole source. Might be a bit of a pain, but Iffy's suggestion of archived sources may be the best option for citations, using the old ITF profile like so -Claudine Toleafoa (archive). Jevansen (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyone else been having problems (for the last week) of viewing WTA Tour player profiles. Like the one linked above for Rosa Vicens Mas, everything pertinent is covered up by a giant banner advertising WTA Finals tickets. Jevansen (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The WTA site has been absolutely horrible for me for quite a while, maybe like 6 months or so. No useful information on it at all for the players except for the rankings history. But for some of the lower-ranked players, like outside the top 150, you can't get accurate stats like a W/L record or anything. And they removed the birthdays from their site as well. The ATP profiles are significantly better. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility issues with performance timelines

I've noticed the heavy majority of the performance timelines contain non-WCAG-complaint absence abbreviations, NH, NMS, to name a few. The contrast between the background and text color does not pass neither WCAG AA nor WCAG AAA. I've thus far come across 2 of such variants: style="background:#ececec; color:gray" |N/A (dark gray) and style="background:#f0f1f4; color:#ccc" |N/A (light gray). Replacing those with {{n/a}} would solve the issue, either via AWB or other means.

I would not have raised this issue had I been apt in making the replacement myself, but still, awareness needs to be raised for broader reach and implement a new approach, wherein every subsequent perf. timeline made by an editor would use n/a instead of the aforementioned 2 contrast-lacking alternatives. I need others opinions on this matter to suggest how this should be addressed and dealt with. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little hazy on some of this. I would agree that the text should be in a dark color instead of grey, but what's wrong with a keyed abbreviation? N/A is not the same as not held and there is a key to explain that. Our standard guideline color coding for the text is supposed to be #696969, and in a white background. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not against the keyed abbreviation, but moreso with the text color coding contrast for NH and NMS and their equivalents. That should be fixed. By replacing those, I did not mean replace NH and NMS but replace their style params that precede them in wikitext by encapsulating the two abbrev. in the N/A template, which passes both WCAG AA and WCAG AAA. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)::It would be also useful to add in a hidden comment in the {{performance key}} code, which would inform editors to use n/a, instead of the styled parameters, I mentioned earlier, that don't meet accessibility standards, thereby avoiding future misuse of said params. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Our guideline charts had been checked by compliancy and accessibility and we corrected issues years ago. I'm not sure I see an issue with our guideline charts. Not Held is much more concise for our readers, and the color schemes looks ok to me. If you are saying that editors have gone away from the guidelines in creating charts then those need to be corrected. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Not the charts, but their application in the performance timeline itself. The performance key is just fine. It's when it's used in the perf. timeline table with the low contrast between the background and text color of the abbreviations used to indicate the absence of the player, such as NH, NMS, DNQ seems to be done right. For example: NH is encoded with #767676 which fails WCAG AAA, using #595959 instead meets the minimum 7:1 contrast criteria AAA requires. #696969 in a white background, the proposed guideline, fails AAA as well, unfortunately. That is for white background. The other 2 n/a variations I mentioned earlier [6] and [7] fail both AA and AAA by a large margin, which are in tables in other tennis articles, at least the ones I've come across. They can all be mass substituted with the right tools, but consensus would need to be reached first. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you give me an article with an example? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Swiatek and Sabatini with white background and #767676 fail only WCAG AAA, Berlin tournament with a dark gray background fails both WCAG AA and AAA. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Now I see... thanks. Our tennis guidelines tell us to only use 696969, so those articles are out of our own mandatory compliance and should never have been created that way. Changing those is mandatory. When originally tested it passed WCAG AA so all was and actually still is good. My recollection is that we had a lot of pushback from editors making the grey darker but that they came around. I also recall that there was some complaints about making it darker still to 595959 and that it is not mandatory to do so. Wikipedia's own rules state that we should satisfy AA or Double-A. It is optional, as in "may" satisfy the more stringent AAA or Triple-A. So that would require input from other editors to up the darkness again to something that is not required. But all our articles must follow the performance timelines to the letter. If it isn't 696969 then it must be changed. I happen to like 696969 better than 595959 because we want to make sure we can discern it easily from black. But I'm not entrenched in it if all others want to change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is almost of all the BLP's main pages and career statistics which have the performance timelines use 767676, instead of 696969. The difference in contrast is slight between 4.54 → 5.48. Both satisfy AA, yet if the guidelines explicitly require the #696969 standard, then I propose 2 solutions here: 1. either lower the guidelines' standards, make them more lenient by keeping the current 767676 to save us some trouble or 2. bring the font darkness up to standard across all insufficient articles. OR 3. Make the background a smidge darker, so it's within AA standards and italicize the text, thereby further emphasizing the player's and tournaments' absence while still maintaining some semblance of visually appealing contrast and accessibility. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Remember... thousands of articles were created before we made the standards. No one has gone around and fixed them as it was low priority and a lot of work compared to other things we have to do. Mostly we fixed the biggest players at the time. I have no idea how Swiatek's was made substandard. Look at the original table maker and let them know the issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Others just copy edited from previous performance timelines, I am sure as it is, unfortunately, common practice. Honestly the difference between 767676 and 696969 is so slight that even I who edited many of the BLP's perf. timelines overlooked this issue. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, it wasn't a huge issue. To be fully AAA compliant it would actually have to be 585858. Per contrast color chart 595959 just misses out as "sort of." I did find the big discussion that changed it from our original cccccc to 696969. I personally think we should stick with that but at least 767676 is wiki compliant. I guess we fix em as we find em? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Or use AWB if one was technically skilled enough. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I know of that discussion. It's what inspired me to start this discussion. Shame Somnifuguist retired. He/she was well AWB adept. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

True. What's good about that consensus is that we don't have to have another one to go ahead and make changes to articles to comply with it. If we see one (especially if it doesn't comply with AA), we can simply change it to the correct color. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

A couple of them were pretty atrocious, frankly speaking, Exhibit A and B, before they got fixed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to restructure the WTA Tour sidebar

I would like to restructure the current WTA Tour sidebar so it closely mimics/matches the ATP Tour one. The problem is, the many WTA tournament categories are divided by eras: 1990–2008, 2009–2020,.., per name change, rather than just by categories: WTA 1000, 500, 250, etc. In 2021, the WTA followed in ATP Tour's footsteps of the naming conventions for their tournament categories, matching the aforementioned categories with the ATP ones, wherein it even updated the old tourn. categories with the newest names on its website. (example: 1990 WTA Tour)
The steps needed to execute this change are:

1. Merge Tier I and Premier Mandatory/5 tournaments in the Premier tourn. page in WTA 1000;

2. Merge Tier II and Premier tournaments in the Premier tourn. page in WTA 500;

3. Move WTA Premier Mandatory/5 contents to WTA 1000, redirect Premier tournaments page to WTA 500,

4. Merge Tiers III, IV and V and International tourn. into WTA 250.

5. Reorganize WTA sidebar similar to the ATP one (using text alignment left or center).

WTA Tour sidebar
Category:WTA Tour navigational boxes

My question is: Will this be a better improvement, practically and aesthetically, for the WTA Tour's sidebar? Hopefully, other editors @ABC paulista, Letcord, Tennisedu, Sportsfan77777, Wolbo, Tennishistory1877, Dicklyon, and Loginnigol: will weigh on the matter so we can reach a common ground. The end goal is to make the sidebar more convenient for future readers, so it's more user-friendly and less jumbled up, straight to the point. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: I like the cleaner look very much, and with the Grand Slam tournaments on top. I guess my concern would be about the few articles that use the template (I think this only affects 12 articles). Wouldn't they each require a rewrite? I look at a page like WTA Tier IV tournaments where it talks all about Tier IV events with no correlation in the proposed chart. In the current chart we see that it was part of five tiers, but not so in the new chart. So while the prose talks about it merging, we don't see it in relation to other contemporary events. We also permanently lose links to the older aspect of the WTA tour. It makes it much more difficult to ever find WTA Tier IV tournaments or WTA International tournaments. I'm wondering if your new chart should be the main chart we see for ease of use, but that we may need a separate chart only for defunct aspects of the WTA Tour. If we did that the articles wouldn't need a rewrite. Or perhaps we use something like your new charts for current aspects of the tour and give it a new template name? Then use the old template on pages such as WTA Tier IV tournaments? The other thing about both charts. The ITF, Davis Cup, and Billie Jean King Cup aren't part of the WTA yet we keep them in the charts for convenience. I have no issue with that. But then why is the Hopman Cup missing? It seems like it should be part of both charts until it is defunct. Those are my quick musings for the moment. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click):, I agree with your concern regarding the loss of links to the defunct tournament articles; this gives us two options:

1. We could use the current sidebar for the defunct tourn. – maybe adding a wikilink of some sort in the current sidebar which would link to the new one – and vice versa, backlink the new sidebar with the current tournament's formats/categories: WTA 1000, 500 & 250 to the current sidebar, so they link to each other aka are interchangeable.

OR

2. Rewrite the outdated tournaments' articles, so the subsequent formats superseding them, are mentioned in the prose. This includes, WTA Tier series I – V, International tournaments, and the Premier tourn. page. I was going to propose merging (via redirecting) and splitting of the aforementioned articles, but that would just remove any links to the previous formats as if they didn't exist. And the goal here is to preserve the past but bring the present to the fore by linking the two.

Hopefully other editors will weigh in on the matter so we can reach common ground. As for the Hopman Cup, the event was replaced by ATP Cup, a male-only tournament between 2020–2022, BUT it's said to return next year under a new name as a mixed-gender event and will replace ATP Cup. We will see. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Remember, the Hopman Cup was replaced "in the schedule" by the ATP Cup. It was never canceled nor permanently replaced. It was only supposed to miss one season, but then the pandemic hit and two delays happened. Then it was to begin anew in 2023 in France. Now it appears that the poorly conceived ATP Cup is gone and a reformatted Hopman Cup will appear in 2023, now billed as the United Cup. I hope so as the HC was simply a joy to watch to start the year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I would hold off adding United Cup, sanctioned by the ITF, in both sidebars' subheading until the announcement's official. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), an update: I looked at men's categories for ATP 500 and ATP 250 tournaments series from 1990-2008 and the 2 series "ATP Championship Series" (1990–99) and "ATP International Series Gold" (2000–08) are merged into 1 article, one for each category. There isn't any sidebars linking to the current category, except for that each old article is linked to its respective current category with a main template link atop the article, which, in my opinion, is sufficient. The main/latest article can have wikilinks linking back to those articles, which should suffice. I looked at the {{ATP sidebar navbox}}'s history and there don't seem to have been any previous iterations thereof, which mentioned the old format events in any capacity.

My point is, this could be done the same for the wta tour events for all categories, wherein the current categories, namely WTA 250, 500 and 1000, are removed from the current sidebar, leaving it intact on all relevant pages, and with a main template and wikilinks for backilinking to connect the 2, I guess you could say, "eras".

Was going to make a wikilink on both sidebars that connects the two, but that would just look weird...or with the {{Switcher}} template that displays both on the same article or one at a time, which would probably be against WP:MOS and unconventional.

Tell me, what are your thoughts on this idea. Do you agree with it? Do you not agree? Stand by your original proposal or would do you propose something new? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm still chewing on it. I might miss those old events not being there... perhaps in a collapsable section? One thing... this is a tour tournament sidebar. We should not have a ranking link. Also, if you have a section called ITF events then that would include the majors in that section. So perhaps "other events" would be better? I also noticed it says U.S. Open, which is wrong... those periods need to go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback to your proposals:

1. See modified version ↓ below ↓:

2. ATP sidebar navbox has the ATP ranking link. Why should the WTA sidebar not have one? OR Do we remove the ATP rankings from the ATP sidebar as well?

3. Slams are under ITF, true, however, the ATP sidebar has them listed separately? Similar case to question 2. Do we merge the two or replace ITF header with other events, albeit ITF specifically lists non-slam itf events, despite the latter being part of it.

4. Removed periods from U.S.  Done

Modified version
Note: Couldn't figure out how to align "Defunct tournaments" center or gray it out.

The sidebar looks too long when expanded; conversely, when collapsed looks just fine. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree it looks too long if expanded. Collapsed would be the way to go if we keep it. The ATP has a ranking list but I don't think it should... also look at the titles. The one you are modifying says "WTA Tour tournaments" as a title, that should not be rankings. The men's header says "Men's pro tennis" which is a little more accommodating for rankings. Really both tours should be the same style so it's also a question of which we like better. If we went with the men's style you wouldn't have to worry about the centering issue. With the ITF issue, so much is semantics. Looking at the ATP tour, when the ATP comes out with a calendar it includes all the ATP specific tournaments, the four majors, Davis Cup, and Olympics. Those are part of the tour schedule even though some are sponsored by the ITF. The Challenger and Futures are not included. So calling headers "Grand Slam tournaments" and "ATP Tour" is really confusing since the Grand Slam events are part of the ATP tour calendar. And the Olympics are handled by the IOC not the ITF. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

So like I said it's a bit confusing for readers in how we want to handle the semantics of the tour. I understand how it breaks down and what we are trying to convey, but many casual readers will not. Even the official WTA calendar makes it confusing as to what is WTA and what is not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

New comments

@Fyunck(click): Take your time with this one. It's a doozy.

I looked into the ATP & WTA's structures. This is what I found.
Excerpts from the ATP and ATP Tour wiki articles, respectively, below.

The WTA and WTA Tour articles are not worded the same as both ATP articles, but it's safe to say the WTA and WTA Tour are structured similarly to their ATP equivalents/counterparts.
Based off of the info above, I updated the ATP and WTA sidebars so they reflect the correct info (presuming what is written on those 4 Wiki articles is accurate) with some minor modifications and tweaks, mostly technical stuff.

New ATP / WTA sidebar versions

(Technical) Notes: 1. For WTA sidebar: You can't have sidebars with collapsible lists AND have bullets. It's not feasible. The sidebar's broken and just gives you a row of raw wikitext. 2. One can, however, configure alignment left/center for collapsible lists. 3. v. 5: a) has enlarged section headers to stand out more, although the Challenger's (non-linked section) black font stands out a bit too much. b) left the section headers inside the collapsible lists the original size, since they are defunct, and "technically" subheaders of "Defunct tournaments" 4. The Olympics are governed by both the ITF and IOC, but since I couldn't think of a way to place the Olympics under 2 diff. sections, I decided to have them under the IOC only. 5 Removed the photo in WTA sidebar to make up for the added length when the list is expanded. We can survive without the logo.

Notes:
1. Placement and location of ATP, Hopman and United Cup within the sidebars will be determined eventually.
Good to know:

ITF → Hopman C.

ATP → ATP C.

TBD → United C.

2. ATP v. 2 vs. v. 3: Should the ATP Challenger section be left as its section or be placec under the ATP Tour section?

3. Not sure, whether to have the sections be named ATP/WTA Tour or ATP/WTA. (second sections, after ITF)

* Small remark: There are predecessor articles for the ATP 500 and 250 main pages (namely International series gold and [[ATP_International_Series|International series]) as per my previous comment, which were never included in the ATP sidebar, the stats (1990-2008) from the old ones are copied to the latest articles, which indicates no need to have them listed in the ATP sidebar. Hence why I think the Defunct section should be removed, but If you want, I can leave it there.

→ Summary: ITF and ATP/WTA are 2 separate tennis governing bodies, 2 separate entities. ATP/WTA divide into ATP/WTA Tours, which comprise of: the Masters/1000s, 500, 250, Challengers. ITF sanctions the slams, Davis/Fed Cup and the ITF Futures.

References

Takes from all of this: This should paint a better picture of the raw structure of the ATP and WTA (and ATP and WTA Tours) AND the ITF and inform the casual reader, skimming/perusing the articles, of what is the rough layout of said Tours, which is the main goal. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

One oddity between the men and women tours are the minor leagues. For decades the men have had a Challenger level tour and the women have not. The men had ITF futures which paid $25,000 or less and everything paid above that was in the Challenger Tour... I think it limits out at $125,000. It was separated by money. The women had sort of the same money structure of $15,000 to $25,000 for the lower lever ITF but everything paid above that, up to $125,000 was also in the ITF... no Challenger level tour. Recently the women added the WTA 125s as their Challenger tour, but I believe all their $30,000 to $100,000 events are still in the ITF. So today, the mens ITF/Challenger tour is nothing like the womens ITF/Challenger tour. You are correct that the main tours are as close as no matter. The ITF and WTA/ATP are separate governing bodies, but they are linked by more than a handshake. They work together on points and schedules. Players can't play in ATP/WTA events without an ITF registration card that states the name they play under, and the country that backs them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Could we make both the same and do it more like the following:

Another style option for both

This is just a quick output by me but it would show readers the events by power level structure: Major league, minor league, minor-minor league. Then defunct or superseded tiers, and finally rankings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is the thing. You put emphasizes on power aka tournament ranks, I, on the other hand, prefer division by ITF and WTA. So, I decided to meet you half way and still include ATP/WTA Tour calendar, (the calendar part is throwing me off), and maybe divide the first section by either ITF and ATP/WTA Tour or just iTF and the TOurs event categories, since they are within purview of the ATP/WTA calendar.

I moved Davis/BJK Cup and Olympics under ITF, even though you prefer them listed in order of power/importance, which puts them above the Tour categ. events, but within ITF (technically ITF partly governs Olym. alongside IOC, which is why I think it belongs there as well).

WTA new versions
Years in Defunct tiers can be removed if not needed. Do we keep or omit "tournaments" after 1000/500/250? Wikilinked WTA Tour in top; ITF in bold.

ATP and WTA side-by-side
Side note: Decided not to include a defunct tiers section in ATP sidebar, because the ATP 250 defunct events page is incomplete; it's missing the champions list from 1990–1999, so called ATP World Series.

Hopefully, the above versions will help us find common ground for both sidebars. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Of those I think I would go with #2. For the men I would remove the challenger finals. I'm not sure about the mens challenger tour 125s either since that is included in the ATP Challenger Tour link. I would have the header for that section unlinked and simply have an ATP Challenger tour and an ITF tour. I'm not sold it's better for our readers but I'm not going to argue about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Removed the challenger finals. A proposal: We could either have only an ATP Challenger tour link or both challenger and challenger 125s.

ATP/WTA versions
Do we keep the ATP Tour calendar section or have it be similar to the wta sidebar on the left?

The only men's challenger tour 125s link I could find, that you say is contained in the ATP Challenger Tour, is in the ATP sidebar. The very sidebar we are discussing about here. By removing the 125s link, there won't be any link on the ATP sidebar or the ATP Challenger tour article linking to the 125. One would have to look it up manually if they knew of its existence. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok then I'm confused with our articles. The ATP Challenger Tour 125 says the 125s are the highest level Challenger events, because they give 125 points. On the ATP Challenger Tour article there is the top section called "Challenger 125 ($150,000+H / €127,000+H)" that give 125 points. What's the difference or is the wording for the 125 Tour woefully inadequate? It's very confusing. When I look at the 125 list from "ATP Challenger Tour" article, the "ATP Challenger Tour 125" article, and the "2022 ATP Challenger Tour" the events don't match. It seems like someone simply created an ATP 125 Tour article because one exists for the WTA and maybe it should be folded into the ATP Challenger Tour article? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

New comments

• It really doesn't have to be this complicated, Qwerty. They are just simple sidebars for navigation, so keep them clear and simple. The tournaments should be all under the ATP/WTA Tours since they're all part of it. The governing bodies of the tournaments are unnecessary details here, they are all mentioned in the main articles as it should be. Here are another two clearer and simpler versions. ForzaUV (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Grand Slam article + National representation

One thing, in most of our charts the category is "National representation" not team competition. I would retitle that and put Olympics under that header. And ATP Cup, since it's now defunct, would be removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much all tournaments played are team competitions, since wherever there're doubles played, it's a team event. Can't think of any equivalent title for now.

I would still keep all 4 majors listed for quicker access, instead of just Grand Slam tournaments. ATP Cup is to be replaced by United Cup as of next year, a Hopman Cup equivalent, so we'll see where that one will go. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

4 Slam tournaments + Team competitions

Fyunck's got a valid point I think. I updated the two versions I made by adding a National representation header and they look good but the ATP Cup needs to stay for now until it's officially not part of the tour. I also prefer one link to the Grand Slam article to links to each tournament but it's no big deal. ForzaUV (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess I can live with "National representation". Also, I would split the Wta challenger and itf section in WTA into 2 so it matches the ATP sidebar. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

So you are saying something like the following is what we should expect for 2023? Also Laver Cup is part of the tour. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

So something like this at the start of 2023?

I totally forgot about Laver Cup. Yes, something like that come 2023 or when the new ATP/WTA calendars come out, which is usually late November or December. I would make ITF Tour in WTA bold and use "(Inter)national" instead of "National/international" representation to keep the header name in 1 line. We can implement the version with ATP Cup and then replace it with United Cup, when the new calendars are released. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I edited the ones submitted by Fyunck above a bit. I kept the header as National representation and Laver Cup out of it because it's an invitational event where players don't even play three-set matches, only two-set matches with a tiebreak. If they look good to you now, you can submit them and update them when the new calendars come out. ForzaUV (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I restored wta challenger tour header, so there's a link to the tour itself, not just the wta 125; narrowed the sidebars a bit. Will replace the current versions of the templates tomorrow. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree with Laver Cup being removed. It is part of the tour schedule. Heck... Davis Cup, ATP Cup, and Olympics are sort of invitational also. And is the ladies ITF now called futures? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Fyunck, Laver Cup is not the same as DC, AC or Olympics and I'm sure you're aware of the difference. In Laver Cup we can see Kyrgios ranked #1000 and still gets invited to represent the "World", moreover there is basically nothing at stake for the players at the event unlike the other competitions. Next Gen Finals is also part of the tour and it's not included in the sidebar. I'm not sure if even the ITF men's tour is still called futures, you can remove it from both if you like.

Qwerty, from what I understand, the "WTA 125" is the WTA challenger tour. Unlike the ATP challenger tour which has different tournament categories, 125, 110, 100 etc, there is only one category in the WTA challenger tour which is WTA 125. It's redundant to have them both in the sidebar directing to the same article. ForzaUV (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

But to be honest, the ATP cup was a poor man's Davis Cup. We don't include it in the performance tables for that reason. It probably shouldn't be there either but the Hopman Cup should always have been there. In looking around google, many men's ITF events are still called futures. I couldn't find any women's events. The ATP doesn't have an ATP 125 tour. They have a Challenger tour that happens to include 125 events. The ITF has multi-level payouts too but we don't go listing each money tier. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

By matching the width you made (1990-2020) goes under Defunct tiers. Fair enough with the futures but then we can't call the WTA 125 a challenger tour since no women's events are called challenger, are there? Let's call it a WTA 125 tour. Davis Cup is a dead competition Fyunck, it's been dead for years. If anything, the ATP Cup was the much better and higher quality event. It was played at the start of the season, players were fresh, motivated and they did want to play in it. It was an exciting and competitive event and I hope the news about it being replaced is not true but most likely we're getting a new ATP/WTA Cup. Hopman Cup was fun but that's it, at least this "United Cup" could be more competitive since there will be ranking points at stake. We gotta wait and see. ForzaUV (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, let's be real here, Davis and BJK Cup, despite their rather new format, which is not appealing to all fans, are still a part of the ATP and WTA Tour. So, I would keep them. We'll just leave ATP Cup there until it's replaced. Laver Cup is an odd ball...It could stay there or not...Forza, you are right about WTA 125. The WTA Challenger Tour link I added was a redirect, making them technically the same tour, which does not have any futures, what Fyunck pointed out.

@Fyunck(click), I widened both sidebars, so the Defunct tiers header is in the same line. Since you seem to want them both be the same width. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I changed WTA 125 Challenger tour to WTA 125 (Challenger), which is pretty much the same. I also reversed Defunct list so it goes in order: first the Tier Series and then the Premier and International. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Davis and BJK Cups are still the most historic team events we have on both tours, they must be included of course. I was just expressing how that ATP Cup has been a much better event than the Davis Cup in recent years and that's about it. No issue with your edits. ForzaUV (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Pardon, @ForzaUV, for misinterpreting your comment about Davis and BJK Cup. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

New comments

We really see the ATP Cup differently and on different ends of the scale, but that's for another conversation on another day. Our browsers must be different since "Defunct tiers (1990–2020)" all fits on one line in Chrome. I would not have left it otherwise had I realized some browsers had an issue. Another quip since we are working on these... we have defunct tiers in the womens sidebar, why not the mens? Since they are for navigation shouldn't we also have defunct ATP International Series Gold and ATP International Series and Grand Prix Super Series so that both sidebars are consistent? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), Grand Prix Super Series, the predecessor of the Masters tournaments, includes tournaments from 1970–1989, . The 2 sidebars, we are discussing about, cover tournaments from 1990-Present. Also, ATP International series, i.e. the precursor of the 250 events, is missing list of singles and doubles winners from 1990–1999. I would not link to articles that don't have the whole data. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The sidebars have been always limited to the ATP Tour so I'd stick to that since we would not know what to keep and remove if we decided to add tournament series from the multiple defunct tours. We might though add a defunct tournaments collapsed list for Grand Slam Cup and WCT Finals. The international series and the gold series are linked in the lead of ATP 250/500, including them in the sidebar is unnecessary imo. ForzaUV (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Why would we add defunct tournaments, Grand Slam Cup and WCT Finals, from before 1990, when the ATP Tour begin, in the ATP Tour sidebar? The WTA sidebar's defunct tournaments lists are tournaments from when the WTA Tour was incepted, not before it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

If those events are linked in the lead of ATP 250/500 then if they were linked in the same way for the women I assume we wouldn't need a defunct collapsed list for the WTA. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't feel like linking the WTA defunct tier articles to the current WTA ones with navboxes and main templates and whatnot. So, despite having the ATP articles linked I still added the defunct tourn. articles in the ATP sidebar to match the WTA sidebar's defunct list. Anyway, here are the latest versions for both sidebars with defunct lists. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Both sidebars with collapsed defunct tier lists

I suppose I could keep making little tweaks to my own perfect liking, but these look fine. They are very visually friendly, they are easily used for linkability, they are pretty close to the same so readers won't be confused in the least when checking out the men's or women's tours. You can't ask for much more. The only question mark will be if/when they officially drop the ATP Cup and officially add the United Cup. The ATP cup at that time may have to go in the defunct events. But I'm sold otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is the final confirmation for replacing the current sidebars with the above versions. As far as ATP Cup is concerned, will supplant it with United Cup and move it to the Defunct list in due time. Thank you, @Fyunck(click) and ForzaUV: for your input and contributions. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), I added United Cup in both sidebars as previously agreed upon. See below:

Latest ATP sidebar navbox and WTA Tour sidebar versions

My question is do I locate the Cup underneath Davis and BJK Cup, respectively, and above the Olympics or position below it, given the latter is more prestigious or would you rather have the Cup on top since they are held annually in comparison to the quadrennial Olympics event? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Useless, original research chart on many tennis articles. Why?

I was going over Iga Swiatek's career statistics article and realized we have two charts that are trivial data that mislead readers, and is likely original research. It's one thing to have charts that show wins of players who were ranked in the top 10 at the time of their meeting... that's fine and relevant. But a chart that shows wins over a No. 1 or No. 2 player when they were ranked far below that at the time? That is really trivial and useless info for our readers. It shows things like a win over No. 2 Vera Zvonareva, who at the time of their match was ranked 96th. No one cares about that data. We want to know who Swiatek beat in the top 10 not a player she beat who was last in the top 10 in 2012! I think these charts have no real value except to add trivial data to our tennis articles. I started this conversation on Swiatek's talk page but soon realized these charts are like weeds. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess it is likely evoluted from H2H records. Due to, as previous entry pointed out, common practice, these charts/tables spread out across almost entire career statistics articles. Even we opted to remove these charts/tables, I strongly suspect there would be loads of IP users reverting it. So I would rather just leave as it is. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness:, if edit wars occur because of this, we can always request page protection. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of PP, and I am afraid that might sacrifice the maintance frenquency of these statistic articles, as the vast are updated by these WP:GOODFAITH IP users once there is an event complete. Unnamelessness (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, you are right. On the other, in worst-case scenario PP does chase away the ill-natured kind. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind some head to heads, though usually that is against a rival or an actual No. 1 player. But continually adding players to a chart that ten years ago they were No. 7 and are now No. 127, seems really trivial and original research. Maybe it's just me but this seems the type of thing that if Wikipedia as a whole looked at it (instead of just tennis editors) it would be deleted in a shot. Every time say Swiatek beats a player, we have to look up if that player was ever in her life ranked in the top 20. If so, we have to add her to the chart, goto the WTA site, and search for their head to head record and add that too. It just seems like data-mining just for the sake of data. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Just remove. The last thing we should do is having content out of fear op IP edit-warring. Editors have to respect content guidelines, no the other way around.Tvx1 07:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep for now. See WTA Official guide. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

See what? It has 23 pages of tables but I see nothing resembling what this discussion is about. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, to add these types of charts are prevalent on pretty much every singles tennis player's career stat page. The chart in question is about players whom Iga's beaten whose career highest ranking was ##. As for Top 10 wins there's a separate chart for that... Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but capitalizing "Women's Singles" and using light grey color for "DNQ" or "A" was more than prevalent... every article had them. But we changed. These seemed like very strange mostly useless charts to me.... adding them just because we can. While I would vote for their removal, I'm not going to remove them without consensus. So if this fizzles out (as most tennis conversations actually do), then it fizzles out and I go on to work on other tennis items. Maybe this is no big deal, and I know tennis editors love to add all kinds of whimsical charts and graphs, but I thought I'd bring it up here to test the waters. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Support, this chart in particular should indicate XY player, in our case, Swiatek beat the player in their current ranking not their career highest one. And wasn't it already discussed at length with Dicklyon about Women's Singles...since it's part of a sentence it should be lowercase. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes the Women's singles was discussed... I was only pointing out that things change when consensus decides it's wrong, no matter how many articles it affects. If we don't use a criteria of their highest rank ever, then what criteria would we use to make this chart? We can't leave it arbitrary or editors would add whatever players they feel like. Do you simply remove that charts as trivial? Do we make charts of headtoheads only of players that were top 10 when they played each other? I'm open to compromise suggestions to make our articles better and informative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why all of you made this as a big problem. On 90% of tennis related pages there is this kind of table. If it will be problem with only Iga or a couple of players I will understand it. You can remove it on some pages, but still it will stay on many others. In the same time if player is current or formal top 10 player, it stands out. Do you know how much works is needed to check player position in that moment, type of tournaments etc. People will be confused and there will be so much mistakes in these tables. Also, this is not something done few days ago, it is there so long (for some even more than a few years). For me, it is really ridiculous to change it, because you will create even bigger chaos. Plus, you don't rescect all effort some editors put in this. There is so many other things that these pages needs in order to be fixed and consistent. I'm currently working on some pages for older players like Nadia Petrova, Roberta Vinci etc. It disguisted me how messy these pages are in both formating and essential way. By the way, I don't see you guys making any effort in making these pages better but just wanted to make some changes. Respect editors at least more. So many pages needs to be updated! Wake up! Cheers! JamesAndersoon (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Plus, this kind of table exist so long and nobody makes a problem with that. Otherwise, there would be objections. Think about that. JamesAndersoon (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of items on player articles that are wrong that no one has taken the time to fix. I'm certainly guilty of that too. And you're right, many of our older articles are woefully out of date. They should be a higher priority than these trivial charts. Even the really old players. The top players from the 20s-80s should have similar articles to Iga Swiatek, Ashleigh Barty, and Serena Williams... but they don't. I just happened to notice the odd chart on Iga's article and thought how weird it was. I thought why should editors be wasting their time on these charts when it could be better used to doing what you are doing... helping our older articles. It's probably just human nature. There are zillions of folks who want to edit Swiatek's articles right now and one or two that want to edit Louise Brough, Margaret Osborne duPont, Helen Jacobs, or Hana Mandlikova. I'm sure there has been a big drop off on people wanting to edit Raducanu and Osaka in the past year. Right now I would say these top 20 charts give us trivial data at great cost of time. We should certainly not be adding any more to future articles while we decide if there are major tweaks we could do to make them more palatable or simply remove them as we get around to it. Do you really think that it's vital information to show Carlos Alcaraz' head to head against 385th ranked Lucas Pouille, who was way up there at 103 rank when they played their only match? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Right now Carlos Alcaraz article and Iga Swiatek article also have a legitimate chart that shows wins against players who were, at the time the match was played, ranked in the top 10. That's cool. Both those players also have the trivial "Record against top 10 players" chart that shows head to head of players who were ever in their lives ranked in the top 10. Swiatek also has an even more trivial limited chart of head to heads against players that were ever ranked in the top 11-20. What might be better and more informative would be to eliminate those two trivial charts. On the good chart with the top 10 wins, add an extra column with their head to head record. You might even include a head to head record list of top 10 players (at the time she played them) that she has lost to if the head to head is not included in her win list. To me that is more helpful to our readers... players she beat in the top 10 and players she lost to in the top 10... and not that she beat 196th ranked Mihaela Buzărnescu (123 rank at the time) in the Billie Jean King Cup in 2022 and has a 1–0 record against her, just because Buzărnescu was ranked No. 20 a year before Swiatek even turned professional. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

New comments

The more I think about this, the more I feel these charts should only include actual ranking of the player Iga, and every other BLP this type of chart is included in, has beaten and leave it at that. If this means mass-cleanup, then some be it. I am in for the ride. Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Merging of navboxes

I propose the following the 3 navboxes:

WTA 1000 tournaments

be merged into one. Any ideas for the new central navbox's design? Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

But any player starting in 2021 only needs one small navbox. Most players would need only one or two. By combining them, almost all players would get information they don't need. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This is moreso for the WTA 1000 singles and WTA 1000 doubles pages than for BLP's, and for the eponymous category. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You are correct as I checked. Every link is to a tournament or category therein. Many of those events need all three navboxes, so perhaps it would be better to merge them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Any ideas on what the merged navbox should look like? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposals

Proposal 1: Sub-template

Proposal 2: Sub-section

Unnamelessness (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of:

Proposals 3 and 4
OR

On a side note, {{ATP Masters Series}} and {{ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments}}, the ATP equivalents of the WTA navboxes, had 6 different series aka category renamings from 1990 onwards and yet they're all put into 1 category/group. Unnamelessness, while I appreciate your input, I feel as though the navs should be more compressed, at least have the years in 1 group instead of in separate ones. Let's keep it short and simple. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't really like proposal 4, but proposal 3 looks pretty good. It should probably have a more encompassing title though, like proposal 2 (WTA 1000 / Premier / Tier I tournaments). Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

How about these options?

Proposals v. 3.1 & 3.2
Proposal v. 3.1 Proposal v. 3.2

Looking any better? Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Depending on a person's screen size (and how much it squishes info) it may make no real difference. I personally like 3.2 better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I truncated the years. It should look better now. I would keep the years since they've always be prevalent in navs. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, what do we do with the 2 men's ATP Masters navs?

ATP Masters navboxes
{{ATP Masters Series}} and

See their transclusions here:

ATP Nav. 1 transclusions ATP Nav. 2 transclusions

Do we merge them 2 into 1 as well or leave them as is? Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd merge them and use the exact same format and wording. I'd title it ATP Masters tournaments. I guess I would use an "other" header and put in both record and statistics and predecessor. I'd dump the years since this is for navigation and we don't need the detail of when they formed. In fact, why do we include that info in the other chart? Doha and Dubai are getting unwieldy with all those dates after the name. The articles themselves will tell you when the events take place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Doha and Dubai, it's common practice to include years when a certain event took place. The years are like a must-have, consider it sort of like essential to these kinds of navboxes. I can modify them a bit if needed be, for e.g., use abbreviations 1990 → 90, 1997 → 97, etc. Every tournament navboxes uses years. Case in point, {{WTA German Open tournaments}} Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is it must have? Think 15 years from now how long the date list will become. I do not see them as must have at all and I think they should all be removed. They are not needed in the least. In fact, why city names instead of tournament names? That could also confuse readers when they expect Italian Open and get Rome; when the expect Canadian Open and get Montréal/Toronto. Rome is not a tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Say we remove the years when individual tournament took place, claiming the info's in the tournament's article. Fine, so be it. But I would still keep the events' cities instead of having Masters and Open be written after every tournament's name. And why Rome? The tournament takes place in Rome. Mayhaps Rome Masters, but not Italian Open. This has been done for a long time listing the tournaments in navboxes by cities, rather than by their actual names. It's common practice to do it thusly. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

ATP Masters 1000 tournaments

I can rename the "ATP Masters Series" to "ATP Masters tournaments", "ATP Masters 1000 tournaments" or "ATP Masters 1000" and tag the other one for deletion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

New comments

Long ago, our performance timelines had cities instead of tournaments, but that was changed by consensus as not accurate. Now our timelines must use the tournament name. Cities are not tournaments and I don't see why the tournament name is not used. It takes up less room than the date row. Common practice for years has been to use multiple navboxes yet here we are merging and tweaking... now would be the time to make them the best they can be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I can live with all kinds of mergings, it just seems a shame to not correct things to the actual tournament names. The title of the nav bar is tournaments, not cities, so readers would expect the tournament names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The wta navbar has 21 tournaments, half of which are defunct. Would you keep the tournament name for the defunct as well or use the city names only. Many tournaments went through name changes over the years, because of sponsorship reasons and otherwise. If we do come to an agreement to use tournament names, which admittedly is a better solution, we would have to choose the right, the "universal", for lack of a better term, name for each event.

For example, Boca Raton was Ameritech Cup, a one-off Tier I event in 1990, Berlin aka German Open, Tokyo which ran for 16 years was Toray Pan Pacific Open, which is a long name to include in the navbox (best would be to omit the sponsor name), etc.

If I perused the navbox for the first time and saw Ameritech Cup and saw Boca Raton on another chart I wouldn't know that was the same tournament. Clicking on the city name's link takes you to the tournament's main page, but not year. Therefore, the years should stay to indicate when XY event took place. There's no way of knowing when such event was a Tier I/Premier/1000 event if it's not mentioned in the article itself, which isn't on every article. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

There should ne no reason we can't fix it all now and make the following:

ATP Masters 1000 tournaments

I would be okay with this version if it wasn't for the "Masters" and "Open" added at the end of each name. That's the only thing that bothers me. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click):, I withdraw my previous statement and agree with your ATP navbox proposal. If nobody objects with this, we should be good with implementing this "final" version. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I've given a lot of thought over the past 10 days and decided to meet you half away. At the end of the day, it's what's the most suitable for the readers that's important and so I decided to put your @Fyunck(click): proposal into consideration and suggest this as the potential middle-ground solution for the wta navboxes:

Merged WTA navboxes

Tell me what you think of it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with it except two kinda perplexing things. Now would I use WTA Qatar Open?... no since this is already a WTA chart I would just use Qatar Open, but I won't argue it if that's what you like better. I would also use Dubai Open since that is also a common name (that is shorter) for the event. But again, that's personal preference so I won't argue the point. But Indian Wells Masters is wrong for the gals. They do not have a Masters event... it is called Indian Wells Open for women. Same with Cincinnati. And why only Wuhan instead of the correct Wuhan Open? Why would it be the only event left as a city only? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I would keep "Masters" for both IW and Cincy, since that's the official name of the tournaments. Or we can use their sponsor name equivalents: BNP Paribas Open and Western and Southern Open. Fixed Qatar, Dubai and Wuhan. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got that "masters" was part of the official name. Cincinnati as at [8] and Indian Wells is at [9]. Everything we have at Wikipedia for the women says Indian Wells Open and Cincinnati Open. The majority of sources also use the term. This chart would be an anomaly for us. We use the term Masters at our Wikipedia page because we had to put it at something. They could just as easily be moved to Indian Wells Open and Cincinnati Open (actually probably should be as I think about it). The official website says it was known as the Cincinnati Open since 1899. The ATP and WTA of course call them by their sponsored names, as they should lest their money dry up. But that name changes with the sponsors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I was on the assumption that the tournament's wikipedia article names were the official names. I guess I was wrong. If the official websites cite them as open, then we should stick with the "Open" to avoid any confusion. Replaced "Masters" with "Open" for both tournaments. Now all active wta 1000 tournaments are listed as "Open's" in the navbox. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Then I'm fine with your chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Storm Sanders#Requested move 6 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Storm Sanders#Requested move 6 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Strange bold in TennisMatch3 template

I found this template Template:TennisMatch3 is used in the matches of 2023 United Cup#Final. In the second match, Musetti retired and Tiafoe won in the second set, but the 0 in the Musetti side was in bold. Is there somthing wrong in the template, or the editor used this template in an incorrect way? Regpath (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree the template is sometimes confusing; it bolds players when the match hasn't even finished. I suggest removing the bolding function of the template and let users manually bold them. Timothytyy (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Medvedev–Tsitsipas rivalry up for deletion

I first prod'd and now nominated Medvedev–Tsitsipas rivalry for deletion. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medvedev–Tsitsipas rivalry. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Masters section name dispute

More input is needed for the name of the following sections, used at 4 related tennis articles:

1. ATP Masters singles
2. ATP Masters doubles
3. WTA 1000 singles
4. WTA 1000 doubles.

The issue is @ForzaUV: is leaning more towards List of champions, which has been present for a while now. Whereas, I prefer the Most titles won by player, which fits more the scope of the section itself.

The question here is which name should we go with, which would be applied across all 4 pages. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Those charts are basically lists of champions, so I don't see why we should give the sections a more verbose title. Moreover, list of champions is what articles' sections almost always named in Wikipedia, you can check the list of sections here. On the other hand, most titles won by player as a section name is only applied on the two WTA 1000 pages mentioned above. ForzaUV (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Which again begs the question do we unify the section title across all 4 articles or limit it only to the ATP ones. And what name should be used? Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The one which used all across Wikipedia articles should be used in my opinion, which is "List of champions". It's a standard title for such sections as you can see in the two search links I provided above, so again I'm not sure why we should change it. ForzaUV (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave it to other editors to voice their opinion on the matter to reach a sturdier consensus. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. C ForzaUV (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

As you know, all champions are identified in the section 1 (Masters Champions by year). But section 2 (List of Champions) contain only 3+ titles champions. This gives only most titles won overall in the order as well as per Masters event, most won by player. It holds good for WTA 1000 series as well. Other lists WWE being specific, it contains list of champions. In my view, the titles suggested:

1. Most Masters by player (or)
2. Most titles won by player (or)
3. Most Masters titles by player (or)
4. Most titles by player (or)

I will go with whatever is selected other than "List of Champions" or as suggested by @Qwerty284651 is also fine. No specific choice but it should suit to the content. It is about all Masters titles and most titles won by players in their entire career. Krmohan (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Krmohan, my choice is actually your 2nd proposal/choice. And what did you mean by WWE? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651, It is fine "Most titles won by player". The content is about players and titles. I have seen other sites like List of current champions in WWE for comparison. Yes, convinced that the name needs change. Krmohan (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Since the topic is about the same section "List of Champions" where the events "not won by player" and "not played/applicable to player" is also pointed out by @ForzaUV. He only mentioned that we could tell which tournaments the players didn't get the chance to play/win, when there are only 9 tournaments at a time in their career. Like to add that the key is not only about the "surface" here but also about the "event" (defunct event without indicating surface is also there). Indicating the events by player is neither fluff nor unnecessary, in my opinion. The key is such that the legend must be easily understandable to the readers when it has its own significance in a player's career in winning title. Anyways, we need not worry about the space in this context as well. Any other opinions are welcome. Krmohan (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651 It is better to change for all four tennis articles to "Most titles won by player" as relevant for these sections in particular.. Krmohan (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Contd...

In other sections, where the standard title is "List of Champions", it is listing of champions by year or all champions or followed by Most titles...So, you may go ahead for TENNIS..Cheers.. Krmohan (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

There is still not even one compelling argument in favor of changing what's consistent across all of Wikipedia. Even the WWE link provided by krmohan is titled List of champions. ForzaUV (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, I am in favour of changing the Masters section name update, after going through various sections including the WWE link cited. The reasons being, in other sports,

1. Mostly the name is related to the main title of the topic, but not sections e.g. List of champs in WWE, European cup etc.
2. If the name is related to one of the sections, it is mostly indicated all "Champions by year" (Saudi league, Football, Rugby champs etc); It is a single championship event but not exactly multiple events like in the Masters.
3. Even after Listing of champs by year, "most titles by team / player" is also there in other sports (in fact not standardized in that sense).

In the Masters, "Masters champion by year" is already one of the sections at the start and next section is all about most titles per event as well as overall. Therefore, I strongly support the idea of standardizing it for the four tennis articles as suggested by @Qwerty284651 and agree with "Most titles won by player" or simply "Most titles by player" just after the first section (champs by year) in the article. Hope this is in order for your consensus. Krmohan (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Krmohan, it was Forza who suggested unifying the names across all 4 articles not me. See paragraph 4 in original discussion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Noted with thanks. Then, let us go with the change. As Forza left it to other editors (mentioning fair enough) and looking for some solid reasons, so I gave my explanation and waiting for your inputs. Krmohan (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Because it's a standardization proposal, it needs more inputs from other editors and we're not in a hurry. I have to say though that it occurred to me that ATP name this list as "Masters titles leaders", so maybe we should go with the source? I'd be cool with it actually. ForzaUV (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"Masters titles leaders" would also be fine. Krmohan (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I second this. I think we have a winner, "Masters titles leaders" for all 4 articles' sections. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"Masters title leaders" could be used for the ATP Masters articles, because "Masters" isn't a WTA category. "WTA 1000" is. For both WTA articles I would use "List of champions", "Most ttles won by player", "1000 title leaders", "WTA 1000 title leaders" or some other proposition. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

In that case, we go back to the first one as the clear winner is "Most titles won by player". It is there in so many articles in tennis and other sports. Let us keep it simple and general, if there are no other suggestions. When we changed to this name, other editors do not have any issues...Cheers... Krmohan (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You got it right, Qwerty. The headers don't have to be exactly the same word by word for both the ATP and WTA lists. 'Masters titles leaders' for the ATP lists, and 'WTA 1000 titles leaders' for the WTA lists. I wonder though how come you're cool with "List of champions" for the WTA lists but not the ATP lists? ForzaUV (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It has to be simple, general and standardized for these events. Let us go with "Most titles won by player". It is almost there in other articles and was the first choice anyway. If you keep it on the display, any other editor may comment and suggest for the change if it is not o.k. That's my opinion rather than waiting for others to contribute. List of champions is not worth as already masters champion by year is there chronologically in the first section and we are not listing all champions anyway but talking about the most titles overall, per event, strike rate and winning span in the same table. It is cool to go with the same title in my view, whether it is ATP or WTA in general. Krmohan (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, @Qwerty284651 Especially when few of the events are common for ATP/WTA in general. Krmohan (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Most titles by player or Most titles won by player is simply good enough for all the tennis articles. No confusions either way.. Krmohan (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I suppose have "Masters title leaders" for ATP's articles and "WTA 1000 title leaders" for the WTA's ones.

Or as an alternative: we could, this might be too limiting, just have "Title leaders" as the header. Maybe? Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"It has to be simple" Masters titles leaders and WTA 1000 titles leaders are not simple enough for you? ForzaUV (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Not at all, obviously there is no standardization and unification, which is the primary objective.. Krmohan (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Secondary objective is it should fit to the content as expressed by Qwerty initially in the discussion page... Krmohan (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If you don't mind, let me just ask you something simple here. Your number 1 suggestion above was 'Most Masters by player', suppose we went with that, what should have we named the WTA list in that case? I'll wait for you answer before I vote. ForzaUV (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Request to vote

I see this discussion is getting out of hand. All because of a simple section's name. I say we vote for one of the following options:

1. "Most titles by players won" for all 4 articles
2. "List of champions" for all 4 articles
3. "Masters title leaders" for ATP; "WTA 1000 title leaders" for WTA's articles.
4. "Title leaders" for all articles.

• I vote for option 3. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• I am changing my vote to option 4. It's more concise and encompasses both men's and women's articles. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• After lot of deliberations, I will go with option 1 "Most titles won by player" for this section, just after "Masters Champions by year" section..We already had this for one month and no reader/editor objected except one. Now it is a matter of meeting those objectives as already discussed. It is improvised. Krmohan (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

To add, I am for option 1 as well. So, to update my vote: I am for options 1 or 3. Krmohan chose option 1. Where are you leaning towards, @ForzaUV:? Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 is the clear winner for me, and I don't mind #2. ForzaUV (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

So, we have a stalemate. 2 votes for options 1 and 3. Now what? Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651, @ForzaUV...Appreciate very systematic approach to kill and close the discussion topic itself...OMG.. Krmohan (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean, Qwerty? Didn't you vote for 3? Anyways, you started the poll only yesterday so you don't have to close the discussion too early. We can forget about this for a week or two or even more and we might get a vote from another editor or just simply name those sections 'Titles leaders' and get it over with. ForzaUV (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's give the poll a week and then we'll see. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Prefer Option 3 and would go for the concise 'Title leaders'. The 'Masters' or 'WTA 1000' prefixes seem superfluous as this is already defined by the article scope.--Wolbo (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 In thinking about it, I agree with Wolbo here. We don't really need more than "Title leaders." And that simple statement would work with both articles. I added Option 4 for future responders. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Five of the articles has already got "Most titles won" except "ATP Masters Singles". However, I will go with the majority (Option 4) as suggested. If there are further inputs, may be changed accordingly. Krmohan (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Need consensus for a BRFA

Is it okay if I file a BRFA to replace with WTA Tier I Event(s) → WTA Tier I tournaments? Will this, in any way, violate WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:AWBRULES? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this in tables only? I could see decapitalizing the word "events" but are you saying to remove all instances of the phrase "WTA Tier I events" in all of prose? Often we try not to use the term "tournaments" too many times in adjoining sentences and purposely use the word "events" to fix that problem. There is nothing inherently wrong with the use of "events" and it's used by ESPN, and Tennis Magazine, etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I just want to bypass redirects to the WTA Tier I tournaments with a bot run (usually a single instance of mention per page), but was told it'd violate WP:COSMETICBOT. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixing the redirect is fine but it should change things from [[WTA Tier I Events]] to [[WTA Tier I tournaments|WTA Tier I events]] so it's a transparent correction. It should not erase the visual of "WTA Tier I events". Isn't that what we have redirects for? I fix it if I notice it but otherwise it seems low priority. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't you mean to change it from [[WTA Tier I Events]] to [[WTA Tier I tournaments|WTA Tier I events]]? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Confused... Isn't that what I wrote? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

My mistake.. meant to write: didn't you mean to change it from [[WTA Tier I Events]] to [[WTA Tier I events|WTA Tier I tournaments]]? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If the proper link is to WTA Tier I tournaments then if we want to write WTA Tier I events, so it doesn't red link, we'd have to use [[WTA Tier I tournaments|WTA Tier I events]]. Am I missing something? Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

You aren't missing anything. I missed the lowercase event. WTA Tier I Event exists, not WTA Tier I event. I'll give it a quick run of AWB to fix that (converting from WTA Tier I Event to [[WTA Tier I events|WTA Tier I tournaments]]. I won't be correcting it from Event to event because that would create a new page and leave redirect of a redirect, a double redirect and noone wants that. Sure, bots'll fix that, but why complicate things.Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I just created redirects for "event" and "events" so problem fixed then. We don't want to change all Wikipedia occurrences of "WTA Tier I Events" (or events) to "WTA Tier I tournaments", we just want the links to be proper so they don't have to go through a redirect if possible. And we would want all capital "E" in Event changed to lower case "e". We would not want all occurrences of "WTA Tier I Event", 'WTA Tier I Events", "WTA Tier I event", or "WTA Tier I events" changed to "WTA Tier I tournaments." We would not want that. What we would want is that if "WTA Tier I Event", 'WTA Tier I Events", "WTA Tier I event", or "WTA Tier I events" are linked to a redirect that they be properly linked to "WTA Tier I tournaments" and any capital Event changed to lower case event. It's not a big deal if they aren't but if we notice it we can fix it. Or I guess we could create a bot to link them all properly without changing the outward appearance to readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

My goal was to avoid creating more redirects, but fix the currently present uppercase "Event(s)" part of the title. I could've run a quick AWB fix of typos, but wasn't sure, whether to do bypass redirects of just fix the typos. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

But having redirects is fine. Remember, people may actually type that in the search bar and get redirected. Since the real world uses the term "WTA Tier I events" we should have a redirect in case they search for it. That is what redirects are for. When we make an actual link in an article we should create it without going through the redirect. And we would need to keep the capitalized version of "WTA Tier I Event" as a redirect because readers may capitalize all the words. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair point..in the interim, I ran a quick AWB run and replaced all "WTA Tier I Event(s)" → "WTA Tier I event(s)" in prose (the only such links in a page being in the lead and see also sections (which in itself violates MOS:NOTSEEALSO, but that's its own discussion). Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

That was a good idea... no reason to have Event(s) capitalized. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

New non-individual articles

Hi all. Because of the comment here and resulting AfD nomination, I'm asking here about some other tennis topics I might want to write articles about (some of which the WikiProject guidelines don't directly address) before starting to work on them.

• Court–King rivalry
• Navratilova–Shriver (doubles team with 20 major wins, 3 more finals, 10 WTA Finals wins)
• Zvereva–Fernández (doubles team with 14 major wins, 4 more finals, 2 WTA Finals wins)
• McEnroe–Fleming (doubles team with 7 major wins, 3 more finals)
• Krejčíková–Siniaková (current doubles team with 6 major wins, 1 more final and another pending, 1 WTA Finals win and 2 runner-ups)
• Wimbledon ban of Russian and Belarusian players (for more depth than 2022 Wimbledon Championships § Controversy regarding the participation of Russian and Belarusian players currently, such as more detailed reactions, lasting impact of no ranking points on certain players, widely reported irony of Russian-born player still winning in women's singles, etc)

Pinging @Fyunck(click), but I'd appreciate comments from anyone. In particular I'd like some input on what may make a doubles pairing notable (currently the only ones on Wikipedia are Bryan–Bryan, Williams–Williams, and Woodbridge–Woodforde). I hope the ones listed above are clear-cut inclusions – sufficient coverage should exist for all of them, though I haven't started searching all that much. But how "great" (as the advice on tennis rivalries says), successful, or prolific might a team need to be to merit inclusion? What of (to pick kind of randomly) Huber–Black (4 major wins, 3 more finals, 2 WTA Finals wins), Knowles–Nestor (3 major wins, 6 more finals, 1 ATP Finals win), or Nestor–Zimonjić (3 major wins, 2 more finals, 2 ATP Finals wins)? More recently, Mladenovic–Babos (4 major wins, 3 more finals, 2 WTA Finals wins), Ram–Salisbury (3 major wins, 1 more final, 1 ATP Finals win), or Paes–Hingis (4 major wins)? Koolhof–Skupski (ranked No. 1, but certainly too soon)? Much-publicized lately Gauff–Pegula (1 major final) or Kyrgios–Kokkinakis (1 major win)? Sakkari–Tsitsipas (would be very fun to write about their results at Olympics, Hopman, United Cup)?

Also open to suggestions for how to format these titles. Category:Sports duos would suggest Barbora Krejčíková and Kateřina Siniaková (similar to this page whose individual members have their own articles). But I'm leaning toward Krejčíková–Siniaková in more of this style (though ofc MOS:BOLDAVOID applies) or to go bulky like Barbora Krejčíková–Kateřina Siniaková partnership or doubles team. Thanks in advance for your thoughts, and also for any good sources on particular articles that anyone might recommend me to seek out. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

My first two cents. Court-King was definitely a huge rivalry, so no issue there. The titles would be suspect on some choices. It would need to be "Navratilova-Shriver tennis doubles team" or something like that. Same with Zvereva-Fernandez. Mac and Krejikova articles wouldn't cut it as among the best in history so no from me on those. The others mentioned are a huge no and would have to change our guidelines for inclusion as a separate article. They do just fine in the individual player bios. Rivalries are inherent in the sport... it's what the sport is so they are nothing special unless they are a truly special rivalry. There are way bigger doubles teams in the history of the sport that could be created rather than these lesser ones. I have no issue on an article of "Wimbledon ban of Russian and Belarusian players" per say, but how much more would it encompass than we already have in the 2022 Wimbledon article? Remember that it's not just Wimbledon that has banned the Russian nationality from the sport... all tennis bans the Russian flag/nationality. And the UK itself has given Wimbledon guidelines on the issue. Plus other UK tournaments have also banned the players haven't they? Like Eastbourne and Birmingham? We have to be careful about the title wording on this issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

(Guessing you didn't mean to write "rivalries" in one sentence there.) Thanks for the comment – I think we're generally in agreement. What I was trying to get at by listing a lot of doubles teams which I mostly wouldn't think of making articles about is that there's no guideline I know of to look to here. For example, what would it take to make you think that Krejčíková–Siniaková should be an article? More titles? How many? Personally, as a fan of contemporary tennis, I want to say they're already worthy. Objectively, they're the only women's team ever to win the Career Super Slam together. And just discovered that of the four men's or women's teams to win the Career Golden Slam together, they're the only one currently without an article. As for McEnroe–Fleming, a quick search brings up a source like this speaking to their icon status: "The names no longer trill off the tongue like McEnroe-Fleming, Navratilova-Shriver or the Woodies once did ..."

All this to say, a good guideline for doubles pairs wouldn't be a bad idea, and I even think it should have a fairly high bar, but it has to be based on more than vibes. Not necessarily a number of titles won, but something showable with reliable sources.

Oh, one more idea I neglected to mention earlier: an article about a player's run at an individual tournament (none yet exists, I think)? The most legendary may be Jimmy Connors's run at the 1991 US Open, which would have more room for background info and details of matches than either Jimmy Connors or 1991 US Open – Men's singles. There's certainly no dearth of sources on that run. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 05:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Rivalries in tennis are as common as grass. They are almost always not notable as a stand-alone article, but are notable enough to mention on the individual player pages. They can also be put in lists. When we do have one that is exceptional even for tennis, and it's talked about left and right in books that it is a rivalry, then we have something worthy of putting in this Wikipedia. It's not just a question of numbers. We have all of the history of tennis to compare it with. As for doubles teams we have the same dilemma. Before I would look at teams you mention I would make sure we have articles for the truly great doubles teams like Clapp and duPont, Fry and Hart, Fernandez and Zverava. I don't look at Krejčíková–Siniaková in the same breath... yet, and I don't thing history does either... yet. There is also Court and Fletcher for mixed doubles. Do we have doubles articles on the amazing Doherty brothers? Or Emerson and Fraser or Newcombe and Roche? We need an article on our sport's only Grand Slam winners, McGregor and Sedgman. The ones you mention are good but not really stand-alone worthy yet. Obviously the Woodies and Bryan Brother deserve stand-alones, and perhaps I was a bit hasty in poo-pooing Mac-Fleming and Krejčíková–Siniaková, but they seem so meager compared to so many that really should have articles. But three majors in the same season for Krejčíková–Siniakov is pretty amazing... and here they are in the finals again trying to win their 3rd major in a row. The Williams sisters already have an article but Krejčíková–Siniaková are the next best team since Pascual and Suárez in the early 2000s (who don't have an article). Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hameltion, I suggest you make a list of significant doubles partnerships page first, add the listed pairs you want articles on in their own separate section and write a short prose. After gathering sufficient sourcing, you might then create full-blown articles on the aforementioned tandems. I would title the new titles sans "tennis" per WP:CONCISE, "X-Y doubles team" would suffice, "X-Y tennis doubles team" sounds redundant to me (but that's an editorial choice, not some guideline). Furthermore, you can check the following sections for: men's doubles, women's doubles and mixed doubles if you feel tempted to explore the mixed-gender pairings. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm ... not planning to make a list article at the moment, that's kind of a more comprehensive project than I want to take on. But I agree it would be a good resource for readers. As for titles, Krejčíková–Siniaková doubles team was one of my first suggestions and I'll probably go with that or Krejčíková–Siniaková doubles tennis team (not a fan of "tennis doubles team"). Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess it's not etched in stone to include tennis. The trouble is one big complaint we've had over the years was that an article either in the lead or title doesn't even mention the sport it's talking about. I've fixed 100s of leads to help but we still wind up with items like 2022 Guadalajara Open Akron – Singles where no one knows what sport it is. The article at least must mention in the first sentence of the lead what sport we are talking about. And I still think that while not opposed to Krejčíková–Siniaková doubles tennis team, there are teams far more worthy that have no article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Which option is in your opinion better to include details of the actual tournament or just mention the winner of said event is such and such in the lead of a event's draw article:

1. 1987 CA-TennisTrophy – Doubles or
2. 2022 Italian Open – Women's singles? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Not the best comparison as the 1987 article format is all wrong. The lead should always be approximately as the "2022 Italian Open – Women's singles" article. All the four majors singles events have been corrected as they were the highest priority, but many lesser events have failed to be fixed. I think most lesser recent singles events have been fixed but some still don't place the result right at the top with the event name and discipline. We have very few doubles teams or rivalry articles so since it was being discussed here it seemed like we may also want the title concise. Since there aren't likely to be doubles teams in a different sport with the same player names it's probably not absolutely needed in the title, but I was just throwing it out there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Updated the lead of 1987 CA-TennisTrophy – Doubles slightly to clarify that it is about the doubles event, not about the tournament (1987 CA-TennisTrophy) itself. In my view it is a much better lead than 2022 Italian Open – Women's singles, which is actually quite poor as it does not properly summarize and present a concise overview of the article's topic. Way too much emphasis on the winner and too little on the event itself which is the topic of the article. The proper order IMO should be to first explain what the event is and then who won it, not the other way around.--Wolbo (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Wolbo, the topic of the article is the event itself, but emphasis should be put on who the winner(s) are, because it is, after all, a tournament draw article, doubles. In the best interest of the reader visiting a draw page would be for a said article's lead to contain the following structure:

1. Winner(s) is...who won the .... singles event. (by mentioning which name a player's won, you include the .... tennis tournament...which is all you need; the curious ones who want to know more can always click the link in the main template, thereby pointing them to the tourn. ed. page with more info on the event itself)

2. Def. champ(s) was... and def. their title successfully or didn't and whom they lost to.

3. Event info goes in the tournament edition article, the non-draw, without any singles/doubles in its name.

Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Since there aren't likely to be doubles teams in a different sport with the same player names it's probably not absolutely needed in the title, but I was just throwing it out there what did you exactly mean by this? Didn't quite understand. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I checked the Sporting duos cat. I get it what you meant by that. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), can you post the link to the discussion about the tournament's draw pages' lead new priority of putting newest champs first, have an instance mentioning it was a tennis event, etc? Want to double check something. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Goodness years ago now. It was a culmination of complaints from editors who couldn't believe they were reading an article with no idea about the sport and the biggest news being buried in the middle or bottom. The few tennis article posters here (very few these days) agreed so I went about updating all the major singles articles from their inception. I then posted here that I finished the updates. I'll have to look for when I finished the updates, and work back. The original complaints were at tennis project, and several tennis editor talk pages. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you give me the link to the post/discussion, please? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

And as I recalled it was over multiple discussions, some with administrators. Part was right here, and part was over here, but there were many more discussions. It looks like I completed all the major singles events by August of 2019. Now I fix all the lesser events when I see them and have time. Eventually we'll get them all I hope. It was happening right in the middle of our major overhaul of yearly tournament articles where no one could find the most important aspects and the had to read through 20 paragraphs before they could find the winners names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

And, yes, I do remember when I was updating one of the tennis draw page results, shortly after the event'd ended you, Fyunck, rearranged the lead by putting emphasis on the newest winners and then def champs and the mention of tennis. I didn't participate in the discussion myself, but I do distinctly remember that, you even said so in the edit summary...paraphrasing: to meet new standards put newest champions on top, followed by everything else. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

We mustn't forget the doubles and mixed draws for slams, olympics and all other top tier events: tour finals, davis/bjk cup, masters/wta 1000 and eventually the one, which would take the most work the 500/250 tournament draw pages and yearly pages, for that matter. 1000s of articles' leads to modify slightly, but a consistency would be achieved when all of the above, if..when, it gets accomplished. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It took awhile to do just the major singles events, and I had no help at the time. Whenever a new tournament finishes I try to stay on top and fix it, no matter the tier level. The wording does not need to be identical but the first sentence must contain the event, discipline, tennis, year, score, players involved, etc... It doesn't need to be cookie-cutter exact. The format I was using wasn't the only one but it was by far the most prevalent that worked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources for future tennis articles

@Hameltion, for reliable sources always check out the 4 majors official websites, both tour's official websites, any major newspaper publisher (new york times, washington post, reuters, eurosport, etc.), for more precise search engine searches use Boolean operators: ([10], [11], [12]), *for tournament edition articles use the World of Tennis almanacs (up to 2000) and/or newspaper articles from e.g. Newspapers.com and pons.eu (which is great for the Czech tandem's upcoming page for translating articles with great accuracy, in this case, from Czech to English and vice versa) as well as books/publications. For the older most notable rivalries, Court-King and others, I know @Fyunck(click):, should know where to find good, reliable sources, such as books and publications. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Wimbeldon's ban of RUS/BLR players affect on rankings

@Hamelton:, My 2 cents on the matter, in all but the women's singles things on top of the rankings would have been much different had Wimby not been denied by ATP/WTA governing bodies to distribute ranking points to participating players. (battle for mid-season and year-end no. 1 between: Djokovic and Alcaraz in m. singles, top 3 teams in m. doubles, the Czech duo, Mertens and Gauf in w. doubles). Lack of match practice and the stress caused by that to banned players...the natural shift that would have occurred in the rankings, not just the top 10, top 5 had Wimby been allowed to give out points and everything in between. Some food for thought when you will be writing that article. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this input! A lot of ideas I'll try to look for eventually. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hard courts

For yours really, I've been trying to get somewhat wiser on the different types of hard courts that exist(ed) on the ATP and WTA tours, but our coverage is not really helpful IMHO. Our articles focus on distinguishing the brands of hard courts, but are really unclear to the lay reader on the types of this surface. The situation isn't helped by a change of hard court brand or supplierbeing incorrectly reported here as change of hard court type. This happened for instance when the Australian Open changed their supplier to GreenSet a couple of years ago. This was mistaken as a change of type, even though Tennis Australia clearly stated in their announcement of GreenSet that neither color nor surface would change. The confusion is only made worse by articles on tennis tournaments including brands rather than types in their infoboxes. Lastly, the articles on brands like Rebound Ace, Plexicushion or DecoTurf aren't very clear as to the types of hard courts they are. The worst example is Laykold (currently used by the US Open) however, which had to be purged of marketing stuff copied from their site and is now reduced to a stub that does little to explain what it is. Moreover, according to their site they have different types of hard courts, but I can't find which exact one is used for the grand slam tournament in New York.Tvx1 01:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Putting down all the different types of surfaces will be tough to be sure. But I think even different brands are not identical. Just a slight different proportion can make a huge deal to tennis players. The brands will say it's the same, but they are not identical. I'm guess the ration of ingredients is proprietary and secret. Does the Australian Open have the secret ratio or does GreenSet use the exact ingredients and ratios as the prior surface, Plexicushion? GreenSet says their courts are more "Environmentally-friendly." Did they do something in the manufacturing process to make that happen? And how different is Plexicushon from Plexipave (used at Indian Wells)? I would actually be shocked if the AO courts of Plexicushion and GreenSet were 100% identical. I guess you could email Greenset and see if they can tell you the minute differences. Even the color could make a difference depending on the dye used. Look at French Open clay and the old blue clay of Madrid. They kept saying the clay was identical except for the color but the players said differently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal on mass draftifiying Olympians

You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

United Cup in performance timelines

Is United Cup counted as a tournament participation for purposes of the row in performance timeline which lists the total number of tournaments a player has participated in overall and in 2023? It looks like editors aren't counting it, but I don't know if that's the agreed upon practice or it's just a matter of not fully updating the timelines. I would suggest not including it, but I don't have a strong opinion. JamesAM (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's counted in the totals. It would be like Laver Cup. It has no consensus to be included as an event in a row of its own. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

A possible inconsistency with NTENNIS?

Before I open a potential can of worms at WT:NSPORTS, I'd like some feedback on the following:

Tennis is one of the few sports to have achieved parity between the sexes in terms of coverage and prize money, and as such our guidelines treat Men's and Women's tennis equally. Currently our guidelines state that Significant coverage is likely to exist for winners of any of the ATP Challenger tournaments or any of the ITF Women's $50,000–$100,000+ tournaments; the women's line was set based on the lowest payout for a men's challenger tournament in the same year. With the 2023 season, a change to the Women's 2nd tier has resulted in a new category of W40 tournaments (with $40,000 prize money) that fall just below the line for Women's tournaments, but at the same time, the ATP organises challenger tournaments that also pay out $40,000 in prize money. I think this inconsistency should be rectified.

As the category is new, I tested this line with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ma_Yexin, which closed as No consensus. The other 7 players who have won a W40 without meeting any other NTENNIS citeria are: Zeynep Sönmez, Saki Imamura, Sakura Hosogi, Céline Naef, Sofia Sewing, Darja Semeņistaja and Matilde Jorge.

There are 3 options on the table to deal with this:

• A: Do nothing.
• B: Lower the Women's prize money requirement to $40k and include W40 tournaments in NTENNIS.
• C: Add an ATP Challenger prize money requirement of $50,000 from 2008 (to match the current Women's guideline) and remove the lowest value Challengers from NTENNIS.

A and B would only affect the 8 players above right now, I haven't evaluated how many players would be affected by option C as there have been many Men's challenger tournaments since with prize money less than $50,000 between 2008 and now. Iffy★Chat -- 14:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• I just want a clarification in case I missed something. The only Challenger tournaments I am seeing under $50,000 in prize money are the new category Challenger 50 tournaments that started in 2021. I don't see any tournaments with less prize money than that before then, until 2008 like you say. Did I miss any of them or are you only referring to these new Challenger 50 tournaments? Adamtt9 (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Actually, I lied. I see lower prize money until 2016, when they removed any tournaments lower than $50,000 until 2021 when the new category started. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This was never a perfect fix even when I helped create it long ago. It was to help make some reasonable amount of parity between the sexes in the fabulous sport of professional tennis, and I think we have done a pretty good job. When we started there was no WTA Challenger Tour and far fewer women's ITF events. Today there is a WTA Challenger Tour but only $125,000 events. Above are WTA Tour and below are ITF Tour. The Men have a full Challenger Tour of M50-M125 events. Note the the men's tour numbers indicate points you receive for winning, not dollars. Below M50 is the mens ITF Tour which is dollar based as $15,000 and $25,000 with different amenities added to each. While the money differences in the WTA and ATP is tiny, in the ITF/Challenger tours the womens make something like 36% less.

I had been thinking about this for awhile myself. Both ATP and WTA look at the 15k and 25k events as entry level. They are not notable in the least, nor are the winners of the events. The men had an 80 ATP point threshold for Challenger level until this year. now they have added a Challenger Tour 50 point event. The ladies still use a dollar amount, even with the 125K Challenger. It gives 160 points but 125,000 bucks. The mens gives 125 points. Here is a 2019/2029 chart. My thoughts are that since dollar amounts constantly go up it would be better to go with a points based rough equivalency. Points are more consistent now with the Main Tour events based on points rather than names... WTA1000 and ATP1000 for instance. Since the men's Challenger Tour now starts at 50 points, the equivalent women's events should "at least" be 50 points to be included, and no entry level 15k or 25k events. This is for 2023. prior years. The ATP Challenger Tour is what it is. We can't go chopping out parts of it to fit some formula. It's 50 points to 125 points regardless of the amount of money the event pays out. The ITF W40 events give out 70 ranking points so that seems like a reasonable starting point for the gals. The W60 events start out as 80 ranking points which would be the same points given out by the mens ITF M80 events. Different cash but same points. So I'd re-write our Tennis project Guidelines from 2023 onwards to be point based rather than dollar based. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Zarina Diyas

Zarina Diyas has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke: I made some comments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Tournament articles and WP:NOTMIRROR, and sourcing

Does this project have some guidelines on Tournament articles? I have seen several challenger tournaments that more or less are a mirror page and mainly unsourced other than with a general reference to a database/mirrorpage. Others just have a source to the ATP ranking as the only source such such as this one. Here, here and here are others, all from the same editor. I have approached Adamtt9 at their talk page, but no answer yet. The articles probably also fail WP:NOTSTATS. I have seen they are a member of Wikiproject Tennis, so maybe you can help me to understand. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Articles of this kind have been challenged before at AFD in regards to WP:NOSTATS and have been kept multiple times, here, here, here, and so on. There was a recommendation during one of those discussions in merging all three tournament articles into one as there was no need for a separate draw page for each, but no one has ever gone around to starting an RfC. All of these pages meet notability guidelines and need additional sourcing, not deletion. I can look into some of the links you posted and see what I can find. Adamtt9 (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Well yeah, that one was deleted. The result is of the third one (and I believe the most prominent AfD of the three) is debatable because a majority was for either delete or merge but then the merge path doesn't seem to have been followed through with all of them.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

And an inquiry resulted in my assumption to be correct. Its seen as too much of a task to merge them all. But I must contend that this only counts for the doubles tournaments. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Russian/Belarus flags..... again.

I thought this was sign sealed and delivered at the project but I'm running into pushback on "some" player profiles. It seems like an editor wants to include nationality in matches where none existed per the sources. For instance at Taylor Fritz career statistics they want to include Rublev's Russian flag for 2022 Indian Wells and Cincinnati masters events. He played under NO nation for those events. Same with Jack Sinner. This seemed like an easy housekeeping fix but I'm getting messages telling me to stop from editor WhySoSerious?. They say it hurts the continuity in some way that I can't fathom. Do we just correct these results to their ATP and WTA sources because if we leave them unchanged it would be WP:OR without those sources to back it up. This seems like an easy peezy thing but then I guess nothing is cut and dry anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That Rublev played under no flag is unsourced at Tayler Fritz. That Rublev played under the Russian flag as well. The nationality flags of the other players are unsourced as well. My suggestion is to add a source for the (no) flags.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The chart should have a source of the ATP or WTA website for that player article. Then nothing is needed for anything specific. I have added it as required. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm jumping into an already fraught topic, but I just noticed the "citation needed" on the Sinner page today and was curious what was going on. I wonder if there's a consistent principle we can apply to these statistics pages for the duration of players playing under no nation? On Carlos Alcaraz career statistics, for instance, I'm almost always seeing Russian flags and no instances of blank flags except for under the specific tournaments listed under "Career Grand Slam statistics." Maybe if all career-based statistics had flags included, but all statistics related to one match or one instance of a tournament had blank flags, this could be a clear enough distinction? So for Alcaraz, as an example, we'd remove flags from all the finals sections (significant, ATP, NextGen, Challengers/Futures), leave flags in for "Record against top 10 players" and remove flags for relevant "Top 10 wins"? Segismundodecahedron (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You just noticed? This is your first post ever at Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I checked the article today while I was watching the Miami Open and was curious about what was going on, so I wanted to talk about it. I'm not sure what you're implying? Segismundodecahedron (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not true that the flag is unsourced. The fact he played at all is unsourced. It right on the ATP site for all to see.... minus the flag. The fact is the governing bodies of tennis have stated per sources that no Russian or Belarus player is playing for their nation since March 1 2022. To put a flag in for a given event after that date is original research and false information to our readers. The event on the stats page ARE the tournaments in question. This is as distinct as possible. The fact that Alcaraz has the flags is because an editor keeps adding the flags. The top 10 sections (at any time in their careers) are in the process of being removed as trivial and original Research. We haven't gotten to the men yet but many of the women's articles have already undergone that change. But that a different topic than the flag icons when they were not used for that match or that tournament. This was already discussed prior and should be simple housekeeping. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Check the sources your self. They lead to nowhere. Then these are also general references and not inline citations. Add a source to each result, phrase, statistic. Also, how do these statistics go with WP:NOTSTATS? Do you have any explanation for this contradiction? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait, as I told you I did. Did you look at the ref below the chart at Taylor Fritz? It should work well. Sure it would be better to include an individual source right after each result. I have no issue with that at all. But leaving the flag is unacceptable and not sourcable by the WTA or ATP. You are correct that some charts are of dubious need. While some charts like top 10 at the time of the match is easily sourced at the ATP website, the chart above it where anyone that was ever in the top 10, even if they were ranked 250 when they played, is really tough to source and we have no idea if it's fully accurate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Tennis player move request: Laslo Đere → Laslo Djere

Please join in the move discussion of athlete Laslo Đere → Laslo Djere at Talk:Laslo Đere. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Billie Jean King Cup articles

I'm wondering why has it been a tradition to make articles such as 2022 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group II – Pool A and 2022 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group II – Pool B followed by the 2022 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group II – Play-offs when they all take place at the same place during 1 event. Couldn't we just merge these 3 into 1 article 2022 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group II?

We've apparently lost some tennis fans as 2023 only has 2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool A (redirected at first) 2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool B (nominated for deletion). But they still are notable events, agree/disagree? Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, it's always better if possible to have those on the same page. It's easier for readers to find as a whole, and also better if future updates need to happen. Many of the sources aren't pool specific anyways so it would help with sourcing also. Perhaps you should try a merge with the 2022 version and see if it gets reverted? Should we try a merge on 2022 and see if we get complaints, since no one else here seems to have an issue? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Madrid Tennis Grand Prix

Hello I cannot find any newspaper sources at British Newspaper Archive and Newspaper Archive via wikipedia library from 1972 until 1994 when this tournament was staged under the official name Madrid Tennis Grand Prix! I can find a lots of references to a tournament called the Madrid Open between those dates with the sponsorship names of Trofeo Melia and Trofeo Gillette. The history of that tournament also goes back before 1972 known as the Madrid International from 1971 to 1968, the Puerta de Hierro International or sometimes called the Puerta de Hierro Madrid International from 1967 to 1950 played at the Real Club de la Puerta de Hierro. The precursor event to the latter being the Championship of Madrid from 1905 to 1915 also played at the Real Club de la Puerta de Hierro. The first mens event ended in 1996 and the women's in 2003. Now we have a men's only Madrid Open (tennis) from 2002 now an ATP 1000 event. Unless someone can shed light on why the Madrid Tennis Grand Prix is not called the Madrid Open I propose moving the article to Madrid Open (1972-2003) like whats been done here with this article Navy Board and Navy Board (1964-present) This will allow me to merge M & W articles into one page and , then redirect the others. Navops47 (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't think an article move is needed or warranted here. As most tournaments this one operated under different names throughout its history, including the ones you mentioned. But it was known as the Madrid Tennis Grand Prix for several years and reliable sources can be found to support that, e.g. Noah wins Madrid tennis. The current article title also provides a better disamb with the Masters tournament compared to only distinguishing tournaments based on a year suffix between brackets. Need to be careful with a statement that "The history of that tournament also goes back before 1972.." unless this is supported by reliable sources. The mere fact that a tournament was held there before 1972 does not necessarily make it the same tournament, see also the discussion regarding the Mexican Open. Another example is the Dutch Open where the starting year was incorrectly changed from 1957 to 1898.--Wolbo (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Noted however some further research that I've done. Can you explain what the difference is? between the Holland International (1898 to 1907)1 and the Dutch International Championships or Dutch Championships (1908-1961) as opposed to Dutch or Netherlands National Championhips, held in the Scheveningen, the Hague until 1916 then moved to Noordwijk until 1961 and the International Championships of the Netherlands held in Hilversum, Melkhuisje from 1962 Source: (Robertson (1973) Encyclopedia of Tennis p.288. to 1994, and the Dutch Open in Amsterdam. I also believe that the Dutch source given the date of 1957 is merely 50 year anniversary book of the event being held at the Hilversum Lawn Tennis Club (f.1895) https://www.melkhuisje.com/ until 2007 their is no ISBN listed for that book or ASIN that I can find. In regards to the Mexican Open that title is referenced in World of Tennis I have the books for 1979 results for 1978, 1978 results 1977 and 1976 results for 1975 its in one of them for sure an the winner was Vijay Amritraj albeit played in Mexico City you cant cherry pick it was played under that name till at least 1981. Because it moved to a different location its not the same event, otherwise you can apply argument to the Dutch Open played in one city was moved to another so its not the same event.--Navops47 (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The Mexican Open is listed in World of Tennis (1979) as a $50,000 event on page 124 played in Mexico City (25 September to 2 October 1978) the losing finalist was Raúl Ramírez the American newspaper source I mentioned previously as Mexican Fall Open was a headline to mean Autumn US English Fall so if I add the correct title win name to the Vijay Amritraj page and cite it, it links to a page to an event starting in 1993. In regards to the Madrid event I'll do some further research and come back to it.--Navops47 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kyle Spencer#Requested move 30 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kyle Spencer#Requested move 30 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

.

Team articles in team events

Hello. Why are these articles named differently in Davis Cup/Billie Jean King Cup and Hopman Cup? Example: Canada.

Davis: Canada Davis Cup team

BJKC: Canada Billie Jean King Cup team

Hopman Cup: Canada at the Hopman Cup

Why isn't Canada called "Canada Hopman Cup team" in the Hopman Cup or the other two not titled "Canada at the [tournament title]"? Rafaelfdc (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Because that one tournament just works differently than the other two. The first two actually use proper teams organized by the national federations with entourages and a captain. The Hopman Cup just features pairs representing their countries. Tvx1 10:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

ITF Men's/Women's World Tennis Tour

(I'm not very familiar with this WikiProject community, so please ping others if you think the users might be interested in this) Hi everybody, as you can see, the 2023 ITF Women's World Tennis Tour (January–March) is often not updated, and not much editors still actively update it now. This is because these lists' content is often unimportant, e.g. W15 tournaments where almost no one had heard about the winner. So here are my suggestions:

1. Remove all W25/W15 tournaments / only include finalists
2. Only include W40 semi-finalists
3. Keep the rest (i.e. W60, W80, W100) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothytyy (talk • contribs) 03:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Tournament column of 2023 ATP Tour etc.: Grass or grass, Hard or hard, Clay or clay?

It has come to my attention that some of our yearly tour charts are being changed. For good or ill is the question as it's a minor issue. It would affect charts back to about 1970 so a 100 or so charts men's and women's. I guess it could be used as precedent for other charts but let's look at these charts to see where the Tennis Project sits.

Background: A year or so ago we had an rfc that determined that within titles, the hyphen/ndash is a separator that begins a new sentence structure, but that it would follow MOS capitalization in sentence case after the ndash. Discussions were everywhere but a big one was right here. This changed all of our thousands of articles from the style 1990 Wimbledon – Mixed Doubles to 1990 Wimbledon – Mixed doubles. Done deal there. We also discussed in the same time period the fact right here that it specifically affected the 2021 WTA Tour article in that in the tournament column we had in the majors, Singles–Doubles–Mixed Doubles, and that those needed to be changed to Singles–Doubles–Mixed doubles, or to drop the lower case doubles and just call it Mixed. Done deal, we went with only Singles–Doubles–Mixed for our articles. Not all have changed but it's the rule we go by. In that same chart column we also show the court type as Grass or Hard, or Clay (or Carpet or Wood). We never discussed the court type capitalization afaik. We just left them as is. Most are just like the 2023 ATP Tour where we see Hard sandwiched in between money and draw size between the ndashes: $642,735 – Hard – 32S/16Q/24D. But many have now been changed in the last week to $115,000 – hard – 32S/16D as in 1988 Grand Prix (tennis).

I'm not sure which way we want it... to follow what we do with Singles–Doubles–Mixed or to change the surface only to lower case. It matters for consistency so we know whether to change these 100 or so articles to lower case or whether to revert the week-old changes to some articles back to upper case. I did this informally, but any thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That was me doing the lowercasing, because I couldn't see why a common adjective/noun after a dash would be capped. I think the "Singles – Doubles – Mixed" are nav links, which are move conventionally capped as list items. In "$642,735 – Hard – 32S/16Q/24D" is neither a nav link nor a list, just some different aspects of the competition. I didn't expect pushback. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Some of the older articles also use the format of Hard – $642,735 – 32S/16Q/24D, so that could also be a way of handling things since it would be first in line and be capitalized regardless. Or the fact it could be linked to Hardcourt, Grass court, or Clay court, so readers could understand the surface details. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I say, let's not complicate things and leave them as they are. For consistency it looks better having Hard, Clay, Grass as well as Carpet and Wood, where applicable, capitalized in the Tournament columns in the yearly ATP and WTA articles. No need to add court after each court surface; it's redundant. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Consistency is easily achieved with JWB help. I can switch to lowercase, or put the surface first where it would be capped, as F suggests. Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, I am fine with the surface being put first as long as it's capitalized. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

And I'm OK with it being capitalized as long as it's first. But my usual approach is to make minimal changes – just case – so let's wait and see if there's a project consensus to rearrange instead. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, I did that. But I think I might have messed up in a few places, e.g. where the amount is in euros or pounds instead of dollars, so I still have some re-work to do. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Done with re-work now, I think. I apologize in advance if I've left any unnoticed errors, which is not entirely unlikely. Let me know if you see any, and I'll check for more like. Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, no, I found a bunch more that need a re-work pass. I'll get that done in a few hours. Dicklyon (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, fixed a bunch more. I hope I didn't miss stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Use lower-case; these are not proper names. See also MOS:SPORTCAPS: do not capitalize terms just because they have something to do with sport.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Per SMcC - normal sentence case. I also see "(Red)", which I presume is the type of clay? Regardless, shouldn't be capped either. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, yuck, yes, and some of those got left in the wrong place when I moved the surface type to the front so it could be capped; I was matching for "(red)" but not "(Red)". Dicklyon (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There are other colours too. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, red and green... and there was a blue but only for a year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Green appears to be the default, so not generally mentioned. There were some "(Maroon)" that I caught and downcased before re-arranging, but I hadn't seen the capped Red. Still need to fix... Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, pretty much done, including a few Blue. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), Madrid in 2012 was contested on blue clay. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah... probably a few more I've missed in my memory. There is also a brown artificial clay but it's not used yet on the main tour. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually that one-year experiment with blue clay (which was really just red clay that had been bleached and mixed with a blue powdered dye) was the only time it's ever been used. The players hated it because the dye made it too slippery, and Nadal (the best clay player in the world at the time) threatened to boycott the following year if the organizers used it again. oknazevad (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone hated it. Federer said it was just another surface we have to adapt to and he thought it was fine. Of course he won the event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that probably colored his opinion (pun fully intended). But the complaints were clearly enough that they didn't stick with it. It still was only the one tournament, though. Mention it in that year's tournament article and only there. Had no long term impact outside it. oknazevad (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

See a number of errors on 2021 WTA Tour. I'm fine with putting surface type first as long as it is done consistently throughout all tour year articles. Don't see a need for a color suffix with the clay surface, not sure why we have it in some articles. It is a level of detail that is not needed in these high-level articles and is better suited for the tournament articles themselves.--Wolbo (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave the color question for y'all to decide. Please do point out an error or two, so I'll know what I've missed that you've caught. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The color suffix is there because red and green "clay" are really different surfaces. Red clay is made by pulverizing previously kiln-fired clay products (like broken bricks, flower pots, and roofing tiles) to a fine powder, while green clay is a type of metabasalt stone more coarsely crushed into granules. It's not really clay, but in tennis regulations any surface made of, and I quote, an "unbound mineral aggregate" (loose dirt) is classified as "clay". Noting which type is used is pretty key surface info. oknazevad (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, I found and removed a couple of "(Green)" which I presume is what Wolbo was hinting at. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they should be removed. Down ward, fine, but not removed. oknazevad (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

New comments

Let's vote. What is you preference on having the surfaces listed with the colors?

1. Keep the color surface.
2. Remove the color stated next to the surface.

I vote to keep. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Why? – Has anyone seriously suggested removing them, or actually removed any, other than in the one article that used explicit green instead of accepting that as the default as in all other articles? Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, just checked, and there are 49 articles on individual players that use "Clay (green)". So maybe the better question is whether to remove those few, or keep them. Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  And what about yearly ATP/WTA articles? How many hits on those? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  None. Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Or maybe a few; I found and fixed a few more Green. Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'd probably go with 1. keep - is it absolutely necessary to break it down by color... probably not. But I have to admit I do personally look for the type of clay on the tour articles. The only thing that's funny is while it is a big difference between red and green clay, there might be more of a difference between some of the hard court types. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is true. Hard courts differ greatly based on the supplier. GreenSet doesn't play the same as DecoTurf or Laykold. And even a given installation can vary depending on the amount of grit mixed into the top layer. oknazevad (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. As I said above, the color is more than just appearance, but actually indicates a different surface material. oknazevad (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"WPT:TEN" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WPT:TEN has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 18 § WPT:TEN until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The results of Wimbledon are nominated for the Main Page

The results of Wimbledon are nominated for the Main page. The discussion is here. Articles to be updated are Carlos Alcaraz, Marketa Vondrousova and Wimbledon. Last time not even the grand slam record of Djokovic was blurbed for the French Open due to quality concerns. I hope a victory of the lowest ranked Wimbledon player will make it and I believe editors of the Tennis project could help in this aim.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Greatest of all time consensus and compromises

We seem to have an editor that wants things both ways, and I disagree. We have for years made sure we kept "greatest player of all-time" out of articles like Federer and Nadal and Graf and Wills and Lenglen and and Connelly, and Laver, etc. Those are water-cooler sayings not worthy of an encyclopedia. This has been discussed many times. "One of the greatest" is fine and easily sourcable. Even "considered by some to be the greatest of all-time" while in my opinion over the top for an encyclopedia, can at least be easily sourced for some players. Someone has inserted first "widely considered the greatest" and now "considered by many the greatest" into the Djokovic article. I can't get them to see the issue and can of worms they open up with that. If we are now going to start allowing the terms then we need to put the Nadal, Federer, Graf, Wills, stuff back in that we had removed years ago. Numbers are not the only criteria for greatest... otherwise Roy Emerson would have been thought of as the greatest until Federer came along. He was not though. And for decades many had though Pancho Gonzales as the greatest, and many still look at Laver with two Grand Slams as easily the greatest. Heck Don Budges wone a grand slam and 6 majors in a row before leaving for the pros... heck he must be the greatest. We need to nip this before the articles start getting that resort pamphlet feel, or we need to open it up for everything again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like to say that I never changed anything that was not previously written, only protected that which already stood. I was not the original editor of the statements mentioned above. I however do agree with respecting the most recent sources and their support for their claims. Even Encyclopedias get updated with new information as it arises.

Many or even most objective observers (obviously not including Federer or nadal fans) claim Djoković to be the greatest because he surpassed both Federer and Nadal in most of the games ultimate records (these major records are sourced throughout wiki). So it is not a false, subjective statement. Claiming so for Laver, Nadal or Federer however would be. They would only have outdated sources supporting their claim.

This is not a team sport, such as soccer or basketball, where it is hard to discern who is the greatest. It is based on individual records. Djoković has broken most of those records. He has been labelled the greatest by the most recent sources (forbes, Reuters, ESPN etc..) and until somebody else overtakes those records he has been given that deserved title. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It was written against our project consensus on how to handle water cooler discussions in an encyclopedia. Fans add these things to their favorite players all the time and tennis editors discussed this awhile ago. I finally noticed it and changed it according to consensus. You have since reverted two editors 4x today. It now says your edit of "many" as opposed to a more generic one of the greatest of all-time, which is what the project consensus is on this issue. I have tried to explain that on your talk page and in the summaries to no avail. So I brought it here at the project because I'm obviously failing in clarity in my discussions. There are many players who have been called the greatest.... I see it every decade I watch tennis. And discussing it is great fun, no denying that. But over lunch... not in an encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"Considered by many to be one of the greatest of all time" seems to me the correct thing to write. Important to bear in mind that Djokovic is still winning Grand Slams. He could end up with 28 or even 30 slams. If he does win this amount then it seems to me that he is the greatest of all time without a doubt. Federer, Nadal, Laver (using an estimated tally including pro majors and pro tournament series wins) and Gonzales (using an estimated tally including pro majors and world series wins) are in the early 20s range, Rosewall is mid 20s (including pro majors and world series/tournament series wins). Sourcing in this instance doesn't tell us anything, because if a source is written before Djokovic has finished winning slams, it hasn't taken into account Djokovic in its calculation so is redundant. In five years time, lets say Djokovic has won 28 slams, if the wording "considered by many to be the greatest of all time" appears on any men's player profile other than Djokovic's it looks very silly and inaccurate. Considered one of the greatest is fine. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Juan Martín del Potro

Juan Martín del Potro has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Bart Stevens

I'm not 100% what's going on with the article, but it's like someones PR team has gone over it. The user has only ever edited that page since March, I'm not 100% where it just needs to be properly wikified. YellowStahh (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Move discussions at Indian Wells Masters and Cincinnati Masters

(belated notification)  You are invited to join the move discussions at Talk:Indian Wells Masters § Requested move 8 September 2023 and Talk:Cincinnati Masters § Requested move 8 September 2023, which are within the scope of this WikiProject. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, belated or not. I replied on the appropriate talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Andy Murray

Andy Murray has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Nick Kyrgios entry review

The entry for NK has been flagged for review/shorten/update/consolidate. At present it seems to be overly concerned with fines, failures, perceived fake injuries, withdrawals...all the negative stuff with no balance about the contribution he has/is making to the sport. A number of us have tried to balance this with more recent articles and input but have been rejected. We believe that as NK has a prominent place in the sport - for so many reasons - he should be fairly represented with the most recent articles cited. At present there is a lot of messy repetition and detail, often using online tabloids as resources. I have a list of useful articles and cover stories from 2023 which would be of interest to WP readers but can't get the entry to use them. Anyone know how to get started? SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Major RfC on capitalization of all our articles

I thought this was a done deal back in this 2022 RFC but obviously not. A handful of editors did another rfc with no sports projects input at all. And it's being challenged because we just noticed it. This could affect almost every single tennis and Olympic article we have, and goodness know how many other sports. Some may have already been moved it you weren't watching the article. And not just the article titles will be affected but all the player bios that link to the articles. Sure the links would be piped to the right place if thousands of articles moved, but if the wording in a bio still said 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles or Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre backstroke that would likely need to be changed by hand. There is also talk of removing the ndash completely.

Perhaps this is what sports projects want and perhaps not. Either way I certainly don't want projects ill-informed as the last RfC was handled. Express your thoughts at the following rfc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a Thank You, for bringing this here. I also believe it is truly trivial, but the lowercase makes absolutely no sense to me. Appreciate the opportunity to make my small voice heard. An opportunity that I would NOT have seen without your consideration and time to place it here. - Mjquinn_id (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Article guidelines discussion in progress

Dear members of WikiProject Tennis,

there is an active discussion going on about BLP's career statistics chart layout here. I cordially invite you to join the discussion and share your opinion on the 16 items discussed and help us reach a sound and clear conclusion on the matter to enable visitors and readers of tennis articles be given the best version of BLP's statistics that we possibly can.

Pinging the current contributors, involved in the discussion. @Fyunck(click), JamesAndersoon, and Wolbo:.

Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:WFT" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:WFT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 25 § Wikipedia:WFT until a consensus is reached. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Tristan Boyer notability

Hello!

As part of my work with Beutler Ink, I've been asked by the family of Tristan Boyer to explore whether he qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Typically, I'd submit a draft for review at articles for creation. Because I have a conflict of interest, I will not publish an article directly. In this case, I thought that I would seek input from editors here first on whether he qualifies under WP:NTENNIS? It looks to me like he's right at the threshold of several of the criteria, and I see his name pops up in a good deal of Wikipedia articles about tennis tournaments, such as the 2023 Pan American Games and the 2023 Antofagasta Challenger – Singles. Here are all the current redlinks for his name. I'm hoping that folks here will weigh in with their thoughts on his notability. I'd also like to note that I am not associated with this draft that was recently submitted to AfC.

I can provide additional links if that would be helpful to review, or if editors think he's likely notable, I am happy to put together a draft using the tennis player article format.

Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

He doesn't qualify under WP:NTENNIS as he has not made an ATP Tour main draw appearance nor has he won a Challenger tournament. He would have to able to meet the requirements set out at WP:GNG indicating WP:SIGCOV exists about Boyer if an article were to be made. Last I checked, I wasn't able to find any meaningful sources out there but if anyone can find any, maybe SIGCOV can be met. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Adamtt9: Thanks for weighing in and helping me understand the notability criteria. To be clear, being ranked number 1 nationally and playing in the Pan American Games is not enough? BINK Robin (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@BINK Robin: Yes. None of those meet WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah there is really nothing automatic at Wikipedia. You can be reasonably sure someone is notable if they are the No. 3 jr in the world, or won a major. More than anything what is needed is newspaper or magazine articles on just him. Not scores but actual interviews. You almost always have that when you win a jr major or are ranked in the top 3. You almost always have that when you play in a main draw of the ATP tour or win a Challenger level event. You also usually find it when you play in the main rounds of Davis Cup (not the regional knockout rounds). It's fairly clear in the notability section of our Tennis Project Guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Adamtt9 @Fyunck(click) Thank you both for your responses! This is very helpful. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I've written a draft about a local tennis champion. Could someone check my sources to see if they're suitable?

Marc Pepin has a five-decade history and has been inducted into our provincial sports hall of fame. He is a highly ranked player on the Senior Tour. I have written and submitted a draft article but it keeps getting rejected. Reading between the lines it seems to be for sources. My sources are CBC News articles, Government of New Brunswick, Canada sources and Sports Hall of Fame. All independant and published. What more can Wikipedia want? I'm looking for guidance from the group. Thank you for your time. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Marc_Pepin Todio64 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I propose you expand your bare links 3-6 to contain cite web, access date, publisher or website like you did with the second resource. As far as notability is concerned. They pass, for me anyway. Also, make sure your sources are archived. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

What Wikipedia wants is for the subject to have achieved notability. Senior competitions or local halls of fame just don’t cut it. This subject doesn’t even meet the tennis notability guidelines. This is why the article was deleted through AFD before. You need a strong consensus opposite the AFD conclusion to recreate this article. Tvx1 14:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Federer–Nadal rivalry

Federer–Nadal rivalry has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 23:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Pictures for older players

Hello to everyone! I wondering can we provide some better pictures for some significant former players. For instance, Justine Henin is one of the most successful female tennis player, but she hasn't got any proper image. For me is interesting that there is no photo of her holding any title, but she has won some major, just as French Open five times. I'm sorry if this is not proper place to leave this message, but I need to spread this request as far as possible. I hope so we can do something. Also, e.g. there is some former player, Julie Halard-Decugis, that I have never heard about, but she is former number 1 doubles player, Grand Slam doubles champion and top 10 singles player and she hasn't got even one photo. The list is big. JamesAndersoon (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

You are so right for Justine !!! And I agree as well for Julie Halard (who is well kwown in France by tennis fans). But I don't know how to get photos. Thnak you for the subject. Eric68L (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Justine Henin (examples of the existing photos)

• 
  2005
• 
  2006
• 
  2007
• 
  2010
• 
  2010

All we can do is keep searching for free images. We can't upload what we don't have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Shall we include flags/nationalities of Russian and Belarus players, from 1 March 2022 onwards, in our rankings charts?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The situation. From 1 March 2022 the ATP/WTA/ITF issued a statement saying "Players from Russia and Belarus will continue to be allowed to compete in international tennis events as individuals. However, they will not compete under the name or flag of Russia or Belarus until further notice." Two links: ITF Here, and WTA Here. We have followed this lead and sources at Wikipedia and removed Russia/Belarus nationality from our players at international events since 1 March 2022. Some here also want to include the flag/nationality removal here on our ranking charts also. No sourced statements have said to do so. However the ATP and WTA websites also removed the nationalities from rankings. Outside sources other than those tennis bodies are mixed, but then other sources are also mixed on nationality removal from tournaments. Examples, here, and here, and here, and here. Example of ESPN using nationality even in tournaments.

We would tend to go with the sourced charts of the ATP and WTA websites, but there is a big problem on this issue with reliability there. The WTA/ATP websites removed all nationalities/flags from all Russia/Belarus players from all times in history... a blanket removal. Players long since retired are included. WTA player Dinara Safina hasn't played in a decade... no nationality. Same with Elena Dementieva and 1990s player Yevgeny Kafelnikov. No flags/nationalities in any tournament they played in or in any capacity on their websites. We certainly are not going to start removing nationalities from these players as the tennis governing bodies seem to be telling us to do on their websites. Their software on this issue seems to be faulty in determining what to do or they were lazy and did a blanket removal. Can we use them for our rankings not knowing if it is faulty/limited software issues or if they really mean to remove the nationalities from rankings as well? If so should we also follow them in removing retired player nationalities from years ago? This is our dilemma at Tennis Project since it affects any article with rankings charts.

We had a previous RfC on this a year ago with no opposition to keeping flags, but only three people participated. Since we have two current editors now wanting the nationalities removed I thought it best to rehash and see if opinions have changed. I'm not starting with an RfC since that includes all editors from society, sports, and culture, and this is really a tennis chart only issue. I think the Tennis Project can handle this plus we don't want to bump up against WP:RFCBEFORE.

• (A). Keep flags/nationalities in ranking charts until a formal statement is issued specifically saying no nationalities in rankings.
• (B). Remove flags/nationalities in ranking charts just as we do with current tournament charts.

That's our pickle. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey

(A) Keep flags or (B) Remove flags

• (A) keep flags - I would tend to go with what we have always done with rankings until a statement from the ATP/WTA/ITF says otherwise. The websites are unreliable in this particular case. We can confirm they meant to remove the flags from tournaments, so no issue there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We already have that statement.Tvx1 09:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• (A) keep flags I second Fyunck. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• (B) Remove flags in the Current Tennis Rankings page for 2023, and all related tennis pages. The joint statement from the Tennis Governing bodies, the ATP and WTA is clear that the Russian and Belarusian athletes compete under no flags and this decision is the reason their websites show no flags in the rankings. No flags are also shown as mentioned above for Active men and women tennis players at the following specialized Tennis websites live-tennis.eu/en and Tennis.com as well as Olympics tennis rankings page at Olympics.com and in Google.com Sashona (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• (B) Remove flags – There are only two options, to respect or not to respect the joint statement from the Tennis Governing bodies, the ATP and WTA. If Wikipedia respects the decision not to display RUS/BLR flags in all types of tennis articles: players, draws, circuits, lists of number 1 ranked tennis players, and even for the highest ranked players in season, there is no reason to make an exception for rankings. Rankings are compiled by the ATP and WTA on their own circuits, it's their business. The ATP and WTA have been publishing rankings in this form since March 2022: ATP 1 + ATP 2, WTA 1 + WTA 2. It's the most reliable source and the only authoritative for Wikipedia. Kacir 19:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• (B) Remove flags This seems to be crystal clear to me. The relevant players have not been allowed to compete under their nationalities for almost two years know. They collect ranking points without a nationality, so cannot possibly be ranked with one. The ATP/WTA site argument is nothing but a desperate excuse to keep the flags.Tvx1 14:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)x1 14:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Further discussion

• Fyunck(click) since the majority of the votes is to remove the flags, please close this discussion and remove flags on the Current Rankings page and any other pages where there are current rankings being displayed for all the WTA and the ATP Russians and Belarusian Active players.Sashona (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Retired or Inactive players are irrelevant for this discussion, we are talking about a decision made on 1 March 2022, so only Active Russian and Belarusian players that have a ranking in the Current tennis rankings and going forward are being discussed. Sashona (talk)

  They are not irrelevant at all when their flags are removed in error on the governing bodies websites. It shows their software is suspect in regards to this issue as they should never have been removed at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Are you saying that "Google.com" website is wrong too? When you type "ATP current rankings" it comes back with blanks also. Or the Olympics organization at "Olympics.com"?Sashona (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  As stated in previous discussions, there are also good sources that use the nationality. And often ones that omit it refer readers to the ATP/WTA website. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Correctly so, of course they will refer the ATP/WTA since these are the official main correct sources. Sashona (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Official sources yes... they aren't always correct though. We have plenty of articles where they have had to be overridden by the correct data. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  That doesn’t mean we should consider them incorrect by default. Do you honestly think that if the removal of the flags was incorrect, that they wouldn’t have rectified that in the almost two years since??? They have kept these flags out of their rankings more than long enough, for this to clearly have been intentional. Tvx1 14:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  If that's true then they mean for all Russian players of all time periods (even the 1970s) to have their flags/nationalities removed from all tennis mentioning. We obviously must do the same and remove all our Russian/Belarus nationalities no matter who they are and no matter the time period. This omission by them is an obvious error and the rankings may or may not have been caught up in that error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Or it is a technical limitation of their site. We know bloodly well that they are not supposed to be gone, because there is no formal statement from them retroactively banning Russia and Belarus from every competition ever. You are just making problems where there are none.Tvx1 09:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  We also don't know if technical limitations are involved with the rankings data removal. That's my point... we don't know. There is also "no formal statement" on ranking removal. You are trying to cherry-pick which we use and which we don't, and Wikipedia is not supposed to work that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Fyunck(click) Can you please close this RFC and remove the flags on all pages where there are Current rankings or any other pages with Active ATP and WTA Russian and Belarusian players displayed since we have reached a majority as of 2 January 2024. Sashona (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Sashona:It's not much, but I guess it's all we have from tennis project members. There have been holidays, but it's been a month. Go ahead a remove those you find and I'll close this up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Rankings are calculated at least in part based on results before the 2022 invasion. We keep flags for retired and inactive players not because they haven't played since the war escalated but because of their scores before the war. Along the same vein, results before 2022 also contribute to the rankings of active players. CurryCity (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Rankings are based on 52 weeks so none of the 2022 results before the invasion impact the Current rankings. The only results that matter at this point are the 2023 results for the Active players.Sashona (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WTA Rankings system changed

Aside from the change regarding the points distribution, the points breakdown slots would also expand from 16 to 18 (excluding year-end championship). The new system has already implemented on 1 January 2024, according to the latest official WTA rankings, which has a lot of moves compared to the year-end 2023. Unnamelessness (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Did not know that. Everchanging WTA/ATP/ITF. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

ATP also updated its ranking point distribution. Couldn't find any articles on WTA's latest rankings changes. Seems to me this is the next "phase" of the infamous ATP/WTA merger which was made public back in 2021. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Very strange order at 2023 United Cup unlike any other tennis event

In all yearly tennis events we describe the most important aspect first. Who won the yearly event, the edition and what it is. WE do that with [[13]], US Open, etc. There were multiple complaints about this by readers throughout the years here. No sport mentioned, no winners at the top, finals brackets buried. Sure in the main article at United Cup where it's not a yearly article it would be different, but this is for our readers. You come to the page and first and foremost you want to know the winner of the 2023 edition, and in the body you want to see the final bracket, just like all other tennis articles here. The only reason anything else would go up top is that this is the very first edition, but then its opening lead would be different than all other editions. It seems like readers heading to 2023 United Cup first and foremost want to know who won that year. Then you tell us the edition, the fact you get ranking points, etc. Just like we do at the 2024 United Cup or 2023 Davis Cup. This has been copied from Talk:2023 United Cup to get more eyes on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this where we start a discussion about if it's the correct way to list by most recent champions (Savannah Challenger) or chronological order (ala any sensible winners lists)? Articles such as WIM, and USO arguably already fail MOS:OPEN as it fails "It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." As it already presumes you have knowledge of professional tennis and would understand what Wimbledon/US Open is rather than play to the "nonspecialist" reader. My knowledge of Wikipedias Manual of Style may be a little out of date from when I used to edit years ago, but despite Football arguably being the most popular sport on earth 2023 Major League Soccer season and 2023 MLS Cup Playoffs at least establish what the tournament is first before delving into any details regarding who did what. YellowStahh (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really set the issue. Makes logical sense to first and formost explain the subject. You need te remember that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia for every kind of reader, not a tennis fansite for tennis fans.Tvx1 16:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the point raised here. I agree that many people will want to just see the data immediately - this is what the infobox is for. It is also worth noting that unlike individual draw pages for most tournaments which are much more result-focused, the fact that it serves double-duty as the article for the entire event as a whole makes explaining what that event was far more important than saying who won it. 2023 United Cup is a much better-written lead than 2024 United Cup as far as I'm concerned. Sellyme^Talk 00:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually the article on the entire event is focused in the article on the United Cup. The 2023 event readers will want to know who won first and foremost, not what edition of the event or who jointly controls it. It could even be tweaked in writing it as:

"The United States defeated Italy in the finals 4–0 to capture the inaugural 2023 United Cup, an international mixed-sex team tennis competition held jointly by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) and the Women's Tennis Association (WTA)."

Something like that should satisfy everyone as a compromise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Your asking for opinions on this, and so far 3 people other than yourself have said to basically follow Wikipdia's MOS and your compromise is to follow through with your approach. If we were to take Novak Djokovic's lead as an example on your compromise. Wikipedia already has a manual of style with side wide consensus on the subject so I'm not even sure what there is to discuss.

"Djokovic has been ranked No. 1 for a record total of 408 weeks in a record 13 different years, and finished as the year-end No. 1 a record eight times. Djokovic has won an all-time record 24 Grand Slam men's singles titles, including a record ten Australian Open titles. Overall, he has won 98 singles titles, including a record 71 Big Titles: 24 majors, a record 40 Masters, and a record seven ATP Finals. Djokovic is the only man in tennis history to be the reigning champion of all four majors at once across three different surfaces. In singles, he is the only man to achieve a triple Career Grand Slam, and the only player to complete a career Golden Masters, a feat he has achieved twice. Novak Djokovic (Serbian: Новак Ђоковић, Novak Đoković, pronounced [nôʋaːk dʑôːkoʋitɕ] ⓘ;[6] born 22 May 1987) is a Serbian professional tennis player who is currently ranked world No. 1 in singles by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP)." It would appear a little something like this, because thats what the readers want to know first. YellowStahh (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

An individual bio has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's a terrible example. Every tennis event we have follows a certain protocol and this one seems out of place. Most of MOS talks about the first paragraph and not the first sentence. And a yearly article is quite a bit different than a a non-yearly article. We have items like Super Bowl XLVIII where the first sentence tells the two teams playing, and the second sentence who won and the score. And my compromise has bits of both... it's a big difference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Why seek other peoples opinions when you have no interest in taking them on board? YellowStahh (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I read each and every one of these responses. I may not agree but I certainly listen. There have been many times when I've been in the majority decision at Wikipedia but still find a way to compromise with the minority as this is a team effort. This isn't US politics where it's one way or the highway. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I only ask because the Superbowl article you point to starts with "Super Bowl XLVIII was an American football game" and doesn't start with the "The Seahawks defeated the Broncos 43–8 at the Superbowl XLVIII.." It mentions the two teams in the first sentence sure and that they are National and American champions, but it leaves the scoreline to the second sentence. While I do always seek to consider editors in good faith, the reason I ask why you are seeking opinions is because you've had 3 people weigh in, technically 4 people as Wolbo (talk · contribs) did revert your edit on the 2023 edition (Though if Wolbo is more than welcome to clear up my presumptiom should he wish to do so), and you are still seeking a compromise where describing the event is secondary where consensus seems against you. YellowStahh (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course I am if I think differently. And you'll notice that the article in question doesn't mention the two finalists in the first sentence. And it doesn't mention the score in the second sentence. It doesn't mention any of those things in the first three sentences. It takes the another paragraph to do so. It mentions ranking points and dates and multiple city locations. You said the superbowl "mentions the two teams in the first sentence sure" but this article doesn't. My compromise does all of that, yet you brush it off and come back with nothing else. I wouldn't have come back with an alternative if I simply blew off the other's opinions. If the article stays the way it is so be it, but that doesn't mean I think it is correct and better for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not meaning to blow you off so I am sorry if it comes across that way. Maybe a closer comparison would be a multi team article like 2022 FIFA World Cup which actually mentions who won in the third paragraph. YellowStahh (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That article is quite bad. I'm in shock that I would go to the 2022 World Cup page and have go down three paragraphs before I could see who won the darned thing in 2022. What's even worse is that the actual knockout bracket is so far down as to be hard to find. That's what readers want to see first and foremost. It's as if the most important aspects of the event don't matter. As if it's an afterthought. Britannica at least says who won in the first paragraph. Most sources of the event put the winners/losers front and center. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yet if we were to look at 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup which is a relatively recent featured article, which I presume the 2022 World Cup is followimg the standard of, its very similar to how its Introed. Wikipedia is not Newspaper, so while I don't want to be dismissive once again I apologize for this as I'm not sure its super relevant how our sources lay out their information. Papers will lead with "USA def. Italy 2–1" in the headline yet our article will be named 2023 United Cup. YellowStahh (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you please stop conflating what you would like to see, whith what all readers want. You don’t speak for the entire ridership here. Tvx1 15:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I apologize on that confusion. We had many many complaints about order through the years on standard tennis tournaments, so it holds true for them. But it was not complained about with the international team events. That was extrapolation on my part and I'll do my best in the future to keep that clear. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The thing is it's quite different with a yearly article. When we have an article on the United Cup, we say what that is in the lead. It's an International team tennis event. But the 2023 United Cup is far different. 2023 United Cup is an international mixed tennis event that was won by the United States over Italy. They are intrinsically linked as the highest level of importance. I feel our readers would want that right off the get-go. I could be wrong but no one has convinced me otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:FIRST - There is clearly defined Manual of Style for the first sentence, so I'm not sure why we would have to convince you as it feels it should be the other way around. YellowStahh (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think MOS:FIRST can clearly be used for my interpretation also. The 2023 event is not just the United Cup. It's the "2023 United Cup", which includes a winner/loser. You will also find that I will always argue for what I believe is the best interest of our readers regardless of an interpretation of MOS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the problem is none of the readers here is agreeing with what you think is best for them. And I really don't see how you can claim MOS:FIRST can be interpreted in your favor, when it clearly states that the lead needs to start explaining what the subject is to the nonspecialist reader, while all your arguments and interpretations are aimed at the specialist tennis fan.Tvx1 19:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The United Cup article states what the United Cup is.... just the general competition itself. The 2023 United Cup encompasses the winner also. It is a more specific definition... not just the United Cup but the 2023 United Cup. In my book that includes who won. I understand that the three of you don't agree with me and of course we go with this tiny majority. Tennis Project is notorious for the small number of editors making consensus and I've benefited and not benefited, but that's the way it goes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Clearly we are just going around in circles, so I am going to remove myself from the conversation as its proving unproductive. YellowStahh (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, your arguments are well documented. Wikipedia Consensus is based on arguments, not on who has the last word.Tvx1 19:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel the need to reiterate that who won an event is far less important than what the event is. Readers do not care who won some random unnamed unexplained event. "John Doe won!" is not meaningful if you don't know whether he won a Grand Slam, a 250 title, a Futures tour event, or just a match against his friends that wouldn't even pass notability guidelines. Explaining what the article is about must be the first thing in an article, because otherwise none of the other information has meaning. Sellyme^Talk 23:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

We totally disagree that readers don't care who who won the 2023 United Cup and what is important in a yearly sub article like this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

2024 ITF Womens tournaments recategorized

From 2024 ITF recategorized its tournaments the W25 --> W35 the W40 --> W50 the W60 --> W75 and terminate W80 category.

Until now, this has also been the was the ITF tournaments key:

Key

Category

W100 tournaments

W80 tournaments

W60 tournaments

W40 tournaments

W25 tournaments

W15 tournaments

What will be the new color scheme? Sczipo (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Well there will still be W15 = $15k so that will remain the same. The W25 will goto W35 but remain at $25k so that will remain the same. The W40 will goto W50 but still have $40k so no issue there. The W60 will goto W75 but still be $60k so that should remain the same too. W80 is gone so the color is gone. And the W100 will stay the same and still be $100k. So the dollar amount isn't changing for these events and the W80 is disappearing. All we need do is delete the W80 and switch to the new names and all should be good. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thx. Sczipo (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Why are the tiers (prize-money) and the key colours for the season 2024 not displayed as answered above? The ITF circuit finals are marked with wrong prize-money (example among other http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Antonia_Ru%C5%BEi%C4%87 Nonthaburi 50.000 instead of 40.000). This is misleading for the readers and not correct. Sherman1998 (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The W40 category doesn't exist for the 2024 tournaments but the W50 tournaments offer $40,000 in prize money. (W50 Nonthaburi for example) The colour is incorrect on Antonia Ružić and the key should be changed to reflect categories and not prize money. YellowStahh (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I just fixed the article in question. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

ATP Masters 1000 yearly page title naming

WTA 1000 season articles all end with "...tournaments". Only the 2023 ATP Masters 1000 page has "tournaments" at the end of the title. Do we match what the WTA articles have or remove tournaments from the one ATP Masters season article? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Well we have ATP 250 tournaments and ATP 500 tournaments why wouldn't we have ATP Masters 1000 tournaments? The titles are supposed to help readers and simply saying ATP Masters 1000 without saying tournaments seems a little less than adequate. We could be more descriptive and call it "2023 ATP Masters 1000 tennis tournaments." Do you realize in the lead or infobox we don't even let readers know what sport it is? The only mention of tennis in the whole article is in references and external links. That is pretty bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

What you are proposing is we update all leads and do a mass-page move for all yearly Masters articles. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the first "ATP Masters 1000" article is 2019 so that's barely any. Even going back to 2009 would only take a couple minutes. Changing the leads to include the words "tennis tournament" is also pretty darned easy, and is really mandatory. These articles are supposed to stand on their own no matter how a reader gets there. It is pretty much required to name the sport the article is all about. I had to re-write almost every single one of the four majors (mens, womens, singles and doubles) all the way back to 1901 because of reader and administrator complaints. That took me days and days but I finally got them corrected. This is a minor blip compared to that. The title change is only a suggestion of mine... we certainly don't have to do it. But the lead really needs that wording addition. If the group wants them all without the word "tournaments" (as just ATP Masters 1000, ATP 500, etc) the lead fixes can make it very clear they are tennis tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You could have asked for a BRFA and somebody do it for you with a mass-edit using a bot. The same thing I am going to use for the mass-page move to "...tournaments" for the Masters season articles (1990–Present) and the lead update. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That's extremely difficult with a lead update. Every lead is written slightly differently so where the terms "tennis" and "tournament" go will be very fluid. Plus, few of all those leads had the winner and score in the first line. They had the last years winner mentioned first. A lot of re-writing and moving. A title could be done that way but I'm not sure it's worth it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Fyunck, I am talking about these articles: Category:ATP Tour Masters 1000 seasons. There aren't winners or scores listed in the lead in the aforementioned articles. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I just added "tennis" to 2023 ATP Masters 1000 tournaments. Just a simple addition so readers know the sport. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

A title could be done that way but I'm not sure it's worth it. So, you don't want "tournaments" added to end of each yearly article then? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

What I meant was a title could be moved by bot, but the lead not so much. But as long as the prose states tennis and tournaments, the title doesn't absolutely need to be moved. I would change "at least" 2019-2023 to "ATP Masters 1000" for consistency. Really they should all be changed to that nomenclature back to 2009. Sources have always used simply ATP Masters 1000, even way back then. See 2013 event, a 2015 article, a 2012 article, and even a 2010 article. It was common to call them ATP Masters 1000s from the term's inception in 2009. But the article leads need to tell our readers that these are tennis tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

And what nomenclature do you propose for the articles pre-2009? Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. I thought it was one thing at a time? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, to not jump the gun. The atp masters articles are named they were based on the sponsoring name from ATP, i.e. ATP's name, at the time from 2009-Present. Now, you propose unifying them to "<XYZ year> ATP Masters 1000" tournaments" for years since 2009. I am okay with that. I will add tennis to all articles' lead to signify the article is about tennis tournaments. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

When I looked at old newspapers and even the ATP tournament logos from 2010 they only said "ATP Masters 1000"... nothing more. It may have been different in the ATP official paperwork, but even they tended to only use "ATP Masters 1000". Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead

See this change for 2023 page and give me your opinion on it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there really a Masters 1000 season? Perhaps: The 2023 ATP Masters 1000 events are the thirty-fourth edition of the ATP Masters Series tennis tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Article name

1. 1990–2008 TBA
2. 2009–2023 (replace current names with YEAR ATP Masters 1000 tournaments)? Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

   Like I said... I'm cool with leaving the word tournaments off the title, but the WTA events should then be changed to use the same format (as long as tennis and tournaments are somewhere in the lead for our readers). Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Moving Yulia Starodubtseva to Yuliia Starodubtseva

Good afternoon, I have put in a move request for Yulia Starodubtseva as she is listed as Yuliia in most sources, there is a move discussion on Talk:Yulia Starodubtseva as well as my opening argument, as its moving slow I am hoping bringing the projects attention to it can move it along. YellowStahh (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello I am currently drafting a 1967 men's tennis season here: User:Navops47/sandbox/Season and I am having a technical issue with the January section of the calendar. I cant seem to align the tournaments showing for week beginning 9 Jan their should be 4 events showing ive put in rowspan 8 but the Tasmanian Championships wont show I've tried correcting it a few times but can't  :( I would appreciate any help from anyone to correct the error im not seeing many thanks. Navops47 (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well shoot, I did a quick look and cant figure it out yet either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking its been perplexing me so I moved on appreciate your help.--Navops47 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Navops47, hey there. I fixed your issue. You used a duplicate reference (<ref="name">) but you closed it with a > tag instead of a \>. See revision difference. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I was just posting a thank you reply at the same time you posted and got an edit conflict topjob my eyesight even with glasses is not brilliant :).--Navops47 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. Sometimes you just need a fresh pair of eyes, a second opinion, if you will.

I also propose you replace any deprecated tags like valign=top, align=center, etc. with their full forms style="vertical-align:...; text-align:..." Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I did notice several disambiguation links (dabs) in your sandbox. You can highlight the dabs to fix them by using the link classifier tool. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

10x WTA 1000 events in 2024

I am pinging @Fyunck(click), ForzaUV, and Krmohan:, the original contributors to the WTA 1000 tables' current design and layout. Not sure Forza will respond as he's been inactive for almost a year. Fyunck helped with the tables design before both stat pages were even created.

With BOTH Dubai (Dubai Open) and Doha (Qatar Open) being added as WTA 1000 events next year, 10 WTA 1000 events are scheduled to take place in 2024 for the first time since 2007. Other notable changes: Wuhan is coming back and will be played AFTER Beijing as the last, 10th, event.

This mainly affects 3 pages: WTA 1000 and its corresponding singles and doubles statistics pages. Both stat pages have "Champions by year" sections listing all the winners 1990-Present in 2 tables: WTA Tier I (1990-2008) and WTA Premier Mandatory/5/1000 (2009-). The first table has 10 tournament columns, because between 2003–2007 San Diego took place, which contributed to there being 10x WTA Tier I events in a year. Whereas the 2nd table has only 9 tournament columns.

My question is: do we create a 3rd table to accommodate for that extra tournament OR expand the current 2nd table to list both Dubai and Doha in separate columns? Or maybe some other solution that someone comes up with.

References

Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I didn't know about all those changes. The WTA 1000 article should be no problem since we create a new table every year. We'll simply have more rows in the 2024 season. I've always hated the city name in the tournament column in those charts. For the records articles it's time to start a new chart with 10 columns just like we did from 1990 to 2008. This is too big a deal to not start something new in 2024. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

if we create a 3rd table, then what would we call that section, since both tables are defined within a certain timeframe (see subsection names)?

Looking at the newly created 2024 WTA Tour article, it seems that they are also dropping the whole Mandatory, non-mandatory sub-categorization. Hopefully, this unify the ranking point system across the board and distribute equal points for all 10 tournaments.

As for the WTA 1000's tournaments column, we can always change the names from city names to full names, such as: China Open, Italian Open, Indian Wells Masters, etc. This would also affect the ATP 1000 article. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click),

1. merged tables or
2. split tables? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

For me, it's a no brainer. This is a drastic change and should require a new table. So split tables. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts on the lead texting? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

American tennis coaches by state discussion

Please comment Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_14#Category:American_tennis_coaches_by_state regarding this tennis-related discussion.--User:Namiba 18:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Anna Kalinskaya infobox dispute

Hi all. User:Marcric and I have a disagreement over how to present the titles for Kalinskaya on her infobox. For doubles, based on my interpretation of Template:Infobox tennis biography, which says Singles and Doubles titles, include only titles won on the WTA (women) or the ATP (men) Tour, not the ITF circuit (the tier below), this should simply state '3' as she has won 3 titles at the WTA tour level, and my understanding is that these supersede her WTA Challenger, ITF and junior titles that she may have won. For example, I note that most GA articles don't bother listing ITF or Challenger titles once the player has reached the highest level: Simona Halep, Belinda Bencic, Sofia Kenin, Dayana Yastremska. In fact, with Halep, we don't even bother with the ITF statistics at Simona Halep career statistics, even though we know that she won many at that level in her early days. Same with Beatriz Haddad Maia and Laura Siegemund, both of whom played on the ITF tour for years but we only need to record their WTA titles.

I also think that her singles infobox should just state '1 WTA Challenger' so that it is in line with Kateryna Baindl, Irina Khromacheva and other players whose highest honour is a WTA Challenger singles title and when she inevitably wins a WTA Tour level event, it should just be changed to '1' to be consistent with every other tennis article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - as soon as 2 days ago, her article was formatted in the correct way, listing only her WTA titles in the infobox, as she is a WTA Tour level player now, not an ITF one. I would like to ask if JamesAndersoon or Fyunck(click) can provide any guidance or link to a previous debate where we've had this before. I can only find this debate from 2009 but I do note that I can't find any example of a GA or FA tennis player article where we list their low level titles alongside the top level ones in the infobox. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi All, I'm just trying to implement a pattern I have used in Ana Bogdan's article. If I'm in the wrong way, just tell me, explain the reasons and point the pattern I shoul use, because at this date, each article uses a different pattern... --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Since Ana Bogdan hasn't got any WTA titles yet, I think it's fine to list her ITF titles there as they are her highest achievement. Once she wins a WTA tour title, we should stop listing them as it becomes superfluous. In the same way, we never list a player's best junior major results in the infobox after they have started playing at the senior level. To comply with Template:Infobox tennis biography properly, we should only be listing Kalinskaya's highest level achievements and not just an exhaustive title listing in the infobox. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

But that is my point. If we have already defined "the correct way", just point me the discussion and the conclusion, because as I have stated "at this date, each article uses a different pattern". Which is the "correct one": items like image size, titles info, date format and references do not follow any pattern. And if a "pattern" changes if the player get a new level title it is not a pattern. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

And make sure to update the career win-loss for singles and doubles to main tour wins-losses only after a player has won their maiden singles/doubles title in the infobox. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The guidance here is sufficient. Stats should be for main tour only once they have won their first main tour title. Please note that this also includes players like Caroline Garcia, Aryna Sabalenka, Ekaterina Alexandrova and others so I would ask you politely not to restore the ITF stats on their boxes. User:Fyunck(click) edited here on Maria Sakkari stating Once a player starts winning WTA titles we stop posting the minor league titles in the infobox which is further evidence of consensus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

As an additional note, please stop changing the European date format to American when the player is European, like with this edit to Ana Bogdan, which was correctly reverted by User:Adamtt9. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it: so the "pattern" varies, according to titles and country of the player. From now on, I will just stop updating player infoboxes. Regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Marcric:Actually that is correct, just like many different types of Wikipedia articles. Per sourcing we use the correct date format depending on nationality. And when a player is only playing in the minor league ITF events, those events are important and their infobox shows that. Once they start winning main tour WTA titles that changes and the minor leagues events (while mentioned in prose) are no longer important enough for the infobox. It's pretty simple and easy to handle so we'd hate to lose an enthusiastic editor. Cheers. One thing of note. When this became the norm, there was no WTA challenger tour so how to handle winning only Challenger and ITF events is new ground. It might be we would include both until such time as a player wind their first WTA main tour title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): No problem, and You will not "lose" this editor. I am very identified with the character Monk, so it is very difficult for me to work without a pattern to follow (I have 45 patterns in text files defined for different subjects in Wikipedia). And since it is clear that a pattern for tennis players will not be defined for the English Wikipedia, and I don't want to force others into my OCD. So, I will simply abandon my project of standardizing those infoboxes. Regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Marcric:I liked watching Monk. But there actually is a pattern here and it should be consistent. Date formatting per nationality. Show minor league ITF record when playing and winning only ITF events. Once winning starts in the major league WTA or ATP main tours, ITF records are removed. That is what is supposed to be followed here. Take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): No problem, as I said, I disagree with what you consider a "pattern" for the English Wikipedia that changes per nationality and per titles earned, so, from now on, I will not change a comma in those infoboxes. Take care. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Anna Kalinskaya infobox dispute

Hi all. User:Marcric and I have a disagreement over how to present the titles for Kalinskaya on her infobox. For doubles, based on my interpretation of Template:Infobox tennis biography, which says Singles and Doubles titles, include only titles won on the WTA (women) or the ATP (men) Tour, not the ITF circuit (the tier below), this should simply state '3' as she has won 3 titles at the WTA tour level, and my understanding is that these supersede her WTA Challenger, ITF and junior titles that she may have won. For example, I note that most GA articles don't bother listing ITF or Challenger titles once the player has reached the highest level: Simona Halep, Belinda Bencic, Sofia Kenin, Dayana Yastremska. In fact, with Halep, we don't even bother with the ITF statistics at Simona Halep career statistics, even though we know that she won many at that level in her early days. Same with Beatriz Haddad Maia and Laura Siegemund, both of whom played on the ITF tour for years but we only need to record their WTA titles.

I also think that her singles infobox should just state '1 WTA Challenger' so that it is in line with Kateryna Baindl, Irina Khromacheva and other players whose highest honour is a WTA Challenger singles title and when she inevitably wins a WTA Tour level event, it should just be changed to '1' to be consistent with every other tennis article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - as soon as 2 days ago, her article was formatted in the correct way, listing only her WTA titles in the infobox, as she is a WTA Tour level player now, not an ITF one. I would like to ask if JamesAndersoon or Fyunck(click) can provide any guidance or link to a previous debate where we've had this before. I can only find this debate from 2009 but I do note that I can't find any example of a GA or FA tennis player article where we list their low level titles alongside the top level ones in the infobox. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi All, I'm just trying to implement a pattern I have used in Ana Bogdan's article. If I'm in the wrong way, just tell me, explain the reasons and point the pattern I shoul use, because at this date, each article uses a different pattern... --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Since Ana Bogdan hasn't got any WTA titles yet, I think it's fine to list her ITF titles there as they are her highest achievement. Once she wins a WTA tour title, we should stop listing them as it becomes superfluous. In the same way, we never list a player's best junior major results in the infobox after they have started playing at the senior level. To comply with Template:Infobox tennis biography properly, we should only be listing Kalinskaya's highest level achievements and not just an exhaustive title listing in the infobox. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

But that is my point. If we have already defined "the correct way", just point me the discussion and the conclusion, because as I have stated "at this date, each article uses a different pattern". Which is the "correct one": items like image size, titles info, date format and references do not follow any pattern. And if a "pattern" changes if the player get a new level title it is not a pattern. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

And make sure to update the career win-loss for singles and doubles to main tour wins-losses only after a player has won their maiden singles/doubles title in the infobox. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The guidance here is sufficient. Stats should be for main tour only once they have won their first main tour title. Please note that this also includes players like Caroline Garcia, Aryna Sabalenka, Ekaterina Alexandrova and others so I would ask you politely not to restore the ITF stats on their boxes. User:Fyunck(click) edited here on Maria Sakkari stating Once a player starts winning WTA titles we stop posting the minor league titles in the infobox which is further evidence of consensus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

As an additional note, please stop changing the European date format to American when the player is European, like with this edit to Ana Bogdan, which was correctly reverted by User:Adamtt9. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it: so the "pattern" varies, according to titles and country of the player. From now on, I will just stop updating player infoboxes. Regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Marcric:Actually that is correct, just like many different types of Wikipedia articles. Per sourcing we use the correct date format depending on nationality. And when a player is only playing in the minor league ITF events, those events are important and their infobox shows that. Once they start winning main tour WTA titles that changes and the minor leagues events (while mentioned in prose) are no longer important enough for the infobox. It's pretty simple and easy to handle so we'd hate to lose an enthusiastic editor. Cheers. One thing of note. When this became the norm, there was no WTA challenger tour so how to handle winning only Challenger and ITF events is new ground. It might be we would include both until such time as a player wind their first WTA main tour title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): No problem, and You will not "lose" this editor. I am very identified with the character Monk, so it is very difficult for me to work without a pattern to follow (I have 45 patterns in text files defined for different subjects in Wikipedia). And since it is clear that a pattern for tennis players will not be defined for the English Wikipedia, and I don't want to force others into my OCD. So, I will simply abandon my project of standardizing those infoboxes. Regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Marcric:I liked watching Monk. But there actually is a pattern here and it should be consistent. Date formatting per nationality. Show minor league ITF record when playing and winning only ITF events. Once winning starts in the major league WTA or ATP main tours, ITF records are removed. That is what is supposed to be followed here. Take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): No problem, as I said, I disagree with what you consider a "pattern" for the English Wikipedia that changes per nationality and per titles earned, so, from now on, I will not change a comma in those infoboxes. Take care. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Spanish International/Spanish Open

Hello I moved the Spanish Open to Spanish International Championships or Campeonatos Internacionales de España because for nearly all of its existence it was called either the International Championships of Spain from 1904 to 1967 played in San Sebastian, Santander and Barcelona. From 1968 it was permanently played in Barcelona, at the Real Club de Tenis Barcelona under the joint denomination of Spanish International Championships or Campeonatos Internacionales de España and & Trofeo Conde de Godó until 1980 when it was a joint event (as yet no women showing on the Barcelona Open roll.

The women's tournament was moved to a different date in the calendar, but it was still played at the same venue until 1995 when it was last called the 1995 Ford International Championships of Spain – Singles not Spanish Open. From 1981 to 1995 the women's event did not carry the joint title of Trofeo Conde de Godó only till 1980. Both titles in name were equally weighted. I went through every edition of the Real Club de Tenis Barcelona archive here:[14]https://archivo.rctb1899.es/ The 1968 edition information here;[15]https://archivo.rctb1899.es/edicion-bcnopen/xvi-trofeo-conde-de-godo on the right side under Breaks it says the following ' The Royal Spanish Tennis Federation, on behalf of the International Tennis Federation, grants the Conde de Godó Trophy the category of International Championships of Spain and donates a challenge trophy for the winner of the individual event', and here its the promotional poster; [16]https://archivo.rctb1899.es/sites/default/files/bcn-open-edition/poster/tc_godo_16-1968.jpg

Now instead the research I had spent hours doing going through year to check and re check the event titles, had been removed in a matter of minutes, some questions need to be asked of the editor who reversed my edits. If the men's and women's International Championships of Spain, which were founded in San Sebastian as a joint event, and played in 1936 in Barcelona at the same venue, clearly the cannot be included in the Barcelona roll before 1968. Their should not have been a problem including the men's Barcelona results as the sources clearly show the Spanish Tennis Association also granted the Conde de Godó Trophy the category title of International Championships of Spain!!. It was made very clear in the tables section this was the case!. If a national tennis federation grants the event a joint title category the men's events from Barcelona should be included here as they carried that title until 2007. as seen here, [17] the promotional poster states Open Seat 2007 and 55th Trofeo Conde de Godó and 40th Campeonatos Internacionales de España in Barcelona If the original events pages had been properly researched in the first place each Barcelona event from 1968 should be showing the following information Edition No: Trofeo Conde de Godó, Edition No: Campeonatos Internacionales de España and the Edition No: Sponsored Name that year as all three are shown in the sources provided!! Ive added that info where I have been able to do so with a citation for each page.

For me their is genuine grounds to included rolls in men's tournaments that were in fact combined tournaments for certain periods but for a lot of pages are never showing joint rolls, as the International Championships of Spain was a national event category the men's winners in Barcelona should be in the Spanish International Championships rolls as the event was played in three other cities not just Barcelona. Moving on to the WTA Madrid Open, I have lost my source that confirms that 2000 to 2002 editions also carried the joint title of Campeonatos Internacionales de España as with the Barcelona events. Navops47 (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

That would be me since it wasn't discussed and tennis tournament article merging is a very messy business because the tournament names are very convoluted. The mens event you put in the Spanish Open already has an extensive web presence at the Barcelona Open (tennis) article. This is confirmed at the actual tournament website in their own roll of champions and Trofeo Conde de Godó winners right here. No women mentioned. We don't need two identical articles on the men. As for the women and the name, most times sources call it Barcelona or WTA Barcelona. The WTA pdf simply says Barcelona Spain. We also have a breakdown of event names per Grand Slam History. It was by no means consistent. Sources in 1991 called it the "WTA Seat Open". Sources in 1993 called it the La Familia Open, and did so again in 1994, so I'm not sure about your hours of checking and rechecking. What I went back to is what we originally had the article at and the fact it was the womens event. I even started a talk page discussion that we already have a tournament page for the men with a different name. I'm not saying we can't use the International Championships of Spain (even though it has had multiple name changes), but before we start double dipping on already establish article and throwing in the men, this needs to be discussed. I would have thought at the article talk page where i started it, but here works ok too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

A potential new Performance timeline

At tennis guidelines a new performance timeline design was agreed upon.

→ Rephrased: Last February a new design for the Performance timeline was proposed and brought here for additional input from the community before it could get implemented. I additionally wrote it was agreed upon...I meant on at tennis guideline, but NOT here. So, once again: I am asking the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis community for improvement and new ideas for the below table. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Timeline

Iga Świątek career statistics#Performance timelines

Key

W

F

SF

QF

#R

RR

Q#

P#

DNQ

A

Z#

PO

G

S

B

NMS

NTI

P

NH

(W) winner; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; (RR) round-robin stage; (Q#) qualification round; (P#) preliminary round; (DNQ) did not qualify; (A) absent; (Z#) Davis/Fed Cup Zonal Group (with number indication) or (PO) play-off; (G) gold, (S) silver or (B) bronze Olympic/Paralympic medal; (NMS) not a Masters tournament; (NTI) not a Tier I tournament; (P) postponed; (NH) not held; (SR) strike rate (events won / competed); (W–L) win–loss record.

To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated at the conclusion of a tournament or when the player's participation has ended.

Performance timeline

Tournament		2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	W–L	Win %
Grand Slam events	Australian Open	2R	4R	4R	SF	4R	3R	17–6	74%
	French Open	4R	W	QF	W	W		28–2	93%
	Wimbledon	1R	NH	4R	3R	QF		9–4	69%
	US Open	2R	3R	4R	W	4R		16–4	80%
	Win–loss	5–4	12–2	13–4	21–2	17–3	2–1	70–16	81%
YEC	WTA Finals	DNQ	NH	RR	SF	W		9–3	75%
Team events	Summer Olympics	NH		2R	NH			1–1	50%
	Billie Jean King Cup	A	A		Q	A		2–0	100%
WTA 1000 events	Dubai Championships	A	N1K	3R	N1K	F		4–2	67%
	Qatar Open	N1K	2R	N1K	W	N1K		6–1	86%
	Indian Wells Open	Q2	NH	4R	W	SF		12–2	86%
	Miami Open	Q2	NH	3R	W	A		7–1	88%
	Madrid Open	A	NH	3R	A	F		7–2	78%
	Italian Open	A	1R	W	W	QF		14–2	88%
	Canadian Open	3R	NH	A	3R	SF		6–3	67%
	Cincinnati Open	2R	1R	2R	3R	SF		5–5	50%
	China Open	A	NH			W		6–0	100%
	Wuhan Open	A	NH					0–0	–
	Win–loss	3–2	1–3	12–5	24–2	27–6	0–0	67–18	79%
Career statistics		2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	W–L	Win %
Tournaments		11	6	16	17	18	2	Career: 70
Titles		0	1	2	8	6	0	Career: 17
Finals		1	1	2	9	8	0	Career: 21
Hard win–loss		7–7	7–4	20–11	47–7	42–8	7–1	130–38	77%
Clay win–loss		7–3	7–1	12–2	18–1	19–2	0–0	63–9	88%
Grass win–loss		0–2	–	4–2	2–1	7–1	0–0	13–6	68%
Overall win–loss		14–12	14–5	36–15	67–9	68–11	7–1	206–53	80%
Win (%)		54%	74%	71%	88%	86%	88%	Career: 80%
Year-end ranking		61	17	9	1	1		$24,592,763

Comments

Now it is taken up here for further discussion and consensus from the wider community. Share us your thoughts on whether the proposed chart befits this project or we should go back to the old format. The chart was changed because it went against MOS:HEADER hence why the row headers were redesigned to meet the guidelines. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Let's make sure it's presented properly. The decade old chart was vetted multiple times with screen readers and MOS and had no issues. One or two here think it goes against MOS header which was designed so that screen readers would work better. Yet it was tested years ago with no issues from folks who used those screen readers. A new chart was designed anyway. It is the best we could come up with though it has not been vetted at all. It is certainly ready to be presented here, though in the discussion it is not universally agreed that we need it at all. We need some with screen readers to take a look, but we would also want those who create new articles on a regular basis to see if they like it better than the long-standing original chart. Note the SR (strike rate) column has been removed. Note also that if there is only one "team event" in that row (it's shown with two items), the height of that row will be much higher than the other rows. Such as:

@Graham87:, does the above chart comply with WCAG? Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Tournament		2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	W–L	Win %
Team events	Summer Olympics	NH		2R	NH			1–1	50%

@Qwerty284651: Seems OK to me personally as a screen reader user, but I can't evaulate its suitability beyond that. You'd be better off asking at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility. Graham87 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87, thanks. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure of a work-around for "team events" that would work. It was already shortened from "National representation" to "Team events." As an alternative chart, it is the best we could do. The comparison of what we have now is this current Iga Swiatek chart. Perhaps many will like the new chart better than what we have now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• I’m sorry, but the linked discussion doesn’t appear to show a new design that is actually agreed upon. It appears to be just your proposal for an alternative design.Tvx1 07:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  But that's sort of why this isn't an RfC. We wanted input from others here at the project. The new rendition is certainly the best three of us could come up with but it needs the vast experience of the full tennis project to weigh in. It does need those who use screen readers to test it out... probably to help others in giving an opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Which is why it was brought here for further review and discussion. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  I agree I don't see any difference with the old design or any improvements. Except that the headers are on the left side instead of above. It seems a lot of work for no reason to go change just the positions of some headers. Sashona (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Why does it need to say “events”? It is taking too much space with those headers on the left and the table will be much wider as a result, especially when you add multiple years and it expands on further on the right. I do not see any improvements. Sashona (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Events columns is used to not have all single text rows, because it confuses visually impaired users, for example, Graham86, who is completely blind. Because the current format of the Performance timeline chart goes against MOS:COLHEAD and consequently WCAG, the redesign was proposed last February and its implementation in the Article guidelines is pending.

As far as the chart taking too much space. The text overflow can be resolved with a scrolling div. See (example). Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

What I meant is to take out the word “events” as it expands the column. You can put it on top of the column, and then “Tournament” can be one single column, instead of spanning in two columns. Sashona (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow. Can you demonstrate please? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Updated Table example

Event	Tournament	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	W–L	Win %
Team	Summer Olympics	NH		2R	NH			1–1	50%

Sashona (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the opening header here. This chart was never agreed upon per se. It is far inferior to our standard chart which causes no issues and got no traction for change. It was the "best" alternate chart that we could come up with at the time. Also, we had asked screen reader users such as Graham86 when the original chart was created, and they had no issues understanding it at all. That's why we vetted it at the time. This new chart is certainly worse for sighted users. There is always a balance between the best charts and when changes are required. Have screen readers gone backwards in ability to comprehend? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), @Sashona, I meant the first chart: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Performance timeline Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), I posted this back in February with the original header. I thought it was agreed upon on the Article guidelines talk page to be asked here for more input from the community. I will rephrase it to "ideas for improvement". Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear... my bad if so. The wording of "a new performance timeline design was agreed upon" is fuzzy. It makes it sound like all those who talked about it agreed this was what we want and we want more input here. That would be totally wrong. Most did not want the chart to change at all and saw no reason to change it at all. But we thought this chart was the best that we could come up with that was not the original chart. We needed this alternate chart vetted to make sure it was spotless, just like we did with the original chart. Then if it could be shown that the alternative chart passes muster here, we could honestly compare it to the original chart. I just wanted to make sure this particular discussion was not a discussion on replacing the old chart, it's a preliminary discussion on whether the new chart is any good to begin with. Then we could move on with more discussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This is why I changed my header to read asking for input on the new chart from the community. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I was just trying to help with saving space by moving “events” word in the column header, instead of having it repeat in each row. Really improving the chart, will be eliminating the “events” column and just leaving the “Tournament” column. Sashona (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Then remove them. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Records against top 10 players section is being deleted on multiple pages without consensus

Where is the consensus vote on deleting this information mentioned in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 21#Useless, original research chart on many tennis articles. Why?, I don’t see any. We need to create an RFC and bring up a vote before deleting multitude of pages with information collected for years by the contributors based on a singles opinion by user @Qwerty284651:. Sashona (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Per discussions at several talk pages including Iga Swiatek, and finally at this talk page where we removed the trivial charts but kept the wins over top 10 (at the time) charts. Most of the women's charts have been done, but the men still need a lot of removal and fixes. I'm working on it slow but steady. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I moved the above comment, which was posted after the discussion had been archived, from the archive page to the Project's talk page to revive the discussion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the timeline to get the Women’s and Men’s Win AND Loss charts done, right now you are deleting whole head-to-head Win-Loss sections and not replacing it with anything. I only see a Top 10 Wins section. Sashona (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) STOP deleting the section record win/loss in the players profile pages, unless you have a replacement new WP:COMPROMISE chart that combines Wins AND Losses over top-10 players. Sashona (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You have to remember most things are not handled by wikipedia-wide RfCs. They are handled by discussions. We had a recent discussion about whether to include nationality of Russia and Belarus in all of our rankings charts. Three people joined in after a month of discussions. It went a whopping 2-1 (I was the lone vote against). Since no one else joined we went with 2-1 and we moved on. It happens that way sometimes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

How are we supposed to know there was even a discussion on Records against Top-10 players? I don’t see a vote, who were the people for and the people against besides you, can you tag them on here?

We need to vote on this, you are erasing a lot of information collected over the years. If you want to not included it in the newly created profiles that is fine but I don’t agree with deleting information. Sashona (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The whole top 10 record sections are WP:NOR. And they do not reflect the actual ranking of the opponent, who at one point was ranked in top 10 of the rankings, that a player faced off against. Sections that list the top 10 win record against actual top 10 players at the time are fine, the rest I would remove, including past BLPs and current ones. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It is there for every tennis player, but it is “no original research”. I don’t understand, how do you know? We still need an RFC so we can vote to delete or not that section, since it is on all players pages. For the future new players profiles we can omit it if a decision is made to take it out. Sashona (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a form of original research as there don’t appear to be any source who seem to specifically maintain lists of wins against top ten ranked players, thus there is no proof of notability of this concept. Moreover the criterium used to define a “top ten player” is completely original research.Tvx1 07:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

So if Top 10 Wins section is original research, then why are we keeping that section but not the Records against top 10 section. I thought the whole idea of Wikipedia is to create records of things that other sources don’t have. Are you saying we should or not keep the Records against top 10 section? Sashona (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That is 100% dead wrong. Wikipedia creates nothing! We are an encyclopedia. We can post stats that are already published somewhere else we don't really synthesize data into new data WP:OR. In fact we are not supposed to be a repository of stats at all WP:NOTDATABASE. Maybe that's what the problem is in these discussions, that the rules are being broken and editors don't realize that. One of the problems with the old chart, and why we eliminated it, was it was almost impossible to prove it was correct WP:VERIFY. At least a chart that is top 10 "at the time they played" can be linked and seen pretty quickly. The problem occurs when Jimbo Clodhopper starts the year winning three events and makes it to the top 10 and the rest of his 20 years career he's out of the top 200. With the old deprecated non-consensus charts it doesn't matter... he could be ranked 371, play Medvedev, and we have to add Jimbo Clodhopper to Medvedevs top 10 chart. Or the opposite when after 20 years of being ranked 300, Shelly Rackethead wins a depleted Australian Open and gets ranked in the top 10. We would now have to go back and add 20 years of her playing to every single player who ever played her, since she is a top 10 player. It's ridiculous and almost impossible to keep track of for accuracy. Wins over top 10 players at the time they played, is much easier to maintain for accuracy and non-trivial use of stats.

And you could be confusing two very different items. "Top 10 Wins" and "Records against top 10" are apples and oranges. The "top 10 wins" chart is at the time of participation... the player was in the top 10 when they played. Easy to find, maintain, and prove the chart is correct. The non-consensus "Records against top 10" the players could be ranked 999 when they played and still be in the chart. That's crazy and why we removed it. Andy Murrays body has sadly broken down and he's ranked 67 and about to retire. It's no accomplishment to beat him now. Yet if a minor league ITF player crushes him he would get to add Murray to top 10 defeats in the the old non-consensus chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I am confused are you talking about WP:NOR? What is WP:OR? In any case all these data can be verified as we know who the top 10 players are and we know the the head-to-head for each player against those players, so that is what the chart represents. All head-to-heads for a player against players that are currently or were ranked in the top 10 before. ITF level matches are not included in this chart, only the ATP matches.Sashona (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:NOR both redirect to Wikipedia:No original research. Two shortcuts for the same thing.

What Fyunck is trying to say is if a newcomer breaks in the top 10, any previous match with any other opponent would have to be registered in those opponent's career stat pages as a top 10 win/loss which would be nonsensical and not supported by sources. Whereas, records between players who at least 1 was in the top 10 at the time of the match can br easily be tracked and verified with sources (tennis articles).

This is why the record against top 10 players (if it doesn't count a match WHEN that player was NOT in the top 10) has to go and ONLY count wins against top 10 players. Players with long careers (Serena, Djokovic, Federer, Navratilova) all played numerous top 10 players and listing all the losses would be make for a very long and redundant chart — that is why they are being limited to top 10 wins only. See the discussion I posted the link to below for more clarification. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you explained it better than I did. And to Sashona, we do not always know every single player that has ever been in the top ten at some point in their career. That's not always easy to look up. It's easy to look up one specific match (since it should be sourced) to see the rankings of the two players involved. So a top 10 at the time they played doesn't seem too trivial and it's easily verifiable by the link. Otherwise what you want is for us to keep watch on any player that ever breaks into the top 10, even for a week. Then we have to go back to every single match they ever played prior to that, then add the match record to every single player they ever played. And hope we don't miss one (which is likely). It's overly burdensome, overly trivial, and original research. Some might think that even a top 10 wins at the time of the match is a trivial chart, and a data repository against wikipedia policy, but at least it is easily verifiable. We try to strike a balance between trivial data and data needed by most readers. It's always a bit tricky. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If I were right, the very first action on this was started on Talk:Iga Świątek career statistics, and there was a clearly consensus on deleting the WP:OR Records against top 10 players table, and instead feature a new top-10 win-loss table as a WP:COMPROMISE. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The only chart I see is Wins over top 10 players under Taylor Fritz career statistics#Wins over top 10 players, for example. Sashona (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Which needs to be updated to new layout. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The new layout need to include the Wins AND the Losses. Where is that chart? Right now all I see is the Top 10 Win. The section Records with Wins and Losses are being wiped out by @Fyunck(click) from the players pages and not replaced. Sashona (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I said "Which needs to be updated to new layout.". Unnamelessness (talk) 12:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

And under Wins over top 10 players section it says: Taylor Fritz has a 20–34 (37.0%) record against players who were, at the time the match was played, ranked in the top 10. So it gives you the total wins and losses, the total head to head against top-10, but ONLY lists the individual Wins over top 10 players NOT the individual Losses. How do we check for the losses numbers if we don’t list them? Sashona (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sashona, you can find the career record of any player against top 10 players on ATP's website (records started being tracked from 1991 onwards). Taylor Fritz's top 10 win-loss record, for example. Unfortunately, WTA doesn't include those kind of career stats any more for the women. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Great, we should then update the old ATP source link in all pages to point to this NEW link. That also means we should list the Wins AND Losses against top 10 players since we have an additional place to check it, besides using the head-to-head and the match activity. Sashona (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I would still limit the chart to wins ONLY because, as mentioned earlier, players with 15-20 year careers have played against over 300 top 10 players. Listing all of those would add up too much clutter. To avoid that, I propose to limit the top 10 charts to wins only. AND, of course, remove the record against top 10 players section as it goes against WP:NOR. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

We probrably don't need the WTA or the ATP. There are third-party pages, like this one, where you can filter out records against top 10 players of any player by choosing VS top N and type in 10 on the right. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This site, for example, is the place. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Do we know the accuracy of that betting site? Can it be corroborated by another site? It does make it a bit quicker to create a "wins only" chart for all the players. Sadly, you can't directly link to it, but in sourcing a "wins-only" chart it would allow diehard readers to click the source to see the super trivial detailed stats they crave. That is something Wikipedia is good at; showing the encyclopedic highlights but giving the source where more detail can be found for those few who want it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

At the bottom it says "All data from ATP/WTA Live, ATP/WTA/ITF Official Websites and Sofascore." While I do consider all four sites they talk about as a reliable source, I would suggest using these instead of this one. YellowStahh (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you find that chart on the WTA/ATP/ITF websites? I can't. Taking Taylor Fritz, if you goto ATP under "Activity/Win-Loss/versus top 10" he has a record of 20-34. It doesn't say whom. I can buy that if it's 20-34 at ATP, and the betting site says it's 20-34 and also lists the actual matches, that it's probably correct. No idea what sofascore is. But then we run into length and trivia. Fritz is 26 and already a win/loss chart would be 54 rows long where with wins only it would be 20 rows long. Djokovik's win only chart is 257 rows long! Could you imagine if it had losses. The wikipedia rfc data police would run us out of town. Iga Swiatek has Wins/Losses she's 22 and it is already a lengthy 49 rows long. And the issue with an RfC is that it includes all projects and administrators. They may want half the charts on the article gone whereas we are talking about one chart gone and one chart shortened. That's why RfCs are a last resort per wikipedia. If we have to we have to. But it's one thing to include both wins and losses in the current chart, and it's quite another to include the deprecated head-to-head chart that is beyond trivial and original research. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I actually answered this question before, which is to use collapse wikitable to reduce the length, like Zheng Qinwen career statistics. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

What I want to keep is the “head to head” or H2H record against top 10 players, wins and losses. Why do we want to get rid of that research? Sashona (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

And that's a big problem at Wikipedia. We are not allowed to do original research per Policy. That chart takes a heap of effort and research and we have no idea whether it's correct or not. When you look at that chart under "number 5 ranked players", we see three players. How do we know there aren't thirteen players? There is no source for the chart. And under those "number 5 ranked players" you see Kevin Anderson at the top. They played once only... in 2020 and Anderson was ranked 122 in the world... not even in the top 100, not in the top 50, not in the top 20. That is useless trivia that requires lot's of original research to find out that he beat an old low-ranked player. If Anderson was in the top 10 it would be in the consensus chart as a victory for Fritz over a top 10 opponent. Same with number 8 ranked "Marcos Baghdatis." They also played once when Baghdatis was in steady decline and ranked 83. How Fritz does against the 83rd ranked player in the world is beyond trivial plus those looking at it will think it was a top 10 match. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The head-to-head charts have appeared in the career statistics of almost every tennis player for years. Over the years, no one thought to delete them, until suddenly the user Fyunck(click) and only this user thought that these charts were “trivial, trivial, trivial” and must be deleted. And now he thinks he can delete them all, and he's the only one who actually deletes them, with no respect whatsoever for the work of the editors who edited these charts for years.

This is weird. The head-to-head charts are popular, just keep them alive and stop deleting them. BundesBerti (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If they can be sourced, there's no reason not to, but I would cite WP:RANK though there is likely a more suitable outline in general notability guidelines for article content. "Notability is about having published, non-trivial information (i.e., more than a mere mention) in multiple sources independent of the subject, and the article itself not being the first place to provide the information." is the argument I would use against something deemed popular. There are also examples of other WikiProjects getting rid of "Popular content" such as the Pro wrestling project getting rid of the "In wrestling" section, while sometimes sourced really well it was left up to original research. YellowStahh (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

They really can't be sourced without original research. And there is no way to know how "popular" those charts are, so that's made up. My guess is the entire article is not massively popular and a chart that shows how a player did against the number 100 ranked player has got to be way on the bottom and trivial. That's why we have sources listed, so people can go see trivial betting site info if they really want it. And we had consensus on the charts being gone, so that is absolute baloney about both only me and disrespect. I do the dirty work after decisions are made, so I do expect this type of response from some. It goes with the territory of wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@BundesBerti, @Sashona, there was consensus where it was agreed upon to remove the losses and only keep the wins in the top 10 wins chart (I am posting the link to the discussion for the third and, hopefully, the last time). So, stop disrespecting other editors. I, too, think that head-to-head charts versus top 10 have to be deleted. They are original research, backtracking for each new top 10 player win/loss would require extra unnecessary research and you have been told twice this before in this discussion. Some sections need to go, top 10 wins can stay as they can easily be sourced. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The consensus, if there was one, was a WP: COMPROMISE according to user @Unnamelessness on keeping the head-to-head records charts for Men and Women containing “Wins AND Losses against top 10 players” with modified layout, not just deleting an entire Records against top 10 player section with no replacement coming. Sashona (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

And then it came up for discussion again to be wins only. New players could have wins and losses since their charts would be like 10 rows. Once they get to a certain level the chart becomes unwieldy. Like the infobox where we use minor league ITF records until they start winning on the main tour. Then the ITF records are removed and replaced with WTA records. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Where is that discussion? Who agreed and who did not? So far just Qwerty284651 wants to keep ONLY the Top 10 wins. Sashona (talk) 02:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Alex Michelsen is a new player, I only see the top 10 wins NOT the losses in his chart. Sashona (talk) 02:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree we should keep the head-to-head charts, that are in the “Records against top 10 players“ chart. Please vote on it in the section below. Sashona (talk) 02:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Vote section

I propose a vote to settle who is in favor of keeping only top 10 wins or top wins and losses. Vote to replace or not the "Record against top 10 players":

1. Replace with Top 10 wins chart ONLY

2. Replace with Top 10 wins AND losses chart

3. Do NOT replace the "Record against Top 10 players"

• I vote for 1 to keep only the wins charts. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• I vote for 3 to NOT replace the "Record against top players" Sashona (talk) 02:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• No change - in other words, keep current consensus of top 10 wins and no trivial original research charts of records against 183rd ranked players. I guess we do this survey now (there is no voting at wikipedia) every couple of months to watch the ping pong ball. It's going to take some doing to overturn the last discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• I vote for 3 to NOT replace the "Record against top players" BundesBerti (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Please pick option 1,2 or 3 above. No change is not an option. And it was not my idea the voting section, it was Qwerty284651’s idea. Sashona (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Fyunck is basically voting for the current consensus to keep the top 10 wins records only. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This is close to the truth, but I would never refer to it as "replace." It should be worded as "keep the" not "replace the." Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Funck thoughts.

I thought he is working, as stated in comments in the beginning of discussion above, on New charts for Men and Women with "Wins AND Losses against top 10 players", so that is option 2, not option 1 as you stated. He must have changed his mind and now he wants to cut his work in half and wipe out what he think is not necessary any longer.

He needs as a courtesy to everyone pick one of the vote options so we know what his answer is. Sashona (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You know, you are getting a little tiresome with your backhanded snottiness, and I don't appreciate it Sashona. You need to worry about yourself and back off. There is no voting at Wikipedia. Wins only are best for not cluttering up an entire stats page. Wins and losses can be done but absolutely not once you start playing a ton of top 10 matches. And the deprecated chart about everyone who was ever in the top 10 whether they are ranked 475 when they played, was shot down long ago when it was brought up at Swiateks article, and in other discussions as super trivial, original research, and misleading to readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

As I said previously voting was not my idea. Mind your tone, please. Sashona (talk) 07:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

My "tone" is there 100% because of your pointiness towards me. Over and over. Plus you erase my comments that someone else had to put back, and you moved my comments, which I had to ask on your talk page to stop. I sure as heck hope it wasn't you sockpuppeting on several pages too. I've been putting up with these stabs for awhile but it has to stop. I explain the best I can when you ask questions, and I'm sorry if I don't do good job in conveying my point. Others have helped clarify when I'm not clear enough and I thank them for it. But that "mind your tone" stuff is baloney. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sashona, I've put up with you during the Russian/Belarus discussion at Current tennis rankings and defused the situation from escalating. But I am not willing to continue doing that if you continue to act the same.

He must have changed his mind and now he wants to cut his work in half and wipe out what he think is not necessary any longer. He needs as a courtesy to everyone pick one of the vote options so we know what his answer is. Don't assume things. You don't know me. I am not working on any new charts regarding wins against top 10 players. And stop being rude to other editors. Next time I won't be defending you if someone is willing to report you. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Stop changing my and other editor's comments per WP:TPO and WP:INTERPOLATE. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

All you help in reformatting the structure and contributing content to this discussion is highly appreciated. Thank you again. As for putting up with me in previous discussions or sockpuppeting, not sure what that means, and why that is relevant, but I am just here to facilitate this discussion I started and help bring a resolution. I hope we continue to make progress. Sashona (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I say we just close the entire discussion down and agree to remove all information that cannot be sourced through a set of reliable sources. I like to always assume good faith, but the entire thing is littered with backhanded comments and I'm not sure if we can reach a proper consensus under the present circumstances. YellowStahh (talk) 07:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

As I have said, at least both Wins only and Wins-Losses only, can be sourced. The only question on those is where would we draw a line so that the table doesn't overwhelm the article? To be honest, Djokovic's "wins only" table absolutely overwhelms the article, but I can't see a way around it. He's won 64 matches just against the top three, so even that is large. But a 257 row table that continues to grow is really hard to navigate on a phone or laptop. Serena Williams has 178 rows, Nadal 186 rows. If someone ever makes one for Rod Laver it'll be scary too. Jimmy Connors only has No. 1 victories but I would imagine a nasty number of rows for him too... or Margaret Court. But the only thing that would be truly bad would be bringing back the everything table of option 3. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

As this discussion is going on, the whole head-to-head records are being deleted in bulk from the player profiles as we speak, doesn’t matter what anyone opinion is. Don’t see it been replaced by anything since the top-10 wins section is already there. Sashona (talk) 09:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is getting ridiculous. WP:!VOTE. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

If you really take into that !vote, I would say deleting them all per WP:NOTSTAT. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's probably not the correct place but it feels like we're slowly stepping into WP:ARBCOM territory or a similar committee, we need some type of comment outside of this project. I would rather assume good faith, but there have been enough accusations thrown about regarding bad faith edits, so I think it would be wise to disregard a vote, as consensus can be built without one, and we should be seeking opinions outside the Wikiproject. Wikiprojects are great and allow editors to work towards common goals on topics that interest them, but articles aren't just built for wikiprojects, so a wider set of opinions in my view would be best as we're reaching a dead end in the conversation. YellowStahh (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

So to reiterate my above comment, it should probably take place at WP:VILLAGEPUMP. As I previously mentioned the "In wrestling" section on pro wrestling articles seems like a very similar situation, and you are able to read the arguments in support of removing that section Here. Most of the arguments to keep that section because they'd "been maintained for years" fell roughly into WP:ILIKEIT.

I am also going to suggest as Fyunck has brought up the length of wins versus top 10, if the content is notable enough size shouldn't really matter and maybe it should be split into its own article, and it wouldn't be the worst idea if we can provide more comprehensive sourcing. YellowStahh (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of the arguments to keep that section because they'd "been maintained for years" fell roughly into WP:ILIKEIT.

Couldn't agree more on this. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Or the opposite is true too, most of the arguments fell into WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it is trivia, no need

Sashona (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

You know there is MOS:TRIV, right? And most of the argument is on WP:OR and WP:V, right? Unnamelessness (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree we are deadlocked at this point, so sounds reasonable to me. Not familiar with villagepump but I am all for it if someone wants to take the conversation there. Sashona (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That can certainly be done. Be forewarned though... that group and others like it have expressed many times that we have way too many trivial non-encyclopedic charts on our career stats pages (sourced or not). Editors there will look at the entire page and can make recommendations for other charts to be removed, not just the OR/trivial chart we are talking about. All the top 10 charts could get dinged like All these ranking charts, and winning streak charts, and milestone wins, and career seedings. These have all crept in over the years and administrators have mentioned them and we've just ignored it. It's why we usually try to handle things in the tennis and sports house rather than handing things off to the MOS police. So we should all be careful what we wish for and go in with our eyes open to the possibilities that we may get more than we bargained for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Now someone who has never made a constructive edit on Wikipedia is threatening to delete other charts, and of course once again: "trivial", "trivial", "trivial". Indeed, this discussion is getting absolutely ridiculous. BundesBerti (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"someone who has never made a constructive edit on Wikipedia" So lets leave these type of unconstructive comments out of this, and take this to the Village Pump. If they are going to give us a more constructive idea for these statistics then I think its our best bet. YellowStahh (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Well done BundesBerti. There appears to be no low road you won't take with your personal attacks so a warning was given. Back to the matter at hand; I have no issues with going to village pump and opening it up to every wikipedia MOS microscope. Heck I think we have way too many frivolous charts, but I know many are liked by tennis editors so I always hate to go into the open sea where they will get scrutinized. But if you are talking about the original research charts where we show players records ranked 483, then you left off ten more trivia statements. That one has already been buried as a non-wikipedia entry. Top 10 wins or top 10 wins/losses is what is the worthy discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Just as a side note: A player ranked 483 will not be playing matches on the ATP or WTA level because of low ranking. So that argument is not a valid one to be used as a reason to delete the head-to-head records charts.Sashona (talk) 23:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually they would still be in the chart you advocate for. Remember the chart you want isn't what their ranking is when they play a player like Taylor Fritz. That 483 ranking could be the end or beginning of their career. But if they have "ever" been ranked in the top 10 at any time they would appear on Fritz's chart if he played them. That's what you want and what we removed by consensus. Players get wild cards and exemptions to play all the time with low rankings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

They do not get indefinite wildcards and protected ranking for coming back to the ATP or WTA Tour is only for 10 tournaments so we are talking about very minimal number of matches here. Sashona (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

They come through qualifiers and boom they are in an event. Rankings can be all over the place. Sure more are ranked 100 than 483, but those charts have zillions of non-top 10 players in them. Just yesterday the Miami Open announced that Venus Williams and Emma Raducanu will be playing. Williams is ranked 474 and Raducanu is ranked 252. So now anyone who plays them in the event we would have to add Williams and Raducanu to top 10 head to head records in the deprecated chart. Those charts are filled with these players and it's trivial and not worthy of an encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This is really getting out of control now. Voting is not how we do things on Wikipedia and I don't see why we should do that in this case. Moreover, the set of options given to chose from is way to restrictive. They already force a certain course of actions, which is not right. I'm also seriously concerned by the way alternative suggestions are rather aggressively discarded. If you had to ask me, my preference would be "4. Remove all the top 10 wins charts". This information isn't regularly tabulated by independent mainstream sources. Therefore it's not notable. Moreover, we are not a stats repository, or a database and certainly not a tennis fansite.Tvx1 00:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Further comments moved to Village Pump

Tennis statistics, Hopefully I've pinged everyone involved, but I believe it's probably best to leave the discussion here. YellowStahh (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Appreciate trying to resolve this. Sashona (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@YellowStahh:Making sure... you want the topic here not at Village Pump? It was confusing looking what you wrote above and what you wrote at the Pump. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There is so much back and forth with accusations and name calling, I feel we move it over there and open it up to a wider bunch of editors and take out the close-nit nature of this conversation which is becoming unproductive. If we come to a different conclusion or the same one that at least will hopefully resolve the dispute here. YellowStahh (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we then close this discussion? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

We could do, and then encourage any remnants to follow over on village pump, I would recommend everyone I pinged to state their case, and then hopefully we can get a bigger variety of opinion from users not specifically tied to this project. YellowStahh (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I would not close it. Most discussions do not need closing. Plus tennis editors who see a purple closed discussion background pass it by as old... never reading it. It can be discussed over there but eventually it would need to be pasted here or at least synthesized here with a link to the VPs archives. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@YellowStahh I tried to get to the Village Pump, Tennis statistics but I do no see it there any longer. Did you move it? Sashona (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There'd be no point in me moving it. It'd been too long without any additional comments, the bot archived it. YellowStahh (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Any idea where to find it, so we can see the outcome of the conversation? Sashona (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sashona You can find the discussion here Here PrinceofPunjab^TALK 14:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Sashona (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Any idea update on what the outcome of the conversation was? The way The way I read it, Wins/Losses record vs top 10 is acceptable. Sashona (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Update??? It was pretty much, one chart was totally against policy and the other two were borderline original research because the betting sites the info is gotten from is fringe/trivial and not standard sports websites like ESPN or WTA/ATP or Tennis.com. They were also looked at as likely against undue weight wikipedia guideline standards. The longer they get the more undue weight. Djokovic was far and away undue weight and should probably be wins against top 3 only. I'm hoping that "wins only" against actual top 10 doesn't get looked at as overly burdensome for most players, plus the last discussions we had here said top 10 wins only. Others have reverted you on this and it's getting disruptive... you are even adding completely trivial "loss only" tables. Move on and we'll see if the "top 10 wins" only table gets a pass from wikipedia. If a player's "top 10 wins" only starts to get too long we'll have to look at top 5 for some players. I hope not, but the policy discussion seemed to take a dim view of all those tables (some worse than others). The policy discussion didn't even look at "Best Grand Slam results details tables" or "Grand Slam seedings tables" or year-by-year "career earnings tables." We should probably be thankful for that because I doubt they would pass policy original research at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

From what I read, there was little support for ANY of the charts. So we really should ditch them. The reality is that WE are the ones giving this importance, not the sources.Tvx1 10:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The information sources are not ATP or ESPN, the sources are Tennisabstract as well as live-tennis, quite reliable and showing Win/Loss record against top 10, currently being listed on the tennis career statistics pages. Sashona (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

And the policy discussion pretty much heeded them no more than a worm in the mud. They are used for betting and are not mainstream sports sources we were told and one of the reasons the two charts in question were borderline original research, and undue weight candidates. We are an encyclopedia where we take info that can be found everywhere... we are not a sports almanac. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

if I remember correctly, as far as the discussions went, it wasn't a knock on the reliability of TennisAbstract and Live-Tennis, but its the fact they're the only ones maintaining any type of available record for these statistics, so most of it falls into Original research. If it was Tennis.com, ESPN, BBC Sport and whatever other source you would like to throw in there, that also maintained these lists (outside of a few mentions of the win-loss record itself) then we could use that, as Wikipedia isn't then generating its own content. At that stage it's an established notable statistic, and Wikipedia is built on notability standards, it's why Marta Kostyuk gets an article but Mariia Kostiuk doesn't. If we are moving forward with another neverending discussion, lets not act like it's a simple straight forward "can we find a site that maintains the record I want to keep", there are multiple issues with the sourcing What Source, How It's Reported and How Many Reliable Sources are Recording the Information, are all factors to be considered. YellowStahh (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Things we need Village Pump specific help with:

1. Record Against Top 10 players. We had decided by consensus to remove this chart per original research and trivial. A few now feel it's a good chart worthy of inclusion. Note that these players were not necessarily in the top 10 when they actually played each other, just at some point in their careers. Do we bring this chart back?

At this point, I feel it would be best for the career statistics pages to not have the "records against top 10 players" because, as discussed on numerous occasions, they represent records against top 10 players, which include matches of when the players listed were not/had never been nin the top 10, which is original research and per WP:OR should be removed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Wins over top 10 players and Wins/Losses over top 10 players. These have been deemed ok by Tennis Project since they show only players in the top 10 when the two met. Each individual match should be sourced but have not been in this example. We are having trouble deciding what is a better choice without too much detail for an encyclopedia. There is some debate about whether "wins only" is consensus here.

I would keep the top 10 win chart only and remove the top 10 losses. What's next? The next thing you, someone's going to add more to the bloat about top 10 records, might want to throw in wins per surfaces and in tournaments, and win %...I mean come on. This is an encyclopedia not a repository of trivial stats. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Additional comments not related to subject

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Looking at an article that has most things, like Novak Djokovic Career Statistics, starting about ATP ranking and downward, is there any advice others can give about what charts could be trivial or original research? We don't want to keep coming back here. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC) I would remove the best slam result section altogether. Best results can be found in the performance timeline. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC) I don't think we need opinion at Village pump for this seemingly no-brainer decision. Why add clutter to an already long article. As a reader or a casual fan visiting career statistics pages, it would be in my interest to see what records wikipedia holds. By seeing clutter I would get the wrong impression that it is normal to add all sorts of info in articles without prior knowledge of Wiki's core policy and guidelines, thereby creating more problems than solutions. The goal is to keep presentable and in moderation and not decorate an article with stats like it is a Christmas tree. Those are my 2 cents on this overdiscussed topic, which I sure do hope so is last. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC) You have to remember most things are not handled by wikipedia-wide RfCs. They are handled by discussions. We had a recent discussion about whether to include nationality of Russia and Belarus in all of our rankings charts. Three people joined in after a month of discussions. It went a whopping 2-1 (I was the lone vote against). Since no one else joined we went with 2-1 and we moved on. It happens that way sometimes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) On the Russian flags you had a previous an RFC not just a discussion, and in the later discussion, the vote was 3-2 to delete the flags. Sashona (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) There was no RfC on flags. It was simply a discussion as was the charts. My goodness everything doesn't get up and down votes... This is wikipedia not a state bond proposal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 21#RfC: Shall we remove all Russian/Belarus tennis player nationalities from our ranking templates? Sashona (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC) I thought you meant an RfC to "remove" the flags. The RfC concluded to keep the flags. The discussion resulted in remove the flags. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Which was then put for another discussion and the vote was 2–1 to remove the BLR/RUS flags in all instances after the Russian-Ukrainian war including the rankings. I don't see what's the problem now regarding the flags. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Yes exactly first RFC and then a discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Shall we include flags/nationalities of Russian and Belarus players, from 1 March 2022 onwards, in our rankings charts? , except it was a vote of 3-2 in favor of removing the flags. You and Fyunck were against removing them.Sashona (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Let's not beat a dead horse. This discussion is over. The flags have been removed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC) The point was that there was an RFC to make the change. So we should create one for these above changes as well. We cannot have changes based on one person’s opinion. Sashona (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC) I already count three people on this discussion. I could be a fourth. This is not one person’s opinion. Also, we don’t need to have an RFC for everything. We can easily settle this through a normal consensus discussion.Tvx1 07:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Sounds good, I posted above my vote against deleting the section Records against top 10 players. Sashona (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC) There was a discussion and it was NOT one person's opinion. It was multiple. And it finally had no dissent. Then we discussed it again at the project guidelines page where even the one person who wanted the charts agreed to only the wins chart. We can't help it if you weren't a part of it. Shall we go back and redo every discussion and RfC that you missed? We don't really need another discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Who was for, besides you and Qwerty284651 as you always go in pair in these discussions, and who was against? Sashona (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC) @Sashona, this is the Top 10 wins discussion you are asking about. It was 3–1 to include only wins and remove losses in the "Record against top 10 players" sections. And as for myself and Fyunck always going in pairs in discussions. We don't. Yes, we are involved in discussions here on Tennis project's talk page but not all of them. If I see a discussion that I am interested in and want to share my opinion on or potential point of improvement, I will. Otherwise, I stay out of it. I am only active in tennis-related discussions. Fyunck, on the other hand, is active in various different topics/projects, including non-sports related. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Can you please comment above and state your vote , I do not know who agreed or no with you and Funck previously, that is why we are having this discussion. Sashona (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Kind reminder that Wikipedia discussions are not a vote! Tvx1 08:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines on doubles notability - change?

I just updated the tier names of our events at the notability section of our guidelines. This is just to make sure new article creators have updated info. But I'm thinking we may need a change on the last sentence of player notability... "This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players." It may have been borderline fine when these guidelines were written, but doubles has been wanning drastically for 50 years... and notability with it. Obviously there will always be doubles teams that fly through general notability with big write-ups in reliable sources, but they are few and far between, and nothing on par like the singles events. Our notability guidelines are to steer writers into article creation for players who are quite likely to have solo sources written about them, and while that happens with singles Challenger event winners it is not likely with doubles Challenger event winners. In fact, I don't think it's likely with a person whose only accolade is getting into the main draw of a doubles main tour event. They have to keep tweaking the rules of doubles to try and get fans out to watch and the press is about as kind. I would propose we get rid of doubles notability for any Challenger win, and maybe rewrite the main draw accolade to QFs of any Main draw in doubles for anything other than the four Majors or Tour Finals.

As a side note I would also tweak the player notability section to read (bold is possible addition):

• Significant coverage is likely to exist for a tennis player if he/she:

1. Has competed in one of the international team competitions: Olympics, Fed Cup/Billie Jean King Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or World Team Cup.
2. Has competed, as a non-wild card entry, in the main draw in one of these higher level professional tournaments:

I'm not sure why Olympics is missing, and there have been several topic conversations saying home-town wild card entries need to win a match, not just show up. Any thoughts or criticisms? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It feels like we require a bigger discussion about notability maybe? Because picking a random draw from 2000 and Sunil-Kumar Sipaeya (linked as Sunil Kumar (tennis), so maybe I'm confused) seemingly has nothing else notable about him apart from a Davis Cup appearance teaming with Leander Paes in 2007. I'm not sure he'd have what is described as significant courage to warrant and article. YellowStahh (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I will just make a sidenote here, that if we are saying that competing in a double draw is not notable enough on its own, then it would bring in to question maybe apart from the Main ATP/WTA tours about bunching up the information on the lower circuits into one main article, rather than 2/3 separate articles. YellowStahh (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

How many articles do we have on the lower circuits? I can do the merging. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the ATP Challenger Tour has the most expansion since 2009/2010, so that's 13/14 years with 150 tournaments each, so I would speculate 4500 articles to be merged into 1500 articles. That's not really counting the ITF Women's Circuit. YellowStahh (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume what you are saying is the following... take the Heilbronner Neckarcup and when it links by date to 2023 it takes you to 2023 Heilbronner Neckarcup. Everything about 2023 should be on that page alone? What is there now plus the singles and doubles draws? I want to make sure I understand you correctly. If so, I agree that as a minor league event it really doesn't need extra pages. As a single article I assume that combined, it would look something like this:

• revised 2023 Heilbronner Neckarcup.

I can see that done with all the minor league articles but it would be a major undertaking. Perhaps at least going forward we could make sure they are all on one page and then fix the others as time allows? That would be assuming we get agreement from all at Wikiproject Tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That would be my recommendation, if the players who compete in the draw aren't considered notable or its determined the Doubles players who win aren't notable then moving forward, putting all the information onto a single article instead of three should the standard for an article. YellowStahh (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, you mention the three articled being put into one. Which articled is that? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You want the main yearly title and both draw pages from the same article on the same page. Did I get that right? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think so per YellowStahh's answer. So based on that I cobbled together a combined page to see what it would vaguely look like. It works for me too. If articles aren't too long it's usually better to keep them together for easier updating and house-cleaning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Technically, most players who compete on the Challenger tour are notable, just not through participating in the Challenger tour. For example for the tournaments this week, there are only a couple of players each in Vicenza and Little Rock who are not notable. They are mainly wildcards and qualifiers, but typically all direct acceptances already have Wiki articles. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Only if they win a Challenger event or they compete on the main tour as a non-wildcard are they likely notable. Are you saying that most players that compete on the Challenger tour have those attributes? I'm not so sure about that. And what I'm saying is if a Challenger level player only has doubles wins (since I believe they usually compete in both singles and doubles) then that isn't notable. And it isn't likely notable that a doubles player who enters the main draw of a 250 level event is notable. If their only claim to fame is losing in the first round twice at ATP 250 level, I don't think the sources will show notability. If the team makes it to the Qfs of a 250 event, then I think it very likely that they have sources to confirm notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This is obviously a very small sample size as I have no time to go through a bunch of tournaments, but if you look at the players playing this week in singles in Vicenza. There are 32 players in the main draw. 3 don't have an article. Of the remaining 29, 25 have played on the ATP tour or in a Grand Slam main draw or won a Challenger singles title. The remaining players are Prado Angelo (Davis Cup appearance, which no longer meets WP:NTENNIS but was still around when the article was created, and junior Grand Slam runner-up), Gaubas (Davis Cup appearance), Dellien (Davis Cup and Challenger doubles titles, which may or may not indicate notability, I'm not sure), Fonio (Challenger doubles titles). Adamtt9 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

What you say is true for doubles, but the line is a lot blurrier for the singles tournaments, where a lot of players have ATP tour appearances but then drop in rankings for a little or get injured and then are right back to Challengers. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I was advocating for no change to singles notability at all, only doubles which has dropped off a cliff over 50 years as far as popularity and magazine/newspaper articles we use as sources. Of those singles 25... have any only gotten into a draw (non-Grand Slam tournament) on a wild card? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

2 of them. Neumayer in Kitzbuhel in 2021 and Arnaboldi with a doubles wildcard at the Rome Masters last year. The rest either have a Challenger singles title. I believe Kachmazov entered as a wildcard but won his 1R match. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. I think the main info we want to give our readers per our TennisProject Guidelines is: when is notability very likely (sources that are specifically about that player or team). Not "might be" but by and large "usually" notable. I don't think a doubles team with "only" Challenger wins or only 1st round exits in an ATP 250 event is usually notable. Obviously a team that wins six Challenger doubles crowns or is in ten ATP 250 events would be different, but we are supposed to be giving our editors the minimum required for likely notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree that the statement that these guidelines apply equally to singles and doubles should be removed, as it does not reflect reality. Unfortunately, the notability of doubles has waned over the years. Even the doubles finals of the four grand slam tournaments are barely shown on terrestrial television. BBC still shows them for Wimbledon live on their channels, but they appear to be the only one maintaining that tradition. France Télévisions, who produce the national broadcast of the French Open, will only show a doubles final if it features a French player. Save for that, Europeans have to turn to Eurosport to watch some doubles action from the Grand Slam tournaments. It's indeed true that reaching quarterfinals is generally the benchmark of players getting significant coverage and that applies even to the majors. And even then it is mostly in their own country's press. If it didn't feature one of their own nation, good luck finding a mention of the result of doubles final of a major in a newspaper.

As for the proposed player guidelines changes, I think neither is suitable since they are based on the deprecated participation criterium. For the international events the criterium is to vague as competities like the Davis Cup and BJK Cup have lower division zonal level ties that rarely get significant coverages, let alone for the individual players. Also players who made just one unremarkable appearance in a dead rubber also don't tend to get the coverage. As for the second proposed guideline, again just appearing in a draw, even as a non-wildcard, for an unremarkable straight sets defeat is just not something that garners significant coverage. The standard should be that they at least won a match and maybe two, not just played one. Tvx1 00:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Trivia dump - when does it end?

Over the past few top tier tournaments (Madrid, Rome, now French open (1, 2)), there has been a dump of stats in the lead section, because someone stumbled upon them in an article, found them interesting and decided to put it in the lead sections of men's singles, women's singles draw pages. Cited or not we don't just put EVERY stat wr come across in articles because it sounds interesting. Limit it to winners, def champs, someone retiring, battle for no. 1, that's it. We want to keep it short and concise.

Youngest/oldest/first...born in XYZ decade to reach all (<insert any lower round:4th round, quarterfinals here>) in masters and slams...since...then and then. So much specific records that are pure bloat and balast. Unnecessary. We have every mention of country-related stats (first spaniard/colombian/peruvian) to reach semis of...xyz event...fine.. but the above the examples on all quarters across masters and slam reached....quarters? Well, that's a low round. It's not even finals. And it is becoming a trend, a bad one,..next year more dump is going to be added and pollute the lead section of big tournaments even more because editors usually copy from previous editions when creating the event's draw pages and before you know it it will turn into an essay.

Pinging @Sashona:, who has been adding some of these stats.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. It is getting out of hand. When does it end? Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Put MOS:INTRO here. The lede should be short but concise. A brief MOS:FIRST sentence to describe the event's location, date, etc, then followed by the defending champion info, the current champion, and No.1 scenario (where applicable). Everything else should be gone. 2024 French Open Men's singles could be written something like:

The men's singles of the 2024 French Open was held over 14 days from 26 May to 9 June 2024 at Stade Roland Garros. It was run by the International Tennis Federation (ITF) and was part of the 2024 ATP Tour calendar under the Grand Slam category.

Novak Djokovic was the defending champion, having defeated Casper Ruud in the 2023 final. However, he withdrew from the quarterfinals due to a knee injury.

Carlos Alcaraz won his first French Open, the third Grand Slam title in his career, after defeating Alexander Zverev in the final. At the age of 21, he became the youngest player to win major titles on three different surfaces, having won the 2022 US Open on hardcourts and 2023 Wimbledon Championships on grass.

At the conclusion of the event, Jannik Sinner attained the ATP World No. 1 singles ranking, becoming the first Italian singles player to claim the top spot in men's tennis.

Finally, adding a image of the current champion would be great.

P.S. {{Main}} should also be removed from the lede per its documentation:

This template should also not be used in lead sections. A lead section is always a summary of its own article, not any other; as such, the only appropriate target for a {{Main}} link in the lead section would be the article itself, which is not useful.

Unnamelessness (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

A couple things. I agree that I'm seeing more and more "throw everything in but the kitchen sink" additions. Way too trivial where I've had to remove new additions. I'm not sure it's a lead thing though. What's to stop someone from ending the lead section and starting a new section and including all the same trivia? The trivia problem would still exist. There is also the question of of "Main." If there is no other prose then there is no other place to put it. Originally we simply linked the the most important first line (which is by consensus) as "Jack defeated Billy in the final 6-4, 6-4 to win the men's singles title at the 2024 French Open." Since it is linked in the first line there is no real reason to include a "Main" template. Player bio leads have the same problem of overbloat.... sometimes much worse. We could also use the templates "Further" or "Broader" instead of main, as they have no such limits that I know of. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Qwerty284651. "Grigor Dimitrov completed the career set of quarterfinals at all majors and Masters tournaments. Alex de Minaur became the first Australian man to reach the French Open quarterfinals since Lleyton Hewitt in 2004". This is bloat. These are supposed to be tournament draw pages. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that it is bloat, de Minaur's achievement is draw related. And in the past our articles have been criticized for not having enough prose to go along with the data charts. We aren't supposed to have just data. But I would think that extra prose should be very draw specific. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

There may be editors that prefer a long list of stats, personally I don't. Also, the older Grand Slam drawsheets do not have this amount of statistical information. It's not something I feel strongly about. I have my own archive of grand slam mens singles results but I do occasionally use wikipedia to look something up and it is a minor irritation to scroll past the stats to find the results. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

In answer to "not enough prose", I do notice on the 2024 French Open#Events section there is quite a description of the draw and how it proceeded. This could be done on the draw page itself and would solve the lack of prose. You can also then pepper in the bloat and make it more relevant. You could make a proper section, have some kind of description of the venue and format. YellowStahh (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@YellowStahh, why would you pepper in more bloat? The goal is to have less of it not more. Some draw related info, 3-4 paragraphs max, not like the women's singles draw, where you have everything you can come across in articles that is interesting for some and decide to add in the lead of the draw page. Why? And even if we maintain the info in the lead to a reasonable prose size, it'll be only of matter of time before it get readded...sigh..

This feels like a draw page lead guideline discussion more than anything. Will be interesting what the outcome of it will be. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

"why would you pepper in more bloat?" It's more in response to "in the past our articles have been criticized for not having enough prose". If you can write the bloat in properly in regards to the other information it would cease to be bloat. Which is why I make reference to the Events section in French, if it's something like that plus one or two other bits of information that's considered bloat then it would cease to be bloated. I'm not saying every bit of bloat gets added, but if part of prose inits own section is "de Minaur reached his first quarterfinal after defeating <blah blah> and became the first Australian to reach a Quarterfinal since Hewitt etc." Then it's factual and peppered in properly. I'm not even saying I'm correct in this line of thinking, it's just more of an idea. YellowStahh (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I always think it has too much bloat. Perhaps the lead could be two sentences. Who won and what it was (the most important aspect). And perhaps the date range, the arena name... perhaps last years winner's fate. Remember this is a stand-alone article, not a subpage. Everything else below the lead in a "Highlights" section. The women's 2024 French would be like:

• Lead
• Two-time defending champion Iga Świątek defeated Jasmine Paolini in the final, 6–2, 6–1 to win her third consecutive women's singles tennis title at the 2024 French Open.[1] The event took place at Stade Roland Garros tennis complex in Paris, France from 26 May to 9 June.

• Highlights
• Świątek saved a match point (in the second round against Naomi Osaka) en route to her fourth French Open and fifth major title.[2] She dropped only one set en route to the title and became the third woman in the Open Era to win three consecutive French Open titles.[3][4] The victory completed a sweep for Świątek of the Madrid Open, Italian Open, and French Open clay tournaments.[5] Świątek's victory over Anastasia Potapova in the fourth round, which lasted 40 minutes, was the shortest match played at the French Open since the 1988 final between Steffi Graf and Natasha Zvereva.[6]

• Paolini became the third Italian woman to reach the French Open final and in so doing reached a career high WTA ranking of No. 7.[7] Mirra Andreeva, who defeated world No. 2 Aryna Sabalenka in the quarterfinals, became the youngest player to reach a major semifinal since Martina Hingis at the 1997 US Open.[8] This tournament marked the final professional appearance of former world No. 11 Alizé Cornet. Cornet was contesting her 69th consecutive major main draw appearance (out of 72 overall appearances), the longest consecutive streak of major appearances by any woman.[9]

So what if we tried doing it more like this format? A short to-the-point lead, and a short highlight prose section with records that matter. A lot of the extra stuff could be found in the links if readers really want to know more details, and the really trivial bloat belongs on the player bios, not the French Open draw article. I called it highlights because I didn't know what else to use. Most events will also have a mention of what happened to last years winner and that would be in the highlights section below the first paragraph. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I like this format much better. Hits the main points in a single sentence. Short and concise.

I would not add a subsection titled "highlights" for the additional info, though. Keep the current style of the lead with paragraphs without subsections. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, most of what's there is not lead-worthy. The lead is supposed to be a short highlight of what is in prose... and we have no prose. Andreeva being the youngest or Cornet's retirement is something for prose, not lead. As I said, it was simply a suggestion of what could be done to stop lead clutter. I added it without the highlight section since everyone here seems to thing we have over-bloated trivia. We'll see how it goes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Using template: sticky table start

@Qwerty284651 and Timeshifter: etc. I recently converted the usage of Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/styles.css to {{sticky table start}} on several pages. The changes were reverted with an edit summary indicating that my changes go against consensus and I should open a new topic on this talk page:

• Tennis Masters Series doubles records and statistics revert
• Tennis Masters Series singles records and statistics revert
• WTA 1000 Series doubles records and statistics revert
• WTA 1000 Series singles records and statistics revert

How do my changes go against consensus? Jroberson108 (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

See above discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#1000 title leaders charts on the design and markup of the tables. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You also removed the max-height div scroll from the following pages:

• List of Grand Slam men's singles champions [18]
• List of Grand Slam men's doubles champions [19]
• List of Grand Slam women's singles champions [20]
• List of Grand Slam women's doubles champions [21]
• List of Grand Slam mixed doubles champions [22]
• List of Grand Slam and related tennis records [23]

claiming "it is too short for mobile landscape". I specifically enveloped the long tables with a scrolling list to save up on vertical scrolling in the aforementioned articles. I tried readding the div scroll back but the tables were all skewed up and overlapping. Can you add back the max height and shorten it to 70vh or similar so it does not display the scrolling list at 100% of viewpoint's viewport's height? Having them at 100% makes the pages too long and defeats the purpose of keeping them visually shortened. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: I saw the section, which is a pretty massive discussion. Nothing stands out as my going against consensus. From that discussion, there is consensus on having sticky, then discussion on how to make it work without issue. Not necessarily that the covid CSS must be used, which was the only method at the time. The features found in the covid CSS are in the new template, just easier to use with more tests and fixes. There are additional features too.

You are welcome to test the "claim". I'm using a Galaxy S21 5G. "50vh" or 50% of the viewport height is too short for mobile landscape showing very little of the scrollable data. One page had "40vh" or 40%, which was worse. It might look nice on a large screen, but don't sacrifice mobile that makes up the majority of Wikipedia's traffic. See sites by os.

I didn't remove the scrolling from long tables, just changed to doing it through the new template. The scroll isn't 100%, but 75% (75vh) of the viewport height per the template styles. If you need to tweak the max-height or add other styles to the scrolling div, {{sticky table start}} has a "style" parameter mentioned in the documentation where you can pass in your own styles like so: {{sticky table start|style=max-height: 70vh;}}. I don't recommend changing it below that unless you also test on short screens (mobile landscape) to verify readability isn't sacrificed. Jroberson108 (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The max-height is 75vh by default then, not 100vh/100%. That is good to know. I am glad the covid css templatestyle features got their own template {{sticky table start}} with customizable max-height. Does the style=max-height parameter support vh only or pt, em, %, etc. as well? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: The "style" parameter just accepts the same inline styles that would normally be added to the div, just without the double-quotes that would normally surround the HTML "style" attribute's value. Other units can be used just like with inline styles. Since these are inline, they would override the template's styles if setting the same property like "max-height" since inline is closer to the content. Jroberson108 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and clarification. I restored your edits on the above 4 pages. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Jroberson108 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ernie Johnson Jr.#Requested move 5 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ernie Johnson Jr.#Requested move 5 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Laura Robson

Laura Robson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)