Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines

#0 Vertical infobox

I would keep separate W/L records for WTA 500 and WTA 250 instead of merging them under 1 row. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I propose this change be put into motion once the current discussion is closed. Could easily be done by referring to ITF, however it lists obsolete event cats, unfortunately. One can back check to see which tournies are the WTA 250 and 500, respectively, though. (example with outdated tournament categories). Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

WTA is trying to riff (not sure if spelled correctly) off what ITF has but without an outdated tournament category, which I reckon, is the second best reliable source we have (WTA's resource). Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

#1 Performance timelines

This needs revamping. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Also MOS:DTT concerned. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651, Fyunck(click), and JamesAndersoon: Dubai and Qatar could not share the same line row any more as they are both 1000 events since (or at least in) 2024. I have done an update to Iga Świątek career statistics as a sample, and left "NW1" (not WTA 1000) for the year they held as 500 tournaments per the tennis guideline suggests "Results from the WTA Premier Events (i.e. 500 tournaments) ... should not be included and/or separated into timelines and instead should be documented within the body of the player's article." Comments are welcome. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness, I wouldn't split Qatar and Dubai into 2 separate rows. They are tournaments that alternate each year. Many older players', current and former, BLPs career stats have them merged in 1 row. You can add a footnote citing Dubai is being played in odd- and Doha (Qatar Open) in even-numbered years. Let's try not to add extra rows. A footnote will do the trick. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Except they are no longer alternative afterwards. As I said, both tournaments are featured as 1000 events on the 2024 tour. Current layout no longer works. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Dubai and Doha've been featured as Premier 5 before the inception of WTA 1000 in 2021, which is the same categorization just under a different name. Current layout's just fine. But I am open to others weigh in on this. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in 2024 we would see, for the FIRST time, both Dubai and Doha would be held as WTA 1000 events. This is something that never happened before. Before 2024, it is EITHER Dubai OR Qatar run as a WTA 1000/Premier 5 event, which meant we need TWO cells, instead of just one (becasue of row-sharing), to fill in the results in the timeline table. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

In a nutshell: before 2024, either or; after 2024, both and. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with two separate rows. I think this is the only logical solution. JamesAndersoon (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I just saw the new 2024 WTA Calendar. They are adding a 10th WTA 1000 tournament. Basically, adding both Dubai and Doha and returning Wuhan, which temporarily was replaced by Guadalajara, and putting it after Beijing.... Man, the last time there were 10 WTA 1000 or equivalent events was back in 2007, under the old WTA Tier I name. This calls for a project-wide discussion. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. tl;dr I am okay with the 2 row change, having heard this news. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Right off hand, I can't think of any way to do it other than two separate rows. We may need to leave the note but change the wording a bit to explain the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the Project's talk page about the 10 WTA 1000 events. Not related to the performance timeline, moreso to the articles involving WTA 1000. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

#2 Grand Slam finals

More information #2 Grand Slam finals, Result ...

#2 Grand Slam finals

Doubles: 8 (7 titles, 1 runner-ups) Result Year Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score Win 2021 French Open Clay Kateřina Siniaková Bethanie Mattek-Sands Iga Świątek 6–4, 6–2 Win 2022 Australian Open Hard Kateřina Siniaková Anna Danilina Beatriz Haddad Maia 6–7(3–7), 6–4, 6–4 Win 2022 Wimbledon Grass Kateřina Siniaková Elise Mertens Zhang Shuai 6–2, 6–4 Win 2022 US Open Hard Kateřina Siniaková Caty McNally Taylor Townsend 3–6, 7–5, 6–1 Mixed doubles: 3 (3 titles) Result Year Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score Win 2019 Australian Open Hard Rajeev Ram Astra Sharma John-Patrick Smith 7–6(7–3), 6–1 Win 2020 Australian Open (2) Hard Nikola Mektić Bethanie Mattek-Sands Jamie Murray 5–7, 6–4, [10–1]

Close

#3 Other significant finals

More information #3 Other significant finals, Result ...

#3 Other significant finals

Olympic finals Doubles: 1 (1 Gold Medal) Result Year Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score Gold 2021 Tokyo Summer Olympics Hard Kateřina Siniaková Belinda Bencic Viktorija Golubic 7–5, 6–1 ▶ Notes Tokyo Summer Olympics / Summer Olympics, Tokyo, Summer Olympics, Japan / Summer Olympics, Tokyo, Japan ? Year-end championships finals Doubles: 3 (1 title, 2 runner-ups) Result Year Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score Win 2021 WTA Finals Guadalajara Hard Kateřina Siniaková Hsieh Su-wei Elise Mertens 6–3, 6–4 ▶ Notes WTA Finals Guadalajara / WTA Finals, Mexico / WTA Finals, Guadalajara / WTA Finals, Guadalajara, Mexico ? WTA 1000 finals Doubles: 5 (3 titles, 2 runner-ups) Result Year Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score Win 2021 Madrid Open Clay Kateřina Siniaková Gabriela Dabrowski Demi Schuurs 6–4, 6–3 Win 2023 Indian Wells Open Hard Kateřina Siniaková Beatriz Haddad Maia Laura Siegemund 6–1, 6–7(3–7), [10–7]

Close

@JamesAndersoon:I created this discussion section so it's easier to add comments. First lets not put the one section under "#3 Other significant finals". We don't really use it in the articles anymore afaik. Otherwise my first thoughts would be the following. We didn't want to be a cookie cutter project so some things were purposely left out of the guidelines. I'm not saying that we couldn't/shouldn't add more, just that it was intentionally left out to allow flexibility. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

3: Olympics I would use Summer Olympics, Tokyo. Probably the only city name in our charts. Year-end championships. I would probably have "WTA Finals" and nothing else. The place isn't needed here. If we must include it them "WTA Finals, Mexico".

This section is deprecated? But every player that reached these final have it? Don't get the point. Contradiction JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

They do? We have the tables, yes but not under the heading of "significant finals." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Aryna Sabalenka career statistics for instance JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Some do some don't. I don't see it as needed. Certainly not in our guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Significant finals subsection title is present in player's BLPs who have retired back. More recent articles, 2010– don't have those. I propose to remove them and merge them with the Slams, WTA 1000s and Olympics under 1 section. And then have the career section, which lists all finals ever played by XYZ player in a separate section below the "Major finals" section. Section title needs some work Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#4 WTA Tour career finals

More information #4 WTA Tour career finals, Legend ...

#4 WTA Tour career finals

Doubles: 28 (18 titles, 10 runner-ups) Legend Grand Slam (7–1) Olympics (1–0) WTA Finals (1–2) WTA 1000 (3–2) WTA 500 (2–2) WTA 250 (4–3) Finals by surface Hard (12–9) Clay (3–1) Grass (3–0) Carpet Result W–L    Date    Tournament Tier Surface Partner Opponents Score Loss 0–1 Oct 2014 Luxembourg Open, Luxembourg International[a] Hard (i) Lucie Hradecká Timea Bacsinszky Kristina Barrois 6–3, 4–6, [4–10] Loss 1–2 Feb 2016 St. Petersburg Trophy, Russia Premier[a] Hard (i) Vera Dushevina Martina Hingis Sania Mirza 3–6, 1–6 Loss 1–5 Apr 2018 Miami Open, United States Premier M[b] Hard Kateřina Siniaková Ashleigh Barty CoCo Vandeweghe 2–6, 1–6 Win 2–5 Jun 2018 French Open, France Grand Slam Clay Kateřina Siniaková Eri Hozumi Makoto Ninomiya 6–3, 6–3 Loss 3–6 Oct 2018 WTA Finals, Singapore Finals Hard (i) Kateřina Siniaková Tímea Babos Kristina Mladenovic 4–6, 5–7 Win 4–7 Aug 2019 Canadian Open, Canada Premier 5[b] Hard Kateřina Siniaková Anna-Lena Grönefeld Demi Schuurs 7–5, 6–0 Loss 6–8 Feb 2020 Dubai Championships, UAE Premier Hard Zheng Saisai Hsieh Su-wei Barbora Strýcová 5–7, 6–3, [5–10] Win 7–8 Feb 2021 Gippsland Trophy, Australia WTA 500 Hard Kateřina Siniaková Chan Hao-ching Latisha Chan 6–3, 7–6(7–4) Win 8–9 May 2021 Madrid Open, Spain WTA 1000 Clay Kateřina Siniaková Gabriela Dabrowski Demi Schuurs 6–4, 6–3 Win 10–9 Aug 2021 Tokyo Olympics, Japan Olympics Hard Kateřina Siniaková Belinda Bencic Viktorija Golubic 7–5, 6–1 Win 17–10 Jun 2023 Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom WTA 250 Grass Marta Kostyuk Storm Hunter Alycia Parks 6–2, 7–6(9–7) [a] [b] Note: Tournaments sourced from official WTA archives ▶ Notes We should use current tier's names. However, when we list these finals in the table, it's better to cite the name of this tier at that time. Then, we can use notes to inform users to what current tier this one correspond. E.g. we now have 'WTA 250' that is formerly known as International tier. For the players that have 'career statistics' we have this note at the 'career finals box' at the beginning of the page and then just use this 'refname'. If a player ended his/her career before new system was introduced, old one should be used. Result in the tie-breaks should be displayed in full form (e.g. 7–6(7–4) not 7–6(4)).

Close

In the career charts we would want the footnotes in the legend, not the actual charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

#5 Team competition finals

More information #5 Team competition finals, Result ...

#5 Team competition finals

Billie Jean King Cup: 1 (1 titles) Result W–L    Date    Tournament Surface Against Partners Opponents in the final Score Win[a] 1–0 Nov 2018 Fed Cup, Czech Republic Hard (i) United States Barbora Strýcová Kateřina Siniaková Karolína Plíšková[b] Lucie Šafářová[b] Petra Kvitová[b] Sofia Kenin Alison Riske Danielle Collins Nicole Melichar 3–0 ▶ Notes We a team won a BJKC trophy, we should also count all the players that was part of the team during that edition. Still, we can inform users which ones were in the final round and give others a note (just like in the example above).

Close

5: Billie Jean King Cup. Why would we include all the players on the teams? This is a single player bio and a link is fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"Why would we include all the players on the teams? This is a single player bio and a link is fine." She is part of the team, and all members should be named. She is not only one that get the trophy. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

But this is a personal bio, not a team bio. The link to the team article should be enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Fully disagree with you. We just mentioned them, why that should be the problem? It's personally bio, but playing the team events is part of that. There is no 50 players, just max of 10. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no need for other teammates at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I would add nowrap and list the actual results for each match, not just the final rubber result, but would keep the list of all the team mates. And remove the footnote. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree! JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#6 WTA Challenger finals

More information #6 WTA Challenger finals, Result ...

#6 WTA Challenger finals

Doubles: 1 (1 title) Result    Date    Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score Win Nov 2015 WTA 125 Limoges, France Hard (i) Mandy Minella Margarita Gasparyan Oksana Kalashnikova 1–6, 7–5, [10–6] [a] Krejčíková was planned for playing doubles match alongside Kateřina Siniaková. Since it was obvious that Czech Republic won after leading 3–0, match was cancelled. [b] Participate in the previous rounds of the edition but not in the final. Note: Tournaments sourced from official WTA archives ▶ Notes I know we have "External Links" for player's profiles at the WTA & ITF, but still, it's better to sourced every section of the page (it looks more natural – otherwise, user needs to scroll to the bottom and maybe even don't know about these profile links). Also, I saw some editors add warning that some sections need to be sourced e.g. Ekaterina Alexandrova career statistics. WTA 125 Limoges, France / Open de Limoges, France ? Where is also dispute about this one.

Close

6/7 "The note you propose has issues"? Pardon?? It literally said that it is the same category but 'title (prize money)' changed. What is the problem? We don't need to add each version of these tiers. This is the purpose of notes. It looks really messy adding all these tiers. Please, don't make it complicated without reason. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

Well, we disagree on this. I find the note much more obtrusive than 50/60. It is way longer and readers have to look down the page to find it rather than it being quickly seen in the legend. We'll just have to see what other think on this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): |There is something called 'tooltip'. They don't need to scroll down. Still, you can't find the perfect combination for all users – ofcourse we need to think about different cases, but you exaggerate. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Not every computer/phone handles those tooltips properly. Plus Wikipedia doesn't want you to use them if something else will do, and with far less characters to boot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

#7 ITF Circuit finals

More information #7 ITF Circuit finals, Legend ...

#7 ITF Circuit finals

Singles: 21 (14 titles, 7 runner–ups) Legend $100,000 tournaments $80,000 tournaments (1–0) $60,000 tournaments (3–0) $40,000 tournaments $25,000 tournaments (4–4) $15,000 tournaments (6–3) Finals by surface Hard (1–1) Clay (13–6) Grass (0–0) Carpet (0–0) Result W–L    Date    Tournament Tier Surface Opponent Score Loss 0–1 Sep 2011 ITF Osijek, Croatia 10,000[a] Clay Petra Šunić 6–4, 0–6, 2–6 Win 7–3 Jul 2014 ITF Toruń, Poland 25,000 Clay Maria Sakkari 6–4, 6–1 Win 1–1 Oct 2012 ITF Dubrovnik, Croatia 15,000 Clay Polina Leykina 6–4, 6–1 Win 11–7 Apr 2019 ITF Innisbrook, United States 80,000 Clay Nicole Gibbs 6–0, 6–1 Win 14–7 Jun 2019 ITF Stare Splavy, Czech Republic 60,000 Clay Denisa Allertová 6–2, 6–3 [a] The $10,000 ITF tournaments were reclassified as $15,000 in 2017. However, there were some $15,000 even before 2017. Note: Tournaments sourced from official ITF archives ▶ Notes Just like in 'WTA Tour career finals' it's pointless to add '$75/80 tournaments' instead of only '$80 tournaments' before '80' is now current. Thanks to color and note, user can understand connections between past and current tiers. Also, maybe tiers should be labeled as 'W80' instead of '$80 tournaments' ? Again, better to source section with 'Tournaments sourced from official ITF archives'. If a player ended his/her career before new system was introduced, old one should be used. Name of a tournament: ITF Osijek, Croatia / ITF Osijek, Croatia ? Innisbrook Open / ITF Innisbrook ? Bella Cup / ITF Toruń / Bella Cup Toruń ?

Close

#8 Junior finals

More information #8 Junior finals, Result ...

#8 Junior finals

Junior Grand Slam finals Girls' doubles: 4 (3 titles, 1 runner–up) Result Year Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score Loss 2013 Australian Open Hard Oleksandra Korashvili Ana Konjuh Carol Zhao 7–5, 4–6, [7–10] Win 2013 French Open Clay Kateřina Siniaková Doménica González Beatriz Haddad Maia 7–5, 6–2 Win 2013 Wimbledon Grass Kateřina Siniaková Anhelina Kalinina Iryna Shymanovich 6–3, 6–1 Win 2013 US Open Hard Kateřina Siniaková Belinda Bencic Sara Sorribes Tormo 6–3, 6–4 ITF Finals Singles/Doubles: 26 (16 titles, 10 runner–ups) Legend Grade A (3–2) Grade 1 / B1 (6–4) Grade 2 (2–3) Grade 3 (1–0) Grade 4 (2–1) Grade 5 (2–0) Result W–L    Date    Tournament Tier Surface Partner Opponents Score Win 1–0 Aug 2009 ITF Mostar, BiH Grade 5 Clay Alexandra Petrzalkova Ekin Gunaysu Karolina Pondusova 6–2, 6–3 Win 4–0 Jul 2010 ITF Plzeň, Czech Republic Grade 3 Clay Aneta Dvorakova Marcelina Cichon Caroline Rohde-Moe 6–2, 6–1 Loss 5–4 Mar 2011 Copa Gerdau, Brazil Grade A Clay Aneta Dvorakova Doménica González Montserrat González 5–7, 3–6 Win 9–7 Jun 2012 ITF Halle, Germany (2) Grade 2 Grass Dominika Paterová Blair Shankle Laura Ucrós 6–3, 3–6, [10–6] Walkover 9–8 Jul 2012 ITF Linz, Austria Grade 1 Clay Petra Uberalová Christina Makarova Elise Mertens w/o Win 14–10 Jul 2013 ITF Klosters, Switzerland Grade B1 Clay Kateřina Siniaková Ioana Ducu Ioana Loredana Roșca 6–4, 6–1 Win 15–10 Aug 2013 ITF Repentigny, Canada Grade 1 Hard Kateřina Siniaková Katie Swan Nina Stojanović 6–2, 6–1 Win 16–10 Sep 2013 US Open, United States Grade A Hard Kateřina Siniaková Belinda Bencic Sara Sorribes Tormo 6–3, 6–4 Note: Tournaments sourced from official Junior ITF archives ▶ Notes Regadless we have 'Grand Slams' listed in the 'Junior Grand Slam finals' it's the same situation as the senior tournaments where we have 'significant finals' & 'WTA Tour career finals' separated. Also, when you come to the ITF website, they listed 'Grand Slam' as a 'Grade A' (or nowdays 'J500') If a player ended his/her career before new system was introduced, old one should be used. (e.g. 'Grade 1' – nowdays 'J300'). Walkover should be counted as a loss or neutral?

Close

All looks relatively fine till we get to the ITF finals where we never came to an agreement on what to call the individual events. i.e. whether we would call it the ITF Turin or Bella Cup. That would need to be decided before we add that chart, and it is a chart we missed and should be included. And when there are both 75 and 80 events in a players timeline we do use $75/80. It is not pointless. In new charts I would use W80. The note you propose has issues. It is way longer than simply using 50/60, which only adds three extra characters. 50/60 is instantly viewable by readers so no need to mouseover a note where on phones it doesn't work well. You mentioned color as a way of discerning... that doesn't help those who are colorblind. Using 10/15, 50/60, 75/80 is the best and easiest way to handle the legend. When there is only one entry of $75 then that's what we would use in the legend, since there would be no need for an 80. Same with newer players who have only played under W80 events. That's all we'd use with no need for notes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Add <br /> between doubles players to conserve space. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I always do this, but here accidentally forgot. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I will give a more detailed feedback on this subsection later in the day. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#9 Billie Jean King Cup participation

More information #9 Billie Jean King Cup participation, Edition ...

#9 Billie Jean King Cup participation

Key F QR Billie Jean King Cup qualifying round WG F Fed Cup World Group WG PO Fed Cup World Group play-offs Singles: 4 (1–3) Edition Round Date Location Against Surface Opponent W/L Score 2023 F QR Apr 2023 Antalya (TUR) Ukraine Clay Katarina Zavatska W 6–4, 6–3 Marta Kostyuk L 6–3, 1–6, 4–6 Doubles: 1 (1–0) Edition Round Date Location Against Surface Partner Opponents W/L Score 2018 WG F Nov 2018 Prague (CZE) United States Hard (i) Kateřina Siniaková Danielle Collins Nicole Melichar – not played[a] 2019 WG PO Apr 2019 Prostějov (CZE) Canada Clay (i) Kateřina Siniaková Gabriela Dabrowski Sharon Fichman W 7–6, 7–5 [a] ▶ Notes As you can see, in doubles table, not played matches can be also addressed but they are not counted as a win/loss. I need help with legend for this, since in the past we had 'World Group I/II' + two play-offs + 'Zone Groups', but nowdays it's different with 'Finals' + 'Qualifying round' + 'Play-off' + 'Zone Groups'

Close

Then we are ok until we get to #9.

9: I do not like the abbreviation for country location. Mouseover doesn't always work for phones and many readers don't have a clue about what CZE means. Just normal Antalya, Turkey. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Tooltips hasn't worked for years on mobile. There were 2 Phabricator requests started. Both didn't yield any results, because of it being a low-priority issue. I agree with Fyunck: use Prague, Czech Republic instead, for e.g. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Added a legend. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Understand about a tooltip. Thank you for the legend but this need expanding, since we have another rounds as well (e.g. World Group II, World Group II play-off, Zone Group ...) and I don't know which color should I use? JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

About the color scheme for the legend neither do I. This could be discussed in greater detail on a separate discussion. What do you think? See {{Performance key}} for reference. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but in the "performance key" there are no colors for e.g. "World Group" . JamesAndersoon (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We could create a similar legend template for BJK/Davis Cup various groups with WCAG-compliant colors and everything. I proposed {{performance key}} as an example. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

#10 WTA ranking

10: Pretty much already included on the bottom of the performance timeline. Not really needed nor does it need a guideline. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Where? Don't see it. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

How can you not see it? The ranking is at the bottom of every performance timeline. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I still can't see it. I only see year-end, but no 'highest' and 'lowest'. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You can see continual year-end highest for every year. No one cares about lowest ranking. And the infobox has their highest ranking and current ranking. We don't need more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Fyunck here. The year end rankings suffice, no need to add both highest AND lowest yearly ranking. We really don't. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, since it turns out I'm the only one for this and also don't have problem with eliminating this. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done That settles this subsection. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#11 WTA Tour career earnings

11: Trivial chart that we don't need. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Trivial? Why? JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

Once again it's at the bottom of every performance timeline. Why on earth would we double up? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Where? I only see total amount. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

All that's needed is their total career earnings and we already have that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I would remove the titles won stats but keep the seasonal and career prize money won. The subsection is about prize money, let's keep it limited to that only. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree! JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done This subsection discussion is settled. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#12 Career Grand Slam statistics

More information #12 Career Grand Slam statistics, Legend (slams won / times seeded) ...

#12 Career Grand Slam statistics

Grand Slam tournament seedings The tournaments won by Krejčíková are in boldface, and advanced into finals by Krejčíková are in italics.[1] Doubles Legend (slams won / times seeded) seeded No. 1 (2 / 10)[a] seeded No. 2 (2 / 4) seeded No. 3 (2 / 3) seeded No. 4–10 (1 / 3) seeded No. 11–32 (0 / 3) unseeded (0 / 6) Protected ranking (0 / 1) Longest streak 4[a] 1 1 2 1 3 1 Year Australian Open French Open Wimbledon US Open 2017 protected ranking 12th not seeded not seeded 2018 16th 6th (1) 3rd (2) 1st 2019 1st 1st 2nd did not play 2020 4th 4th cancelled did not play 2021 3rd (1) 2nd (3) 1st 2nd 2022 1st (4) 1st[a] 2nd (5) 3rd (6) [a] Krejčíková and Siniaková were seeded first but withdrew right before the tournament. This occurs twice, at the 2022 French Open and 2023 Wimbledon Championships. ▶ Notes not seeded / unseeded ? did not play / absent ? as you can see e.g. 2022 French Open, Krejcikova and Siniakova were seeded No. 1 but they withdrew right before tournament started. It should be counted but with note (it should be counted since it's about seeding not participating) Best Grand Slam results details Grand Slam winners are in boldface, and runner–ups are in italics.[1] Singles Australian Open 2022 Australian Open (4th) Round Opponent Rank Score 1R Andrea Petkovic 73 6–2, 6–0 QF Madison Keys 51 3–6, 2–6 French Open 2021 French Open (unseeded) Round Opponent Rank Score 1R Kristýna Plíšková 89 5–7, 6–4, 6–2 W Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova (31) 32 6–1, 2–6, 6–4 Wimbledon Championships 2021 Wimbledon Championships (14th) Round Opponent Rank Score 1R Clara Tauson 93 6–3, 6–2 4R Ashleigh Barty (1) 1 5–7, 3–6 US Open 2021 US Open (8th) Round Opponent Rank Score 1R Astra Sharma (Q) 114 6–0, 6–4 QF Aryna Sabalenka (2) 2 1–6, 4–6

Close

12: Grand Slam tournament seeding – another non-needed chart. Best Grand Slam result – already in the performance timeline. This is why we have a performance timeline. The actual score is trivial and can be linked to if someone wants that info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-needed chart? Pardon? JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

A grand slam seeding chart? That is fluff in my book. We have way too many charts on these pages and this one is super trivial. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): "in my book". What? That is exactly the problem. No cooperation at all. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You asked for input here. I find these charts obtrusive and trivial. Certainly should not be in a guideline. But others may feel differently, I realize that. These are simply yours and my opinions, and many opinions form a consensus. We'll see what happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I would remove the "best slam results" section as it is, as Fyunck had already mentioned, in the performance timeline. If you want to keep it, then limit it to 1 best result per slam and have the tables collapsed to save up on space. Otherwise, remove the subsection altogether. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then we should remove 'best slam results' but keep 'seedings' from my POV. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly what I proposed. Ditch the best slam results but retain the slam seedings. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#13 Record against other players

More information #13 Record against other players, # ...

#13 Record against other players

No. 1 wins # Player Event Surface Rd Score Result 1. Iga Świątek 2022 Ostrava Open Hard (i) F 5–7, 7–6(7–4), 6–3 Winner 2. Iga Świątek 2023 Dubai Championships Hard F 6–4, 6–2 Winner Record against Top 10 players Singles Krejčíková has an 11–17 (39%) record against players who were, at the time the match was played, ranked in the top 10.[1] Result W–L Player Rank Event Surface Rd Score Rank H2H 2022 Win 6–12 Anett Kontaveit No. 4 Tallinn Open, Estonia Hard (i) F 6–2, 6–3 No. 27 2023 Loss 7–13 Daria Kasatkina No. 8 Adelaide International 2, Australia Hard 2R 2–6, 5–7 No. 21 2–1 Loss 7–14 Jessica Pegula No. 3 Australian Open, Australia Hard 4R 5–7, 2–6 No. 23 1–1 Win 11–14 Iga Świątek No. 1 Dubai Championships, UAE Hard F 6–4, 6–2 No. 30 Loss 11–15 Aryna Sabalenka No. 2 Indian Wells Open, United States Hard 4R 3–6, 6–2, 4–6 No. 16 ▶ Notes Record against other players / Head-to-head records ?

Close

13: Is fine but with a caveat. We certainly don't want these to overwhelm an article in length. A player like Djokovic would be so long as to be ridiculous. He should only have top 10 victories. Where we have the cutoff I'm not sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You literally agreed on this table before??? JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

I agreed on the table, but we also have to be reasonable. It works great for almost all players. But if someone like Federer or Djokovic have one that is 10x longer than everyone else it could be too unwieldy. Their articles are way too long already. It might be better to only have top 10 wins for them, or for the table to be hidden. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Then why you didn't say anything about when we make consesus? I can't understand. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

One doesn't always think about every aspect at all times. We would want a players bio to be half filled with a single chart. So we make exceptions. That's normal. Remember that I didn't necessarily like the chart, but the original chart was horrid and non-sourceable. This chart seemed the best compromise. If I was building it I would have only had a top 10 wins chart. And it wasn't being proposed at the time for our guidelines. Others here may have different opinions as to it's usefulness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Limit it to back to the original Top 10 wins, not Top 10 win %. Krejčíková has an 11–17 (39%) record against players who were, at the time the match was played, ranked in the top 10 could be reworded to Krejčíková has an 11–17 (39%) record against players ranked in the top 10. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think one of the problems in the past was the addition of another table that was worded as "record against players ranked in the top 10" and that included players who were ever ranked in the top ten... even if they never met when they were in the top 10. More and more of the those massive tables were being created with no way to source them. It was original research. So articles contained a top 10 wins chart AND and a non-sourceble top 10 at any time chart. While I thought all we needed was a top 10 wins chart (with a simple overall record posted) for sanity I agreed to a compromise. If this is being opened up for all to see at the project I would agree with Qwerty here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I really don't know how to think about this one. Again, if I'm the only one wanting the loss top 10 matches as well, then we should only include wins. I wanted to find compromise between top 10 wins and former table. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to negotiate on this one to satisfy both sides of the discussion in more detail. I propose a new section gets created which only focuses on raw statistics: "Top 10 wins" being one of them (see Open Era Top 10 win stats), preferably, at the end of Career stats pages. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The current table is MOS:DTT concerned. A good layout would be several independent tables with the year as the repective header, something like the entry list I created for Rally articles (e.g. 2023 Rally Japan#Entry list) If the table is too long, consider to collapse it, though the only problem for this is that, correct me if I am wrong, it is not accessible for mobile users. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

A legend could be created above the 2nd table to accommodate for mobile users not being able to open tooltips. Note: tooltips can be opened if clicked on in the Desktop version of Wiki on mobile, but not in the mobile Wikipedia app. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I just went to check at the Wiki app. It seems that every wikitable is automatically collapsed by default. Anyway, the only problem here is to deal the MOS:DTT issue. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It's auto-collapsed to save up on scrolling, I opine. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

BTW, the performace timeline also has MOS:DTT issue. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what. It was built and updated with discussion from accessibility groups, and screen readers. Then tested a lot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You may refer to MOS:COLHEAD. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Unname is talking about scopes row and col in conjunction with ! and WCAG colors. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

#14 Longest winning streaks

More information #14 Longest winning streaks, # ...

#14 Longest winning streaks

4-match singles winning streak (2021) # Tournament Category Start date Surface Rd Opponent Rank Score – Italian Open WTA 1000 9 May 2021 Clay 3R Iga Świątek No. 15 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 5–7 1 French Open Grand Slam 30 May 2021 Clay 1R Kristýna Plíšková No. 89 5–7, 6–4, 6–2 2 2R Ekaterina Alexandrova (32) No. 34 6–2, 6–3 3 F Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova (31) No. 27 6–1, 2–6, 6–4 4 Wimbledon Grand Slam 28 June 2021 Grass 3R Anastasija Sevastova No. 56 7–6(7–1), 3–6, 7–5 – 4R Ashleigh Barty No. 1 5–7, 3–6

Close

14: Do we need a guideline for this? Very few players should have this chart unless it's approaching some kind of record. That's what I see in my first look through. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes we need. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

Once again we disagree on every player having a winning streak chart. These charts should be for records of some sort. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Halfly agree, but still we don't make it when someone have 3 consecutive wins... JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Too short of a win streak to be listed here. I propose list match win streaks with 20 and above consecutive matches won. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually it's longer in Barbora's case (15) but I didn't want this layout to be so long ony for demonstration purpose. I will limit it with 10+ if you agree with me. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me. 10+ wins, only list the longest streak bookended by both losses, when the streak began and ended. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

New comments

Moved from Talk:Iga Świątek career statistics § Winning Streak at the French Open

 – This discussion is related to match-win streak sections of tennis players career stat pages. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Świątek's 18 match winning streak at the French Open is nothing to joke about. It is an pretty impressive fest and it deserves to be included in this article. It is not a 2+ title streak at an random WTA 250 tournament, it is an long winning streak at an grand slam event. Also, why is the "4" grand slam win a criteria for a list of such kind? PrinceofPunjab^TALK 03:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@PrinceofPunjab: Who said there was such a criteria? I never heard of it as far as I can recall. Usually these things are player specific as far as importance. Heck there have only been four women to ever win three consecutive French Majors (never more) since it's inception in 1925, so winning 2+ is a pretty big deal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) That is why I added that table because winning 18 match consecutively at any tournament is impressive but winning at a Grand Slam is on an another level. I mentioned the 4 Grand slam criteria because that's what Qwerty284651 said while removing that table. He said "There have been many much longer streaks than 2+ consecutive titles whose match win streaks are not listed. A single sentence of mention is enough. No need to list every streak at any slam that is under at least 4 consecutive titles or at least an open era record". I even have ethe sources to back that table. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 04:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@PrinceofPunjab: With the four majors he is correct that there have been many longer streaks. But two things here. NO one has won more than three French majors in a row (skipping it matters). If Swiatec wins her third in a row (still a tall order) she will join an elite club of five. And also, look at her 37 match win streak. We include that because it is long and it huge for her. Many many women have had longer win streaks... much longer... years longer. But it's here because it big for her. Justine Henin has her win streak included and it was only 32. Jessica Pegula has her 9-match winning streak in doubles included, because it's her best. Sabalenka has her 15-match win streak included, because it's her best (not sure about keeping that one). Now what would be good is to have those charts with a scroll bar like we do the Top 10 wins chart. The streak table shouldn't be any longer than that table. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I propose we take this discussion to the article guidelines subpage as it pertains more to the scope of the articles. Plus, we have yet to reach consensus on certain tennis player's career statistics pages. @PrinceofPunjab, what Fyunck mentioned earlier there have been many longer instances per slam and yet they are not included. 2+ titles is very bare minimum, not worth mentioning. Don't get me started on the big 3 and none of their slam match win streak not being listed and nobody bats an eye. Nadal's section has a bit more bloat with semis and finals win streak, but that's a different story. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651 I get it that winning two grand slam will create far too many streaks but I think winning Three grand slams back to back should warrant a streak mention on the statistics page. It is a pretty rare achievement, if I am not wrong only two players have won three consecutive titles at a grand slam this century, Justine Henin at the French open (2005-07) and Serena Williams at the US Open (2012–14). So, if (!!) Świątek is able to defend her title at the Roland-Garros, it would take her winning streak to 21 matches and I believe we should add a table representing that. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In all honesty, the other 4 players match streaks are not mentioned on their career stats pages (those who have one) but since you insist, have at it. Changing my vote to against. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal (nadal's semi and final streaks are bloat, in my opinion), Navratilova's 6 wimby title win streak, none of them are mentioned in their respective win streak sections. Only overall and occasionally surface streaks are added, milestone wins recently started being, I see. I would limit this addition to if it constitutes a potential open era/all-time record, otherwise just don't add it. Just mention in one sentence.

Not to mention the: doubles teams from the early/mid 1990s with 10+ titles in a row (doubles: men's, women's and mixed). Even those don't have the streaks mentioned and it is not the end of the world...

Anyway, here is list of the longest all-time title streaks per slam for women's for reference. And match win streaks. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but why the heck was this moved from Swiatek's talk page? While I'm sure Qwerty284651 means well, this was ongoing on the page that it affects and it's probably a one off. It's not everyday you get this long a win streak at the French Open, and didn't need full project input. I'm a bit worried with the liberty taken here and on some chart changes where some of the edits have been great and some not so great. That said, it's always tough to decide important win streaks. Most are probably not needed. No one seemed to mind when 10 or more wins was mentioned and this French Open chart certainly blows past that number. And it does constitute a potential record. As the conversation was left hanging, every player would a get a chart if their win streak reached 10. I didn't agree. We didn't go into what if the win streak was on any of the four majors (which is even harder to do). Would we include the longest streak of any of the four majors? Longest streak in each of the four majors? From my looking at consecutive streaks at consecutive French Opens we have Henin and Seles with 21 wins, Graf 20, Evert 19, Sperling 16, Scriven and Wills 15 each. Those are the longest streaks in consecutive French majors in history. Swiatek now has 18 putting her 5th all-time even if she loses her next match. That is pretty impressive in tennis history and stacks up against the legends of the sport. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), I moved the discussion here to rekindle the discussion on what win-streak records should be added in win-streak sections and this constitutes a rare example, which I feel should be mentioned and tackled. I am with its addition, but I moved it here to settle the discussion on this section and many others on this page, that has died out since our last active discussion(s) back in October. This entire page needs to be discussed and what perfect section to start on than on a current one that we hit a snag on: I am against, you with Prince are for it...and to reopen the discussion...If you look at Nadal's records mentioned: semis and finals streaks, correct if I am wrong, but that needs to go. We want uniformity across articles, as soon as one extra chart is added, new editors will assume that anything can be added in akin sections and start piling on new records they think of it is worth mentioning or have strong inclination towards.

From my looking at consecutive streaks at consecutive French Opens we have Henin and Seles with 21 wins, Graf 20, Evert 19, Sperling 16, Scriven and Wills 15 each. → and yet no mention of any of these records in their respective player's career stat pages. Why should it be added now? When Djokovic won 4, chasing 5 consecutive wimbledons last year, nobody added anything and 5 vs 3 in a row is a BIGGER deal, way bigger. 3- in a row albeit rare, merits, in my opinion, no chart besides a mention in a single sentence. What are we gonna start now piling up every consecutive slam match-win streak to Iga or whomever else? And where are Ram/Salisbury's 3 consecutive US Opens, an ACTIVE streak and an Open era record. Huh? Where are their streaks mentioned..nowhere? Why? because it is not neceessary. Why is all of sudden Iga's potential record any more worth mentioning? Seriously. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Those are good points. First though.... while some uniformity is good, complete cookie-cutter uniformity is bad imho. One of the reasons we don't have all these charts in our guidelines was specifically not to infringe on flexibility. We wanted certain charts like the performance timelines iron-clad and non-changeable, which is why we went to lengths to get it as correct as possible, with people with screen readers joining in long ago to tell us any issues they encountered. Other charts we left flexibility. Many of these charts had not even been imagined at the time. We added uniform color codes but not a lot else. As long as they weren't original research.

But as you have pointed out, some charts are way too trivial, some are original research, and some are simply overkill with info already in the article. Many, if not most, have deprecated coding. Some have coding that could be improved for screen readers as long as it doesn't impact the standard appearance and make it worse for sighted readers. But we have to be careful in over-fixing. For example, in Swiateks top 10 chart you added a static row for the first column of numbers. In some ways it's good and in some it's bad. Numbers are auto and it takes less coding... that's good. But in standard editing the article player by player, like adding references, it is monumentally easier to scroll down to a particular player number and work on that reference. Not having a visual number is bad for editing. I would never have added that static column because of that issue, but I can live with it. Some things a good though, like you adding a scrolling bar. It can work with many long tables. But I notice that it won't work if tables are still using deprecated bgcolor. It leaves everything as white background. Great that it forces folks to change bgcolor= to style=background: but it's also worrisome that some will simply add the scrolling and leave the background white because they don't have the time or ability to fix bgcolor themselves.

Now Djokovic has 43-win streak chart, an Australia win-streak chart, an indoor win streak chart, a Grand Slam tournament win streak chart, a China win streak chart. He also has a centennial match wins chart, a Milestone hard court match wins chart, a Milestone clay court match wins chart, a Milestone grass court match wins chart, etc... he has detailed recordings of all his exhibition matches. Swiatek has none of those and all a person wanted to do was add a chart for the 5th longest French Open win streak in consecutive events. It seemed reasonable to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I looked more into {{static row numbers}} in the mean time and will have to revert it, because it does not fully comply with WCAG, a screen reader doesn't announce a new row there because the number row does not actually exist in table markup, it is displayed for the regular reader visually. I will replace it with regular rows, whether they are ! scope=row or regular | 1 I have yet to decide. Preferably, no scope to go with the article's style used in other charts.

One could potentially mass change across all Wiki with a bot: bgcolor to style=background:#...BUT many templates use bg or bgcolor as a background color changing parameter and setting the exact regex for it, to exclude the param and only target table wikimarkup is something to be desired. Probably why it has never been done before....or yet.

Djokovic's match win streak section is the epitome of overkill. Country, surface, milestone charts (that isn't even a win streak..lol)...I would remove the country and milestone wins. Keep the surface and 43+ chart. Exhibition is out of scope of this discussion. Belongs elsewhere. But I get why you bring it up. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned, doesn't properly support accessibility (see discussion), so I removed it from Iga's stat page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Navigate to this discussion after Świątek's third consective French Open title, and I still failed to see the significance, even the 21-match winning streak put her 5th best in the tournament history. As far as I am concerned, the only winning streak table that could fit in here is the pure winning streak itself. Others are nothing but some trivial statistic collection with a bunch of restrictive words. By that logic, maybe I could come up with something like Świątek's first-round winning streak and that could be a 50+ table, if I were correct. But is that useful? Absoulte no. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You know what? at this point just undo, revert and delete whatever you guys want, I don't even care at this point. I think WP:TENNIS is a truly toxic project, I mean just see what happened during the Top 10 W/L discussion. There are some two-three users who always seems to be monitoring what pages I edit and then they go and revert those edits and sometimes justify those reverts by their own made up rules. Even a meaningful edits are undone, even though there are some truly terrible charts and info that has been up there for years. I willingly bow out of this project. Peace Out ✌️, PrinceofPunjab^TALK 15:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I was away. Her win streak at the French is of HUGE significance. Her 21 match win streak is the longest in HISTORY for consecutive French Opens. It makes a big difference if you don't skip events as you please. She breaks a tie and is all alone if she wins a first round match next year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is not an all-time record. For reference, goats like Graf, Williams, Federer have no win streak per tournament tables. This is nothing but WP:NOTSTATS. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And I'm sorry but many of their tables are far worse. And this IS an all-time record. It's a tie for an all-time record with Seles and Henin, but it's very possible she could break it with another win in the first round. I thought when it was 18 it was a big enough deal to merit, but when I watched it grow to 21 I assumed this was a slam dunk now. When I came back online I figured this discussion was over and I can't fathom how it isn't. No one else has won more than three consecutive French titles since it became a major in 1925. Only Lenglen and Matthey won four consecutive titles but that was pre-major when only French players were allowed. This is a huge deal at the French Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

#15 Awards

More awards could be added here... Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#16 See also

JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

General comments

NOTE: From your POV we only need to provide just some basic info that you can literally found everywhere. Plus, these tables (just like Performance timelines) are full of mistakes (literally). So, provided only these information seems so much lazy and unrealiable (because of mistakes). All of these tables that I represented here is not my work, they have been there before I came. I just decide to continue populating them with new info. I never came across someone having any issue with having all these tables, notes etc. Plus, it has been there for a while, with no complaining. I really can't understand your desire to just make some quick changes without even thinking how much effort other user give in order to make these tables good. It is really disrespectfull and selfish to just came and say everything is 'trivial' and to add some new rules over the night. Yesterday I saw you adding names of previous tiers of WTA Tour to the Kateřina Siniaková career statistics. What is your point? No one complain about it, and also this is a big work to change each 'career statistics' that miss these 'former names'. I really start thinking that is all directed on me, because of everything you done in past. You cannot have excuse for not knowing that 'career statistics' need to have 'former names', because it has been like that for MONTHS/YEARS. I have always had respect towards you, but this getting pointless. Bravo ... JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You asked for comments so gave them. Nothing more or less. Almost all these items are not in our guidelines for a reason. They did not garner support to be required entities in the past. Why would we add them now? Wikipedia is not supposed be a place where you create new things or new stats. That's original research which is forbidden here. We are not a stat repository or stat creation district. It's obvious I'm much more a minimalist than you are and I'm sure other editors are all over the map. I'm fine with that. These are my opinions. Remember we are for the most part supposed to be adding charts that we see on multiple other websites, and charts that the average reader would need. We aren't supposed to have every nut and bolt... that's for a book or a tennis website, not for an encyclopedia. And a legend is the place to guide our readers. That's where the tier info should be, not in the tournament chart or the bottom of the article. If a player has none of the old tier we don't need it in the legend... if they have multiple tiers that's the best place to do it. We've always done it that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

What we have in our guidelines right now is what is required in articles. Yes the names of tiers/tournaments needs updating, and yes we missed a couple items like ITF charts. But all these charts should not be in the guidelines. Many of the charts are heavy overkill in stats or repeat info from the performance timelines. It's hard to control folks adding trivial charts to individual articles and then have it spread to other articles. This is Wikipedia and editors like to add things. But to include all of them in our guidelines is another matter entirely. Last year someone changed a consensus color scheme in an article and before we really noticed a hundred articles had changed. I had to change them all back. I'm sure there are some I missed. It happens and we deal with it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I agree with you, but in the same time there are so many contradictions. First of all, you say that we should not add new things because they aren't in the guidliness. But wait, aren't guidlines suposted to follow the current situation? You can't have guidlines from 20 years ago with no change – you need to adapt to the current situation. As soon as I remember you said in the past that if someone want to make new consesus about something, then should go there? Also, in the beggining of the year, you have problem with adding 'United Cup' row to the Performance timelines? Why? You said it was against guidlines, but United Cup hasn't been there before 2023. Ofcourse that the guidlines need to be updated. What is the problem? The main question is if so many tables are against guidlines, then why they exist? I have been doing this since 2018 and all the tables I edit were there already. If this is against guidlines, why you not remove it? We have consesus about new 'Record against top 10 players', so that's why I had removed the old one on some pages. I haven't seen you done any of this? Also, you talk about CONSESUS, where are all the administrators? Why you are the only one getting involed in the topics like this? If you are the only here, I want to know, because it gonna changed this debate a lot.

p.s. I haven't edited pages of ATP players so much, because they haven't needed so much change unlike WTA's. Still, many of these tables exist there and editors continue to work with them. Why? Why noone stop them? JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say we should not add things that aren't in our guidelines. I said the things in our guidelines are very specific and followed more strictly. The performance timelines being one. For that to change it would need consensus at Tennis Project. If you get that consensus it changes. Those tables we are talking about above are not against tennis project guidelines. They can actually be removed or added to any players page by consensus on that page as long as they can be sourced. But you are bringing them up on the guideline page as if to add them to guidelines. That's a huge deal and needs consensus at Tennis Project to add them. Something to consider would be if our guidelines article has two sections. One section for required charts on particular pages, like the two performance charts for the main bio and career stats bio. Then another section for charts that are not required under any circumstances. Charts that are not required, but if they happen to gain consensus to add, must follow the rules in our guideline. Perhaps that is what you are looking for here? A section for these charts that are never required but should always be the same if we decide to use them? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate any effort to improve article guidelines but this particular setup of the discussion makes it very difficult to contribute. Have no idea how the discussion above is going and who is commenting. See a list that starts at 9 followed by a response that starts at 3 which has comments without signatures. Impossible to follow. Would suggest to restructure it so that the discussion of specific elements take place below the element itself. This section can then be limited to generic comments and suggestions. When that is done a notification of this discussion can be placed on the tennis project talk page. --Wolbo (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click):, @Wolbo: So, how can I "try" to make consesus? Should I do it here or ...? I'm asking because I want to do it for multiple things, doesn't matter will it be in my favor or others? e.g. I want 'United Cup' to be part of the Performance timelines ... btw, I will do it part by part, because it will be more readable. JamesAndersoon (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That's probably the best idea... to do it part by part. I'm wondering if first we should determine if we would like a subsection of the guidelines to include charts that aren't required but must have a certain structure if used? Then determine chart by chart which if any should be included in that section? I would support such a section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree! JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

New comments

I have been keeping my eye on this discussion from the getgo, but finally have the time to get to it. I am eager to discuss Article guidelines for BLP career statistics quasi-subpages in the upcoming days. Have a busy schedule, but will role up my sleeves and get to it. My plan is to ensure our readers are served the most pertinent and up to date info without going into excessive detail. Discuss with you later this weekend. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! JamesAndersoon (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I overhauled the entire comment section to best follow a logical narrative. @Wolbo:, is this satisfactory enough so we can notify the Project's talk page there is a dicussion on progress on article guidelines, namely BLP's career statistics articles. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I invited others to chip in on the discussion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Replied to most of the subsections and gave my proposals what should be kept, added or removed. More discussion to follow, I am sure. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)