Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 21

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).

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

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)

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)

I propose the following the 3 navboxes:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

.

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)

(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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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)

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)

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.^[1] 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)

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 [], 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)

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:

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)

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)

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)

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.^[1][2]

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.

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)

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)

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)

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:https://archivo.rctb1899.es/ The 1968 edition information here;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; 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, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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
• List of Grand Slam men's doubles champions
• List of Grand Slam women's singles champions
• List of Grand Slam women's doubles champions
• List of Grand Slam mixed doubles champions
• List of Grand Slam and related tennis records

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)

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)

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)

The Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics is getting shoved around a bit by an editor Sportsfan 1234. If you look at all our Olympic Tennis articles we have maintained consistency every year at far as the winners table on top, and the medal table synopsis below. We have always done this. See Tennis at the 2004 Summer Olympics, Tennis at the 1996 Summer Olympics, Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics, etc... all of them!

Obviously the Olympic Project can have it's own guidelines too that from time to time we need to iron out. No big deal. But the Olympic Project guidelines on this issue are pretty clear with their examples that the order is not important, just the style of the tables. If you check their Olympics MOS on proper articles you find:

• Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics
• Ice hockey at the 2002 Winter Olympics
• Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics
• Golf at the 1904 Summer Olympics

The charts are similar but the placement is obviously fine in multiple locations. No real cookie cutter guideline. But ours have been locked for a long time as what we consider a proper order with the more important event winners on top of the medal table synopsis. There was nothing to argue about since both projects have no issue.

But now we have an editor insisting, with no consensus, on the same order for all 2024 Olympic articles. He has changed many sports until I noticed him changing the tennis article to medal on top for 2024 only. He changed the standard order on 17 July. This will be out of whack for all our other articles and is based on nothing from the Olympic Project. I'm getting a bit tired of reverts on this dude alongside other fellow tennis editors such as @Qwerty284651:, and @Unnamelessness:. I'm not sure why he wants all Olympic articles to be exact but he does. Any other help would be appreciated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Again for the 10th time, the Olympic article is a WP:OLYMPICS article first. Its called tennis at the X Olympics, not Olympics at tennis. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And for the 11th time, baloney. And even if that were true the Olympic Guidelines say it's just fine... only you have an issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel during an Olympic event, it is useful for readers/visitors to have the schedule first to see who is playing when. The schedule information can be also found in the respective draw pages for each olympic sport's event/discipline.

HOWEVER, after the Olympic event is over it is only logical to list the "Medal summary" section (winners) first - for the readers to see first, followed below by schedule and all other sections.

Similar ongoing discussions on Olympic Wikiproject's talk page:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Medal summary sections on sport at x Olympics format
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Medal Summary Order

Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The schedule's importance dwindles after the event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The medal table should be first like all other sport articles at the 2024 Olympics. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Tagging in @Nyoman Juniarta, @Svartner and @Siuuu0909 who have all reverted your edits to include the medal table below. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I had only changed the position of the medal summary to maintain the standard of other sports. I don't know if there is a rule apart from the tennis project, so much so that I didn't insisted. Svartner (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no tule at Olympic Project. That project has examples of multiple styles. Someone took it on themselves personally to make only 2024 that way. It happens sometimes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234, we can start an RFC if you still think Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics violates WP:OLYMPICS. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure a RFC is necessary. If tennis the only article not aligned with the other articles, its clear what the problem is. There is no consensus to deviate from the styles from the other pages, so don't. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a consensus/discussion to get the format changed to your preferred version across all sports would be a good start. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Or perhaps your Olympic Project will come up with a consistent model like Tennis Project has. But your removal/blanking of required info is vandalism and will get you a visit from the wiki-police. Stop doing it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Will an RFC at WP:SPORT be a more appropriate place for this dispute or do we take it to WP:OLYMPICS? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

That "schedule table" started getting added to the 2016 Olympics. I see no discussion... some just started adding them. And they vary too. Looking at 2020 I see Surfing at the 2020 Summer Olympics, Basketball at the 2020 Summer Olympics, Golf at the 2020 Summer Olympics, Tennis at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Obviouslt the Olympic project prides itself on being flexible. Suddenly this Olympics we have a single editor claiming we are doing something against Olympic Project standards. That is 100% baloney! They have no standard. Even in 2024 we have Basketball at the 2024 Summer Olympics and Water polo at the 2024 Summer Olympics. there is no Olympic Project protocol on this and until they decide to hold some RfC on all their yearly Olympic articles we certainly have nothing to follow there. The Tennis Olympic articles all look the same and we should stick to it. Schedules tables are important when the games are ongoing, by they actually have trivial value once the games are over. I'd suggest we don't need then at all since no one cares about the actual dates of preliminary heats a year later. But if they remain they should be bottom dwellers in the importance context. Readers want to see who won first and foremost. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234, knock your antics off with WP:OLYMPICS or you will get sanctioned. I am sick and tired of you. God. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you guys considered dispute resolution. Tvx1 18:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. LiamKorda 12:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)