Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Text formatting on tournament and draw pages

I have noticed a rather worrisome "convention" among editors of tennis "tournament" and "draw" articles that relies on a (somewhat obscure) feature of MediaWiki by which italics or bold formatting that is opened in a list item or a table cell is automatically closed at the end of that item or cell. This means that lines like this:

# {{flagicon|RUS}} [[Olesya Pervushina]] ''(Semifinals)

(indicating a seeded player who lost in the semifinals — in this case, of the 2016 Wimbledon Girls' Singles)

or this:

|RD1-score1-1='''6

(a score for a player winning a set, in this case inside a {{8TeamBracket-Tennis3}} template call)

don't technically require "closing" tags for the italics or bold, like this:

# {{flagicon|RUS}} [[Olesya Pervushina]] ''(Semifinals)''

|RD1-score1-1='''6'''

While the first 2 snippets of code "work", they go against the standard notion that opened text-formatting tags should always be closed, as indicated (at least, implicitly) in every wiki formatting guideline I've ever seen around here (e.g., Help:Wiki markup#Format, MOS:TEXT, etc.). The second pair of code snippets match the "expected" formatting that editors are (or should be) used to.

The problem is, this convention (seen in the first 2 lines of code) has become so entrenched in Wikipedia's tennis articles (presumably by later editors emulating what others have done before) that at least one user sees it as the accepted norm, and the "correct" formatting (second 2 lines of code) as incorrect! I am almost certain that the larger Wikipedia community (say, at the Village Pump, or in an RFC) would say otherwise (i.e., that open tags should always be closed). But I'm bringing it up here first, since all of the affected articles that I know of are of interest to this WikiProject.

BTW, the same kind of "not closing tags" philosophy has extended even to superscripts, but that particular problem has been getting fixed by a bot.

So, can I get some opinions on this? I grant that WikiProjects have great latitude in the structure and content of the articles they cover, but I'm not sure that latitude should extend to nonstandard wiki formatting "tricks" (as it were). I see the convention of not closing opened tags as a bad precedent that leads to sloppy wikicode, if not outright confusion on the part of new editors, and so should be actively discouraged (i.e., by fixing the relevant articles, which I have started to do, slowly but surely [of course, using a bot would be better, if possible]). - dcljr (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that many editors take advantage of this coding loophole. However you are wrong if you or anyone thinks it is condoned in any way by Tennis Project. It is not! I fix it if I notice, and put notices on editors pages if I see them do it. It really happens a lot on tournament draw articles. It's not in our guidelines to do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I condone using a bot to make these corrections. We have over 100 years worth of tennis tournament articles. It's just too much to do manually. As for the user who is edit warring against the correct markup, report them to the administrators if they persist. Tvx1 10:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. BTW, lest anyone reading this think that it's not really a problem because "it doesn't matter either way", I should point out that not closing tags messes up the syntax highlighting provided by Remember the dot's Syntax highlighter gadget. Another point in favor of always closing open tags… - dcljr (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there a bot that can fix the open-ended coding? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. - dcljr (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You can always request one. Tvx1 22:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Before I make such a request, I'd like to try to work out some specific regexes that accomplish what I want. I have one of them working (the "|RD#-score" change alluded to above); now I just need two more… I will post on this talk page when I've worked them out, so I can get final "approval" and/or objections before I make the actual bot request. - dcljr (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Dcljr and Fyunck(click), there are actually two issues we need to solve here. One is fixing the markup in all the articles on past tournaments, the second one is getting users to use the correct markup in the articles of ongoing and upcoming articles straight away. While editing the articles on the ongoing Olympic tennis event I noticed the incorrect still being used. That is very worrisome. I don't even understand why one would want to go through all the effort to have unclosed markup tags in the first place. For instance, to create bold text that way one would have to click the bold button above the edit window, which creates both tags, only to deliberately remove the closing tag again. That's just strange. Tvx1 23:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone edits that way. It is very easy to create unbalanced tags if you're typing in the wikicode "manually", or using a homemade script. As for "getting users to use the correct markup", I'd say after repeated warnings to do it the right way have been ignored, such edits can rightly be considered disruptive editing, and we should be able to start implementing blocks of increasing length. (The warnings have already been happening, but I would wait till after the articles have all been fixed to begin any blocking.) - dcljr (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems likely that unclosed markup tags are the result of either manual editing or copy and pasting from similar articles. I support the effort to get properly closed markup tags on all our articles and if the cleanup can be done by a (tested) bot that would certainly be helpful. If it still happens on new articles it would be best to inform the editors and request them to properly format the tags, if needed by pointing them to this discussion. Threatening with blocks should really be a last option and hopefully something that can be entirely avoided.--Wolbo (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed here. I would rather give many many nudges than start warning about blocks for this. If someone goes around and starts removing the end closing that would be a different situation. And most of the time I happen to do the coding manually, so I could make an error and leave off the end tags, but then I'm just as likely to leave off the beginning too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "warning" and "nudging" and using blocks as a "last option" is exactly what I'm saying. - dcljr (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Dcljr, in that case a lot of warning needs to be done. A quick inspection of the olympic tennis articles have allowed me to find Secretaria, Yimingbao, Ytfc23, Rubyaxles, Evolution2k8, Njr65984, SergiuNik and AdiMind all using the incorrect (or rather incomplete) markup. And I'm sure there are plenty more.Tvx1 02:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Noted. I only did it because I assumed it was the correct way to do it. Rubyaxles (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Same here. Secretaria (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Noted, same as above. Didn't realise it was against convention. Ytfc23 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I feel I should point out that these editors who are chiming in here are not who I was referring to with my talk about blocking. I was alluding to editors who have been directly asked to change their editing habits in the past and have either not responded or flatly refused to do so (and continue to make these kinds of edits). - dcljr (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Real Life has prevented me from spending a lot of time on this lately. I've found (not surprisingly) that there are a huge number of variations on the types of lines that I would like changed, so I've only been able to address a handful of common cases. Basically, no matter how good the bot (or user-script, if that's the way we go) is, humans will have to check every individual article, anyway, to fix any lingering mistakes. I hope to post here soon the regex substitutions I've come up with and the kinds of cases they fix (and some that they don't). Please Stand By. - dcljr (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Still seems to be an issue.--Wolbo (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep. So I have started to let the more blatant abusers of the practice know not to do it anymore. One of them had been warned multiple times before and even blocked so I gave out an actual warning. 15 minutes later they did it again, so warned again and let an administrator know about it. Not sure what heading it goes under... disruptive editing? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

WTA 125 placement

I was asked but wasn't sure if we formalized anything on the placement of the WTA 125 Series events. On player bios I have seen the stats placed in a new section, with the ITF events and with the WTA main tour events. The WTA 125's are being touted as the equivalent of the men's Challenger tour. By that standard we should never ever put it with the WTA main tour events. It should probably always get its own section after a WTA finals table but before the ITF finals. And not squished in between WTA singles and doubles tables. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say that it should be separated from everything since it technically doesn't fall under either. Anyways, it's not like there are that many 125k series tournaments. I think it would be easy to fix it if there are cases where it is included in a WTA or ITF chart. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. But some men's articles have the Challengers and ITF Futures events lumped together inthe same chart, and some editors will throw that in our face in explaining why they put the 125s in with the ITFs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not terrible if someone throws the 125s in with the ITFs as long as it is labeled that the tournament was a 125, not an ITF tournament. But in all honesty, Challengers and ITFs should be separated, but I assume that many editors lump them together either due to laziness or due to a player participating in such a small amount of finals that it would be OK to combine the two charts. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That's probably the best choice. If it's a very small amount of each I guess there's no problem being lumped as long as it's clearly labeled. But usually they should be separate, with ITF futures being a rare chart anyway since the events are not notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I know that Futures charts technically shouldn't be there, but there are many cases of them existing. It is simply due to the fact that a majority of the smaller tennis players with wiki articles only have said article because of Davis Cup participation or a random Challenger title. Most of them only play Futures, so they have a Futures chart. But for players who regularly play on the ATP and WTA tour, a Futures chart shouldn't exist. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Coach(es) in infobox out of control

This has bothered me for awhile. The infobox is supposed to be a place where the most pertinent of facts are at our readers fingertips. It is nice to know who is coaching a particular player. It is ridiculous to see the entire coaching history listed in the infobox. Journeyman player Dan Evans has 13 coaches listed, taking up half the infobox! That has to go. It should be the current coach (possibly current coaches) but not a coaching history lesson. That has to be what was intended for coach(es). This should go for every player we have. If it's important enough to keep, do it in prose in the article body. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say that the coach parameter is meant to include only the present coach. I am not sure if the coaching history of a player is that important. In terms of the top-ten players, or at least Nadal, Federer etc., the coaches are important. But for players outside the top 30 and lower, including a list of every coach they had is unnecessary. If it is included, at least put it somewhere else, not in the infobox. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, infobox should only show current coach. Sellyme^Talk 21:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Andy Murray's infobox is not a lot better. I too agree that only the current coach should be visible in the infobox but, if technically possible, would not object to a collapsible list of previous coaches in the infobox provided the default state of that list is 'collapsed'. Would like to look into that option before we start deleting info. The mechanism would be something similar to what can be seen in Federer's German article where it says 'Ausklappen'. --Wolbo (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the entire list belongs in the infobox rather than a separate table in his career stats article, but anything is better than what I'm seing now. I have no idea how we would even add that collapsed list in an infobox. Interesting concept though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that if something is unimportant enough to be hidden by default in a collapsed list, then it's probably not important to be in the infobox in the first place. I agree 100% that we should not be deleting notable information and that no-one should be removing coach lists without making sure they're actually in the prose of the article, but I definitely don't think collapsible lists as a middle step are a good way to go about it. Additionally, collapsing article content by default (as opposed to navboxes) is pretty clearly against MOS:COLLAPSE. Having it in an infobox probably compounds that issue. I strongly recommend that we just create a to-do list subpage of this project somewhere and add articles that break formatting consensus on this and other topics to it, incentivising people to go fix them properly one by one, so we don't have to implement any quick half measures that can be easily implemented on the same pageview that we find the error. I've been doing something similar on my userpage, but because that's a personal thing I haven't really been putting much effort into it. Sellyme^Talk 02:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

One thing is to do that with our most popular articles. Federer does not have coaches listed in his infobox while Nadal and Murray do. What we should be doing is to make a coaches table or coaches section and move those coaches into that. If we do it to our most visible articles perhaps editors will see it done properly and at least create no more lengthy coach lists in the infobox. Maybe they'll even help change other articles. The thing is someone like Dan Evans isn't the most notable dude himself. He has won 5 minor league titles and 13 minor/minor league titles. I'm not convinced that a list of his 13 coaches belongs in his article at all. I doubt any reader but his most ardent fans would care about it one iota. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red online editathon on sports

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2017 worldwide online editathon. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Sports"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

New finals chart proposal

Please give some thoughts at our project guideline page on a new finals chart proposal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any disagreement on the compromise chart proposal with added number column. I was still going to leave it going for a full month though. Comment on the guideline page with any other suggestions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-guideline Sharapova season article up for deletion

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Maria Sharapova tennis season — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 18/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Tennis.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Tennis, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

NTENNIS

You all may want to take a look at this. Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it and commented. Not sure what that particular editor is really doing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent confusing rankings changes?

I notice that a user listed as 2605:E000:91D8:1F00:1045:10E6:2AF4:EF55 has recently made a number of changes of players' rankings. In many cases the changes are quite large, and seem questionable. (Right now, the two most recent changes are in the articles about Carina Witthöft and Ekaterina Alexandrova, although I notice that the Alexandrova change has already been undone). Is this the place to raise this question? Thanks Free2brag (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Player rankings in articles always have to follow the official WTA and ATP lists, after they have been published by these organizations on their websites. This normally happens on Mondays. So currently the May 29th rankings are the most recent. May 31st rankings are unofficial projections and should be reverted. Gap9551 (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

What he said. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD

There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park – Doubles which you may be interested in participating in. Adamtt9 (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Message

Hi, can someone please do something about this. Two articles were created yesterday Claire Holbert-Darling (a player of this name does not exist as far as I can find) and this page 2007 Saginaw Women's Open (a tournament that does not exist/never took place)... both were created by the same user User:Harry.booth who appears to be nothing but a troll account. I don't really know the process here so I thought I'd leave a message on this page to alert someone else to deal with it. 86.17.57.21 (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Reported to administration. Thanks for the information. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

William Blumberg

There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Blumberg which you may be interested in participating in. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Player nicknames

A few (or maybe many?) years ago, some moron removed this from the Tennis player template. So, even if nickname(s) exist, this is never shown. Back then, I asked about this, and another moron user replied that this would be "hard to bring back". Okay, many years passed - can we have this back now? I really do not care how hard it is. Bring this back! Also, when a mindless moron changes templates this way, there should be a patrolling Wiki member seeing that and fixing it (by reverting), and not saying "it cannot be reverted now" after 3-4 months or an year has passed. Does no one here patrol/check any such wide-effect template changes at all? That is a pity. Thank you. Naki (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It was removed in January 2010 [1] after a post at Template talk:Infobox tennis biography#Tragic and infantile, and then restored and removed a few times that year with no posts to the talk page. The only post supporting it is a 2006 request to add it. According to the search hastemplate:"Infobox tennis biography" insource:nickname insource:/nickname *=/ the parameter is not currently used. Old uses must have been removed like in [2]. It's easy to add infobox parameters and I don't know who told you it's hard. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 15#Return Nickname to Infobox the only reply opposed restoring it. I'm not a fan of the parameter either. It easily attracts non-notable nicknames. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with PrimeHunter. Far too likely to become a magnet for non-notable trivia. oknazevad (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the two above as well. Player nicknames aren't necessary and there will always be someone to add a nickname that they pretty much made up. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Some players will have very prominent nicknames but that will be talked about in the article proper. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Tournament notability creep

Per our Tennis Project guidelines the tournaments in the minor league ATP Challenger tour are notable. Most are kind of borderline but since we can find out bits of info we accept that minor league event and create an article on it. I personally think it works out fine. But some at Wikipedia Notability have grumbled we have taken things too far and several recent deletions have now confirmed this. The separate doubles and singles draws of this minor league event have been brought to the forefront by an administrator and then deleted, and I think that was for the best. The season article 2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park barely has any info on it and we do not break articles into smaller articles just because we can. I'm not convinced we need the draws at all, but if we do they can be included in some way on the main page, not have their atoms scattered across 3 separate articles. I'm a bit worried that if non-tennis editors really start digging in they may determine that the entire minor league schedule could mostly be unworthy of articles. They will surely think that separate draw articles are bloat.

I bring this here because since the last deletion I noticed that more of the draws page have appeared, I proposed deletion, and the prod tag was removed. The editor removing the tag thought it best to bring this to Tennis Project's attention. So here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just forget the recent singles/doubles Challenger draw removal as a one time thing that won't happen again? I'm fine with that if everyone else is (though if I had a choice I would always side with one medium sized article rather than 3 tiny ones). Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's save to "forget it", but I feel like the AfD was way too underpopulated for something that would affect thousands of articles, and didn't have a large enough discussion to merit a permanent change in how we handle Challenger tournaments. Sellyme^Talk 03:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

And that's why it's good thing to have a more thorough discussion here. I agree that those "minor league" should not have separate draw articles and the recently created ones should be AFD'd. Everything worth mentioning can provided in the tournaments' main article for the given year.Tvx1 13:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Roger Federer: Should we include the term "male" to Greatest of All-Time?

Since you are listed as a project of interest, please consider joining in the discussion on whether or not to include the term "male" to Greatest of All-time at Talk:Roger Federer. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:TWL2C

New template for win-loss tables in records pages. It's both a cleaner implementation and simplifies the process of updates; no longer do you need a calculator, the template does all the math. Already deployed at Open Era tennis records – men's singles and ATP World Tour records. I also just added an entry for it on the project template page. -Testpored (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Polish AfDs

There are deletion discussions taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Matuszewski and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kacper Żuk which you may be interested in participating in. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Emily Arbuthnott (GBR)

Is she entitled to a page? Kittybrewster ☎ 19:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If you want to go based off of this project's guidelines, then no she is not. If you can prove that she meets WP:GNG, the she can get an article, but if not, any sort of creation will probably be deleted. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

History of Grand Slam tournaments in the records.

With the semifinals at this year's Wimbledon someone has added to Roger Federer's articles that he now holds the record of finals reached at the same Grand Slam tournament with 11. However as much as I would like this to be true, Max Decugis did even better by reaching the final of the French Open 12 times. However when I fixed that in Roger's articles, I was reverted by Gap9551 on the grounds that the early French Open results don't count. I will also note that Federer is not only credited as being tied with Pete Sampras but also with William Renshaw on number of Wimbledon Grand Slam titles, the latter of whom won it 7 times in the late 1800's. So what is the project's standing on this.Tvx1 11:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: The standing is to go by the facts. The French Championship was not a major until 1925 so that is when the records start for that event as far as Grand Slam tournament records. Before then it was not an international tournament. Of course there are French Championship records that Decugis holds, but those are tournament records not major records. Fyunck(click) (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

WTA website overhauled

The WTA website is completely different as of to-day. All existing links now run into a 404 error.

Player profile pages now have a different ID number than before. I started changing their wikidata items' WTA ID property. Fortunately, on the Dutch wiki (my home wiki) most players no longer specify the hard WTA ID, but go through wikidata.

The following player profile information that used to be available, is not present any more:

• weight
• career high ranking (and date) in singles and doubles
• number of ITF titles in singles and doubles
• year-end ranking table in singles and doubles
• result history table for the grand slam tournaments in singles and doubles
• on the matches played: date, prize money, ranking points earned (and more)

Other information that is missing:

• WTA ranking lists for previous weeks (and years) in singles and doubles
• tournament archive

For tournaments: the draw PDF's are no longer there (nor in a different place).

Vinkje83 (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Going to any women's player's article and clicking their WTA profile link leads to a player search page. All of the IDs were changed. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Another major tennis website redesign and it's another disaster from our point of view. The ID's have changed, breaking all our player and tournament links to the website. And what happened to all the historic data on players and tournaments? No tournament archive? No player activity history? No historic H2H information? According to the WTA website Navratilova never played a match against Evert! Hopefully this info will soon reappear, otherwise the level of incompetence and disregard for the history of the women's game would be baffling.--Wolbo (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Holy christ that's a nightmare. They've removed about half of the site's content entirely (pdf draws seem to no longer exist at all!) and the content that they did replace straight up doesn't work. Nearly all of the anchor links are undefined so we can't link to specific parts of javascript-segmented pages, and as Wolbo points out, a lot of the info they do have there is comically wrong. If they don't completely revert these changes we'll have to almost completely abandon the WTA as a source, that's broken to an extent that we can't fix at all. Even the "Contact Us" button that I attempted to use to tell them how disastrous this was is broken. Sellyme^Talk 12:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we should wait a week to see if they are intelligent enough to fix these bugs they are having. Then we can start from there. But they literally changed EVERYTHING. PDF draws for tournaments this week that were working on Monday are no longer working now. I have been trying to find a PDF draw for this week's tournaments on the WTA website, but I haven't found anything yet. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There is literally nothing there at all, except some basic personal data, not even matches. I don't believe this is the final version, they must have plans to restore missing info, otherwise the website is going to be totally useless not only to Wikipedia but to a random reader as well. --Deinocheirus (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The new design is obviously oriented toward these silly smartphones and the superficial 'hot news' interest of their users. I've seen the same happening with the Australian Open website – that too lost its draw history. The presentation of the information has become more important than its depth and comprehensiveness. Web designers' intentions have recently moved towards amusing the swiping masses rather than informing the serious Internet worker. Screen space that is not taken by pictures, is predominantly white. A screen lay-out which (presumably) looks fine on a smartphone, looks ridiculously empty on a conventional computer screen. Vinkje83 (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else has seen this, but there is a lot of information contained at http://www.wtatennis.com/press-center. nihlus kryik (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

First of all: the page you are pointing at, covers current affairs only. We are lacking the whole of womens' tennis history!

Secondly: some links on that 'press center' page are bad: Stuttgart singles draw link is broken, and so was the Istanbul doubles draw link (I notice that this one has been repaired now). None of the newly added Rabat links works. Vinkje83 (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The whole WTA change is depressing. I sure hope this isn't the final tally of changes because it looks useless now. And I'm guessing that the ATP and ITF are warming up in the bullpen. Has anyone emailed them with the main concerns? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

WARNING! The 'matches' tab of the new players' profile contains incorrect information. All qualification matches are shown as if they were main draw matches. Vinkje83 (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

What does it say instead...just a round without the fact it's a qualifier? Can you link to an example? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Just an example: Tatjana Maria. Click the MATCHES tab and page down until Australian Open 2017. It looks like she reached 2R. In reality, she didn't qualify for the main draw, but lost in the second round of qualifying. Vinkje83 (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And while you are at it, go down to 2016 Wimbledon. She had two R128 matches. The WTA has made quite a mess. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The site is almost useless now. In the past we could change id numbers and formatting, now I'm not sure we'd want to link to that site. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yikes. Others hate it too. 73% say horrible and 15% poor in a forum poll at [3]. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you even surprised? I personally didn't like it before they changed it. I always found the ATP website more accessible and found it way easier to find information on there than I did with the WTA. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And not just the WTA. We have used thetennisbase as a source for articles too... it's now a pay site so we can't check if data is accurate unless we throw in $85/year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of its current usability, most of the links that have been broken should be recoverable using the Web Archive.Tvx1 12:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

They have a contact address now: information@wtatennis.com – I have sent them messages explaining the problems that Wikipedia (world-wide, not just the English wiki) have with their website situation. But if I am the only Wikipedian doing that, they will probably not start taking us seriously. Therefore I call upon my tennis colleagues over here to send them messages too. Ping User:Adamtt9 User:Frietjes User:Fyunck(click) User:Jared Preston User:Sellyme User:Wolbo User:Yimingbao, to mention but a few.

I propose that we put at least the following suggestions to them:

• Put all the tournament PDF's back to their old URL:
  1. http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/yyyy/nnn.pdf
  2. http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/posting/yyyy/nnn/MDS.pdf and MDD.pdf and QS.pdf
• Make the old website available as old.wtatennis.com (like they did a few years ago when they were doing major surgery on their website).

These measures should be possible for them, because they are not getting in the way of their new development. And it will make the existing information available to us for the near future, so we can go on and do our job.

As a next step, we can start pointing to information to be included in their new website. As 95% (98%?) is currently missing, we might give them a few weeks to include further information by themselves, as long as we have short-term access to the old site (number 2 above) and the article links to the tournament PDF's are valid again (number 1 above).

Concerning the new ID assigned to players: I started to update these on Wikidata. I did the current top 150. Notice that the straight-digit number is no longer sufficient. The addition of /title/player-name has now become mandatory. In their old website they added this extension some time ago, but apparently provided some sort of redirect where we used the digit number only. In the new website, not only the number is different, but unfortunately there is no redirect. This forces us to specify not only the (new) number but also the /title/player-name extension. I noticed that they sometimes have a further extension -0 which for some players turns out to be mandatory, and for others optional, and again others inapplicable. I asked them about the -0 extension, but as yet received no reply.

Vinkje83 (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Query for wikidata

select ?item ?wtaID where {?item wdt:P21 wd:Q6581072 . ?item wdt:P597 ?wtaID} order by strlen(?wtaID)

This query can list all female players, sorted by lenght of their WTA-id. The ones with an old ID should be listed first. I'll try to fix a few a day from now on. Edoderoo (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Clickable query. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

With clickable google search. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

+sitelinks --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

+year_of_birth ... though i would like to add the date of birth in the WTA-search parameter (preceded by a space). Edoderoo (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Status

Now 999 to go, we did about half of them... All players from Belgium and The Netherlands have been processed, and for many I've added a P2121 (prize money) as a bonus. Edoderoo (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Draw PDFs have returned at http://wtafiles.wtatennis.com/pdf/draws/yyyy/nnnn/MDS.pdf (or MDD/QS/QD) rather than the original http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/posting/yyyy/nnnn/MDS.pdf. Unfortunately it seems like they can no longer be viewed in-line, and rather force a download. I can quite easily patch all URLs to point towards the new path, but I'm not sure if that's desired considering the forced downloads. Thoughts? Sellyme^Talk 00:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Some of them can be viewed in-line, such as Prague singles. I guess that the WTA technicians need to add a specific blob to the pdf to make it viewable. I hope they will make those additions when they're ready for it. For now, it's better to have a downloadable pdf rather than nothing at all. Vinkje83 (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing at all is not the only alternative to the downloadble pdfs. I'm pretty certain we can recover all of those draws linked before the WTA site overhaul using the Web Archive. In fact if we had used it preemptively this massive link rot could have been prevented.Tvx1 21:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have just salvaged a WTA draw from before the WTA site overhaul using the Web archive at 2005 US Open - Mixed Doubles. So I'm certain we can deal with these rotten links. Using properly archived links will also shield use against future website overhauls.Tvx1 17:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Updating the template

I got pinged here by Scottyoak2. It's late and I'm tired and I don't know the backstory but before I forget why I'm here I'll ask about a few things, because I like helping out on projects like this.

1. Wayback - is everything archived or is it hit-and-miss?
2. New URLs - is there a consistent pattern (i.e. all players have one URL pattern, all matches a different one, etc)
3. Wikidata - if everything gets uploaded there, will that fix "everything"?

Basically I've got a few ideas on how to update the template without having to go through and manually fix all the links, but without the above knowledge I'm just shooting in the dark. No need to ping me on reply. Primefac (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal

Over the last few days a user has been pushing their POV that Rafael Nadal is the greatest player of all time be introducing the claim that some say that the is to his article's lead, supporting it with nothing but some unreliable blogs by some random people who have nothing to do whatsoever with the sport. This needs some attention.Tvx1 20:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That's all they used was blogs? I have read in prominent sources that Laver, Gonzales, Tilden, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal, have been listed as "the" goat. A very subjective list to be sure... especially if all one looks at is number of titles. I guess I can take a look in the next few days and find some legitimate sources for Nadal to help out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we need extra sources for the subjective statement of him as the goat at all. The well sourced one of the greatest claim we had before this user's edits was more than enough. Anyway, a discussion has started on the talk page. Any opinion is welcome. The user has been blocked for breaching WP:3RR in the mean time.Tvx1 21:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

However in putting "one of the greatest" it opens up the fact that Federer's article should also be worded that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. We basically shouldn't be having such statements while these players' careers are still ongoing. Thinks evolve quickly. Look at what happened this season, Federer won two majors, one of which without dropping a set, and is now four ahead of Nadal again. The Agassi quote from 2014 is simply very old at this rate and has clearly lost value because of the events since then. But we don't what the situation will be in twelve months time, for all I know Nadal could win the next four majors. Or maybe Djokovic even reels him in. You might also want to read the discussions on Cristiano Ronaldo's talk page. It presents some interesting views on "greatest" statements.Tvx1 20:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Statements lose value, but also each succeeding generation usually forgets what happened before. They always assume ceib (current era is best). All we can do is objectively see how a player did against their peers in the most important events of their own time period, and then subjectively extrapolate that into how great they are. Those events are different today than in the 1970s, which were different than the 1960s, which were different than the 1920s. All these players should probably say simply "one of the greatest" here in an encyclopedia. But if one player says "is the greatest" because there are sources, then all should be able to say it if they have sources. Consistency is only fair. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I refer to the Cristiano Ronaldo discussion again then. As stated there, Wikipedia should be about facts rather than opinions. I prefer to have the article of one player stating that (s)he is the most successful player ever with sources backing that (s)he holds the record of major titles won and/or prize money one, instead of labeling dozens of players as the greatest player ever just because we can find one person who has claimed so for each of these players.Tvx1 13:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

But even that will cause problems. Prize money keeps going up and up. What one great player today wins in a year, tomorrow an average player may win in a week. And even success is transient depending on the time period. No player has won more major titles than Ken Rosewall's 23. No one is close to Roy Emerson's 28 major titles across all disciplines. Helen Wills didn't even lose a set for 6 years. So it depends on what you judge "success" by. Is it only singles victories in the 4 majors? If they ever include a 5th major (say in China), that will probably mean players today will not be very successful because of a rule change. And a player wins 16 majors in a row over 4 years, 4 Grand Slams with that...and another plays for 30 years and wins 17 majors (one every two years or so)... is player two more successful? These are tough conversations full of subjectivity by nature because the sport has changed so much in 150 years. I would prefer we use "one of the greatest players of all-time" for all these great players, at least in the lead paragraphs. Legacy sections further down the article could be used to further extrapolate success or greatness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have nicknames in the lead where the name is an obvious shortening of the full name?

Recently a number of articles have, justifiably so, been made more encylopedic by having nicknames removed from the lead where the common name of the individual is an obvious shortening of their given name. For example, it is redundant to call Andy Roddick Andrew Stephen "Andy" Roddick. However, there does not seem to be universal consensus on this and it would be good if there could be. Rovingrobert (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the standard is to do it this situation. My immediate thoughts are that if the player goes by his nickname 99.9% of the time, then that should be in the lead. Andy Roddick is a good example as I've pretty much never heard him called anything but Andy. It is his registered name in tennis as is Stan for Stan Wawrinka (which I also see you removed). I'm not so sure those changes you did are warranted. Perhaps they could be handled differently: Stanislas "Stan" Wawrinka could be Stanislas Wawrinka (Stan), or something like that. Per MOS, a player's shortened name should not be in the first sentence in quotes unless it's a wacky thing like Bunny Austin. That's reasonable. But that doesn't mean it's stricken from the lead section completely. But he requested the world call him "Stan" and that should not be stricken from the lead. He is also often called "Stan the Man"... that sort of thing should never be in the lead. But Stan and Andy need to be prominent in the lead section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The lead of Stan's article still mention he's commonly known as Stan. So I see no problem there. Regarding other examples, I have never seen Andrew Murray been referred to with a different name than Andy. Similarly, his brother James is always named Jamie.Tvx1 20:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Kazakh junior tennis players

There are discussions taking place in regards to Kazakh junior tennis players which you might be interested in.

• Anastasia Zakharova
• Violetta Romaniuk
• Laura Shalabaeva
• Tamara Cherkasova
• Diana Kuanysh

Adamtt9 (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I just tagged them all with "speedy delete" as they were created by a blocked sockpuppet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Laura-Ioana Andrei deletion discussion

at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura-Ioana Andrei for anyone interested. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

New chart

I have been rolling out our unanimous new career stats charts for many players... very time consuming to be sure. I have only had a few queries from others on them but two or three did mention one item in particular and it's being discussed at our Guidelines page. It has to do with changing the date from "September 22, 2017" or "22 September 2017" to simply "Sep 2017." A couple people must have missed our big discussion here, specifically about the date formatting. You can see the changes on the Federer and Nadal career stats pages with the new columns in the career finals sections. I think it looks pretty clean myself. Those charts are the only ones that ever listed full dates, most only have years, so months and year seemed like a good choice for the new charts. Plus some "good article" and "page of the day" discussions had outside editors wondering why we needed to be so specific and that the yearly tournament articles themselves should be the ones that show the exact dates of finals.

Anyway, this is a team effort, and just in case anyone else would rather that this one chart have a day and be tweaked to only "22 Sep 2017" it's better to do it now rather than after we have changed 100s of big name charts. As I said it's being discussed at our Guidelines page but here is fine too. The important thing is getting it right and right now it's only a minor tweak. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Lua template help needed

I wanted to add a new option for our "Tennis events" template, but it's written in Lua and it's beyond me. It's at Template:Infobox tennis tournament event. I think it's pretty important that the date of the event final be included in the infobox right up top. I added a date= section on 2017 Bank of the West Classic – Singles assuming that there must be an option for the date to appear... nope. Could someone with the ability to edit it make the addition? It could easily be required but since older tournaments might not have a know final date it should be an option. But I do think it should be right at the top above "champion." Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Why has this change already been implemented before any discussion on it has taken place?--Wolbo (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

At wikipedia we are expected to be bold in our edits. If this had been written as a standard template, I would have added the option myself. If it got reverted I would have brought it here. I'm not even sure the original template got vetted as to what to add and what not to. I noticed that the template for the seasonal article that is one tier up has the date as an option. See 2017 Bank of the West Classic. It seemed logical to add the final date to the article draw article too. Also, our new player career chart dates link to the draw articles, yet no date is mentioned at all on the draw articles. I talked about this very recently with someone but I'll have to check where it was. This seemed a no-brainer but if you'd like I'll revert myself on the 2017 Bank of the West Classic – Singles article and open it for discussion here. If no one wants the added date, I'll ask to have the option removed from the Lua template. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I found the discussion at the bottom of our Guideline talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Malfunctioning tennis template

I have detected a malfunctioning tennis template. {{Hopman}} is used to create easy links to the the pages for the different nations which have competed in this tournament. With current nations it works just fine. For instance {{Hopman|SUI}} produces Switzerland. However when used for a no longer existing nation it malfunctions {{Hopman|TCH}} produces Czechoslovakia, sporting a redlink to the nonexistent Czech republic Hopman Cup team article instead of the correct link to Czechoslovakia at the Hopman Cup. The same issue arises with {{Hopman|CIS}} which produces a redlink to Russia Hopman Cup team. I alerted this problem more than a year ago on the template's talk page, but got no response. Does anyone know what's causing this or, even better, how to solve it?Tvx1 09:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Very strange indeed. I asked at the template help page and directed them here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is coming from the internal data container {{Country data Czechoslovakia}} with the line | link alias-tennis = Czech Republic {{{mw}}} Cup team. The other issues are probably similar. nihlus kryik (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

So I'm guessing there is no way to fix it? I wonder why that country data template uses "alias-tennis = Czech Republic"... what reason does tennis need to have it set up that way? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm tempted to see what happens if that parameter is removed. I can't edit it out myself though, because that template is protected. {{Country data Yugoslavia}} does not have such a parameter and the derived tennis templates work just fine. Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia.Tvx1 18:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

True, but the problem is all the Czechoslovakia Davis Cup and Fed Cup records at wikipedia are kept at the "Czech Republic" respective articles. Since the Czech Republic takes credit for all Czechoslovakia records, that's where we have put them. It would wreck the links to those articles if you remove the coding just for Hopman Cup. So instead we would need a line of code to compensate for Hopman Cup, if possible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it would. Czechoslovakia Fed Cup team already redirects to the Czech Republic article anyway. And there is a dedicated Czechoslovakia Davis Cup team article. In any case the core country data templates should not be used to enforce redirects. If redirects are needed the tennis specific templates should generate them for the specific national competition.Tvx1 23:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

So where are we with this? Does anyone object to me requesting on the templates' talk pages for the offending parameters to be removed?Tvx1 20:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

template fyi

Just an fyi, I asked at the template request help page to add the ladies tournament info to our seasonal template. I couldn't figure out why the men, such as at 2017 Roger Federer tennis season had a template and the women had to be hard coded. From what I can tell it's because the women's tournament categories were never included. Should be a relatively simple fix. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Grand Slam Project - missing entries in the Doubles

Hello, all! I'm sorry if this is a silly question, but I've only just joined the project so I thought I should ask: is there any reason why there are missing pages for the Doubles' competitions at the Majors even though the draws are available to some of those competitions (e.g. here for 1976 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Doubles)? I don't mind filling some of these myself, I just wondering if there was something I should do before starting or what might be stopping some of you from doing it instead. Thanks! --Luisftd (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Luisftd: They just haven't been created yet. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: Thanks for the fast reply! I'll get on with it, then! --Luisftd (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Grand Slam final rounds replaced with a template

Hi, what do you think about this? @Ullhas.kolhe: Was there somewhere any discussion about this to convert the normal final rounds tables to templates? This way we will have a lot of new templates that are not really needed. On the Finnish Wikipedia I started to use section transclusions, see for example here the following codes: <section begin=sijoitetut /> and <section end=sijoitetut /> which you can then transclude to the main US Open page, see here {{#lst:Yhdysvaltain avoin tennisturnaus 2017 – miesten kaksinpeli|sijoitetut}}. The same way you can transclude the final rounds on many different pages without creating new templates. Stryn (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no reason these need to be templates. Also see: Help:Labeled section transclusion. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to be transcluded. Those brackets are only included in the the draw article of the particular tournament. The only thing this change brings is moving content from an in-article template to an external template. This only results in the creation of multiple single use templates. That does not improve anything at all and should not be done.Tvx1 14:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No, they are also transcluded on 2017 US Open Series, which prompted my comment. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Full list, going back to last year:

• {{2017 Western & Southern Open – Men's Singles QF}}
• {{2017 US Open – Women's Singles QF}}

• {{2017 US Open - Women's Singles QF}} (redirect)

• {{US Open – Men's Singles QF}}

• {{US Open - Men's Singles QF}} (redirect)

• {{2017 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles QF}}

• {{2017 Rogers Cup - Men's Singles QF}} (redirect)

• {{2016 US Open – Women's Singles QF}}

• {{2016 US Open - Women's Singles QF}} (redirect)

• {{2016 US Open – Men's Singles QF}}

• {{2016 US Open - Men's Singles QF}} (redirect)

• {{2016 Winston-Salem Open - Men's Singles QF}}

Others by different users:

• {{2016 Bank of the West Classic – Singles QF}}

• {{2016 Bank of the West Classic QF}} (redirect)
• {{2016 Bank of the West Classic - Singles QF}} (redirect)

• {{2016 BB&T Atlanta Open – Singles QF}}

• {{2016 BB&T Atlanta Open - Singles QF}} (redirect)

— nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It's one thing to have a single template that works with all finals, but to have a new template for each and every final seems counterproductive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I had noticed usage of QF templates in some old tennis articles and hence thought of implementing same here. After going through this conversation here, I agree with co-editors. I shall remove the template pages now. Ullhas.kolhe (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe my eyes are blurry?

Just wanted a few others to take a gander at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grand Slam champions. It looks 100% useless to me (which is why I nominated it) but an editor has posted that it's all new info. Maybe I'm missing something with my own judgement so could a couple others take a good look? I'll trust the Tennis Project's judgement on this one so no worries either way. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Shall we add Laver Cup to our player infoboxes?

Two regular editors have added "Laver Cup" to our main infobox template. I thought maybe it should be discussed here before the addition since not every tournament goes into the infobox. Right now the event is scheduled for the next two years, but could be disbanded after that. Is it too early to put it in the infobox or is this something we would like to display? Right now it is not sanctioned by either tennis governing body (ITF or ATP). I'm on the fence about it but mostly I thought Tennis Project should have a say. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I fumbled with this for a bit. However, I think we should include it since it already drew pretty big names. We can always remove it in the future if we want to. Is there anything like it that we can compare it to? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything like it, at least not in the Open Era. We have the Majors listed, we have the Olympics listed, we have the year-end-finals, and we have the three ITF showcase team events listed (men and women). Yes we also have their equivalents from bygone days. But we have nothing like this event to compare to that I can see... it's new ground. It's not an exhibition, but it's not sanctioned either. And remember, in the future it's not just removing it from the template, it will also be removing it from the individual player articles with broken infoboxes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the removal is extremely easy with a bot. It seems USTA and Tennis Australia have backed it, and the ATP was just miffed at its timing. It also seems to have been a relatively successful event. I would support including it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I see it was added back once again even though I asked for discussion here first. I don't feel wiki-anarchy is the way it should be, but I guess it is what it is these days. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The Laver Cup is somewhat comparable to the Kramer Cup which was a professional players' team competition between North & South America, Europe and Australia and was held, in comparative obscurity, from 1961 to 1963. As interesting as the Laver Cup may be I see no need to add it to the infobox at this stage. The infobox is not a summary list of all tournaments but is meant to show only the player's best results in the most important ones. Perhaps in a few years time the Laver Cup will gain a status that will justify its inclusion but currently it does not belong in that category.--Wolbo (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't really mind one way or another, but that comparison is extremely tenuous. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what is tenuous about it, seems a perfectly valid comparison to me. Care to explain? --Wolbo (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The Kramer Cup was when there was a divide between amateur (Davis Cup) and professional tennis players. We also have an ex post facto look on its failure to take off. The only similarity is that it's a team competition; in addition, the Laver Cup was not announced as a cup to compete against the Davis Cup. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

But it might suffer the same fate as the Kramer Cup... we just don't know yet. To be fair, I hope this format does well. Davis and Fed Cup year-long formats are dying (at least in the larger tennis nations). It would be great if 20 years from now we look at a thriving internationally sanctioned event. But maybe when Federer and Nadal retire, this event will be gone too. I hope Murray and Djokovic play next year, but it might even be more of a rout in favor of Europe. While I would lean against including it at this time, my main purpose was to get more eyes on an issue that affects a template used by every player. It's a minor blip on "what needs fixing in tennis articles" but discussion is always a good thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Even with the discussion, you should view the fact that people are trying to add it as support for inclusion. In addition, WP:CRYSTAL. We should act as if the current status will continue. Once that changes, appropriate action can then be taken at that time. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the Laver Cup merits infobox inclusion at this stage. I can certainly see a case being made for it in the future, but it seems like it would just be excess cruft at the moment. Sellyme^Talk 09:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No matter how you turn it, it remains an exhibition event. It should not be included. It does not rank at the same level as the most important World Tour events (yet). Winning it doesn't even close to winning a Grand Slam tournament, a national team event, the World Tour finals or even the Olympics. We don't list all of the Masters 1000 events in the infoboxes either, don't we? I'm really sad to see this comment on the "dying" Davis and Fed Cup. I went to support my country in the semifinal and I can guarantee you from the sheer euphoria in the crowd and the delight of the players the whole three days that this competition is not dying. Much more attention was given to the Davis Cup than to the Laver Cup a week later.Tvx1 10:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I think sources and players will tell you otherwise with Davis Cup. There was a time when the best players would rather skip Wimbledon rather than tire themselves out and perform badly at Davis Cup. Emerson wouldn't turn pro because it would mean he wouldn't get to play in Davis Cup. The best players skip the event. Oh sometimes they play if their country happens to reach a final, but otherwise it's way down the list of priorities. Patrick Rafter just talked about it yesterday. He's worried about the Laver Cup. McEnroe spoke about it too. It will never have the same importance it did 75 years ago, but it would be nice if they made changes to keep it relevant to the big name players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That's just a question of perception. Yes, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray skip the Davis Cup now, but that's only after having previously helped their team win the event (some even multiple times). In fact, Djokovic and Murray aren't playing at all because they're injured. The same applied to del Potro, Raonic and Wawrinka. All five of the latter have missed both the Davis Cup and the Laver Cup in the last fortnight. If they are able to however, they play in the Davis Cup. Murray won eleven of the twelve necessary point GB needed to win the Davis Cup in 2015 by himself (well his brother aided him to win a couple). Del potro helped his nation win the competition in 2016 (and did you even see how far he and Murray pushed one another in the 2016 semifinal? It sure as hell mattered to them). Djokovic played when he was still able to in the first two rounds in 2017 and helped his nation win a couple of years ago. Federer and Wawrinka played all throughout the 2014 edition to help their nation lift the trophy. Your claim that they only appear when their countries reach a final is utterly ludicrous. There was no tie for Spain in September, so Nadal and Verdasco were free to play the Laver Cup. The same applies to the US players. Moreover, Čilić, Thiem, Shapovalov and Kyrgios (who as his nation's top player led his team captained by the last of their players to win it, in narrow semifinal defeat) all played both in the Davis Cup and in the Laver Cup in successive weekends. The insinuation that the latter is already more important than the former is simply ridiculous.Tvx1 13:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Spaghetti racquets

Do we have an image anywhere? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

By "we" I assume you mean at wikpedia commons. Not that I could see. There are plenty of pics of spaghetti rackets around the web such as at Wood Tennis, but finding public domain pics will be a challenge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck(click). Ah yes, I, er, meant "we" as in "Weekimedia Commons". :) Kidding, of course. I should have said Commons.

So, I just emailed the site above. Fingers crossed. Maybe an avid tennis person reading this has one in a closet somewhere.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I used one when I won Wimbledon back in.... oh wait, that was a dream. never mind. :) Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, Fyunck(click), a very kind man at that site just emailed me back saying images would be forthcoming. Still, fingers crossed. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That can be tricky. From experience here, he has to prove he took the photos, and upload the pics to commons himself. Or he has to show they are public domain. I hope it works out and crossing my fingers too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck(click). I do understand. I made it clear in the email that he must own the rights. I will really press him on that point. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

What happened to me was the following. We had an old female tennis great, multiple Grand Slam tournament winner with no public domain photo. She was quite elderly. I took it upon myself to find her and correspond, begging for a photo that she could release to wikipedia. She got back to me and mailed a personal photo that we could use. Wikimedia said no. The tennis player actually emailed me with the go ahead which I sent to wikimedia... still no. I asked what if i got a snail mail letter release..... still a big fat no. They said they would give me some release papers to have her sign. Sorry but she was offering a personal photo out of the goodness of her heart and I wasn't about to send paperwork to her across the ocean. She was not savvy enough to use flikr at her age. So we got nothing. I apologized to her and thanked her, but I was furious with wikimedia for trying to make her jump through hoops. I sure hope you have better luck than me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck(click). That is terrible. I can understand why you were furious.

I have had good results and bad ones. My latest was bad. Just recently, I emailed someone for an image for their article. I made it clear that only ones to which he owned the rights were okay. He emailed me two. He had rights to neither. Before I could email him the link for OTRS, they were tagged for deletion. I emailed him explaining, asking for new images. Silence.

On the other side, I have had many, many successes, both with getting images via email, uploading on their behalf, then getting them to send in the OTRS release, and also, getting them to register and upload themselves.

All in all, I think it is worth the effort.

As for these tennis images, I suspect the site owner just found them here and there. I mean, how would it come about that he would own so many images of those rackets? Plus, a couple of them are watermarked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and the one that really stuck in my craw was Koko (gorilla). They never returned my two emails or anything. How hard could it be to take a snapshot of that ape and get it into the article? There's no reason not to. I just might email them again now. It has been a few years. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that tennis pic really upset me, but there have been successes for me as well. Rufus the Hawk comes to mind as we had none and I saw a twitter account post a pic. That person was young enough to understand flickr and I convinced them to give up one of their photos to public domain. That's all I do now... try to convince someone to post it to flickr with the proper tags, or hopefully post one of my own pics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Well done with the Rufus pic. Because Flickr is blocked from my location, I must resort to emails. As long as my success ratio is good, I will keep it up. As for the rackets, well, no emails still. I guess he didn't own the pics after all. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Reading all the above correspondation, all please keep in mind that it is always the photographer who owns the rights, and not the depicted person. This is a very common mistake that is made over and over again, people releasing an image to a free license, saying "I can do that, because I'm on the image". No, you can't! Only the photographer can. Then people tell us: I paid for the picture. It's completely mine. But still no, you paid for a license to use the image, not to change the license. You *can* pay to get the copyrights, but this is actually always a contractual change, so you get written permission, and usually pay more then juswt for "a license to use the image". In my humble opinion, it's not good to email a person to ask for their image. We can however, email a person, and ask them to bring us in contact with the photographer of one of their images. Or we can ask them if a person close to them can make a picture for us, with a digital camera/phone/etc. Then we deal with the copyright owner of the image, and then we can get some succes. If we only contact the depicted person, chances are really big that we waste time and get frustration as a result. Edoderoo (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

We're not talking about a picture of a person but of on a object (a racquet). So asking someone who made such a picture to release actually is a good tactic.Tvx1 10:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Aha, I missed that bit ;-) Yeah, if we then talk to the photographer, then releasing the copyrights and changing the license is "business as usual" for an OTRS-member. If I still can be of any help in the above matter, feel free to contact me. Edoderoo (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarify coach(es) and retired players

I ran into a conversation the other day about the same template as the above conversation, Template:Infobox tennis biography. They weren't clear about what we meant by "coach(es)" in the infobox. I know we have had this conversation at Tennis Project before, about how it is for the current coach or current coaches, not for a list of coaches they had since puberty. That kind of list should be in prose in a coaching section if need be. I made it clearer in the documentation today to help new editors. But then I noticed something. Someone has just added the parameter to our Jimmy Connors article. I didn't delete it, but obviously current coach won't work for retired or deceased players. I guess we would either not use the parameter on those players or document it as it being the main coach the player had when they played tennis. But a main coach could be a bit subjective if they had 3 to 10 coaches in their career. I wasn't sure how to word it in the documentation for the template (since it was a little more than just clarification) so I'm asking for some input on retired players. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

My view is that if there's a consensus "main" coach that should obviously be used, but if there's dispute over a main coach I'm not sure whether it would be better to simply list the most recent one or to not list a coach in the infobox at all. I'm leaning towards the latter (if there's no single coach heavily associated with a retired player, how many people are really going to be looking for that information? I doubt it's enough to warrant it being in the infobox), but I could go either way. Sellyme^Talk 18:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

What's funny is the history of the coach(es) addition to the template. On June 30 2013, user "Trust is all you need" removed "college" and replaced it with "coach." There was no discussion. An editor noticed college had been removed and added it back, but left the new coach parameter. On July 17 2013 "Trust is all you need" changed it to "coach(es)." It was not added to the documentation of the template until July 2015 by user Tomcat7 with no discussion. There was nothing wrong with adding it using the "be bold" mantra of wikipedia, unless it's challenged, which no one seems to have done at the time... likely because no one noticed. Do I think it's pertinent to have a coach or coach(es) parameter in the infobox, no. But it has been there 4 years and it's no big deal I guess. But it should say coach instead of coach(es) since that added (es) has caused confusion to some. It was discussed here at the Tennis Project fairly recently that the infobox is for the current coach and others coaches should be in prose if the warrant inclusion. I would agree that retired players no not need a coach listed at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Longwood Cup and Longwood Bowl

Can anyone help with identifying which of these two tournaments 'The Longwood Cup' and The 'Longwood Bowl' did William Larned win a record 11 times. I assume it was held here Longwood Cricket Club. I have sources for his eleven wins but is says 'Longwood Tournament' appreciate any help thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I always thought the "Longwood Cup" was the ladies event. From sources, I know when Larned won the "Longwood Bowl" in 1898 it was his third victory in the event (1894, 1897, 1898), and because of that the bowl became his. That is per Wright & Ditson. I believe he also won it in 1903, 1904 and 1905 but I think it only says Longwood and nothing else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Per Wright & Ditson 1910, Bill Larned won in 1909 for his 12th title at the Longwood Bowl. But in 1910 it was won by his younger brother Edward when William defaulted in the final. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Very much appreciated Fyunck you are a star :).--Navops47 (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi have just downloaded the 27 March 1912 guide and it has 12 wins for Larned listed on page 38 as the 'Longwood Challenge Cup. is this a different event?--Navops47 (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

YoungDylan

This user is making major changes to several articles, e.g. Kim Clijsters career statistics, Sabine Lisicki career statistics. He does not appear to want Grand Slam titles/finals to be included in the same table as the other career final statistics, as he says they're organised by the ITF (which is technically correct). Problem is his changes will affect so many articles (basically anyone who has reached any kind of Grand Slam final) so I told him to create a discussion about this to reach a consensus first. He doesn't appear to want to do this though as his response is to now stubbornly claim there is "no argument" about this. 86.17.57.21 (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The distinction of which organisation runs a tournament is pretty clearly not within the scope of a statistics article, and not one that needs to be made in the first place when the ITF-run Slams are still part of the "WTA Tour" anyway. The claim of "no argument" is nonsense. Sellyme^Talk 13:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I got them all reverted. It was harder because 50 other changes were done other than the non-consensus charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like he's continuing to do it and he's now removing country names from infoboxes. Keep a close watch here folks. I've let him know that it's not correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

He is also removing the term "professional" from all tennis players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's time to request administrator assistance now. It's clear this user is not here to help to build an encylopedia.Tvx1 22:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm having a long conversation with him on his talk page. A bit combative, but he has stopped as of this moment. I told him if he has issues or questions, to bring it to this talk page. Fingers crossed because I was pretty much done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And then after leaving a message on his talk page he went and removed "professional" once again. Sigh. I reverted once but he brought it right back. I mean we have amateur players, and jrs and college players... and professional players. Federer's article says "Swiss professional tennis player." Nadal's says "Spanish professional tennis player". Why does he keep removing things? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I have let an administrator know about this situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

And he is still removing the word "professional" from all tennis player articles and I've reverted it my share of times. I guess my question is, do we want to remove the word "professional" from the lead of all articles? If so I'll let him continue to do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about article creation

Hi I have found a tournament with individual sources (NP & Books) for (Shreveport) 1968, (WCT Event) 1975, (Grand Prix event) 1978, (Non-tour exhibition event) do you create three separate pages or can they be listed as one page but make clear the differences. --Navops47 (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

As no one has responded I will go ahead and draft this article.--Navops47 (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

World Professional Tennis League

Hi can someone shed light on the World Professional Tennis League I keep finding it mentioned in sources here and here and here I was under the impression there was no organisation set up to administer professional tennis prior to 1968 and from other sources In have found it administered the World Pro tours and its not mentioned in the History of Tennis article nor in the Professional tours section.--Navops47 (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Also no mention an even earlier World Union of Tennis Professionals formed in 1931 here.--Navops47 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It was just one of those failed adventures that tried to get the few pros there were, contracted to play together as a league. It came into being in March of 1947 and had the main purpose of establishing a national open tournament for both amateurs and pros similar to that which existed in golf. A Pro-Am event. Vinnie Richards was named commish of the new league. He got Pauline Betz and Sarah Palfrey signed, but that's about it. They failed to sign up any noteworthy pros so it folded on Dec 22 1947. I'm not sure if his commissioner title was really anything more than that of a promoter like Cash and Carry Pyle, Jack Harris or Bobby Riggs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fyunck should we not at least include a mention of both in the pro section whether failed or not also in the 1950's Jack Kramer's World Tennis Inc here keeps coming up in newspaper sources was that a forerunner before the NTL & WCT?--Navops47 (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

As long as we source it. I know nothing about "World Union of Tennis Professionals." I saw your link but it's all I've ever heard of it, so we might need a bit more to really say anything about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay will keep digging about also found this one the International Professional Tennis Players Association late 1950's early 1960's here.--Navops47 (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Move request for Ana Ivanovic

There is a request to move tennis icon Ana Ivanovic to Ana Ivanović. Join in if interested. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Tennis

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 19:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Kazakh tennis players

I feel like this keeps happening frequently, but someone keeps creating articles for junior Kazakh tennis players that are nowhere near notable. Now we have Diana Nogombayeva and Diana Zhantemirova, and the creator keeps removing PROD tags. Is there any way we can get all of these Kazakh articles to stop? I remember we had to deal this earlier in the year here but this keeps happening. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Those earlier ones were deleted because it was a sockpuppet of banned user JulianLeeberher09. Perhaps he is back? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

WTA template change

Noticed the WTA link at the bottom of Sai Jayalakshmy Jayaram returned "page not found", found her article on the WTA website : http://www.wtatennis.com/players/player/100118/title/sai-jayalakshmy-jayaram so changed the template to use id of 100118 but that returned "page not found also". Went to the WTA template and found in the talk a request for the template to be changed to reflect a change in the WTA website... Any news on this ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Added the id's to wikidata and updated the WTA and Fed Cup links to make them use wikidata.--Wolbo (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger of Torneo Godó/Open SEAT Godó articles

Just wondering if anybody from the project could take a look at the following pairs of articles, which are clearly duplicates of each other and therefore should be completely uncontroversial mergers, and perform the necessary merge/redirect process... if you can't, let me know and I'll do the merging, but I'll need to know which article name should be used (or possibly "20xx Barcelona Open"...)

• 2001 Open SEAT Godó ⟷ 2001 Torneo Godó
• 2001 Open SEAT Godó – Singles ⟷ 2001 Torneo Godó – Singles
• 2002 Open SEAT Godó ⟷ 2002 Torneo Godó
• 2002 Open SEAT Godó – Singles ⟷ 2002 Torneo Godó – Singles
• 2004 Open SEAT Godó – Singles ⟷ 2004 Torneo Godó – Singles

Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Richard3120, had a look at the articles and carried out the merges and redirects. Thanks for the trigger.--Wolbo (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wolbo: thanks for doing that. It was obvious the articles were duplicates, but as I'm not especially a tennis fan I didn't know which of the two article titles would be the better one to use, so I thought I should leave it to someone who knows. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

WTA performance timeline query

I was asked about this recently so I thought I'd bring it up to see what editors thought. The question was basically why can't the WTA players' performance timeline combine the Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 entries into one section? It was mentioned that the two are pretty identical, there would be 9 of them just like the men have, and more importantly they would be chronological amongst the 9 so we could more easily see yearly progression. I forgot to get back to the questioner and i just remembered it so I'm posting it now. I don't care one way or the other, but it certainly is not a horrible idea. What are the pros and cons for tweaking the guideline or allowing flexibility on this particular issue? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Would not be in favor of merging Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 tournaments into a single section on the timeline. They are indeed quite similar, the points difference is only around 10%, and I can see the benefit of the chronological order but ultimately they are two distinct categories and therefore it is better to present them as such. Besides chronological order on the timeline is not guaranteed as tournaments can move around on the calendar.--Wolbo (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Players' Prize Money

Hi, does anybody know why the prize money of players evolved recently, even if the players did not play at the end of 2017 ? For instance, Roger Federer had $ 110,617,682 in end November, and now it is $ 111,885,682. A.Gust14 (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Hopman Cup money? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Federer's extra money is probably from the 2017 ATP bonus pool at the end of the season. There should be rules for the bonus pool at http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/corporate/rulebook but the PDF links currently fail for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The two numbers are $1,268,000 apart. 2017 Roger Federer tennis season#Earnings says "Bonus Pool $1,200,000". But I found a cached page saying you got $1,268,000 in 2017 for being year-end #2 and playing 7 of the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 and ATP Finals. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ! No it cannot be Hopman Cup which is not finished yet. Apparently, Bonus Pool could help to explain it, but indeed the official rulebook (here, page 9) says that $ 1,200,000 should be granted for the year-end #2. Definitely I do not understand where the extra $ 68,000 come from. A.Gust14 (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Your url says 3feb17. http://www.atpworldtour.com/-/media/files/rulebook/2017/2017-atp-rulebook_chapter-i_24aug17.pdf says 24aug17 and $1,268,000. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

So that's perfect! Thanks for your help. A.Gust14 (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment

Big Four (tennis), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. Tvx1 20:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Career record ambiguity problem

This is verified.

1. ATP keeps separate records for ATP World Tour, ATP Challenger Tour and ITF Pro (Futures) Tour. What is listed as career W-L ratio in info boxes in almost all cases is ATP World Tour W-L if it exists. Problem with info boxes is "how the hell am I supposed to know that if I am a first time reader or tennis noob??". This has to be fixed so it's easily understood. Now is the case that it's necessary to check other places to be sure if it is what the person thinks it is, 'cause maybe the one who edited it had wrong impression.
2. Problem with WTA W-L. We can see all kinds of W-L records in wiki articles. It is definitely not clear what is counted. Does it include just WTA Tour or it also includes 125 series or it also includes ITF Pro series. From what I've seen there is a mixture of everything; usually ITF pro matches are counted - that is according to cross referencing it with ITF.com. (WTA database is in shambles, but that is no excuse.)

I urge you to fix that.213.149.51.218 (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

2006 Ordina Open – Women's Doubles

The 2006 Ordina Open – Women's Doubles article could do with using the proper draw templates. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done the hard work and wikified this. Iffy★Chat -- 21:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice job. --Wolbo (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Tennis performance timeline

The first time I saw a performance timeline table, I thought, wow, a lot of work must have been put into decorating the table and making updates to the table easy. Then, I looked at the source code for the table, only to find out that the whole table is hardcoded, and updating the table is painstaking like this, where many cells need to be changed. Even worse, when the next year arrives, the whole table needs to be revisited so that a new column is added, like this. But most of the cells in these updates can be computed from other cells. What if we can update the table by adding a line or two, and let those computable cells update themselves?

For the past week, I have been coding up a template that does exactly that. Let's look at an example of how a performance timeline table can now be written:

Wikitext

Output

{{tld|tennis performance timeline |country=SUI |year|2012 |GS Australian Open|SF|4|1 |Davis Cup|1R|2|1 |1000 Indian Wells|W|6|0 |1000 Miami|3R|1|1 |1000 Madrid|W|5|0 |1000 Rome|SF|3|1 |GS French Open|SF|5|1 |GS Wimbledon|W|7|0 |Summer Olympics|F-S|5|1 |1000 Cincinnati|W|5|0 |GS US Open|QF|3|1 |1000 Shanghai|SF|3|1 |World Tour Finals|F|3|2 |outdoor|hard|8|30|4|3|0 |outdoor|clay|3|15|2|1|0 |outdoor|grass|3|15|2|1|2 |indoor|hard|3|11|3|1|2 |indoor|clay|0|0|1|0|0 |rank|2 |year|2013 |GS Australian Open|SF|5|1 |1000 Indian Wells|QF|3|1 |1000 Madrid|3R|1|1 |1000 Rome|F|4|1 |GS French Open|QF|4|1 |GS Wimbledon|2R|1|1 |1000 Cincinnati|QF|2|1 |GS US Open|4R|3|1 |1000 Shanghai|3R|1|1 |1000 Paris|SF|3|1 |World Tour Finals|SF|2|2 |outdoor|hard|6|17|6|0|0 |outdoor|clay|5|12|5|0|1 |outdoor|grass|2|5|1|1|0 |indoor|hard|4|11|5|0|1 |rank|6 }}

{{tennis performance timeline|year|2012|GS Australian Open|SF|4|1|Davis Cup|1R|2|1|1000 Indian Wells|W|6|0|1000 Miami|3R|1|1|1000 Madrid|W|5|0|1000 Rome|SF|3|1|GS French Open|SF|5|1|GS Wimbledon|W|7|0|Summer Olympics|F-S|5|1|1000 Cincinnati|W|5|0|GS US Open|QF|3|1|1000 Shanghai|SF|3|1|World Tour Finals|F|3|2|outdoor|hard|8|30|4|3|0|outdoor|clay|3|15|2|1|0|outdoor|grass|3|15|2|1|2|indoor|hard|3|11|3|1|2|indoor|clay|0|0|1|0|0|rank|2|year|2013|GS Australian Open|SF|5|1|1000 Indian Wells|QF|3|1|1000 Madrid|3R|1|1|1000 Rome|F|4|1|GS French Open|QF|4|1|GS Wimbledon|2R|1|1|1000 Cincinnati|QF|2|1|GS US Open|4R|3|1|1000 Shanghai|3R|1|1|1000 Paris|SF|3|1|World Tour Finals|SF|2|2|outdoor|hard|6|17|6|0|0|outdoor|clay|5|12|5|0|1|outdoor|grass|2|5|1|1|0|indoor|hard|4|11|5|0|1|rank|6}}

We only need to specify the "principal" input to the table, like |outdoor|hard|8|30|4|3|0, which means, out of 8 tournaments that use outdoor hard courts, this player has won 30 times, lost 4 times, won 3 titles, and was a runner-up 0 times. Then, after the conclusion of the next outdoor hard-court tournament, only this line needs to be updated, and the rest of the table takes care of updating itself.

For tournaments that matter like a Grand Slam, we need another cell to display the outcome, so we need another line, but only one more, like |GS Australian Open|SF|4|1, which means, in this Australian Open, the player reaches the semifinal, and won 4 matches and lost one match. These numbers are then tallied and displayed elsewhere in the table, and this line doesn't need to be touched again.

I hope I am convincing that it is much easier to code performance timeline tables this way. I have worked up a few examples here. So far, the template works only with male players, with some coverage of older seasons before the ATP, but should be able to represent stats in the last ten years. The "data" part for this template, like definitions of various tournaments, still needs some work, but the machinery for generating the table is there.

Now, you might notice slight differences in the table layout from the guideline. Most notably, the series heading (e.g., Grand Slam) is no longer a row, but rather the leftmost column. This is to comply with accessibility requirements. There are other changes which might be worth a discussion. For example, the overall win percentage is shown only once instead of twice, which might have confused readers. If you have concerns about them, feel free to bring them up.

More details about the template usage can be found in its documentation, but I would like to keep this initial post short for now. I hope this template can be put into good use. Questions, comments, and suggestions welcome. Cheers, Chinissai (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to think on this a spell. One minor thing would be to change instances of "Roland Garros" to "French Open." Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

GS French Open is how a French Open tournament is coded up in wikitext. I chose that because the ATP uses that term. It's still displayed as "French Open" in the table. Chinissai (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It just looks strange because in English and wikipedia we refer to it as the French Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said, that's only used in coding, so it won't "look" strange to readers. Chinissai (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks strange if I have to create it, so it should also work with "French Open" to go with those who work on the articles and prefer to use that term. I see you also made it Rome as opposed to Italian. I'm not sure it flows as nicely as our current rendition and a lot of the accessibility issue is old news (I was told current screen readers work well with our tables). It would also have to have a counterpart to our simplified Grand Slam only tables, so they look the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you spend some time reading the template documentation? There is a way to code this table once and pass an option to show only part of it. As for accessibility, the current tables as shown in the guideline have the same setup as the bad example in the accessibility guide. The "Grand Slam" row is a column header, because it applies to the four rows that follows: screen readers should read one of these four rows as, "Tournament, Grand Slam, Australian Open, 2012, semifinal, ..." Even if you might have tricked screen readers by not making the "Grand Slam" row a column header, I don't think this is the right way to represent data. If you believe accessibility issues are old news, please raise them at the MOS page; I am in no position to call that. Chinissai (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There are other issues at stake. These tables as they stand now, can get quite wide (as with Roger Federer). You have now made an extra column which is fairly wide. That is also tough with small screens and so might hinder our many readers. You'll note that the tables in the bad/good examples are not continually growing wider. They have a set number of columns where we don't. The year Federer's career stats table comes up twice to make it easier to look from top to bottom without losing track of the year. So that might have to get added to the bottom of your rendition. Another thing I see with the "good example" is they have to finagle the width of the table and then make each of the columns a certain width... otherwise the two tables wouldn't line up properly. We have found that different browsers handle widths differently. One may try to wrap a line, while others leave extra white space. I like the idea of not having to hardcode each and every table. All I'm saying is there's lots to consider. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand the desire to keep everything lined up nicely in columns; otherwise I would have split the table as in the "good example" on the MOS page. Is a table too wide a real issue? These tables won't fit a mobile screen anyway, so trying to minimize the number of columns or reduce the font size wouldn't fully solve the problem. I do agree with you, however, that when the table gets too long, one can lose track of the year in the career summary, so a compromise should be made without sacrificing accessibility. I think it is possible to repeat the header row as the last row of the table, after year-end rankings, without confusing screen readers. But we have to check with accessibility people to see if that would actually work. Chinissai (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it can certainly be tweaked to assess your concerns. Regarding your request for a separate Grand Slam only version. It appears already to provide for that. If you code the propose table to only display GS tournaments you get:

This table includes results through the conclusion of the 2017 Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters.

Tournament	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	SR	W–L	Win %
Australian Open	A	A	Q1	1R	3R	0 / 2	2–2	50.00%
French Open	A	A	Q2	3R		0 / 1	2–1	66.67%
Wimbledon	A	A	2R	3R		0 / 2	3–2	60.00%
US Open	A	Q2	1R	2R		0 / 2	1–2	33.33%
Win–Loss	–	–	1–2	5–4	2–1	0 / 7	8–7	53.33%

It looks nearly identical to the one we have currently. It would tweak it in two ways though. I would make the bottom row use header cell like in the existing tables and I would ditch the tooltips. The legend these tables are accompanied with are sufficient to explain the codes and colors if you ask me.Tvx1 12:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for trying out the template! To comment on your suggestions:

• To comply with accessibility MOS, we can't make a cell a header unless it actually is a header, or screen readers would be confused on how to read a regular cell. I think the boldface is already enough as a visual cue to readers.
• The idea of including tooltips in the table is to again provide accessibility (as claimed in {{abbr}}). Without tooltips, screen readers wouldn't be able to interpret the meaning of "A" or "4R". An unintended consequence of including tooltips in the table is that we don't need to include {{performance key}}, as all abbreviations used in the table are accompanied with their meanings. Chinissai (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree the tool tips is not a good thing over and over and over. They can be included in the key so that we don't have to be annoyed by it in the chart. "Grand Slam" should say "Tournamant, and should be the same size as the year fonts... otherwise it looks comical. The win/loss row should be grey. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why having a bunch of tooltips is a bad thing. They don't seem to be an annoyance, at least to me. Not having them, on the other hand, makes the table inaccessible. I also don't understand why the win-loss row needs to be gray. Font size is consistent throughout the table, nothing comical here; not sure why you see different sizes. The top-left cell says "Grand Slam" because this particular table talks only about Grand Slam tournaments, so we can be specific here. Chinissai (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Many things don't have to be done a certain way, but by consensus we arrived at the best way we could. So the best thing is to try under your system to make the tables look as close to the originals as possible. The bottom was grey so it should remain grey. Tool tips are annoying to many (me included). If they are few and far between they are fine, but if they are covering a table they become intrusive. Even the dots below the abbreviations make a table look busier. The term Grand Slam looks bolder and bigger than the years in the same row. That should not be. And Tournament is preferable. Actually it does not need to be linked at all nor do the years. Our guidelines do not show linkage in these terms. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The small table should look like the following:

Key

W

F

SF

QF

#R

RR

Q#

DNQ

A

NH

(W) winner; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; (RR) round-robin stage; (Q#) qualification round; (DNQ) did not qualify; (A) absent; (NH) not held; (SR) strike rate (events won / competed); (W–L) win–loss record.

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

Tournament	1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980	1981	SR	W–L	Win %
Australian Open	A	3R	A	A	A	A	A	A	A	0 / 1	1–1	50.00
French Open	4R	W	W	QF	A	W	W	W	W	6 / 8	49–2	96.08
Wimbledon	QF	3R	QF	W	W	W	W	W	F	5 / 9	51–4	92.73
US Open	4R	2R	SF	F	4R	F	QF	F	F	0 / 9	40–9	81.63
Win–Loss	10–3	11–3	16–2	17–2	10–1	20–1	18–1	20–1	19–2	11 / 27	141–16	89.81

If that can be done in an easy to fill in manner, great! The spacing on yours looks way too cramped for some reason. And the events should not be grey. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. So far, all I have heard is, something should be done this way, another thing should not be done that way, but I am not given a reason why they need to be the way they are. Have I tried looking for these reasons? Yes, but I couldn't find any discussion anywhere about consensus, so I would appreciate pointers to those discussions. I hope you have noticed that I tried to mimic the current tables as much as possible, and, yes, I have looked at a bunch of existing performance timeline tables and how they are presented, so I am aware of them; no need to reproduce them here. I was trying not to sound too intrusive, hoping my awareness was clear from the get-go, but I guess it wasn't. Where I see change would bring improvements, I incorporated them into the new implementation, and I have explained here why I did them the way I did them. I hope you can convince me why previous consensus gave the current layout, so I can ponder whether it is appropriate to challenge the consensus. I hope I am being clear that I am looking for something other than, "that's the way it's been done," or, "it wouldn't be consistent with what we already have," because we can always keep things consistent by either using this template, or not. Let's be constructive, shall we?

The timeline table in the guideline has links for years. So, do we actually have a consensus on this? I continue to wonder.

On the spacing issue, I was experimenting with padding reduction to see if it helps narrow the table. It seems you (one person!) don't like it; fine, I just removed that (that's a huge favor!). Simple. Chinissai (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, consensus does need to be achieved before we can implement something new. I am not sure that complaining about people having their doubts on this new template will lead to anything productive. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Believe me, there are many other, more productive things for me to do than venting. I felt the discussion got stuck because one person (so far) did not want change, and we seemed to be focusing on minor formatting things rather than how to make the template handle a majority of players. But it seems from below the discussion might be heading in that direction. Fingers crossed. Chinissai (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, the links for years is there for the men, not for the ladies. We are flexible in certain aspects. It would probably be best to give us a table that is not hardcoded but pretty much exactly as our guidelines have it. And how will this work with all the tournament changes and name changes through the years? We have to take those items into consideration also. They were not always Masters 1000 events. We have a lot of flexibility in hardcoding and we need to maintain that flexibility in a template. You say it would be great to have a template for this, and I agree. You say we need to change certain looks, and we disagree. That's what this discussion is about. The template needs to be very flexible because tennis is very flexible. As long as we have lots of possible parameters it might work. This is certainly not going to be something we add to the guidelines overnight. It might take months and months of wrangling and fine tuning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, it has become clear that you were not aware of several examples that demonstrate how flexible the template is, so far. I invite you to take a look at them. Of course, how data are represented in these examples are subject to discussion, but they are represented that way because I couldn't find a consistent way they are currently being represented. I hope these examples are convincing enough that links on years, etc., will not be a setback. Chinissai (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

On that note, I am looking to code more tables for male players to expand coverage, so a list of players to look at will be helpful to me. Let's do the men's side for now and move to the women's side when I feel we are ready. Appreciate it! Chinissai (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

On "easy to fill in," I'm not sure if my following demonstration will address that, but let me try anyway. It will take a lot of space, so I will keep them collapsed; feel free to expand.

Let's see how to include Federer's performance tables in two places, the main article, and the career stats article. The idea is to code the table once, so I did that in Template:Tennis performance timeline/Roger Federer. Then, to use this table, we transclude it on appropriate pages. For the career stats page, we just invoke the template without passing any option:

Extended content
Wikitext Output {{tld|tennis performance timeline/Roger Federer}} {{tennis performance timeline/Roger Federer}}

For the main article, we pass an option to display only the Grand Slam tournaments:

Extended content
Wikitext Output {{tld|tennis performance timeline/Roger Federer|types=GS}} {{tennis performance timeline/Roger Federer}}

So, code the table once, use it everywhere. Chinissai (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

So would we be able to change the preference of the font size for larger tables? Right now your example of Jimmy Connors is unusable. On his actual article we have it at 85% to make it work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

To call my example "unusable" is downright offensive; it represents the same data as the current table, so it can be used. It might have gone off your screen because your screen is too small for that table, but it fits on mine. This brings us back to the fundamental question of whether a table too wide is a real issue, because these tables won't fit a mobile screen anyway. Chinissai (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it stands now, no reasonable person would leave that Connors chart the way you show it. It is unusable in this encyclopedia without changes. I'm asking, how do we change the fonts (and therefore table size) easily on these tables if they are coded into a template as you suggest? We need to be able to do that. So my question still stands... how do we do it using your template? We need to have that flexibility to change it to 85%. I'm glad you are attempting this as a template that does all the figuring is a good thing. But it has to be the right template. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now you are being more offensive to me by calling me an unreasonable person. Great. And I'm still left with wonder why my table is "unusable." You need to give me specifics on why it is non-encyclopedic. Without reasons, I don't see the need to do what you asked, to reduce the font size. I need to truly understand the problem you are having before I can fix it. So, until I do, I am not going to answer your question. I hope this is fair. On the flip side, my earlier question to you still stands. Over. Chinissai (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's put it another way. You have to convince many many editors here at Tennis Project the we need this change to our charts. The coding as it's done today is understood well by many article creators. they are comfortable with it and change isn't easy. If a better new template was created and the charts remained identical to how they are today (just more easily added to articles), with the same abilities as before, it would probably be an easy sell. I'd be in line to buy. However, if the charts are different or look worse and are inflexible in what we can do with them, that is a difficult sell. If we can't easily change the font size, like we do today, that is a deal breaker for myself. I adjust those things all the time. 100% size is what we tend to use for 1-10 year veterans. After that tweaks sometimes have to be done. If those tools tips remain I will be extremely hesitant to agree also. The extra column doesn't look as good as the charts today but if the sight challenged have no way of reading it then we have to look at that.

This is also being done in LUA isn't it? Most here have problems understanding that coding as opposed to standard templates, so every time we would want a change we have to call in a an expert to change it. It also needs to be flexible on multiple tournament names throughout history since it will need to work for 150 years of tennis. You started out of the gate with me not being able to write French Open when I add data. You said I would have to use Roland Garros. That is an inflexible chart since French Open is the preferred name in English. They should both work if typed in as opposed to getting an error. So no, you don't have to do anything different to the chart, but then good luck getting it accepted. These are my own opinions so its mileage may vary with others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand Fyunck though. You're not really up for season. So far you have not been willing to consider any of the proposed tweaks. You keep seeing them as criticism instead of the constructive suggestions they are. I'm getting the impression that you didn't came here to make your template into a visually identical but easier to edit and maintain way of our timelines but merely to seek approval to enroll your template as is. We should really start working together to improve your basis instead of criticizing each other. For instance, I guess the font size can be set like this:Tvx1 10:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

This table includes results through the conclusion of the 2017 Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters. Tournament 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SR W–L Win % Tournament Australian Open A Q1 3R 3R 4R 4R W SF W W SF F W SF SF SF SF 3R SF W 5 / 18 87–13 87.00% French Open A 1R 4R QF 1R 1R 3R SF F F F W QF F SF QF 4R QF A 1 / 17 65–16 80.25% Wimbledon A 1R 1R QF 1R W W W W W F W QF QF W 2R F F SF 7 / 18 84–11 88.42% US Open A Q2 3R 4R 4R 4R W W W W W F SF SF QF 4R SF F A 5 / 16 78–11 87.64% Win–Loss – 0–2 7–4 13–4 6–4 13–3 22–1 24–2 27–1 26–1 24–3 26–2 20–3 20–4 19–3 13–4 19–4 18–4 10–2 7–0 18 / 69 314–51 86.03% Year-end championships ATP World Tour Finals Did not qualify SF W W F W W RR SF W W F SF F F DNQ 6 / 14 52–12 81.25% Win–Loss – – – – 3–1 5–0 5–0 4–1 5–0 4–1 1–2 2–2 5–0 5–0 3–2 2–2 4–0 4–1 – – 6 / 14 52–12 81.25% Masters 1000 Indian Wells Masters A A Q1 1R 3R 2R W W W 2R SF SF 3R SF W QF F F A W 5 / 16 57–11 83.82% Miami Open A 1R 2R QF F QF 3R W W 4R QF SF 4R SF 3R A QF A A W 3 / 16 50–13 79.37% Monte Carlo Masters A 1R 1R QF 2R A A QF F F F 3R A QF A A F 3R QF A 0 / 13 30–13 69.77% Madrid Open A A 1R 1R W 3R W W A W F W F SF W 3R A 2R A 6 / 14 47–8 85.45% Italian Open A A 1R 3R 1R F 2R A F 3R QF SF 2R 3R SF F 2R F 3R 0 / 16 32–16 66.67% Canadian Open A A 1R A 1R SF W A W F 2R QF F 3R A A F A A 2 / 11 31–9 77.50% Cincinnati Masters A A 1R A 1R 2R 1R W 2R W 3R W W QF W QF W W A 7 / 15 42–8 84.00% Shanghai Masters A A 2R 2R QF SF A A W F SF A F A SF 3R W 2R A 2 / 12 31–10 75.61% Paris Masters A A 1R 2R QF QF A A A 3R QF 2R SF W A SF QF 3R A 1 / 12 21–10 67.74% Win–Loss – 0–2 2–8 8–7 18–8 21–8 20–3 27–1 34–3 26–7 22–8 24–6 22–7 22–7 23–3 14–6 28–6 16–6 3–2 11–0 26 / 125 341–98 77.68% National representation Summer Olympics Not held 4th Not held 2R Not held QF Not held F-S Not held A NH 0 / 4 13–5 72.22% Davis Cup A QF 1R QF 1R SF QF PO PO PO PO PO A PO 1R A W PO A 1 / 8 40–8 83.33% Win–Loss – 1–3 6–3 3–1 4–0 5–1 5–1 1–0 2–0 2–0 4–1 2–0 – 3–0 7–2 – 6–1 2–0 – – 1 / 12 53–13 80.30% Career Hard Win–Loss 2–2 7–6 24–17 21–10 32–12 48–12 46–4 50–1 59–2 44–6 34–10 36–10 47–7 46–7 41–7 28–11 56–7 39–6 8–2 19–1 63 / 199 687–140 83.07% Clay Win–Loss 0–1 0–5 3–7 9–5 12–4 15–4 16–2 15–2 16–3 16–3 21–4 18–2 10–4 12–4 15–3 12–5 8–4 13–4 3–2 – 11 / 75 214–68 75.89% Grass Win–Loss – 0–2 2–3 9–3 5–3 12–0 12–0 12–0 12–0 6–0 11–1 7–0 8–2 6–1 15–2 5–1 9–1 11–1 10–3 – 15 / 38 152–23 86.86% Carpet Win–Loss – 6–4 7–3 10–3 9–3 3–1 – 4–1 5–0 2–0 – Discontinued 2 / 14 46–15 75.41% Outdoor Win–Loss 0–1 1–10 15–20 28–13 34–15 55–13 63–5 66–3 75–5 52–6 54–12 55–8 48–12 48–12 60–8 34–12 56–10 51–9 21–7 19–1 69 / 248 835–182 82.10% Indoor Win–Loss 2–2 12–7 21–10 21–8 24–7 23–4 11–1 15–1 17–0 16–3 12–3 6–4 17–1 16–0 11–4 11–5 17–2 12–2 – – 22 / 78 264–64 80.49% Overall Win–Loss 2–3 13–17 36–30 49–21 58–22 78–17 74–6 81–4 92–5 68–9 66–15 61–12 65–13 64–12 71–12 45–17 73–12 63–11 21–7 19–1 91 / 326 1099–246 81.71% Win % 40.0% 43.3% 54.5% 70.0% 72.5% 82.1% 92.5% 95.3% 94.8% 88.3% 81.5% 83.6% 83.3% 84.2% 85.5% 72.6% 85.9% 85.1% 75.0% 95.0% Tournaments played 3 14 28 21 25 23 17 15 17 16 19 15 18 16 17 17 17 17 7 4 326 total 27.9% Finals reached 0 0 2 3 5 9 11 12 16 12 8 7 9 6 10 3 11 11 1 3 139 total 65.5% Titles 0 0 0 1 3 7 11 11 12 8 4 4 5 4 6 1 5 6 0 3 91 total Year-end ranking 301 64 29 13 6 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 6 2 3 16 </nowiki>}}

Thanks for that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

To be fair though, I did consider your two suggestions, and I explained above why they wouldn't make the table accessible. And I still don't quite understand the font size issue and what's the fundamental need to reduce the font size. Is it because tables are going off screen? If so, how do you deal with smaller screens like a cellphone screen? Understanding the fundamental need will allow me to consider the best way forward, and if that really means reducing the font size, so be it, but I need to be able to weigh in also that there is no other better way. Chinissai (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

edit break

I also asked administrator Graham how his screen reader worked on the current Roger Federer Career stats chart and he said it seems to work fine. So we might be trying to create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. So my question is, can we create a template chart that emulates our current manually created charts? That would be without the new column, exactly as they are now. I'd like to see how that would work. We'd need some flexibility in tournament names. I guess to think a template will work 100% of the time is an unreal expectation, so we could always hard-code those exceptions. Perhaps @Frietjes: and you could knock heads to come up with a working example? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

AH... I knew this conversation had come up before. Check the bottom of this conversation from 2 years ago. Those examples given for bad header examples are very specific. BAD Headers. That would be using the "!" to create a bad header in the middle of a table. Our guidelines do not do that, which is why screen readers have no problems with our charts. They work as they should. So I'm going through all this again for nothing. I knew I had sent out emails before to these companies to ask this same question and they all worked fine. They're going to think I'm a idiot for emailing them again. My own fault for having a crummy memory. So we don't have to change our charts at all since they work and look great as they are. The only question is can we make them easier to fill in with a template? That I can't do but it would be nice if we could. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers! Continues below. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Tooltips

While not having too much of an opinion on the final format, I would just like to throw out a reminder that tool tips don't work on mobile, and that they shouldn't be the sole way used to explain the meaning of an abbreviation. A link might be a better choice. (Of course, I still think that it's annoying that draws in tournament infoboxes always use abbreviations without explaining them, so my opinion may be shaded by that.) oknazevad (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This is helpful. It looks like we need a legend section to list these abbreviations, but we still need tooltips inside the table to make it accessible. Chinissai (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No, if we have a legend we certainly don't need tooltips inside the table. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I have said. Without a tooltip accompanying each cell, screen readers have no idea how to interpret and read the meaning of the abbreviation in that cell. Chinissai (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not? If you have a legend that says 1R means out in the first round, SF means semifinalist, F means finalist, etc., then how are the tooltips necessary? Readers just look at the chart for the abbreviation, and if they don't know what it means, look at the legend. It can't be that confusing. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about screen readers for visually impaired users. See WP:DTT. Chinissai (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

So you are saying that screen readers are only capable of interpreting tool tips but can't interpret a legend or a key. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I would think that. Legends are not associated with each instance of abbreviations that appears in the table, so screen readers can't link the two. Our eyes and brains can do that, god blessed! Chinissai (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No they don't but I don't think it's necessary either. If the screen reader simply reads to full list of different codes before it reads the tables that surely enough. I think virtually anyone will remember that SF means semifinal and F final.Tvx1 18:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Goodness, you'd have to require a tooltip for every instance of an abbreviation at Wikipedia. That is not what our guidelines tell us. I have also contacted several major screen-reading companies to find out if the charts we have now truly still are any concern... including JAWS. I thought I did this before but maybe not. They may not get back to me over the weekend but we'll know if it's an issue. If it's not I would suggest that we keep the charts exactly as they are now and find someone who will make a template based on that. But the tooltips in a template have to go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting those companies. One thing to keep in mind: Wikipedia's Manual of Styles supersedes WikiProject guidelines. I think this is a good time to have accessibility experts weigh in on this issue. Chinissai (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

However guidelines are guidelines... they are not policy nor absolute. There are projects whose nuances don't fit well with wiki guidelines so they must adjust to cover their own foibles. If those major companies have no problems with screen readers, then those guidelines would be outdated and wrong. Tennis uses a flagicon in the infobox because it fits the world of tennis better than the standard wikipedia guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

As a screen reader user myself, I primarily use JAWS but also have a bit of experience with NVDA; those two screen readers are the most commonly used on Windows. Neither of them process abbr tooltips by default – they have to be told to do so by the user – and neither of them give any indication that a particular piece of text has an associated tooltip. Therefore, there's no need to have them if they cause great inconvenience for sighted users. Graham87 11:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. Looks like tooltips do more harm than good, so I'll consider removing them. There is a way for tooltips to appear without cluttering visually, so I'll try that. Chinissai (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Update 1

Since my original post, the template has been tweaked to reflect recent discussions. I also added several enhancements. All transclusions of the template should already illustrate these changes. Notable changes are as follows:

• Added support for pre-Open-Era headers. (See Template:Tennis performance timeline/Rod Laver.) This feature is not yet documented in the template documentation, but the idea is to indicate that the player started in an amateur career, and transitioned to a professional career in a certain year. Then, 1968 came the Open Era.
• Added a hatnote reflecting "current as of" information, as specified by |last= tournament.
• Removed <abbr> tags from cells to eliminate dotted underline beneath each result. Tooltips still appear at the cell level.
• Added legend chart at the bottom of the table. Only abbreviations used in the table are listed.
• Added support for sortability on win/loss, win %, and strike rates. Try sorting in the examples above.

There were still lingering discussions, addressed itemwise below. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Header issues

I'm not a fan of abusing HTML syntax to fulfill aesthetic desire. The colspan fake-header row is still a header row that happens not to be coded as such. I would be able to tolerate this abuse in a very short term, but my goal is to do away with incorrect coding to ensure template quality, so I would like to revisit this issue in a near future, if not now.

Another issue with the colspan header rows is that they make the table unsortable. I think sortability adds some benefits to the representation of data, so avoiding colspan (fake-or-not)-header rows not only eliminates accessibility issues, but also represents data better. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The header issue is not an issue. It should absolutely remain as the tables are today as opposed to the wider change suggested. It is much cleaner and easier to read and creates no issues with accessibility. And change to that structure is not needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It is, technically. Different HTML tags have different meanings. We have a row such as Grand Slam that is not a data cell (the td tag or the wiki's bar (|) cell). Technically, any cell that is not a data cell is a header cell (the th tag or the wiki's bang (!) cell). (See an explanation.) We should use the right kinds of tags for the right kinds of contents. Obviously, Grand Slam is not data, but it is related to other cells that represent results from the Grand Slam. So, it needs to be designated as a header cell.

At any rate, I think I might have a way to restore the header row, making that a true header, while maintaining accessibility. I will need to try this, but will also need time. Of course, we will lose the sortability that the current setup has now, as mentioned originally above, but this doesn't seem important to the tennis community (one editor so far) at the moment. Chinissai (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

We seem to have zero issues with the structure of the performance table as it stands today. None at all. It looks good and works well. The only thing that would be nice and convenient would be if we didn't have to keep writing the code for the table structure, and only had to concern ourselves with entering the data on the player's page. Hence a template that you have the ability to create. That would be great for the project! Other changes not so much. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Cell coloring

Cell background colors, except for those associated with tournament results, are default of appropriate HTML tags. Header cells are grayer than regular cells. As Bgwhite mentioned in the previous discussion on headers, coloring a regular cell with the header color can confuse readers and editors as to which is which. So, unless we have non-aesthetic reasons for coloring cells otherwise, I would suggest refraining from doing so. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Tournament names

Aliasing of tournament names is supported, but I would like to refrain from adding unnecessary aliases for now. A short-term goal of this template is to support a variety of tournaments, so aliases are secondary. I think, in a long run, additions of aliasing should follow the usual consensus protocol, as having multiple names for one tournament can confuse editors and increase overhead for template maintenance. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Template coverage

A primary goal of this template is to minimize the maintenance overhead of these tables. Therefore, the template is most useful for active players, whose tables are constantly updated. The template does work, however, with retired players, as shown in examples above, but the coverage can be hit-or-miss. Historical coverage is primarily need-based, but I believe the template can and will eventually handle every table we need.

That said, I think there will need to be a transition period where tables are rewritten to use the template, starting from active players and then going back in time. If we need to maintain consistency between hardcoded and template layouts, an interim version of the template that mocks the hardcoded version can be used on a temporary basis. In a long run, however, I suggest that we use correct HTML coding, so I would like to keep issues I raised above on the table. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Which is exactly what we need permanently... a template that mocks the hard-coded version. Nothing more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus and guidelines can change. Nothing is permanent. Chinissai (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is true. But changing to something that is wider and looks clunkier will not get my vote. If it ain't broke and it's been used for over a decade, we don't fix it. Others are free to feel as they wish. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

But you digress, again... Chinissai (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No... it is directly answering your HTML coding paragraph above. You say transitional, I say permanent. The HTML is fine and should be left as is. It's how we enter the data that's important and why a template would be a good thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Update 2

Notable changes since last update:

• Added support for men's doubles stats and women's singles stats (see Template:Tennis performance timeline/Serena Williams).
• Added support for country change, e.g., Template:Tennis performance timeline/Dustin Brown. The idea is to specify country within seasonal statistics instead of using |country=. This mostly affects Davis Cup/Fed Cup zones, but otherwise not displayed as header columns. Header columns can be added if desired, but exact formatting requires a discussion.
• Coded timeline tables for the top ~100 active ATP players (see Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Tennis performance timeline/).

Some of these changes warrant a documentation, but I haven't had time to get to that yet. Chinissai (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

How do we do the font change again, since the Federer chart is too wide and too small. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific of where this occurs? And can you give a specification of what you need? Chinissai (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

For the entire table. The font is often to large or too small, and the table width can often be too wide. What is the best way to add flexibility to this. This was brought up before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and what I would like to hear is the exact specification on how to make it happen. Desired widths? Desired font sizes? Never heard those back. I hope I'm being clear that these customizations should be made by the template itself, not by editors. Otherwise we are never going to have any consistency on how these tables look. Chinissai (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see what the point of the template is. You could easily have the table set up on the article where any editor would just update tournament results after each tournament ended without any problems. What does this template do that wasn't covered before? And we can't just create hundreds of these templates for every single Grand Slam participant. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have edited these tables, you would know how many cells you have to edit to get the right results, all those total win-loss, etc. I am not going to repeat myself here; please visit the very beginning of this big section, where I have laid out the rationales. You might also be interested in the source codes of these per-player templates; they are not hardcoded tables. Chinissai (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

But I saw you created hundreds of templates which were nominated for deletion recently. What are you going to do, create hundreds more of them? Adamtt9 (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a separate issue. I don't plan on doing too many more of these new templates. I feel I need to provide adequate examples to show that the main template works, to at least have a chance of something new being accepted from the tennis community. And yet it doesn't appear they are enough. Exactly how we use the main template to code these tables for real is of course up for discussions, but for now I believe I have shown that we can use the main template for a vast majority of players. Chinissai (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Adamtt9 here. We don't need thousands of these templates. We can easily invoke the module within the articles. It would still leave us with much less work than we have right now because it automatically calculates totals and averages. I have even noticed it takes into account that tournaments have had different number of rounds though the years. And testing should not be done with live templates but with sandboxes and user pages.Tvx1 00:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Having a bunch of templates is not something I prefer either. My rationale for creating these example templates where they are is that they are subpages of the template being proposed and implemented, namely, Template:Tennis performance timeline, so I thought they are the right place to do so. These subtemplates are not live per se, because they are not used in articles, and therefore I see no harm for them being in the template namespace. (As an aside, I am not sure how the template takes different number of rounds into account. I am guessing you meant, when we write "SF", it figures out there are this many wins and that many losses. That is in fact part of the input to the template, where you specify the round reached, and the number of wins and losses along the way. Please correct me if I misunderstood. I would like to make sure I read correctly.) Chinissai (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Table width and font size

Since this seems to be a big deal for some editors (one so far, at my last count), I am dedicating this section to flush out any issues regarding the width of the table and its font size. Otherwise I suspect we will keep arguing on this forever to no avail.

The argument for desiring the ability to shrink the table seems to be as follows: the table is too wide to fit a screen. I have raised this before, but whose screen are we talking about? If it's just one person's screen, it's not our problem to fix; that person simply needs a bigger screen. We cannot speak for other readers that the table is too wide for them; we need to hear from them directly. If several editors have a consensus here that we need to deal with table widths, then I am open to discussion. Otherwise, the problem is isolated and does not warrant attention from the entire tennis community. Chinissai (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

There is aesthetics also. The last change made to Federer looked bad when compared to the original in the identical size window. I also look at major changes differently than you. Before making them you need the support of the body. You just don't blow off concerns just because you happen to disagree. The charts are long-standing and work fine the way they are right now. Can they be better... I'm sure they can. It would be great to require less effort to make them and less effort to maintain them. But if the cost is to require the charts to be inflexible to multiple browsers, or look poorly in comparison to what we have, then that cost might be too high. You have already tried to force us to change the charts based on faulty information so excuse me if I'm now extra careful in making sure things work just right before giving you a thumbs up from my end. We've been working on other types of charts for literately years before rolling them out. This may be the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what faulty information are you talking about? I would prefer that we keep conversations on distinct topics separate, so we can hash them out one at a time. If that faulty thing has nothing to do with table width and font size, please start a new subsection so we can dedicate it to that. Chinissai (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, your example Federer chart has nothing to do with this template. Again, please try not to digress! Chinissai (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You tried to force a change to adding extra columns because of screen reader issues.... issues that never existed. That was the faulty information. The chart styling we have is perfectly fine. So all we need is a template that keeps it the same (or nearly the same) while making it easier to add data to each player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed the header issues above. I believe other accessibility issues have been resolved from prior discussions. If you still have issues with headers, please comment in that section. Thanks. Chinissai (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And I absolutely do have issues with any change to the header structure as I have said from day one. I have commented above. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Status

So where have we arrived on this matter? I still feel the underlying module that was created can successfully be used in our articles. It can be used to generate tables which are much easier to maintain (mainly because it automatically generates the totals and percentages).Tvx1 13:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Tournament	2015	2016	2017	2018	SR	W–L	Win %
Australian Open	SF	SF	W	W	2 / 4	24–2	92.31%
French Open	4R	A	A	A	0 / 1	3–1	75.00%
Wimbledon	F	SF	W	QF	1 / 4	23–3	88.46%
US Open	F	A	F	A	0 / 2	12–2	85.71%
Win–Loss	20–4	10–2	20–1	12–1	3 / 11	62–8	88.57%

It's nice that it would automatically fill in those stats, as long as we can get someone to write it with the clean look we have now. So more like...

Tournament	1973	1974	1975	SR	W–L	Win %
Australian Open	A	3R	A	0 / 1	1–1	50.00
French Open	4R	W	W	6 / 8	49–2	96.08
Wimbledon	QF	3R	QF	5 / 9	51–4	92.73
US Open	4R	2R	SF	0 / 9	40–9	81.63
Win–Loss	10–3	11–3	16–2	11 / 27	141–16	89.81

Of course this is the small chart that goes on the main page of tennis players. The larger chart is much more complex since it must encompass tournament name changes. But again, if it can be written to look exactly as we have the charts now, I would be in favor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Professional, junior, amateur, college?

Just wondering what the vibe is around here about using the word "professional" in the opening blurb about players. It would come up as "Jose Netcord (born 8 October 1945) is an Antarctic professional tennis player and former world No. 1." Some articles say junior or amateur instead of professional, and some say nothing at all. My question is, do we care? Do we leave it as the author wrote it, whether it's with or without the term? Do we usually add it or remove it? Obviously the vast majority of players at wikipedia are professional, but there are plenty of new and old players who are not. I ask because a new editor is removing all the words to leave it as "an Antarctic tennis player" and I'm not sure what to do about it. I've reverted a bunch of his eliminations but maybe editors here would rather see it as simply "tennis player." Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

We should correct confer their status. This means that the word professional should always be used for those players who are in order to distinguish them from those who aren't (e.g. amateur players).Tvx1 20:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

So players from the 1920s should say amateur and players from today should say professional? If they are a junior who happens to meet our guidelines we say junior? What about Roy Emerson? He played mostly as an amateur but in 1968 became a professional. Do we use the highest standard they attained and use professional? And I assume that once a junior player starts playing professionally we change the title to professional? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "amateur tennis player" should ever be used, since that's basically the same thing as "tennis player". Keep the intro simple, and explain why they still notable despite not being professional in the following prose. "junior" I'm 50/50 on, I'd say that one doesn't really a strict rule and can just be left however it's written so as to keep the lead sounding natural. For players who were both amateur and professional (or junior and professional), definitely use "professional" but then note in the first paragraph or two that they played before the professional era (especially for players like Roy Emerson where their amateur play should be mentioned in the same sentence). None of these opinions are really based on any pre-existing guidelines, though, they're just what I think would be the most sensible way of handling it. Sellyme^Talk 10:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

As an update user YoungDylan is still sytematically trying to remove all instances of "professional" from the lead of tennis players. As in this edit with a summary of minor edit, typos. Keep a watchful eye for the removals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

He is continuing the removals non-stop under the pretext of many edits... baiting me to simply re-type in all his removals. Not happening as I tried that road before. He just keeps doing it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It is continuing... we need some help with this one I'm afraid. see here, here, here, and here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I oppose removal of "professional" from professional players but don't feel strongly enough to get involved beyond that. YoungDylan should stop marking the edits as minor when he knows there is opposition to the change. See Help:Minor edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Is Draft:Triples (tennis) worth publishing?

You can weigh in by posting a comment and signature at the top of the Draft itself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There might be enough to warrant a stand alone article, but certainly not at that tile though. It might be a more simple paragraph item under Types of tennis match with links to a couple articles on the subject, or perhaps a stand-alone under "Cardio Tennis Triples" (which is what I usually see) or "Tennis Triples." We would only add (tennis) if there was already a similar title where we had to further refine things. There are not enough sources in the article as it now stands, but it looks like there might be more out there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

At the moment, no. The draft simply does not contain any sources which could demonstrate notability. I can’t recall any notable tennis match having been played in triples format either.Tvx1 15:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it matters at all that there are any notable tennis matches in the format. There aren't for Canadian doubles or Australian doubles either. It's a question of "does it exist", "are there multiple independent sources available that use and describe it, is it notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It does if one wants the draft to be published in that format. It gives the impression that there are significant tournaments using the triples format. That needs to substantiated with reliable sources. I have no prejudice against giving it a simple paragraph under Types of tennis match.Tvx1 22:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Borg-Vilas-Connors, 1977

There is an ongoing discussion on the final year-end ranking for the year 1977. We can only report what sources tell us, but how it's actually presented on Wikipedia is quite subjective. Rankings always are. We don't take moving longstanding rankings lightly (since it could affect how we handle other years) so if anyone wants to give an opinion, by all means join in at Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion nomination of Liubov Vasilyeva

Liubov Vasilyeva is a professional tennis player from Russia who has played in ITF tennis finals has been nominated for PROD. I couldn't understand the fact that, she was regarded as non-notable tennis player by Adamtt9 who proposed it to be deleted. Abishe (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Abishe: There are minimum standards for inclusion here. Has she played on the WTA Tour? It looks like no. Has she played Fed Cup? Again no. Has she won a $30,000 or more ITF minor league event? No. So right now all she plays is minor league tennis and hasn't won even on that minor league tour. She may qualify someday, but right now she hasn'r accomplished enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sponsored tournament names

There have been a proposal, in archived version of this talk page, to replace official names (sponsor name, ever changing and probably unknown to public) with the common tournament names, with possibility of a redirect added for every new name. Based on [4]. Not sure why it was never done. The branded names as used now are distracting, not really useful and make wikipedia article an advertisement to a degree. Since sponsor name does represent some information, it would make sense to add a "sponsor: " field to the tournament profile box on the right (where the prize/location/venue specified). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.14.117.116 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It was done. If there is a name a tournament has gone by in the past or present that does not contain the sponsor, then that's what we use. That would be for the main article for the tournament. Sp not "BNP Paribas Open" but rather "Indian Wells Masters." That's how we do it. For the individual yearly version of the tournament, it usually gets listed under the name it went by for the year. So it is under the "2017 BNP Paribas Open." I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There is one issue I observed. In Infobox tennis tournament event, if the parameter main_name is not filled with the common tournament name in the page for a season, it automatically takes the sponsored name (see 2018 ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament for example). This can be avoided if main_name is made a mandatory parameter for the infobox.
Anish Viswa 08:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. That does make some sense. I wonder how easy that would be to require it? By that I mean what would happen to all the current articles that use the template if we changed it to mandatory? Would they be wrecked if they didn't already use it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how will it impact. Maybe some TennisBoT (if available) can do this if feasible. Manually fixing this will be very tedious - You just fixed 2018 ABN AMRO tournament, but previous years' are also having the issue. Likewise there will be hundreds of tournaments and each will have may pages. Another issue I observed (again I took Rotterdam Open as reference) is that, in the main article Infobox, the name given is the sponsor name.
Anish Viswa 12:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I oppose a mandatory parameter. If a call omits the parameter anyway then the most sensible thing is to continue linking the name of the yearly event. It usually works and is better than making no link at all. I suggest making a list of official name to common name in a subtemplate of {{Infobox tennis tournament year}}. It could just be a big switch:

{{#switch:{{{2|}}}
| ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament = Rotterdam Open
| BNP Paribas Open = Indian Wells Masters
| ...
| #default = {{{2|}}}
}}

Then {{Infobox tennis tournament year}} could use main_name if it's given in a call, and use the subtemplate otherwise. If the name is not listed there then it returns the name unchanged. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The search hastemplate:"Infobox tennis tournament year" insource:"main_name" shows articles currently using main_name. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Whichever method which fixes this in all pages with least effort is welcome.
Anish Viswa 14:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

A switch subtemplate seems like a fantastic idea, and could be semi-automatically populated with most main_names using the existing article info linked above. Some tournaments are an absolute mess of sponsor names and trying to navigate year-to-year can be painful, so this would be a very welcome improvement. Sellyme^Talk 05:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Important - New external link template being added???

User Gabinho has created a new template to a betting website which he is adding to every tennis player's external links. An example is Simona Halep but there are bunches. The template is at Template:Tennis Explorer profile. We already have stat templates for the ATP, WTA, ITF, Davis Cup, and Fed Cup. Do we really want or need another to a betting website for every tennis player we have? I would say no. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What benefit does it even provide? It just repeats information you can easily find on the ATP or ITF website. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It does have a list of injuries, which I don't think I've seen on any official player profiles, but I don't think that justifies inclusion on its own. Sellyme^Talk 21:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The injuries I hadn't noticed. That is interesting. But perhaps instead of adding it to every player's article it would simply be a link from a player who has has a history of injuries. So-and-so has been plagued with many injuries through the years... and a link to the site. I guess that's important for a betting site. But with tennis having some issues with tanking and thrown mathces, I hate to have links to a site that is built for that very purpose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It’s very rough listing of their injuries though. They only count an injury when a player actually withdraws before or retires during a match because of one. For instance, if you look at Wawrinka’s profile on that site, you’ll see that they don’t list a knee injury in 2017 despite him suffering from it during the French Open final and during his sole match at Wimbledon. In fact his missed half of the 2017 because of it. The site only counts his knee injury from last week though when he actually retired from a match because of it.Tvx1 23:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Rod Laver RfC

For those who edit tennis articles, there is an ongoing Rod Laver RfC that affects article ledes at Talk:Rod Laver. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Too much minute detail in articles about tennis players

The work that goes into articles on tennis players is impressive, but the level of detail in some of these articles is crazy. I've just been looking at Caroline Wozniacki (the article, I mean), and, TBPH, it is largely unreadable. Do you really think anyone could, or would want to, read that "Career" section from beginning to end? All the tiny trivia about this match or that match needs to be culled, leaving a readable summary of her career development. The same is true of other articles. I understand that people are keen to record every minute detail, but the main article is not the place for this. It is just TOO MUCH for ordinary readers. Perhaps separate "career detail" articles could be spun off. 86.190.171.140 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I edit here a lot... and what you are saying is absolutely true. There is a Wozniacki career statistics article that could use it, but there has always been too much detail in "recent" main articles for tennis players. The Milos Raonic article was praised as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. It has detail, but within reason. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

What would be really cool is to have some kind of editing tool where a bunch of us can go through an article that is deemed too verbose and simply highlight what we think is interesting/important/relevant. Then, after say, half a dozen people had done this process, you can just look for anything that no-one thought was important and you've got a fairly good idea of what should be on the chopping block. Unfortunately I don't believe any such tool exists, and I don't think it's advisable for any individual editor to mass-delete huge parts of any article - even if the deletion is mostly agreeable, any mass-removal of content by a single editor is going to invariably nuke something of interest as well. Honestly, the Wozniacki article - while certainly too long - is at least fairly well-written. If anyone wants the Herculean task of identifying and listing all of the content in such articles that they believe to be "fluff" so that other editors have a chance to object before removal, I'm fully in support of that, but I feel like it's a fairly low-priority problem. Sellyme^Talk 10:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

WTA 125 tables... are they like the mens ATP Challengers or something else?

I was discussing with an editor how we handle the WTA 125 tables. he has helped add a bunch to player articles but he's not sure of the formatting, and i don't blame him. Our Guidelines aren't really specific about how we handle WTA 125s. Our standard charts are in our guidelines here. What they don't show is how we handle mens ITF and Challenger events, nor the womens ITF and WTA 125 events. lets look at Roger Federer since his charts are pretty locked in. If you scroll through Roger's career stats you'll see we do one thing for his Grand Slam tournaments, year-end championships, masters, and olympics. Just a linked year for the date and color all the way across. These charts can vary a small bit on different players, but essentially they are the same for men and women tennis players.

In that same Federer stats article we also have our standard career finals formatting which we also use for his minor league challenger and ITF events. Also for exhibition and team play. Some players like Chuung Hyeon have the Challengers and ITF events combined in one chart, but the formatting is standard. The womens ITF events are handled the same way as seen in Muguruza's article. But the WTA 125s have been done multiple ways. They are supposed to be the equivalent of the mens upper ATP Challenger Tour, and the wins in the WTA 125s do not count for WTA Tour victories. So it would seem we should treat them the same way as the charts for the men. But it was mentioned the the WTA 125s seem to be treated with a little more chutzpah in the press then the mens challengers. While they should certainly be kept in the minor league section of articles, should their charts be combined with the womens ITFs, separate but identical chart formatting as the womens ITFs, or perhaps separate but chart formatting like we do with mens master level events? It would be good if I could point to this to let new editors know the best way to do it.

We discussed some aspects of this (with @Adamtt9:) in our archives at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Archive_18#WTA_125_placement but didn't go into the actual color/style formatting. For what its worth, I would tend to go with the way we do the men's ATP Challenger events, but either way is ok. As long as I can point to a discussion or guideline for editors who ask me about it. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that 125s should be treated similarly to Challengers in a tabular context. They should certainly have distinctive color/style formatting to highlight them, but the use of entirely separate tables for the relatively infrequent events (such as at Sara Errani career statistics#WTA 125K series finals) seems detrimental to readability. Sellyme^Talk 15:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Is the Fed Cup counted as a WTA 125 event?Tvx1 16:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that's just a case of poorly-formatted headers for that specific article. Was wondering what was going on there but wasn't too sure if it was deliberate or not. Sellyme^Talk 16:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just a header issue with Errani. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Zverev Jr. → Alexander Zverev - High profile proposed move

There is a move request ongoing at Talk:Alexander Zverev Jr. Because this is a high profile proposed move, I thought the Tennis Project should be informed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD

There is a discussion taking place here which you may be interested in participating in. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Women tennis executives has been nominated for discussion

Category:Women tennis executives, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Automate current rankings with a bot?

I know that WP:Chess uses a bot to update the players' current ratings using their FIDE ID numbers (see this discussion). I imagine WP:Tennis could do the same thing for players' current rankings using their ITF profile ID numbers. This would solve the problems of the current rankings being out-of-date as well as them being updated before they go into effect. Not to mention, it is tedious to update all of the rankings in general.

That being said, I have no idea how to create a bot. Is anyone with more familiarity with bots interested? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If we agree to do this, we could simple ask for one at WP:BOTREQUEST.Tvx1 20:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I am a computer science student that has been interested in contributing to Wikipedia, I would be willing to create the bot to do this, as I have also noticed this problem, however, I am completely new to this, so this would require some help to ensure that the bot remains within the rules Maksimsum (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Doing this won't be too difficult, it would be a 3 step process. Get the latest ITF rankings, Go to every Tennis player's page, and update their infobox with their new ranking. I've had a quick look at this too, and the last 2 parts are easy to do with current bot APIs, so once someone finds a way of doing he 1st task accurately, it shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Iffy★Chat -- 08:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

If possible, it would be awesome! Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It’s ATP and WTA rankings we need, not ITF rankings.Tvx1 10:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know they are identical. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, but is it allowed to retrieve the data systematically? We had a discussion about that a long time ago on Wikidata (here and here). I'm not sure whether ATP terms-and-conditions say it's allowed or not. Stryn (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What if we were to retrieve them from somewhere else then? There are other websites that copy the official rankings, such as https://www.flashscore.com/tennis/rankings/atp/ and https://live-tennis.eu/en/official-atp-ranking. Or do these websites have consent from ATP/WTA to re-post their rankings? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

These site are not as reliable and often change rankings before they are officially updated. Regarding the ATP site, we are not planning to create a collection, compilation, database, or directory, aren't we now? So I don't think there actually is a problem.Tvx1 11:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

After looking over the linked dicussions, it appears the problem in the ATP and WTA terms isn't that, but the automated collection of rankings. Perhaps we can use other sites and only update the rankings at a set time each week?Maksimsum (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Madison Keys GA nomination

I intend to nominate Madison Keys for a GA in the not too distant future. If anyone wants to provide feedback before the nomination, feel free to leave comments on the talk page. Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

New article: Fred Kovaleski

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I wrote an article for Fred Kovaleski, who had been redlinked from various tournament articles (which saved me some trouble!). He was notable for other reasons, and I have no experience with tennis biographies, so I thought I'd leave notice here in case someone wants to put in a better infobox, go into more detail on his tennis career, etc. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

India in Wimbledon 2017

Any opinions on the suitability of this article for the tennis project? Should we have <<country>> at <<year>> <<Grand Slam tournament>> articles or is this excessive? --Wolbo (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's overboard trivial. Are there outside sources that talk specifically of India at Wimbledon other than just a preview of the players involved? At wikipedia, who knows what will happen, but I'd nominate for deletion and see where it goes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Nominated.Tvx1 14:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Wimbledon pre-qualifying

Is this notable - not as a separate article but for inclusion in 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles Qualifying and 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles Qualifying? OGLV (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope, not really. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. Has this been discussed on here before? Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines is silent on the matter, and as far as I know Wimbledon is the only slam to have a pre-qualifying tournament. I ask because for two consecutive years players have reached the main draw after coming through pre-qualifying (Marcus Willis and Alexander Ward). OGLV (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it merits inclusion in the qualifying article.Tvx1 14:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say only if someone notable makes significant progress into the qualifying tournament. Only reason it is really notable this year is for Dan Evans, so maybe if he qualifies for the main draw, it becomes important. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Wimbledon seeds

I noticed that the draw articles for this year's Wimbledon Championships already displayed the alleged seeds. Wimbledon has not announced the seeds yet, so we should not list any. Doing so is in violation of WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALL.Tvx1 14:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Counting is not original research. I'm unaware of any precedent for Wimbledon changing their seeding from the formulaic results, so listing them in advance when all of the information is already known doesn't violate WP:OR. Sellyme^Talk 11:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It does, because it assumes certain players will achieve certain results during the preceding tournaments. Moreover, what you are linking is an essay, not a guideline or policy. So it is not okay at all. Tvx1 11:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know whether the 2018 seeding rules are the same as in 2017 [5] but the men's rules were too complicated for me to trust random Wikipedia editors to calculate them correctly. And the women's "rules" are impossible for us to apply: "The seeding order follows the WTA ranking list, except where in the opinion of the committee, a change is necessary to produce a balanced draw. ATP and WTA have fixed World ranking rules but many editors have made false claims about future rankings based on already known information. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree, moreover it's more than basic arrhythmic. It's a synthesis derived from a wikipedias's calculations. Most importantly, we don't even know whether all of the named players will even enter Wimbledon. It's pure guesswork and is thus not acceptable.Tvx1 12:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

There has been a published Entry List for several weeks now. Players can (and will) withdraw, but that would be WP:CRYSTAL, since official documentation shows them as entered into the tournament until then. Sellyme^Talk 12:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that source.Tvx1 15:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, counting is fine, but neither the ATP nor the WTA uses counting as their only factor. They have exceptions on top of exceptions which they can apply. It's best to wait until Wimbledon simply tells us the facts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

For the record, Wimbledon gave Serena Williams a #25 seed. She was ranked outside the top-150 and unseeded in an alleged ranking we removed before the official ranking was published. There were other errors, probably from bad original research but I haven't checked. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)