Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Infobox tournament wins

Hi all, I am relatively new to editing Tennis on Wiki so I may have a lot of random questions. Will try to condense them into one thread but for now had one question. Is it really necessary to list when someone has won 0 WTA or ATP events? Like when I see in an infobox: 0 WTA, 2 ITF? Seems like it should just say 2 ITF, why list 0?

Or I have seen articles where someone has won no events and it says 0. Shouldn't be just leave it blank? Michfan2123 (talk) 9:09, 2 February 2020

I guess it's sort of editing choice since, as far as I know, we have no rules on it. Myself... I would leave it blank, but I can't speak for others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Got it, yea I would like a guideline where we don't list the 0. I used to be heavy editing golf articles and we never did this. I just don't see the point. Not sure what the process is to make it a guideline but if we could make it happen that would be nice. It is not the biggest deal in the world though so not totally necessary. michfan2123 (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Michfan2123 (talk) 7:38, 4 February 2020

@Michfan2123: Hey man! I find myself into this, cuz I'm the one forcing it the most. The reason why I forced it is cuz there are a lot of mistakes on so many tennis article pages, so I though that when you said 0 WTA, 5 ITF everybody knows that this player still doesn't win any titles, otherwise it can be someone's omission. I really like when pages are fully-made, despite the fact that 0 WTA, 0 ITF sounds a little bit "unneseccary". I really don't have problems if everybody disagree with me, it's ok :) - JamesAndersoon (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a reasonable point. Many time editors simply say under titles, 3, and we don't know what they mean. When it's spelled out as 0 WTA it's readily apparent. But I would still tend to lean on leaving 0 titles as blank. As long as it says 2 ITF it should be obvious it's 0 WTA. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with both, probably better to let it be only ITF if player doesn't win any WTA title, but if they don't make also on ITF, then to stay "0" - JamesAndersoon (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that this slot was supposed to be just for ATP and WTA titles, not ITF titles. Someone who mainly edited WTA players started adding ITF titles to the infobox, and it stuck. For ATP players, it's less common to see Challenger or ITF titles in the infobox as of now. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition to what JamesAndersoon said above about "5 ITF" looking like the number of WTA titles was omitted by mistake, the average reader doesn't know what ITF titles are. If we just list the ITF titles, they may not realize those aren't tour-level titles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

For players with multiple ATP or WTA titles (or even just one), I wouldn't list the ITF titles at all. Once you have won multiple titles on the tour, I don't think anyone cares how many low-level titles you have won. (Serena Williams is the most ridiculous example of including the number of ITF titles. Obviously, with someone like Roger Federer, the number of Challenger titles he has won doesn't affect how he is perceived.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

For players with no titles, I would just write "0". Otherwise, it looks like an omission. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like good advice. Just like we remove jr titles in the infobox once they start winning professional titles, the minor-minor league ITF events are meaningless once they win one or two WTA tour events. I'll fix them when I see them and remove ITF titles once a player starts winning WTA titles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't you think it's confusing when yesterday you have "0WTA 2ITF" and today "1"? As long as the infobox does not clarify which titles it talks about, it wouldn't be correct to remove anything. "Career titles" should be clearer or include all titles. Just a bare number that we currently have is the worst, factually incorrect. "WTA" in the end is better, even if you want to remove ITF titles. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It never has been confusing. Every singles player in the newspapers, books, magazines, sports journals... they all say blah blah has 27 titltes. They only thing that really matter is WTA or ATP titles, so it's really implied. We go into such detail here on players with zero of those titles that we start including minor league titles from the challenger tours and minor-minor league titles from the ITF tour. For those players we need to make sure readers understand they are minor league efforts, but for the standard player here there is no need. No source combines them all. Major league baseball doesn't add up their major and minor leagues totals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

That pretty much sums op my view on this as well.--Wolbo (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(non)Guidelines

Can someone explain to me some things.

Are guidlines exist or no?
If exist why so many pages are non-guidline related?
Who are the administrators?
Why for some users are allowed to do things against guidlines?
If I want to argue 'bout some changes, where can I posted it? etc..

I have so many doubts about "rules" on this tennis-related pages, but don't know who should I contact, cuz I don't see them anywhere? p.s Only user that saying something is Fyunck(click) but I really want to hear someone else, cuz he/she is very contradicitonal about some statements, and never has proof where he "learned" this. I'm guessing he may make up these things how he/she like it? It will be really nice if someone respond this, cuz I really want to edit pages corectly but this users always stop me with that. Thanks - JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis has three links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. Many things are established by practice and sometimes discussions but not written into guidelines. Try looking at similar articles, especially high-profile articles like big players and tournaments. Wikipedia has thousands of editors. They don't all know guidelines or practices in a field, and some of them may ignore it. Administrators are users with certain user rights like protecting and deleting pages, and blocking users. They don't have power over guidelines or the right to decide article content. I'm an administrator but it rarely matters in my editing. Wikipedia has administrators. A WikiProject does not have administrators. Some of the participants may happen to be Wikipedia administrators but it does not give them power over the WikiProject. A specific article can be discussed on its talk page. A disagreement with a single editor can also be discussed on their user talk page. See Help:Talk pages. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Topics covering multiple tennis articles can be discussed here. A single tennis article may also sometimes be brought up here, or a talk page discussion may be linked. There is often low activity on a talk page. Write User: in front to make a user link like User:Fyunck(click). You haven't mentioned any edits by them so I'm not commenting on your disagreement. Do not make personal attacks like [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Usually it is first explained in an edit summary of what is wrong with an edit. If that doesnt work I tend to leave a note on your talk page, which i have done many times. Or on the article talk page if only one article is involved. I've noticed that other editors are reverting you also when you start adding non-guideline columns and rows. You seem to want to do thing non-standard or against the longstanding charts we now have. Why is that.Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If you'd like we can go over it item by item. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Why do pages exist when we have guidelines? Several reasons. 1) Thousands were created before guidelines were created or formalized. With a small contingent of regular editors it takes years and years to fix. 2) many don't realize we have guidelines and they create new articles that we later have to fix. 3) Some editors ignore summaries, ignore known guidelines, ignore common sense, ignore talk page notes, and ignore common Tennis project practice.

Why do some get away with things? Maybe we don't see them. I have thousands of articles on my watch list and I always try and look at anon IP edits. People who I know follow rules and are always helpful to me and me to them I tend to ignore their edits. They work as a team player. When one person makes several suspect edits on my watchlist I then look at that editor's other edits to see if they made more edits to pages not on my watchlist. If I find problems I let them know why they are problems and all is well. Sometimes I let people know they have a problem edit and they ignore everything said and we wind up here. The fact you notice that some people get away with things seems to indicate you want to join that club too and get away with things. Again that's why we're here i guess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Lets look at a couple items here.

You wanted to add a non-guideline new row to the bottom of our performance timelines, just for an all encompassing WTA source. I told you that row is not correct (as did at least one other editor) and I removed it. I also removed it because you had to add it to every performance chart in the article. I thought about it and said to myself, while the row is bad and ugly, none of the charts said where they are sourced from. They were all sourced from the player's WTA profile which is located on the page bottom. Many feel that is good enough, but instead of just deleting your bad rows in multiple charts, I put a note at the top of the performance timeline section saying they are sourced from the WTA profile matches... with YOUR link. Now we only need one link for all the charts and we didn't need to go against guidelines. You seem upset by that.
Next you started adding a non-guideline column to the far right for sourcing each and every match score. I told you the column was non-guideline and removed it (as did other editors). That single note source should suffice anyways, and we don't need to go against guidelines to do it. If a score is not in the WTA/ATP database we do what we always do and tag a ref at the end of the match score. You seem upset by that.
We also have several choices of performance charts depending on the situation. Small Grand Slam tournament charts for main pages, and a couple choices (only a few differences) for career stats articles. You yelled at me a few weeks ago that the WTA and ATP charts are not interchangeable until I quoted where it says they are. You seem upset by that. I also told you that the chart with the extra row of dates above the "career statistics" section was mostly used for larger performance charts to help our readers. I said it wasn't etched in stone in the guidelines as to when to use the extra row. I noticed yesterday that you were changing player charts who have played for only a couple years to include the row of dates. I said it isn't really needed for players with that short a career, and I reverted them. One was iffy so I left it alone erring on your side. You also seem upset by this.
I don't know how else to explain it except you seem to demand things the way you want it and that's it. I told you if you want to change the charts with new columns and rows and bells and whistles, to bring it here to discuss. Maybe some will be agreed to, and maybe not. If there is agreement I will follow it (whether it's what I want or not). You seem to be in a big disagreement with an IP over the dollar signs in the infobox. I told you I don't think was have any agreement at Tennis Project one way or the other, so I don't revert either one of you. It seems a small issue, we have no rules about it, so I let you two have at it. Maybe you're upset about that too, I have no idea. We have our guidelines to help you. We have our high profile featured article at Milos Raonic and his career stats page. The Milos Raonic article was checked on by dozens of editors and "has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." I hope this helps explain things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I will try to explain it as short as I can. If there are rules; then we should use it! I can't remember when, but I had big problems with one user that was against consensus width of columns in performance timelines. My wish was that all pages be due to guidlines. I try to explain to him that is not my wish, it's CONSESUS, and if he has something against THIS, just to contact administrators and try to find new consesus. He gone to far, and only reason why I try to stop it, was cuz it was poitless to fight with someone against something so minor. When I decided to follow him, and do the same thing, then some users reverted my edits, telling that this is against guidliness (CONTRADITIONAL).

My problem with user that I'm arguing about US$ is not will this link will be or not. I really don't care. Problem is that that IP done so many things against guidlines, and still doing, and then he decided to remove some stuffs can he thinks it's unneseccary to have them. I try to explained him so many times that if it's unneseccary things for him, that it doesn't mean it's unneseccary to others!
I saw that WTA Finals have that EXTRA ROW with source, so I decided to bring it to performance timelines. So many pages are so different that guidlines, so I get that we can edited it in different ways?! And ofcourse, one again, I don't get answer why WTA FInals can have it EVERY YEAR, but others can't have.
So, the reason why I am so upset about all these things cuz there need to be SAME RULES FOR EVERYONE. I don't want to say that IP-user is vandal, but it's ridicoulous to let him do whatever he want.
And last, I CAN'T READ ANYONE'S MIND, TO KNOW WHAT IS UNNESECCARY, WHAT NOT! THAT THE REASON WHY GUIDLINES EXIST.
p.s. I'm sorry if someone find this INSTULTING by me, but I just want answers (if it's possible - I hope so). Thanks. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Enough of this rant about you taking things personal. How about we start back at the beginning. What systematic change to the Wikipedia articles do you want to discuss and possibly create new guidelines? oncamera 11:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Oncamera: It's unbelievable. I have never said that I want changes, I just want to tell me why you insist on guidlines when you don't stick to the same?! p.s. Don't be so rude with that "rant". I will be most happy if "you guys" are normal to talk, understandable and uncontraditional, but guess it's not the case. Make ONE example of how pages should look like and everyone will be happy. Where you defined ex. how Significant finals table should look like? How should I know it should say only Canadian Open, but not Canadian Open, Canada for example. Be CLEAR and everything will be fine. I don't want any change, just want CLEARLY DEFINED RULES. Guess it's so hard to request. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon: sounds like you should read: Wikipedia:The rules are principles. oncamera 08:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon: You also seem to think that every chart no matter how different they are and what material they contain, should be identical. Most charts are NOT in our guidelines. They may have longstanding consensus. We have two main categories of charts in our guidelines, performance charts and career tournament charts (and charts that may spawn off them), because they are so prominent on players bios. Why can't you understand that those charts are BIG DEALS when you try and change them? You talk about clearly defined rules... you may be in the wrong place here at Wikipedia. There is one pretty clear Wikipedia rule. If you change something longstanding or a guideline, or really anything, and someone reverts it with a reason in the summary, you should not revert it back to your own way. You should bring it to a talk page to change peoples minds. That you never seem to follow either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Oncamera:, @Fyunck(click): Once again, you admit that there is no RULES and that everyone can do whatever they want. Congratulation! And tnx for answer, cuz now I know that everyone can has it's own "consesus"!. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Oncamera:, @Fyunck(click): To add something, point was to tell me how pages should look like, you didn't. Talking to Fyunck(click), to tell me that should accept if someone revert my edit, cuz this user knows what's right? How should I know, you could be vandal, but you also could be someone who really take care about editing. You must give me something called PROOF. I really like how you once again try to convince people that I want to CHANGE SOMETHING? WHERE I SAID I WANT TO CHANGE SOMETHING?????? Stop be childish, and get to job and take care about MISTAKES on PAGES. I'm editing these pages for past 2 years and so too many mistakes DONE ON PURPOSE and YOU DIDN"T DO ANYTHING BUT ONLY REVERTING MY MISTAKES FOR WHAT YOU DON"T HAVE PROOF. Point with WIKIPEDIA is that there be CONSESUS for EVERYTHING!!!! Whever I looked at ATP pages, it seems that people are together there and these pages are WELL ORGANIZE, BUT I REALLY CAN'T UNDERSTAND WANT'S WRONG WITH EDITING WTA PAGES! REALLY UNPROFESSIONAL, NO WONDER WHY PEOPLE IGNORE YOU!!! - JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon: And a lot of those edits over the past two years have been great. We are quite thankful for them. But some are problematic. I try to only revert the problem longstanding errors unless you make a zillion changes in a single edit. We have tried to make you understand the process, but we are evidently failing in that endeavor. I'm not sure you grasp just how Wikipedia works and what you can and can't do. Oncamera may be right in that you should go over Wikipedia rules of etiquette like WP:BRDDISCUSS and WP:CONSBUILD. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Qualifying color in performance charts

Per our guidelines, there is no background color in the performance chart if you lose in qualifying. Our performance template shows it clear as we have at Novak Djokovic career statistics. However, many articles do have a color attached to losing in Q1, Q2, Q3.... and it does vary by article. I have seen both ecf2ff, as in Jan-Lennard Struff and f0f8ff, as in Juan Martín del Potro, used for the background color, but there may be more in use. Today I noticed an editor changes the template and several articles to ecf2ff. I looked and didn't see a mention of this here or the guideline talk page as to why. To me, leaving it clear is fine as it separates it from the actual event, but with widespread use of some color maybe others here want it something other than clear? One thing though. Davis Cup uses ecf2ff so I would highly advise against the same color scheme. f0f8ff would be a better choice if we made any changes. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Hey! I added ecf2ff to so many articles, cuz on some I saw f0f8ff, on some ecf2ff, but on some white, so I decided that best solution will be ecf2ff, cuz no matter how I setup my computer, I can't see f0f8ff color clearly, and no one gives me answer what must be. But if it NEEDS to be back to white, no problem, I will do this. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

That's why I asked here. Long-standing guideline charts are clear/white. It can change if everyone wants it to. Heck it could change to soft pink/red for all I know. I don't really see a reason that it should be a color, but the same color as Davis/Fed Cup seems very wrong to me. I can see f0f8ff, but it is light. It could always be more green like e9f7ef or eafaf1, or maybe more pink like fdedec. Just not Davis Cup colors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm voting for some of these green shades. I don't think orange will match here. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Discord

Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Overall Win-Loss

Does w/l from Fed Cup/Olympic Games/Hopman Cup count in performance timeline table in "overall win-loss"? If it does, does it also mean that these tournaments are count as tournaments played? - JamesAndersoon (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Tennis portal

Portal:Tennis had not been updated with new content for quite some time, so I have expanded it. A detailed summary of updates that were performed exists at Portal talk:Tennis § Portal updates. Feel free to post comments about the portal there, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Acceptable sources

I have recently had citations removed for not being reliable, specifically the Tennis Archives website. Now, I understand that there are some issues with the classifications on that site, sometimes the labels for tournaments are not easily identified. However, that is not unusual in tennis sources, often we have had to correct McCauley's results, not just for the classification of tournaments and tours, but also for scores and interpretation of newspaper reports. So I do not see how Tennis Archives is substantially below the standard. And there are many results available which can lead to other sources. Further, I notice that Tennis Archives is the principal source for at least two Wikipedia tennis articles, the U.S. Pro Tennis Championships Draws, 1946-1967 in particular. Do we now wipe out that entire article? We need some consistent direction on this issue. What is the policy? Tennisedu (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

[Copy of my reply to the same question at Talk:U.S. Pro Tennis Championships draws, 1946–1967 ] It is a matter of judgement and in my view it is not a reliable source and I have removed references to it. It does not qualify as a reliable source as it fails the verifiability policy, specifically the part on self-published sources which states: "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources.". It is convenient and tempting for editors to use these personal websites as a source for tennis articles, particularly if the information, such as older draws and personal stats, are hard to come by otherwise, but that doesn't mean we should or can use them. We have to maintain encyclopedic standards. --Wolbo (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

So....what does that mean? Do we stop using McCauley? Do we now wipe out the entire Wikipedia article on U.S. Pro Championship draws? We need to pursue a consistent policy here, otherwise it becomes a chaos of individual edit warring. Can we not agree on a consistent policy?Tennisedu (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The policy is pretty clear, at least in my view, but there can and often will be discussions on the application of a policy in a specific case as that is a matter of judgment. Don't see a problem with McCauley as that falls uner the part of the policy which states that self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert. And no, we do not need to wipe out the U.S. Pro Championship draws, we just need to find a reliable source --Wolbo (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the effort that McCauley made to produce his book, and I frequently cite McCauley as a source, but it has been a huge task for me and others to correct the many errors and misunderstandings which are embedded in McCauley's text. I do not see McCauley as necessarily more reliable than TennisArchive, as both need to be taken with some provisional need for further research. So are you suggesting that we eliminate the source for the Wikipedia article, which is Tennis Archive, and leave the article without source? Tennisedu (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I have a great deal of respect for Joe McCauley and his book (in its day it was a hugely influential book and I still recall the joy of first reading it 16 years ago), but I have spent a lot of time correcting mistakes in his book and so have other researchers. I would say McCauley is an acceptable source unless proved wrong with evidence (ie newspapers). I respect rules that are fairly applied, though sometimes the wikipedia rules for sourcing do not allow some very accurate sources to be used. Fortunately newspapers are an acceptable source and match reports can be used to prove whether McCauley is correct or not. There are many websites containing newspapers online. I have a large archive of newspaper match reports not available online and I know other researchers who also have an archive of newspaper match reports not available online. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

These responses relate to the quality of the content itself, in this case McCauley's book, but in actual fact, and this may sound counter-intuitive, the quality of the content is not directly related to determining if a source is reliable or not (obviously within reason). Self-published material may contain accurate, high quality content and, vice versa, content published by reliable independent sources can sometimes be low quality, but in itself quality is not a relevant criteria. To understand, we need to take a step back and look at what an encyclopedia like Wikipedia actually is, namely a collection of knowledge of the world, and that knowledge needs to be published (original research is not allowed) and it needs to come from a reliable source before we as editors can use it. Wikipedia's policy states that self-published material (e.g. a book or website) is by and large not regarded as a reliable source and can therefore, with some exceptions, not be used. This is mainly because self-published means there was no editorial oversight before publication (remember, anyone can create a personal website or self-publish a book) and it can not be assessed if proper fact-checking has taken place. Again, it is not a verdict on quality. McCauley can be seen as an established subject-matter expert (being an expert is not enough, you need to be established in reliable sources as a subject-matter expert) so, despite any errors in his book, that would qualify it as a reliable source. The same does not apply to tennisarchives.com, or similar more or less personal tennis websites, and therefore it should not be used, even if the content is, in our judgment, useful and of good quality. Tennis History by Jim McManus and The History of Irish Tennis by Tom Higgins are also self-published but both in my view also qualify as a reliable source based on the 'established subject-matter expert' criteria.--Wolbo (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I personally feel we have to be a "little" more flexible on reliable sources when it comes to such a vague area of time as pre-open tennis. I would not absolutely rule out Tennis Archives as a source, but it would be a weak source... pretty much supplanted by all other sources if possible. I'm not sure the caliber of the person running the site. We do occasionally use tennisforum.com as a source because it is run by an expert who checks the entries when they are added. I don't know how tennisarchives.com does it. We use the ATP/WTA websites as excellent sources, but we also know they can be wrong on matches pre-1980. So we handle it the same way as you suggest for McCauley, the ATP/WTA are great sources unless you can show otherwise with a source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't like to over-work the point, but I would like to get everyone on the same page here (excuse the pun). How "little" is "little" for the Tennisarchive source? Should we accept match scores only? Often the tournament titles in Tennisarchives are rather odd and take some effort to identify, so I use tournament titles from other sources. The match scores in Tennisarchives seem to be accurate, and provide us with the best available source for difficult to obtain information. Pre-1980 data is often hard to get, and this is a convenient forum to look for some initial results.Tennisedu (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Federer up for GA reassessment

HI all. Just wanted to let everyone know that Roger Federer is up for GA reassessment. See the discussion here. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Arthur Ashe

I was reading the article, it's accessed to C rating, surely it's more a B? Govvy (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 US Open

I have looking occasionally looking at the 2020 US Open article the last few days with all the affects the pandemic is having on it. I noticed that it includes a list of withdrawn players (with replacements even), with line of explanation above that claiming that these players had entered the tournament, and subsequently withdrew. However, from what I can make up from the sources (most importantly the US Open's site), these players had never entered the tournament. They simply decided not to enter in the first place. They haven't announced a player field at all. Any thoughts?T v x1 20:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I did a quick search and found nothing, but I could have easily missed it. I asked the IP for his sources so we can re-add the content. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Re-add what content? I was referring to an already present mostly unsourced list of withdrawals. No indication that they even ever entered the tournament in the first place.T v x1 12:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This article really needs some oversight. There are constant additions of unsourced speculative information.T v x1 19:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If there are sources that show that list of withdrawals/replacements, the list can be re-added. If not, it can't. That's what I asked of the IP. My guess is there is no such list. And remember... in usual circumstances, participation in the majors is a tour requirement except for injury (or you have played enough years on the tour). Unless those rules have changed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

But that list was never removed. The things that have been removed are list of protected-ranking entries and prospective seeds. The withdrawals have steadily been there with barely any source that these actually are withdrawals rather than players who declined to enter. Also a number of players, like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, have a couple (if not complete) exemptions of mandatory commitments due to their longevity in the sport.T v x1 21:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned there are longevity exemptions. Maybe there is a semantics issue here. Take Federer or Nadal. They are automatically entered in the US Open this year due to rankings. If they say they are not appearing is it a withdrawal? Many will say yes. We have Federer listed as a withdrawal in the 2017 and 2018 French Opens when he did not schedule the event at the beginning of the year. Sports Illustrated called it a withdrawal in 2017 when Federer never intended to play. Now of course each non-entry/withdrawal should be sourced, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed. In a BLP you would remove it, but this isn't a BLP. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that if they were never on an entry list, we shouldn't list them as withdrawals. Their situation would simply not match up with the description above the list. Also per the ATP rules the mandatory commitment only apply to the top 30 of the world rankings (taken from the ahead of the world tour finals the preceding year), it doesn't actually mention the Grand Slams and it appears this commitment has been waived for the remainder of 2020. The WTA rulebook however indeed mentions automatically entering all eligible players within the top 200 on the entry deadline (6 weeks before the start) for a grand slam tournament.T v x1 21:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

So as I said, it can be a matter of opinion as to how to word it. Sports illustrated and other press releases have called them withdrawals. Why not simply tweak the section wording to "Withdrawals and exemptions"? The wording above the list says "injury, suspension, or personal reasons" and that fits just fine. If there is an issue of "were accepted directly" then tweak that as well. Say something like "The following players would have been accepted directly into the main tournament per seeding, but withdrew or declined to enter due to injury, suspension, or personal reasons." This isn't that big of a deal since readers do want to know if a player is entered or not. We just should include a source for each and every entry that withdrew so readers can check that fact. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with what user Fyunck(click) (talk) wrote above. Also, unlike non-mandatory ATP and WTA events, Grand Slams are opt-out instead of opt-in, which means, according to the official grand slam rule book, that players are automatically enrolled in the main draw and the respective qualifying draw and alternates list (unless on ladies' case a young player fails to meet the WTA age eligibility rules) and then only removed from the published lists if they had formally announced their withdrawal to the ITF and the Grand Slam Board. Unless you can provide a reliable source stating that things were done differently this year due to the pandemic, we should proceeed with business as usual; take a look at the withdrawals sections of past slam articles on wikipedia, the 2020 USO article is following the same guidelines used for years, there's hardly ever a specific source attached to each withdrawn player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.224.15.172 (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Santo Domingo Open

The Milex Open hasn't gone by that name since 2017 and was the Santo Domingo Open in 2018 and 2019, so I moved the main article to Santo Domingo Open (tennis). If this needs to be moved again, let me know. Also the 2018 and 2019 tournament pages should be updated to reflect this, unless I'm missing something? Raymie (t • c) 06:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion going on at Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players

It's not some earth shattering discussion.... just looking at some minor limitations on table inclusions at a particular article and how to stop some bloat. If this type of thing interests anyone here at the project, please feel free to jump in. At the time of my posting this we don't see any dissension but maybe someone has some different ideas and we don't want you left out if you do. It's at Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players for those interested. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Afd notice

Big Three (tennis) is up for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Květa Peschke

While watching the US Open I looked at the articles of some of the participating players. Doing so I stumbled on the article of Květa Peschke. I noticed that though she's a true veteran of the sport who is still very active at the age of 45 (recently won Cincinatti Open and reached quarterfinal of US Open in doubles), her doubles performance timeline had not been updated since Wimbledon 2017 for the Grand Slam tournaments and not since 2013(!) for the WTA Tour events. I updated it over the last few days, but it would be helpful if someone could double-check the figures. Especially the Succes Ratios and Win-Loss stats.T v x1 20:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? It would be greatly appreciated if someone would double-check those numbers.T v x1 16:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Done Checked it all. Somnifuguist (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility issues

See a relevant discussion at Talk:Naomi_Osaka#Accessibility where users are removing accessibility features, making the site hostile to the blind. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the ridiculousness of the above poster, it is not required and in fact, most of the time would simply double up the same thing a header does. If you look around wikipedia, almost no articles use this messiness. Demanding it or using a boulder to get your way does not help. Now, there may be an easy workaround for this. If the second line of tables we create use the following parameter:
|+ {{sronly|this is a screen reader only heading}}
If we do this then screen readers will be the only things affected in doubling up on the header and it won't affect the visuals of our tennis articles. I have no issue if it's handled this way for all our tables. Is anyone against it or can you think of reasons why we wouldn't slowly add this to table creations? I don't think we need to do anything formal in our guidelines in allowing hidden table formatting that can possibly help screen readers. It would be allowed on our countless hundreds of thousands of tables in all our articles so I thought that big a change should at least be discussed or mentioned here. As I said, we wont see it, but screen readers will read it. Most of the time it will simply duplicate the section heading, such as "Grand Slam tournament performance timeline." That term will get doubled up for screen readers but will help in navigation. Visually, nothing should change for non-screen readers. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine given that it doesn't change the visual appearance, and assuming it does make it easier for screen readers. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the other changes made by Justin that actually did change the visual appearance aren't necessary even if "scope" is specified. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I changed the items back that are against Tennis Project Guidelines. There is no reason for some of those changes and using "!" in the middle of tables is not good html per universities and accessibility. I'm going to take his word that it's helpful for screen readers to double-up on headings and have a hidden caption, but before we go adding it to literally millions and millions of Wikipedia tables it should at least be discussed here. Since it affects pretty much every sports article, military article, and even articles on George Washington, every Wikipedia Project should have been notified before concluding the RfC a few months ago and adding it to the accessibility guideline. Centralized discussion should also have been mandatory. I'm all for disability access but it should have been worded differently with more emphasis on making sure it's hidden in most cases. I can start a new Rfc there if I have to and inform every single Wikiproject and discussion group if they start trying to make every aspect of that discussion mandatory, but I hope I won't have to. A hidden caption tag can work for our thousands of tables, and as long as that is as far as it goes, I'll tentatively support it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), "There is no reason for some of those changes and using "!" in the middle of tables is not good html per universities and accessibility." Please cite a source that says this and we can amend our documentation. You've stated this several times no with no substantiation. "Centralized discussion should also have been mandatory": it was mandatory! That's what the "C" is in RFC! What are you talking about? We as a community went over this already and now you're trying to claim that the blind shouldn't have access to tennis because it's somehow special? What is your point? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
You are so full of yourself in claiming the blind shouldn't have access baloney. The blind have have access to that article and can read it just fine per other editors who have tested it with screen readers. Originally they had some issues with "!" being in the middle of tables, so we fixed that. It can also cause color variations in charts. You have stated that it is a convenience for the sight challenged by having table captions, but originally it would be an inconvenience to constantly be seeing double for those who are not sight challenged. Having that forced is WRONG! Then you mentioned that the captions could be hidden, and I listened to that. In fact I concurred right here that it could be done that way and I asked others to join in with my support. RFCs don't always get posted at WP:Cent and every Wikipedia project. When it can affect millions of charts that is an important oversight. The wording would certainly have ended up being different than how it is now. We use "small" only when needed because of room limitations, but certainly some people overdo it. Our charts are supposed to be at 100% size with only certain things at subscript size. Obviously we have make exceptions for players like Roger Federer who has played so many years and won so many events that we have to compromise and make things smaller. We were told in the last accessibility look-over that color can never be the sole thing for data so we changed that also to conform. When we only see color and no data we correct things. We've had readers ask us for keys to better explain things and talk it over here on how best to do it. Those readers didn't just start deleting things like you are doing. We are a community and there is the "lets talk about things approach" and your "let's take a hatchet approach." Guess which works better? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777, The other changes are required by our own guidelines and accessibility best practices, please see MOS:COLOR, MOS:SMALL, and Help:Table#Scope. I've already referred you to these but it's not clear that you've read them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), Yes, they are required. Please do not lie to other readers or misrepresent that our documentation explicitly says that table captions are required for all data tables. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Stop with the Messiah complex... as with all Guidelines and especially with this it says to use common sense in certain situations. While your suggestion of hiding the doubling header got my attention and support, I am losing patience with your bullying technique towards fellow Tennis Project editors. Knock that off please. I look at you other edits on articles where you seem to ignore tables but this one particular tennis article seems to hold some fascination. We'll see where this goes here at Tennis Project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), As we've established, all data tables need captions. Since these are required and there is no exemption for tennis-related tables, they should be implemented immediately. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Two things. We established no such "requirement" at all for any articles on Wikipedia. Even the administrator you brought over would not corroborate that requirement. So stop with that falsehood. That said, I don't see any nay-sayers here at Tennis Project after a week and, since it doesn't change the visual appearance of any chart, if you want to insert a line in the format of |+ {{sronly|this is a screen reader only heading}} I think you can safely go ahead. In fact, I added it back myself to Naomi Osaka's article. Good doing business with you and have a great life. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), I literally quoted the page: "all data tables need captions". That was the language from the RfC. Why do you think that tennis-related content is somehow immune? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
LOL...Are you still blathering about this? Find someone else to hound with your ridiculousness. I guess there's a reason you've been blocked 27 times (3 in the last few months). Move along, the train has left the station. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Draw links on season templates

I've recently gone through and added draw links where missing to the ATP and WTA season templates, e.g. Template:1997 WTA Tour. They were already used for every season starting from 2009 [2], but for the most part weren't added to earlier years, probably due to it being a bit tedious (I made a template to solve this). However, my additions were reverted once by another editor, so it is worth bringing here for discussion. My view is that they make navigation much easier, e.g. if I'm looking at 2019 Monte-Carlo Masters – Singles, and want to see how a player fared in the other Masters tournaments that year, I can navigate directly to the respective draws rather than having to go through the main tournament pages first. The links also serve another purpose: showing editors which draws still need to be added, for example compare the 1984 WTA Tour template without [3] and with [4] the links—editors seeing the former would get the false impression that our coverage of the season is complete. For these reasons I think we should stick with the long-standing consensus from recent years' templates and keep the links. Any thoughts? These are some of our most visible templates, so it's worth getting it right. --Somnifuguist (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Tournament draw wikitext generator

With the help of Mad melone, I've published a tool that generates the draw sections of tennis tournament articles from their respective ITF printable URLs (e.g. go to a tournament [5] -> select singles/doubles, main draw/qualifying -> click print [6]). In tandem with an article template like Adamtt9's here, it should allow us to rapidly add all the missing draws articles from the open era, thereby filling in the red links in the above-mentioned season templates like this one. --Somnifuguist (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning me, but I only built the webservice, all praise for the tool is yours Somnifuguist. There is potentially more to come as I am experimenting with a bot that can directly write to a wiki (rather than providing a copy&paste solution), but that's a medium to long way down the road.--Mad melone (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The tool has now been used to create ~400 articles on the German wiki, which shows its potential should someone choose to use it here. Somnifuguist (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed that Big Four career statistics be merged into Big Three (tennis), or alternatively re-named and adjusted as appropriate. Input to the discussion here is welcomed, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

What should be in Big Three (tennis)?

In relation to the proposal above, user:Fyunck(click) and I are in disagreement over the intended content of the article. Broadly speaking, they feel the vast majority of content originally in Big Four (tennis) should be included, and I do not - more at the current discussion here. Although not explicitly stated as such, my interpretation of the merger discussion in October/November was that it was a more popular opinion to embrace the Big Three concept more fully and mention the Big Four concept more in passing, in the same way that a Big Five had been mentioned on the older article. Fyunck(click) thinks Big Four details should be included more fully from the merged article. I think there will need to be some tidying up either way, but as a middling observer of tennis I think this is an important and enduring topic that deserves a good quality article with consistent information - at present it's half Big 3, half Big 4 and readers might be confused. Notwithstanding Fyunck(click)'s status as a longstanding member of the project while I'm an interloper, some input from the other members on what should be included in the Big Three article would be appreciated; we can then move forward with changes to the related Statistics article as appropriate. Thanks very much. Crowsus (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Per Aircorn, "How the Big three article is set up to accommodate info from this article is up to interested editors." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That said, I disagree with most of what you are saying. The reason for the merger was that the Big Three content would overlap too much with the Big Four content. The fact that the Big Three was selected as the article to be merged into doesn't mean the Big Four don't exist. The Big Four has always been a more relevant term than the Big Five; that is not up for debate. The merger wasn't about getting rid of the Big Four term (or about getting rid of the Big Three term, if the opposite had been decided). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"Fyunck(click) thinks Big Four details should be included more fully from the merged article." Fyunck is right about that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"I think there will need to be some tidying up either way, but as a middling observer of tennis I think this is an important and enduring topic that deserves a good quality article with consistent information - at present it's half Big 3, half Big 4 and readers might be confused." You are right about that. None of the editors who advocated for the Big Three article over the Big Four article actually want to write the main part of the article. So I don't think it's worth trying to improve. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I also don't agree with Aircorn's decision to close the discussion. (4 editors wanted to merge into the Big Four; 7 editors wanted to merge into the Big Three, including one IP with no editing history and a different editor who just wrote "Agree".) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

What Crowsus is proposing is more a deletion than a merge and that was NEVER intended. The content of the Big Four should mostly be intact. Obviously as Sportsfan77777 said, there needs to be tidying and some fudging to make it work as seamlessly as possible. I wouldn't call you an interloper... everyone should be free to discuss their opinions. Heck, maybe many agree with you. But there is a huge difference between merge and delete. Let me also point out that I was never a fan of all the details in either article. I thought they should be simple prose like we do for the Four Musketeers article. But I was overruled many times on that by wikipedia editors. No problem, but now that the content exists and the only agreement was to merge, it should be merged... not deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Bearing the above in mind, you/we should either then appeal to a higher authority to have the merger discussion re-opened or cancelled (thereby restoring the original Big Four article which I had read a few times over the years, and which i feel was cast aside disrespectfully in favour of a new, very basic list which somehow was successfully argued as being a better option to retain), or a new Move discussion should be started to re-name Big Three to Big Four which would bring in more editors from across the editing spectrum. I have already said that I agree with your position that Big Four is valid as a topic, but at the moment the article is called Big Three. To have four players discussed in detail under that title is nonsensical. Either there's a big three in tennis or there's a big four with one member dropping out in recent years, I'm on the big four side of any vote on it and i think it needs further discussion but in the end a decision needs to be made, either it's three and the article is mainly about 3 players or it's four and the article is about 4. If you miss having the Big Four article that you spent time on, fight for its return because what's there now is a pretty shoddy mish mash. Crowsus (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

There was a Big Four and there is now a Big Three. And we don't need the merger re-opened, it just needs to be merged correctly. This recent thing started not with the article merger but with your proposal to pretty much eliminate a different article, Big Four career statistics. That was unacceptable in my mind. Certainly the new Big Three article should mostly focus on the Big Three. Most of the Big Four prose should be in the "2011–2013: Big four Dominance" section (with some overlap), but it should probably be the biggest single section. And as we have it now, that section points to Big Four career statistics for those readers who want more detail on stats of the Big Four. I see no real issue here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Big Four career statistics was created after a discussion I started a couple of months ago. Big Four (tennis) had been noted as being too large as far back as 7 years ago [7], when it was half the size, so IMO it was a much-needed split and the proposal to merge the statistics article back into Big Three (tennis) should be withdrawn. As for Big Three vs. Big Four, it basically came down to whether editors viewed the term as describing an era (Big Four), or a legacy (Big Three). I disagreed with the direction of the merge, but it was probably inevitable given the recurrent raising of the issue since Murray's decline. I also heard a commentator include Thiem in a 'Big Four' recently, so having a core 'Big Three' article that discusses other variants of the term is probably less confusing for readers new to tennis. Now that the merge has taken place (albeit somewhat haphazardly), it seems logical to move the statistics article to Big Three career statistics to be consistent, so I would support such a move. Somnifuguist (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention for sports stadia

A request for comment is open regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguation in relation to articles on sports stadia here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC Naming convention for sports stadia. Input is welcome. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Important page move - The Championships, Wimbledon

Letting Tennis Project know that a move discussion at talk:Wimbledon, London has spilled over to include moving The Championships, Wimbledon to simply "Wimbledon". They at first moved it unilaterally but I complained that neither Tennis Project nor The Championships, Wimbledon talk pages were informed prior to the move. It was reopened. I'm actually not sure how I feel one way or the other, but I wanted our editors who do care to have the chance to express their opinions on that particular aspect of the discussion... especially since it's the most important tournament in tennis history. Again it's at talk:Wimbledon, London. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), Thanks for the heads up. Ym2X (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia tennis pages. Sources.

I would like to propose a change to current wikipedia policy on which sources are and are not allowed on wikipedia tennis pages. Currently the rule on self-published sources seems to be being administered unfairly by one editor who discriminates against Amazon published books. More and more good books are self-published these days. Particularly for the pre-open era pro tour, nearly all the sources are self-published. Currently some are allowed and some are not allowed, with Amazon-published works not being allowed by him. Perhaps the editor in question fears the opening of the floodgates if we allow all Amazon published works as sources, so let me set his mind at rest by proposing the following solution.

Amazon published works should be allowed as wikipedia sources under the following rules for minimum standards of entry:

Publication has an Amazon Sales Rank in five different countries.

Publication reviewed or recommended by a magazine or an established expert.

Publication accepted into the Kenneth Ritchie library at Wimbledon.

Author may not cite own work. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I support this proposal.Karoly Mazak (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karoly Mazak (talk • contribs) 11:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Editors on this project can't make their own policies that go against the standard set forth on Wikipedia per WP:VERIFY|WP:SELFPUBLISH. So you will have to take your issue up Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as this relates to one of the pillars of Wikipedia when it comes to sources. oncamera _{(talk page)} 11:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This is about selective application of the rules. I see no difference between Ray Bowers publishing his retrospective rankings on a website and Karoly Mazak publishing his retrospective rankings in his book. I have not received a satisfactory answer as to why these two sources are treated differently. I will post this on the thread you posted onecamera, but I dont see Ray Bowers mentioned on there. Who decided he was a reliable source? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Were the Kenneth Ritchie Library catalogue available online, I would say this was a good idea. But as far as I can see, it's not. Deb (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a very easy way to check. Just email the Wimbledon library and the librarian will tell you if a book is in their library or not. They are very good at responding. I have posted this proposal on the page suggested by onecamera and have received support from Karoly Mazak and krosero. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As Oncamera points out individual WikiProjects do not get to set their own policy regarding WP:VERIFY|WP:SELFPUBLISH. In addition there is a clear conflict of interest here with the editors involved proposing guidelines with the obvious intent to get their own (resp. each other's) tennis books accepted under their proposed 'rules'. Authors should stay far away from any conduct that appears to be aimed at plugging their own book. Said editors are skating on thin ice.--Wolbo (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently this policy you constantly quote is being administered by you, Wolbo. I think you are skating on ice if you think your own very prejudicial judgement should be allowed to decide which sources qualify under this rule or not. I have already considered the issue of "plugging" my own book which is the reason why I stated authors could not cite their own work. My proposal isnt about any one book. This is about all books meeting minimum standards including the verification by experts. I prefer the verification of experts to the prejudicial judgement of one wikipedia editor.

Let me quote again the remarks you made in a talk page on this subject Wolbo. "No offence to anyone who has taken the effort to publish something but any idiot can self-publish (and it seems a lot of them have). Fyunck's view that "something is better than nothing" is simply wrong if it doesn't meet the requirements set out in WP:V, WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUB (which are not static but evolve with community consensus). It is a minimum standard that cannot be compromised. If we allow Mazak's "book" (and I use the term loosely) we might as well determine the rankings ourselves and that is aside from the question about the encyclopedic merit of judging in 2010 that Gore was the No. 1 ranked player in 1877.--"

In writing the paragraph above, Wolbo, you lost all respect in my eyes. It was full of spite, jealousy and bias and the last sentence was utter nonsense. You allow Ray Bowers to determine 1930s rankings in 2005 but you do not allow Karoly Mazak to do so in 2010. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolution to current conflict on sources

I have followed procedure on this and gone through RFC on sources. Without pre-judging the final result, it looks as if my proposal on establishing set rules for tennis sources will not carry. Editors from other subjects like the existing rule as it is. The problem is this leaves us with a major issue on these tennis pages and I do not know what the answer to it is. I would like a proper debate on this.

One editor, Wolbo, has taken it upon himself to be the sole arbitre of what sources are allowed and what sources are not. His judgement has been shown to be very prejudicial. If we debate books on a case by case basis then me trying to get my own book accepted as a source will be seen as me having a vested interest.

I find Wolbo's remarks on Karoly Mazak's book offensive for a number of reasons. Firstly, if we look at the page World number one ranked male tennis players we find rare sources for the early years and who did the research to find these sources? Karoly Mazak! This is the same person that Wolbo mocks and calls his book a "book" in inverted commas and says he might as well decide the rankings himself if we allow it as a source. Well where is your book Wolbo? Where is your research?

This is what the late Alan Little, former honorary librarian of Kenneth Ritchie Wimbledon library said about Karoly's book: "This is a tremendous effort and undoubtedly a fine document for future reference. The summary of each year and the ranking list attached will serve many researcher in the future. We will be pleased to put a copy on our shelves."

The problem is, the tennis history community is very small. The same person that writes a book edits on wikipedia. Someone who has a prejudice against amazon published books also edits on wikipedia. Who else regularly edits?, its mainly you fyunck, you may be the only one without a bias on this issue. I am not prepared to accept that Wolbo allows some self-published sources such as Ray Bowers, Robet Geist and tennisbase, while disallowing others. McCauley with all his many errors is allowed but my book with much more data and far fewer errors is not. Ray Bowers' retrospective rankings are accepted but not Karoly Mazak's. There is no justification that I can see, both Bowers and Mazak are the same.

I have always respected your expertise with technical issues (page formatting, etc.), Wolbo. You have more knowledge on how to format an infobox or a ref tag correctly than I do and I will be the first to admit that. You do have some knowledge of tennis history, but you are not someone I would class as an expert. And even leaving myself out of the conversation I have known experts. For example some of the data in my book comes from someone who adds data to the ATP website. I know how he researches (I have similar methods myself) and he is someone I have a high regard for as an expert, gathering data (some quite obscure) from libraries all over the world. Wikipedia editor Krosero is a researcher and someone who I have high regard for. And Karoly Mazak, who I have already mentioned.

A lot of people laugh at wikipedia tennis pages, mocking their lack of accuracy. My attitude is different. Wikipedia pages show up high on google searches. Do we want the pages to be as accurate as possible or do we want them to be rubbish? I say we should make them as accurate as we can, because a lot of people read them and it is important they receive the best information. I have spent some time (over the past year in particular) making them a lot more accurate. And whilst I do acknowledge the large number of tennis pages you have edited over many years Wolbo, improving the formatting, correcting spelling and grammar etc. and in some cases the content also, it is about time you showed myself and other tennis historians some respect for what we have done. I do not bow to any self-appointed authority you think you have in deciding sources on wikipedia. I would like suggestions of how to resolve this. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

An RfC to change all wikipedia guidelines was doomed from the outset. Tennis isn't important enough for a wiki-wide change. Self-published sources can be used if it can be shown the authors are experts on the subject, or if they have been properly published for other works of tennis. What has to be shown is that the books in question are the works of experts. Tennis magazines printing they are experts or people like Alan Little saying in print they are goes a long way. Newspaper articles talking about the books. If something is self-published then it needs some respected sources telling us it is pretty accurate and worthy of our using it as a source. Find those items and put them here so we can judge them. It is your responsibility to do the legwork and convince those of us at Tennis Project. A respected publisher uses advertising to make sure a book sells. If you self-publish you may need to seek out tennis magazines or the press and tell them about your book. If they like what the hear and read, it'll get mentioned in an article. If famous tennis players talk about the book, that works too. But self-published book authors have to do that themselves. That's about all I can say. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I was advised to do an RfC. I was following what I was advised to do. You are certainly right about the reasons for the RfC's failure. Getting a book advertised as a self-published author is hard. Bear in mind authors are not specialists in advertising. My book was reviewed in a magazine. Which tennis players know about the pro tour? Even many so-called experts do not. My issue with this is actually not about my book specifically. Of course I would love it to be accepted as a source. But my issue on this is about fair application of the rules. I have asked the editor in question repeatedly how Robert Geist, Ray Bowers and tennisbase qualify under these rules. He refuses to answer, yet all the while will routinely remove my book and Karoly's if they are cited as sources. I want to know reasons why each self-published source is allowed. I am a reasonable man. If a good reason is given (as was the case with McCauley being a journalist for World Tennis magazine) I will accept that. I think it is becoming increasingly clear to several editors that something is amiss here. Only last night someone queried why some retrospective rankings by Bowers were accepted as sources on the World number one ranked male tennis players page. I am afraid I can see no logical reason. Lets list each self-published source currently accepted and see the reasons for its acceptance. If I make edits on wikipedia I am expected to justify those edits and I expect all editors to behave the same way. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think actually my book has a magazine review plus one other expert citation. I am happy to discuss these and provide links to them. But what I do not want to do is get involved with an edit war with the editor in question. I would like this whole issue discussed on talk first and agreed upon. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert Geist and Ray Bowers are quoted over and over as tennis experts in published sources. Published books on tennis quote them, such as "A Terrible Splendor." Newspapers like the NY Times quote them as well. Now tennis base is another story. I see no reason it should accepted where others are not. It is a site designed for and paid by bettors on the sport of tennis. When it was first being built and some conversations with the author about his ranking of old tennis events... some were absurd. Some of his numbers were based on sourced exhibitions, not sourced legitimate events. Overall it's great to see the stats there from someone who has researched and loves the sport, but I no longer subscribe since I will not pay some ridiculous sum just to support all the betting it's used for. It seems a bit slimy with the betting aspect. But it's no better than yours or Karoly's books. The site owner is a mathematician and tennis fan who decided to make money on his expertise of tennis by linking it to the betting world. He (Gabriel García) does have some famous players that have blogs on his site and that gives extra weight. I have always thought each work should stand on its own as far as is it a worthy source, regardless of if it's self published or not or a betting site or not. I do not own "The Professional Tennis Archive" though I have seen it. I own "the Concise History of Tennis." Mazak's book is surely as worthy as thetennisbase info. TPTA I would have to reserve personal judgement on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent answer fyunck, it is very useful. I can now explain to people when they ask, why Bowers is listed as a source. I will let Karoly explain about his own book should he wish to. Let me explain my thoughts on the tennisbase pre-open era pro data and also explain about my book. I am one of the very few people who has gone through all the tennisbase pre open era pro data. Some I used in my book. Some of the good quality tennisbase data is provided by an excellent historian who I know (he also provides data to the ATP website). He provided some of these results of his to me directly by email and sent me some copies of newspaper match reports (all the results he emailed me were also published on tennisbase). Some of the data on tennisbase is provided by editor Krosero, another excellent historian (he also shared some of his match reports with me). Some tennisbase data comes from McCauley of varying quality (sometimes amended). However, some tennisbase data (of unknown origin) is not so good. I made an assessment on which tennisbase data to use in my book and which not use and corrected errors as I went along. I was able to verify the quality of each tour or tournament using my knowledge. A good proportion of the data in my book is from my own research. I spent a long time trawling through online archives and emailed many libraries and I visited three libraries in person. I unearthed the results of several newly found tours and tournaments and many results not published since the matches were originally played. So my book is considerably more accurate and contains more data than tennisbase does for the pre-open era pro tour period (tennisbase also has pre-open amateur data and open era data which my book does not). Despite its inaccuracies, I would say tennisbase is a valuable website on tennis history and praise those involved for their efforts, but I am very dubious about having a statistics section for the pro tour (and using tennisbase stats for the pro tour on wikipedia). Complete match results for the pro tour are not known and never will be known (some matches were not reported anywhere), so the stats listed are partial. I do not list stats in my book for this reason. I have a large archive of match reports (not only screenshots of online newspapers, but also offline newspapers sent to me from libraries). Any queries on results, I can provide match reports to settle the argument. I have a copy of a magazine review of my book which I can upload for you to see. Copies of my book are in the Wimbledon library and the hall of fame library. There was also this https://www.si.com/tennis/2019/12/18/mailbag-2019-year-decade-review-serena-federer-wozniacki-big-three Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's all relative though. I believe all you say, but it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot unless other mainstream sources print it about you or your book. The Sports Illustrated blurb is not the writer commenting or talking about it, or reviewing it. He just posts a link to Amazon. Had he written a paragraph on it's worthiness it would be a different story. You mentioned that "authors are not specialists in advertising"... if they want to use their books as sources then they have to learn. Sort of, if a tree falls in the forest and no one sees it, did it really happen? I assume you sent free copies of your book to Tennis.com, Tennis View Magazine, Tennis Channel, and every other small tennis journal? Getting them to give favorable reviews and noting your expertise is exactly what we need. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

https://imgur.com/a/FGaLS4n Is the magazine review. This was published in Tennis threads, the only UK printed monthly tennis magazine, in November 2019. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma

Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma (https://internazionaliparma.com/) and Internazionali di Tennis Emilia Romagna (https://internazionaliemiliaromagna.it) are two very different tournaments but at the moment they are in the same page. The former is a Challenger 80 ($52.080) held indoor in Parma city at the PalaRaschi (the main sport arena in Parma) on hard surface. The other one is a Challenger 125 ($156.240) held outdoor in Montechiarugolo, a suburb of Parma, on red clay. The only thing they have in common is the same organizer (MEF Tennis Events). Therefore a new page would be necessary for Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma, as Italian (it:Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma) and German (de:ATP Challenger Parma-2) wikipedia have. Carlo58s (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Djokovic–Federer rivalry

I have nominated Djokovic–Federer rivalry for WP:GAN. Kindly edit and help improve the article.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Known flags for the next round

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Knockout brackets in sports events has a suggestion against adding a flag to the next round in draws before a match between players from the same country. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You mean in the tournament draw brackets? Difficult to police and it usually fixes itself in an hour or two. I think we have better things to correct than a particular flag icon. What I suggested years ago was that we only need flag icons in the first round. I guess the thing going against the removal and keeping the flags (at least in tennis) is the way the sources do it at the WTA, ATP, and the events themselves. They have the flags listed every round. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Singles/Doubles category sorting

Category:2020 ATP Tour currently includes:

Doubles is sorted before Singles because D is before S alphabetically. Most tournament articles are sorted like that. I think it should be opposite:

The number 1 comes before 2, singles gets far more attention than doubles, and singles is mentioned before doubles in nearly every context (if doubles is even mentioned). Small bonus: "Singles" is narrower than "Doubles" in proportional fonts so it looks better visually, and readers can more easily connect articles about the same event. All articles already have sortkeys to remove the year. I suggest sorting the word "Singles" as "1", e.g. 2020 Astana Open – Singles as "Astana Open – 1" (or optionally "Astana Open - 1" with hyphen instead of ndash). This places it between 2020 Astana Open and 2020 Astana Open – Doubles without having to change their current sortkeys. If somebody also sorts 2020 Astana Open – Doubles as "Astana Open – 2" then it's OK but not necessary. The same principle works in categories like Category:2019 Miami Open where 2019 Miami Open – Men's Singles can sort as "2019 Miami Open – Men's 1", and 2019 Miami Open – Women's Singles as "Miami Open – Women's 1". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well that makes just too much sense. Thumbs up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Abu Dhabi Open needs to be looked at

Can someone familiar with professional tennis look at the recent changes to Abu Dhabi Open? A pair of new editors suggest the event has a new name or new organization.

If they are correct, the information that they removed may need to go on a new page and the current page renamed.

If they are trying to hijack the article, then of course it needs to be reverted.

Here's the diff from January 13 to 22 February: [8]

Also, it looks like something changed in or before December 2020, when the page was moved. Here's the diff from December 19, 2020 to February 22, 2021: [9] davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The Abu Dhabi Open was created to host an open Women's tennis event for the 2021 WTA Tour, which has an article and sub-articles at 2021 Abu Dhabi Women's Tennis Open. The Mubadala World Tennis Championship is an exhibition tennis event that was cancelled for 2020 but appears to be trying to keep going for 2021. This can be fixed by moving this page back to World Tennis Championship and leaving a red link behind for the creation of a new article to cover all future Abu Dhabi Opens. Iffy★Chat -- 15:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I've moved this page back but left a redirect in place so that nothing gets broken until someone gets around to creating an article at Abu Dhabi Open. Iffy★Chat -- 23:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Error in Draw of 1983 Australian Open Men's Single Tournament

New to wiki's editing interface, so I apologize if this isn't the place to put this. I noticed an error in the tournament brackets of the 1983 Australian Open Men's Singles Tournament (link: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/1983_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles). The edit seems fairly straight forward to fix, but I'm unfamiliar with the coding for the brackets on that page and couldn't make heads or tails of what to change.

The Error: In Section 3, the scores are flipped in the second round match between M Davis and R Meyer. Currently, it shows that R Meyer won this match and went on to the Round of 16; however, in reality M Davis won this match. This is verified by the external links (ATP) and sources cited for the page, so appears to be a clerical error. It can be confirmed here (https://www.atptour.com/en/scores/archive/australian-open/580/1983/draws?matchtype=singles) that M Davis did win that match. The scores and outcomes in the third and fourth rounds are correct, but they show R Meyer where M Davis should be.

Again, I hope this is the right place to put this, if not please let me know and I'll do what I can to move it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadPlayer91 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@BadPlayer91: The ITF source [10] has the results we have in the article, the only way to know which one is correct is to look for news reports from the tournament to see what actually happened. Iffy★Chat -- 18:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems Meyer did in fact win. Press report has Meyer playing a third round match. Jevansen (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No source is 100% accurate for results. Back when most of the slam articles were created in 2006, there was a long list of discrepancies found between the two sources used (ATP and the now defunct tenniscorner.net). These had to be hand-checked, and it's possible that there are still some things that both sources had wrong, but this case isn't one of them. In order to understand the brackets' coding, I recommend you read this guide, and then carefully compare how the template wikitext for a single bracket compares to the rendered version (click Show Preview). Somnifuguist (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Do we need another article bottom template?

I see that the "Template:Tennis hall of fame Australia" was just created and put on the bottom of the appropriate articles such as Rod Laver. Just how many bottom templates do we need? Couldn't this just be a listed category? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Tennis Hall of Fame navigational boxes:

{{Tennis hall of fame France}} and {{Tennis hall of fame Germany}} were created in 2005.

The other six were created this week by Revolynka: {{Tennis hall of fame Argentina}}, {{Tennis hall of fame Australia}}, {{Tennis hall of fame Belgium}}, {{Tennis hall of fame Czechia}}, {{Tennis hall of fame Netherlands}}, {{Tennis hall of fame Russia}}.

Based on International Tennis Hall of Fame#Nationalities there may be more on the way. I would support deletion of those with only two people. I'm neutral on the rest. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:, I was just looking for an answer about the order of inductions before (why 1974 Kafelnikov being inducted at 45, after Safin at 36). I've found the template on the Steffi Graf page. Don't mind the deletion of these templated because I've found the answer. Thanks for noticing. Revolynka (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Fed Cup

Category:Fed Cup and sub-cats have been nominated for speedy renaming according to Billie Jean King Cup. Please comment at WP:CFDS within the next 48 hours if there is a good reason not to proceed. – Fayenatic London 11:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment on SSN at WP:Notability (sports)

There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change in sports notability policy

A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh my goodness that would be a mistake. I checked it out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

There is an irish?

(in italian) nel 1925 due sorelle irlandesi di famiglia altolocata vinsero il titolo italiano di doppio femminile, si chiamavano Maud e Margery Maquay: credo che siano enciclopediche, di loro si possono trovare poche tracce nelle biblioteche ma da voi in Irlanda dovrebbe esserci molto di più.. --2.226.12.134 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Google Translate from Italian:

in 1925 two Irish sisters from a high-ranking family won the Italian title of female double, they were called Maud and Margery Maquay: I think they are encyclopedic, few traces of them can be found in libraries but in Ireland there should be a lot of more..

PrimeHunter (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

thank you very much, I don't speak english language, I kill it.. --2.226.12.134 (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Italian Tennis Championships, image, bio --Somnifuguist (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up on a player article move request

Diane Evers to Dianne Evers. I put it up for RM because there was minor controversy twice before, but with even her facebook page spelling it Dianne I think it's time for a move. Either way join in please. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC on flags

A RFC is underway which might have a considerable effect on the usage of flags in the articles in this WikiProject. Any input is welcome and you can join the RFC here.T v x1 00:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Junior Fed/Davis Cup

It has been raised at a recent AfD that playing in the Junior Fed Cup (and I suppose by extension we ought to include Junior Davis Cup in this) provides a presumption of notability under WP:NTENNIS. I can't see any mention of this on the current version. Was this previously the case? Should there be a presumption of notability for maybe playing in the final or semi-final of such a junior event? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderone: Juniors are pretty low level stuff. It's why we have consensus notability guidelines that say: "Junior players are presumed to be notable if they have won at least a junior Grand Slam title, have been in the top 3 of the junior ITF world rankings or can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG." I don't really think we should be expanding the presumption of notability to Junior Davis/BillieJeanKing Cup. And no, this notability guideline has been stable for years so the requirement didn't just disappear. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ranking tables in GS events

A discussion about the addition of detailed ranking tables to GS event pages has been started here. Any input would be appreciated. --Somnifuguist (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is unnecessary and tedious, because it is requires daily updating of 64 seeds, 32 for men's and women's singles draws and is frankly, iffy. Plus, I noticed a bunch errors from miscalculations. No need to go and remove previous versions thereof. Just let it be a lesson for future draws articles/pages. If it was me, I would just stop using the ranking tables altogether. But, hey, I am not the majority here. Let the others vote if it they want it to stay or not. If one wants to update draws, refer to this live rankings, which is pretty much the same thing just in non-wiki form. The tables should be made defunct for future Masters tournaments, as well. Keep it short and simple. Just saying. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to change the day-by-day summaries article name

Hey, there. I was going through the day-by-day summaries of the previous editions of the French Open and it basically does not say what it clearly is for someone, who is reading the main page of a given year for the first time. My point is, the article is about the order of play for tennis matches being played on the main threes stadiums: Court Philippe Chatrier, Court Suzanne Lenglen, Court Simonne Mathieu. So, why not change the name to 'Order of play summaries' or 'Daily match summaries', which clearly says what the article is about, rather than having to guess what it is about. I would like for the other editors to weigh on the matter and help reach a consensus. Do I change the articles' name, or not? Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The content of these articles was only split off from the main tournament articles in 2017. "Day-by-day summaries" was an appropriate name for the earlier years, e.g. 2010, as they actually have substantial prose summaries of each day's matches alongside the tables, but recent years' pages have little to no prose and, while useful to us tennis fans, would probably not survive AFD if nominated as Wikipedia is not a directory. I say improve the lead sentences as you've already done for RG2021, or write daily summaries if you're interested in doing that, as the name expresses what these pages should be but currently aren't. --Somnifuguist (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. What they really need is some prose for each section such as the 2010 article. It's a true day-by-day summary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest either we stick to its true name and write daily summaries, which would be tedious and extra work for editors, but beneficial for readers, who missed the tournament and want to catch up. In all honesty, rarely who would go on wiki to read daily summaries of grand slam matches. There are separate articles for that on the official pages of both tours and slams. Or we truncate the article's name to 'Order of play', which would be appropriate, given it currently only sums up matches on the main courts of said Grand slam, be it FO, or any other major, for that matter, and nothing else. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Arrest at Roland Garros

Sky News are reporting that a Russian tennis player has been arrested at the 2021 Roland Garros (why no article?, I'd have thought one would exist). Mjroots (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've created a redirect. As for the arrest, this is probably best covered on the biography rather than the article for the event (don't forget about WP:BLPCRIME). Iffy★Chat -- 12:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Because in the Anglo-Saxon world it is called the French Open and thus that's where the article is located.T v x1 14:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

And editor made a request to change a tennis template

I noticed that at Template talk:Infobox tennis tournament event an editor put in a request to change a template without a discussion here first. Since it affects hundreds of articles that didn't seem right. It came about because of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes and affects the order of the events in the infobox at articles such as 2021 French Open. When listing champions, what should be the best order? I don't think anyone has any issues with mens singles/womens singles/mens doubles/mixed doubles be listed first. It the order after that seems strange. When looking at the wheelchair events, to me it should be mens singles/womens singles/mens doubles/womens doubles/quad singles/quad doubles. The mens and womens singles and doubles have the same requirements, whereas the two quad events have higher restrictions. They should come last imho. Another editor has suggested it be mens singles/womens singles/quad singles/quad doubles/mens doubles/womens doubles.

The second issue I noticed... why the heck do the wheelchair events come after jrs? Wheelchair tennis is professional just like mens and womens singles, doubles, and mixed. It seems to me the boys and girls jr disciplines should be at the very bottom. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Deb (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I actually made that request on this very talk page, but then removed it, because I thought it was too specific for it to be relevant here. Did not know that Tennis WikiProject was the one in charge, followed by the rest of its subsections/forks/branches, call them what you will, tennis pages relating to infoboxes, hence why I posted the question in the said template's talk page. I have never requested for templates to me modified before, so, unbeknowngst to me how the order of operations went, I posted the request elsewhere rather than leaving it here first and then upon agreed consensus go forward with make a change request. Will not make the same mistake again...Anyway...the changes also need to be made to the whole order of draws categories. My suggestion: professional (normal and wheelchair), followed by junior, followed by legends at the end. I think that is all of the draws. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

See the template talk page for context. My request is orthogonal to the discussion already being had (and which I hadn't seen) as it affects a completely different template, bringing RG in line with AO and USO which already have quads in their events' infoboxes, i.e. compare the infobox in RG with AO and USO. The broader ordering question is separate; let's not fragment the discussion further and keep it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. Somnifuguist (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a question. Do the Grand Slam events only have men's events in WC Quad? The titles for those events don't really make clear whether they're for men or women (or mixed in case of the doubles events).T v x1 14:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It's an open classification, but only men have competed in the major tournaments from what I've seen. It's basically the same handful of guys playing each other from tournament to tournament. --Somnifuguist (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The highest ranked woman is 19th [11], too high to make it into the very limited draws at slams. Somnifuguist (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There are women's singles and doubles divisions/events/disciplines, call them what you will, for wheelchair competition, but from what I have gathered quads are only represented by men. Will have to check other slams draws to double-source my claim. I could be wrong though. AO and USO introduced quads a few years back, not sure about Wimbledon, though. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Potential change to template "Infobox tennis event"

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes that could affect 100s of articles. I'm not sure why it's over there rather than here or at Template talk:Infobox tennis tournament but that's the way things are. Two items: where to place the newer wheelchair quad events, and also the order of senior, wheelchair, junior, and legends in the infobox. Since it will be the order on all the Grand Slam tournament articles (such as the current 2021 French Open infobox) I feel everyone should know what's being discussed. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed split of Grand Slam (tennis)

A discussion about whether to split Grand Slam (tennis) has been started here. This is quite an important topic to this project, so any input would be appreciated. —Somnifuguist (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for matches

Hey everyone. Newish editor here. I was looking through the Category:Tennis matches page and I do think we need to have a discussion about the notability of maybe 1 or 2, if not more of the matches. Based on the WikiProject guidelines, the match needs to have more coverage "compared to other tennis matches at a similar level." Based on this, I want to ask why we've created/stuck with certain articles, going from what I consider to be the worst offenders to borderline cases.

Obvious cases

2018 Australian Open - Women's singles final: I fail to see any sort of reason why this is a more notable event than other major wins. Yes, it was a long final, but that's not necessarily out of the ordinary. Yes, Wozniacki won her first grand slam, but that's notable for her, not tennis. No real records were broken... if that was the only criteria, Hingis-Capriati in 2002 should have its own article (which I'm not opposed to). Finally, just by googling, I can't find any sort of coverage that isn't just your standard coverage of the event. This definitely should be nominated for deletion.

2015 Wimbledon Championships - Men's singles final: The article lists it as being a significant part of the Federer-Djokovic rivalry, but again, press coverage doesn't exactly highlight this match. It's certainly not more notable than the 2015 U.S Open final, which I don't think anyone is arguing to deserve its own article. It deserves mention in the Federer-Djokovic article, and nothing more.

Borderline

2014 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final: As a tennis fan, this was a pretty good final that I remember watching. I don't see the necessary press coverage to back it up though. It's considered to be one of the best matches of the 2010s though and is reflected as such on many lists. It also signaled the rise of Djokovic on grass. So more borderline.

2009 Australian Open – Men's singles final: Kind of the same thing as above... a significant part of the rivalry between two players, a great match considered to be one of the best of its generation, and more importantly this article does have the press coverage to suggest that it really did shape public opinion of Nadal and Federer. However, still has to do only with normal coverage. Borderline.

2012 French Open – Men's singles final: Yes, Nadal broke Borg's record here. That is pretty significant. However, we don't have an article for Federer breaking the Sampras/Renshaw record, and I personally don't think there's enough outside press coverage for that article either. Borderline.

I think that's about it. Please tell me what you guys think... I post this here just in the interest of fostering discussion. Thank you! Jonaththejonath (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jonaththejonath: Long time editor here. Overall, I think your assessment is correct. As compared to matches of similar kind, nothing at all special about those matches. My guess is no one noticed when they were created (probably quite awhile ago), and once they sit around for a bit people sort of shrug their shoulders and move on. I don't think they really deserve to be here but you'd have to put the worst offender up for deletion and see what fish you catch. If it gets deleted, then we'd see about doing a multi-deletion-request on the others... but I'm not sure which way this will go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jonaththejonath:, @Fyunck(click): I disagree with both of you. Regardless of the coverage of the press and media about the above mentioned finals. They should not be put up for deletion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No, that’s not how it works. We can’t have articles regardless of coverage.T v x1 13:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

An AFD has been started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Australian Open – Women's singles final. —Somnifuguist (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion every Grand Slam singles final is notable enough and receives sufficient coverage to warrant a separate article and this is in not in contradiction with WP:TENNIS guidelines. The match articles should be limited to Grand Slam and Olympic finals and only for the singles events. The content of e.g. 2018 Australian Open - Women's singles final is sufficiently distinct from 2018 Australian Open – Women's Singles and there is no easy way to merge those articles. Some of the older Grand Slam or Olympic singles finals may not have enough coverage to warrant a separate article but that should be determined on a case by case basis. Apart from that I do not see a practical way to distinguish between separate Grand Slam finals which would not be entirely subjective, as shown by the examples listed above.--Wolbo (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Help needed for Draft:Dermot Bailey

I’m not very familiar with tennis wikipedia pages. So help would be appreciated. Thanks. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red hosting Olympics and Paralympics

Greetings from WP:WikiProject Women in Red! Starting 1 July, we’re going to have a three-month focus (July, August and September) on the women of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Your participants are warmly welcomed to join us for the event, documenting as many women as possible; additionally if you have relevant lists of red links that we should encourage participants to take up, we’d love to know. Thanks very much!--Ipigott (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

New small chart for guideline page

Something was brought up at our Tennis Guideline talk page asking to include a chart documenting how the project handles walkovers and retirements in a our draw charts. There appears to be some inconsistencies in our articles. I'm posting it here in case others disagree with the chart being proposed or has advice as to where we should place it. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis and sports

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to subcategorize the Event section in yearly grand slam articles

I am proposing that the Event section, in this case, on the 2021 Wimbledon championships page, and in other yearly grand slam articles henceforth be categorized into subsections, such as:

Senior
Wheelchair
Juniors
Legends/Invitation/Exhibition (different name depending on slam)

for better aesthetics and easier navigation, for example. There used to be one jumbled up mess, where all of player's entry info and ranking tables on the main XYZ grand slam page of any given year, but then a consensus was reached and the excess info was moved into its corresponding draws, however, the editor who made the change, forgot to divide the draws in the Event section into subsections, which would consequently make it easier for readers to skim through, when looking for the right draw to click on.

There was an attempt to change the appearance by adding the aforementioned subsections, but was quickly removed, since no consensus was reached because of lack of interest. So, here I am starting this discussion again this time on the Tennis Wikiproject so, that other editors will weigh in on the matter in hopes of reaching a consensus this time around. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The senior, wheelchair, junior, and exhibition events are all quite different from each other. Keeping them all together makes this section really long, particularly if every event actually has a respectable amount of prose. I would suggest categorizing at the section level though, with this type of layout, rather than subdividing at the subsection level. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking more on dividing the 4 events into subsections. It would not make any sense to split into different sections, because they all fall under the events main section. See example..followed by the next logical subsection order would be senior, wheelchair, junior and exhibition, and afterwards divide those into their respective subsections. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Support: I agree that this makes navigation easier/the TOC clear, and this is already the standard format in all our older years' pages. The removal of these headers in the first place was started for the US Open by an ip in 2016, without discussion, and was propagated forward to later years of that event as editors copied from previous years pages to make the new ones. The headings were only removed from the other slams in September last year, by editor(s) citing the consensus from the 2020 US Open page [12][13], evidently thinking they had been removed from it as part of the GAN process at Talk:2020 US Open (tennis). In fact, the headers were never in the article from the first revision the events were added to it [14], as the events had (it seems) just been copied over from the previous year's page. Thus, the GAN made no determination on the headers. Given this context, it is clear that their removal, sparked by an ip without consensus, was unfounded, and they should be added back. —Somnifuguist (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Disagree. I wouldn't say that it was forgotten. It was more likely deemed unnecessary. It was triple nested in the past and the redesigner may have looked at it and couldn't even figure out why it was double nested. When you look at 2020 French Open, as long as you have the correct order, why do we need the subsections? Is it hard to find the discipline in the legend, no. Does it break up substantially different topics, no. Personally I don't see where it helps. What has always sounded strange though is the term "senior." It makes it seem like it's the over-65 tennis section. It's a term I never hear in tennis. If I separated any part it would be the exhibitions from non-exhibitions. And, if the terms are to be used, I would maintain "exhibition" for all four majors. That makes it more understandable for our readers. There might be some who don't like separating the professionals from the wheelchair section. So overall I would not agree to the change, but it's a minor disagree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your remark on the term senior. In fact, Wimbledon calls the legends tournament for the older of its two age groups “Senior Gentlemen’s Invitational Doubles”.T v x1 20:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tvx1: @Fyunck(click): And do you have any alternatives for the term senior? Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

"Main events" maybe?T v x1 14:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

TemplateQ: Infobox_Tennis_tournament_event - Errors: Before_name and After_name do not work when same as current

Tripped over a category of errors: Category:Pages using infobox tennis tournament year footer with an unknown event - Turns out, most are failing when adding a "sub-nav" portion to the main InfoBox. So, at least "after_name" does NOT work when populated with SAME name as current article. (TemplateFix#1 - on the Template's Talk Page)... Question #2 (for THIS page); Is adding this secondary 'infobox nav' part of a standard? (I am not seeing it, but it exists on roughly 50% of the "Tournament by Year" articles? See: 1884 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Singles as recently "fixed" article (adding "sub-nav"), and 1895 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Singles as article with pre-existing "sub-nav" ... - Mjquinn_id (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Template discussion is at: Template_talk:Infobox tennis tournament event#Errors: Before_name and After_name do not work when same as current. —Somnifuguist (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Early Wimbledon naming

Ok, this is probably petty, but the early Wimbledon Championship event pages seem to need an "s", as in "Championships" for the Infobox Event Nav to work. This would require changing the names from 1881 Wimbledon Championship - Singles to 1881 Wimbledon Championships - Singles - EVEN THOUGH these were technically "single" event, which I figure is why they are named just "championship" (singular)?

You need to goto 'Edit' then change type=no to type=mens; then show preview (see the singles link looking for the 's'?

I am still trying to get "men" to ONLY show singles and "mens" to include the doubles... Mjquinn_id (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mjquinn id: Does changing {{Infobox tennis tournament event|1881|Wimbledon Championships to {{Infobox tennis tournament event|1881|Wimbledon Championship, along with |type=mens achieve what your looking for? —Somnifuguist (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

YES! (well, kind of). I apologize, I had not caught that the title up there did not match the article... Although it would still be great if "men" singular only shown "Singles"... and "mens" plural showed doubles (same with women/womens)...Since there were no Ladies Doubles till 1913? (some 30 yrs of redlinks?) Mjquinn_id (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

We'd need to make an edit request to Module:Tennis events nav to add a "singles" option (and "doubles" for e.g. 1996 World Doubles Cup – Doubles). "men" and "mens" are treated as aliases currently, so it'd be better to leave them as is. —Somnifuguist (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mjquinn id: Showing only singles can now be achieved with type=singles. Alternatively, you can put type=no to hide that section altogether. The ladies' doubles red links are a still an issue, but I don't think it's worth adding another option for just those years. —Somnifuguist (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, you're doing your part to make tennis on here just a little bit better each day! Thanks, Mjquinn_id (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Universiade and notability

We're starting to see a couple of articles (Emily Arbuthnott and Naho Sato) appear for players where their main claim to notability is getting a medal in a Summer Universiade. Where does this stand in terms of WP:NTENNIS and WP:SPORTCRIT? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It does not meet Tennis Project guidelines, so it is not some automatic thing. They may meet GNG but they aren't part of Tennis Project so the template should not be there. To be honest, unless it is gold, GNG is doubtful. They are all created by the same editor Vecihi91 who has made a whole bunch of junior articles that had to be deleted or blanked & redirected. But he has also made good articles with players from Billy Jean King Cup teams and first-time main draw players. He seems to thrive on the edge of GNG/routine article creation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've decided to bite the bullet and put a few up for AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Russia or ROC

I noticed regarding the Russian opponents of the 2020 Summer Olympics in certain player's article (such as Alexander Zverev) were using the flag of Russia, but really? Russia were banned from World Championships so as the Olympics. Russian athletes would have to use ROC instead. Just because the ATP/WTA tours using the flag of Russia does not inherit them the same in the Olympics. Accordingly, I believe should be used instead.

e.g. Karen Khachanov rather than Karen Khachanov in Zverev's article. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. They were not allowed to use the Russian flag so neither should we. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

New UserBox (Need consensus please)

Hey, I have proposed a new userbox. This is really just a clean-up with documentation. I also have to bump my template edits to get Template Editor rights... I have placed a new version (with documentation) at Template:User WikiProject Tennis/sandbox, that I would love your comments at Template talk:User WikiProject Tennis on before it gets published. Mjquinn_id (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Chang, Becker and others missing from youngest winners

Hi. First of all great job everyone on creating such wonderful information about tennis players. However I was wondering why on the Tour Records page Change and Becker are missing from the youngest winners. I expect there are a couple of others younger than 18 as well. If there is a date cut-off e.g. 1990 then this should be clearly stated. Even better would be a true "All-time youngest winners" where Chang and Becker and others can be seen. At the moment it is simply misleading. Regards. ConanTheCribber See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/ATP_Tour_records

It is clearly stated in the 2nd sentence: "The ATP Tour is the modern top-level men's professional tennis circuit. It was introduced in 1990..." So there can't be anything before it was created in 1990. However what you are looking for is Open Era tennis records – men's singles where you will find Chang and becker listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The rowspaned NHs in the performance timeline table

I have founded several illogical performance timeline tables following the cancellations of China Open and Wuhan Open. This is an example that I copied from Aryna Sabalenka career statistics.

Tournament	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	SR	W–L	Win %
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open	A	Q2	1R	3R	1R	4R	0 / 4	5–4	56%
French Open	A	Q1	1R	2R	3R	3R	0 / 4	5–4	56%
Wimbledon	A	2R	1R	1R	NH	SF	0 / 4	6–4	60%
US Open	Q2	Q1	4R	2R	2R		0 / 3	5–3	63%
Win–Loss	0–0	1–1	3–4	4–4	1–2	10–3	0 / 15	21–15	58%
Year-end championships
WTA Finals	Did not qualify				NH		0 / 0	0–0	–
WTA Elite Trophy	DNQ		RR	W	NH		1 / 2	5–1	83%
National representation
Summer Olympics	A	Not Held				2R	0 / 1	1–1	50%
Billie Jean King Cup	PO	F	1R	SF	Finals		0 / 3	10–6	63%
WTA 1000
Dubai / Qatar Open	A	1R	A	3R	W	QF	1 / 4	8–3	73%
Indian Wells Open	A	A	3R	4R	NH		0 / 2	4–2	67%
Miami Open	A	A	2R	2R		QF	0 / 3	4–3	57%
Madrid Open	A	A	1R	1R		W	1 / 3	6–2	75%
Italian Open	A	A	1R	1R	A	3R	0 / 3	1–3	25%
Canadian Open	A	A	3R	1R	NH		0 / 2	2–2	50%
Cincinnati Open	A	Q2	SF	3R	3R		0 / 3	7–3	70%
Wuhan Open	A	A	W	W	NH		2 / 2	12–0	100%
China Open	A	Q1	QF	2R	NH		0 / 2	3–2	60%
Career statistics
	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	Career
Tournaments	0	5	23	24	12	14	Career total: 78
Titles	0	0	2	3	3	2	Career total: 10
Finals	0	1	4	4	3	3	Career total: 15
Hard Win–Loss	0–0	11–7	35–13	32–13	23–7	15–6	9 / 50	116–46	72%
Clay Win–Loss	0–0	0–0	4–5	5–5	6–3	13–3	1 / 16	28–16	64%
Grass Win–Loss	0–0	1–1	7–4	2–4	0–0	7–3	0 / 12	17–12	59%
Overall Win–Loss	0–0	12–8	46–22	39–22	29–10	35–12	10 / 78	161–74	69%
Win (%)	–	60%	68%	64%	74%	74%	Career total: 69%
Year-end ranking	159	78	11	11	10		$8,019,347

I just cannot figure out why the NHs are merged across different tournaments? Just because they are listed coincidentally together? I don't see they have the same to the columns of A(bsent)s. Instead of such illogical designs, it should be like:

Tournament	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	SR	W–L	Win %
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open	A	Q2	1R	3R	1R	4R	0 / 4	5–4	56%
French Open	A	Q1	1R	2R	3R	3R	0 / 4	5–4	56%
Wimbledon	A	2R	1R	1R	NH	SF	0 / 4	6–4	60%
US Open	Q2	Q1	4R	2R	2R		0 / 3	5–3	63%
Win–Loss	0–0	1–1	3–4	4–4	1–2	10–3	0 / 15	21–15	58%
Year-end championships
WTA Finals	Did not qualify				NH		0 / 0	0–0	–
WTA Elite Trophy	DNQ		RR	W	NH		1 / 2	5–1	83%
National representation
Summer Olympics	A	Not Held				2R	0 / 1	1–1	50%
Billie Jean King Cup	PO	F	1R	SF	Finals		0 / 3	10–6	63%
WTA 1000
Dubai / Qatar Open	A	1R	A	3R	W	QF	1 / 4	8–3	73%
Indian Wells Open	A	A	3R	4R	NH		0 / 2	4–2	67%
Miami Open	A	A	2R	2R	NH	QF	0 / 3	4–3	57%
Madrid Open	A	A	1R	1R	NH	W	1 / 3	6–2	75%
Italian Open	A	A	1R	1R	A	3R	0 / 3	1–3	25%
Canadian Open	A	A	3R	1R	NH		0 / 2	2–2	50%
Cincinnati Open	A	Q2	SF	3R	3R		0 / 3	7–3	70%
Wuhan Open	A	A	W	W	NH		2 / 2	12–0	100%
China Open	A	Q1	QF	2R	NH		0 / 2	3–2	60%
Career statistics
	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	Career
Tournaments	0	5	23	24	12	14	Career total: 78
Titles	0	0	2	3	3	2	Career total: 10
Finals	0	1	4	4	3	3	Career total: 15
Hard Win–Loss	0–0	11–7	35–13	32–13	23–7	15–6	9 / 50	116–46	72%
Clay Win–Loss	0–0	0–0	4–5	5–5	6–3	13–3	1 / 16	28–16	64%
Grass Win–Loss	0–0	1–1	7–4	2–4	0–0	7–3	0 / 12	17–12	59%
Overall Win–Loss	0–0	12–8	46–22	39–22	29–10	35–12	10 / 78	161–74	69%
Win (%)	–	60%	68%	64%	74%	74%	Career total: 69%
Year-end ranking	159	78	11	11	10		$8,019,347

Any thoughts? Unnamelessness (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to attention. Agree that these cells should not be merged vertically and , with the exception of NH, also not horizontally. In your version there is still an issue with the font color of NH and similar values. These do not meet accessibility guidelines and should be in black like the rest of the values to provide sufficient color contrast with the background. Also there should be consistency in usage, not NH in one case and Not Held in another. Finally, DNQ is not part of the legend, so it should either be added or not used. If it is added it should probably be listed as NQ for Not Qualified to fit into the cell and for consistency with NH.--Wolbo (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Tennis guidelines should be amended accordingly then. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This can certainly be done. I agree with NQ as it is shorter and gets the point across. As far as font color the only thing I can say is it does not have to be changed to black. Using a color such as #696969 (Dim Grey) is also compatible. I changed the very last China Open NH to that color in the above chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) According to the color tool, such color combination is still WCAG 2 AAA Compliant. Not severe, but better avoiding. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Well we also have to be careful. There is a fine line between what is safest and what is useful. The grey color we have now was used to purposefully offset matches that were played and matches that were not played. We wanted it to be different. If you make it too dark you can't tell the difference between black and grey, at least not on my screen. We don't want it to be the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I actually have no problems with the color here, but I do have some problems with the timeline table. Given how COVID-19 affected both ATP and WTA tours and the implementation of new WTA Tier tournaments since 2020, I do believe the timeline table in the tennis guideline should have a proper update. Not only can we respond to the discussion above, but also a best opportunity to guide editors what to do and, more importantly, how to do under the current circumstances. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You mean the example we give at wikiproject tennis should show current events/section titles rather than old events/section titles? That sounds very reasonable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Current examples are pretty stale to be honest. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

DNQ is the de facto standard abbreviation used on these timelines [15], so should be added to the legend unless someone wants to go back and change all instances to NQ. Fading the NHs/DNQs is a relatively recent innovation that should be rolled back, as it is haphazardly applied, harms accessibility, and is logically inconsistent—a player whose ranking was too low to qualify for the qualification rounds of a mandatory tournament literally "did not qualify", yet the 'A'bsents are not greyed out like the DNQs. If only the NHs were faded it would make sense but even then be a net-negative IMO due to the impact on accessibility. —Somnifuguist (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Have updated the full performance timeline table on the article guidelines page in line with this discussion. Have used #696969 for NH.--Wolbo (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Also the colors (font in combination with background) for the Olympic bronze medal are far from WCAG compliant. We need to change that as well.--Wolbo (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wolbo: Thanks. If you select a new colour for bronze (and Gold/Silver if necessary), I'll do an AWB run to correct all the DNQ/NH/medal colours in one go. —Somnifuguist (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Changed the Olympic bronze medal color from #CD7F32 to #E5B47D to make it WCAG compliant (compare the legend with the full timeline on the article guidelines page). Will have a look at the silver.--Wolbo (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Gold and silver medal colors seem to be complaint.--Wolbo (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, all the timelines are now updated with the new colours. To summarise the new guidelines:

No vertical merging of result cells (rowspan=X).
DNQ text is not faded.
Not Held/Not Tier 1/... text colour is now faded to #696969 instead of #ccc.
Bronze medal cell colour is now #E5B47D instead of #CD7F32

Pinging some of the frequent editors of these timelines to make them aware of the changes: @Ddenilson @JamesAndersoon @Mrf8128 @Rubyaxles @Subaryan @The Sports Gnome. —Somnifuguist (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Using the color #696969 isn't distinct enough to tell it apart from regular black. It just looks like something is subtly wrong with the table, like when someone makes the font size of the whole table smaller for no reason. It would be better to just leave it as black. I also don't see why #696969 was chosen when anything as light as #767676 is still compliant. But even that wouldn't provide sufficient contrast with black. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, but if consensus to change to black does emerge, a user with the AWB permission can copy this page to their user space, then after installing WP:JWB, load the "WCAG" settings, press start, and then click "save" ad nauseum to remove the text colour from all the timelines in one sitting. —Somnifuguist (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't have a strong preference either way. Not convinced it needs to be separate from black but if we conclude that this is useful and #767676 is the lightest variant which is still WCAG compatible I would be fine with changing it to that color. I'm not good with those scripts though.--Wolbo (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Template changes:WikiProject banner

Please stop by the conversation about implementing our pre-existing workgroups into the {{WikiProject Tennis}} template. Here. Mjquinn_id (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Bumping this to get more opinions. Mjquinn_id (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Player Templates?

I don't understand the creation/usage/purpose of the many individual "Player" Navboxes being created? I am assuming there was a discussion that I missed, but it does not seem to be here in the archives? (Maybe I could see the top ten "GOAT" candidates or so, but we have drifted from that...)

@Mjquinn id: Top 10 GOAT candidates would be beyond subjective so a HUGE no to that. However to your larger point... I agree that these navboxes have become ridiculous in scope. It's as if there's a race to see how much clutter we can pile on the bottom of an article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mjquinn id: As you might have noticed, these templates of "common non-Big-3" used to look like Template:Eugenie Bouchard. My purpose in creating them was to ease the navigation (because it's only logical to surf the draws from the player's template), to check the draws (career statistics often list the wrong ones), and to list all the GS semifinalists. However, before my "evil touch" (lol) that has brought Karatsev and Bouchard into the same category, these templates seemed to be a kind of non-surfing vanity projects to generate traffic for the players' personal websites. Just to let you know. No offense. My usability-improving "job" was to make tennis tournaments (not only GSs) look easier considering all their rebrandings (that's why I've started with Navratilova and Graf, sorry to not being paid for the job, unlike the ones that track the "deleted URLs" to the players websites and erase my efforts from Federer and Djokovic templates). You can delete the people from Mordor and enjoy my touch on Template:Ashleigh Barty and other greats that nobody even has thought about creating before (because they're not playing, so nobody takes care of their traffic and legacy, imho). That's a vivid example of how little tennis is really followed compared to the other sports. No offense. Farewell. You can enjoy the templates that are made for the sake of existing, not for users. Sorry for the bitterness. Enjoy your phallometric competition. No offense, again. Sincerely, Orc from Mordor. Revolynka (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I have utterly no problem with someone's efforts to create the templates. Though I wish they would at least add the WP:Tennis banner...
I have no problem with these being on the Player's page (or even their most common doubles partner) (Mike Bryan on Bob's, Bob Bryan on Mike's)
I even do not mind them being at the bottom of tournament finals pages (but only when they won...)
But Template:Petr Korda on Andre Agassi's page because they won an ATP Doubles event, pretty early in his career(the 1st one)? Do you realize how many "other" players might end up at the bottom of his page? God forbid...Martina's? Listing all her doubles partners would have to be a separate PAGE!?
- I could see Agassi on Graf's page, and Graf on his...but that would be an incredible rarity.
My only hope, with this thread, is to try to nail down some basic guidelines as the What goes Where and When/Why?

---

I propose the following for general consideration:

) Only if they have been a world #1 - not everybody. But, if you want to create your favorite player...You GO, girl!
) Only on their page,
1. ) a tournament final (by event) that they won,
  (though the links to their player's pages should already be there... and the Tournament Event Predecessor/Successor should be first). "Tournament" above player on Tournament pages... Yearly Event, then Yearly Tournament, then Tour, then player that won?
2. ) on their MOST FREQUENT doubles partner.
  Maybe at least 25% of their total doubles together? (See Martina Nav with Leander Paes? or Pam Shriver?)
3. ) N on every page of every player that they ever played with.
) Maybe both players on certain "rivarly" pages?
) leaving room for other people's thoughts...

Mjquinn_id (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW, Why the farewell? Has there been a kerfuffle that I am not aware of? Mjquinn_id (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll say this. While I think many are overkill, it is far easier to read the new templates rather than the old Eugenie Bouchard template. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I have no issue with the look'n'feel... just trying to understand "placement" more than anything else? Mjquinn_id (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There is often too much overused color... makes them hard to read for me, and we always have to watch out for those with vision problems. The whole template for every player is way overkill for me. And we don't go placing other player templates on another article just because they were doubles partners a few times. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Template changes are getting out of control now. It's one thing to have a player template for the most renowned players but it's quite another to make the for everyone. Plus we have several "retired" editors who insist on making them non-accessible for sight challenged readers and are adding tiny little icons all over the place. They are changing the color backgrounds of players on their own set of rules of favorite playing surface too. Plus they are adding the templates of say, Serena Williams, to the bottoms of other player pages and draws just because she may have played doubles a few time or participated in an event. It's getting out of control. We need to take some control of this before I can't keep up anymore with reverts.

Here is sort of a standardish template of Novak Djokovic.
Here is Serena Williams template to start 2021.
Here is what Serena Williams template got changed to.

There are so many issues with Serena Williams it's hard to count. Colorblind issues, tiny icons, minor tournaments added, format change with no consensus, trivial court surface buttons everywhere, etc... Per Wikipedia Nvigation Templates: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects". These navigation templates are sort of an option instead of putting a player's name under the "See also" section. When a player is in the finals of a tournament we don't want their whole history template placed on the draw page. Their name and article is linked all over the draw so it become overkill. We may need to put this in our Project Guidelines if this gets anymore out of control. I'm doing the best I can in fixing or reverting them but it ain't easy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with reverting these / asking the editor making the changes to stop / asking that editor to revert their changes. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It also seems clear that they are a sockpuppet of the previous editor who was working on these. They could potentially be blocked for that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably true. I just put up Samantha Stosur's template up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 September 10. There may be a small reason to have these for the top handful of players, but not for your average tennis player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"Top Seed Open" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Top Seed Open. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 15#Top Seed Open until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone here know anything about this tournament? Should it have its own article, or was the redirect to Lexington Challenger correct? Please discuss if you are familiar with this subject. Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Natg 19: Essentially, the Lexington Challenger had been a male and female tournament up until 2019 and was officially known as the Kentucky Bank Tennis Championships. Since Challenger tennis tournaments typically go through many different tournament sponsors over the years, it is easier to go with just a generic article name, using the host city and then Challenger, hence the name Lexington Challenger. However, the women's edition of the tournament in 2020 was upped to WTA Tour level with the pandemic affecting the calendar, so that edition of the tournament picked up a different sponsor, in this case Top Seed. Whether or not they are technically the same tournament I have no idea, but I feel like the original redirect to Lexington Challenger would suffice. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you also comment at the RfD page? Thanks. Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the Rankings tables for Yearly Masters tournaments' draws

Hey, there I am proposing we completely remove the following table from this event

Extended content

2021 BNP Paribas Open men's singles rankings table

Seed	Rank	Player	Points before	Points dropped from 2019 and/or 2020	Points won	Status
1	1	Novak Djokovic	12,133	23+180	10+0	Second round vs
2	2	Daniil Medvedev	10,553	23+1,000	10+10	Second round vs
3	3	Stefanos Tsitsipas	8,350	360	10	Second round vs
4	4	Alexander Zverev	7,603	23+600+250	10+10+10	Second round vs
5	5	Andrey Rublev		90+500	10+90	Second round vs
6	7	Matteo Berrettini	5,173	360	10	Second round vs
7		Casper Ruud		(90)^†	10	Second round vs
8		Félix Auger-Aliassime		45+150	10+45	Second round vs
9		Denis Shapovalov		45+250+180	10+45+45	Second round vs
10		Hubert Hurkacz		90+90	10+23	Second round vs
11		Jannik Sinner		90	10	Second round vs
12		Diego Schwartzman		10	10	Second round vs
13		Pablo Carreño Busta		70+90	10+45	Second round vs
14		Cristian Garín		45	10	Second round vs
15		Roberto Bautista Agut		90+90	10+45	Second round vs
16		Reilly Opelka		45+90	10+0	Second round vs
17		Gaël Monfils		90+45	10+10	Second round vs
18		Alex de Minaur		10	10	Second round vs
19		John Isner	2,091	45+90	10+0	Second round vs
20		Daniel Evans		(23)^†	10	Second round vs
21		Lorenzo Sonego		10+20	10+13	Second round vs
22		Aslan Karatsev		(10)^†	10	Second round vs
23		Ugo Humbert		(45)^†	10	Second round vs
24		Karen Khachanov		90+90+90	10+45+45	Second round vs
25		Cameron Norrie		70+90	10+35	Second round vs
26		Grigor Dimitrov		(10)^†	10	Second round vs
27		Lloyd Harris		57	10	Second round vs
28		Fabio Fognini		180	10	Second round vs
29		Milos Raonic	1,649	180+180	10+0	Second round vs
30		Dušan Lajović		10+45	10+23	Second round vs
31		Nikoloz Basilashvili		90	10	Second round vs
32		Filip Krajinović		53+10+150	10+28+23	Second round vs

and all related tables of this type for Masters tournaments. In my opinion, it is pointless to have them in the event pages for each of the 4 categories per Masters tournament every year, which is excessive Either move them to their respective draws, like we did for the Grand Slams [16], or stop using them altogether. I get it, newcomers want to keep track of the rankings during the tournament and update regularly. But risk of engaging in edit wars and for what? The rankings are updated weekly on Mondays throughout the year by the ATP and WTA Tours, respectively, anyway. So, all this match scrambling to find the right defending points and new points and now putting into account the adjusted rankings because of cancelled tournaments is too much. Too many edits over so little. And besides, there is a website that does just that (what many Wikipedia editors do, update said rankings table per XYZ Masters relentlessly) updates regularly, on a per player-win basis for all 4 categories: men's and women's singles and doubles. To summarize, either:

Option 1. cease using said rankings table any future Masters events henceforth;
Option 2. continue using it, but move it in the draw (men's, women's, singles, etc.) pertinent to the category,

rather than having it take up unnecessary space in all of 9 Masters tournaments' main article's Wikipedia pages. That is my proposal. I am inviting other editors to weigh in on the matter, so common ground is reached. Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Time to allow that one player to have her own name?

Was wondering if with a Brit having won the US Open those editors who've made it a thing over the last 9 years to select (for no discernible reason) just 1 East European woman in the entire encylopaedia for diacritic-stripping could let her have her fully spelled name back? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

And what Brit are you speaking of? Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The spelling of the article matches the spelling of her name on the US Open trophy, no? oncamera _{(talk page)} 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

And on her own social media accounts, which are clearly under her direct control (or that of her "team" these days perhaps, but I doubt she had much of one back in November 2019). The reference to "the last 9 years" confuses me here, as that doesn't seem to apply to either Emma Raducanu's wikipedia article or her career in the tennis rankings, so unless someone else is being even-more-obliquely referred to here, I'm a little lost. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Ensuring a "since" is included in attribution of records

I have come across numerous sites, both generic and individual specific, that make all manner of claims to records that are either not correct or imply something more than it is. The key issue underlying this seems to me that the records are not properly qualified. While there is some separation into Amatuer and Open eras that is not always an appropriate fit so if we are talking about the current Masters tournaments or the reintroduction of tennis at the Olympics as an official tournament then we should make clear that this was only possible from 1988 and if a record is being claimed for also winning the mixed doubles in this period of the Olympics it should also be specified, where that is different to the general date, when that occurred (e.g. 2012). The same applies to Grand Slam claims. If one holds (and has made clear the argument for exclusion) that the FO was not a Grand Slam tournament until 1925 then the first time that the "Grand Slam" could have been achieved was 1925 and that should be stated. This also applies to variation s on the theme such as career slams, surface slams (1978 if all four majors have to be won as well) etc. So "Grand Slam" records were not and are not "all-time" records. They were and are records established pertaining to a set of criteria that was only made possible at a certain time. Now that is different from records that may relate to "Grand Slam" tournaments (I prefer Major as this term confuses the individual tournaments with the specific definition in respect to attaining all four 'Majors' but accept it is an approved term by the ITF) - these (once defined/justified as that for the relevant period) could be claimed to commence in 1877. So, for example, the record for the most Majors did commence in 1877 and it is an all time one, the all time record for the most AO did commence in 1905 etc. By being more disciplined in this we can: - help avoid the ongoing additions to sites for claims that are incorrect - qualify records, where appropriate, to understand the period to which they pertain - better focus on earlier achievements (records) that were achieved but have been effectively superseded by a record, the combination of which didn't even apply to them Antipodenz (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Notability criteria discussion at WP:NSPORT

Don't see a notification about it here but there is a discussion ongoing at WP:NSPORT on whether Fed Cup and Davis Cup participation should be removed from the notability criteria for tennis players.--Wolbo (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to deal with "Partial Season" played out in Tennis like for the year 2020

Hi... I am referring to "World No.1 ranked male tennis players" article page. We are basically listing sources, who based on their judgement awarding their champion for the full year performance. ATP Player of the year and ITF World champion are two awards decided by two big sources ATP and ITF respectively. As you know, the year disrupted by COVID-19 pandemic, so no tournaments were made mandatory by ATP for players’ participation. ATP Rankings frozen from 16 March 2020 to 24 August 2020 as tour was not played (Tour was played less than half of the year). There was revision of ATP year-end ranking to ATP’s Best of 24-month ranking. ATP had awarded their player of the year based on best of 2019 and 2020 performance, which is not exactly taking into account 2020 performance alone. Very few tournaments were played by few players including Grand Slams. ITF did not announce its World Champion due to pandemic. In this case, few editors awarding World no.1 player based on single source (ATP). How to assess the performance of the player in a partial season ??. Now, An undisputed number one player for the year (without another player regarded as co-number one) is shown in BOLD and the year is also shown BOLD against the player. My proposal is to make the year un-bold by the virtue of partial season for any player. We need to add no.1 for that player if the season is played without any disruption or suspension. e.g. The year 2020 would be un-bold irrespective of player regarded as no.1 by any one of the big sources as the season was partial. Kindly let us know your views on this. Krmohan (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Table font size disparity between ATP and WTA

Also posted on Talk: 2021 WTA Tour -- I only just noticed this for some reason, but apparently the WTA tour Schedule tables have font size set to 85%, whereas ATP have font size set to 95%. This seems to be consistent across years for the ATP, but seems to have changed to 85% for the WTA from 2012 onwards. Is there a reason for this? If not (my working theory is that it was a typo that nobody noticed), I'm proposing to make font sizes consistent across ATP and WTA. I'm not sure if this is the best place to put this comment, but since this is the page I first realised it I'll stick it here and hopefully someone will note it. Also, which out of 85% and 95% should be the preferred standard?

For this version of my post, I should say that I haven't checked through all the archives in this talk to see if it was noticed or mentioned before. If so, my apologies. Still, that there's a sudden change from 2011 WTA Tour to 2012 WTA Tour suggests that it might just have been missed. I also would add that I prefer the 85% text size, but this would presumably require a lot more editing. Jimthree60 (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Jimthree60, the ATP standard formatting is also used for the majority of the WTA tour articles (from 1971 through 2012) and also for the World Championship Tennis circuit articles. The WTA Tour articles from 2013 until now still need to be updated. The differences are a bit more than just font size though.--Wolbo (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice any other differences but I can well believe there are some! What did you have in mind? Jimthree60 (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jimthree60: Per MOS:SIZE "In no case should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size (i.e. 11.9 px in Vector skin or 10.8 px in Monobook)." So, 85% is the minimumn font size any text on Wikipedia articles is allowed to be. Below that and WP:MOS is violated. Any size between 85% and 100% is to editor's preference. Uniformity, i.e. consistency, should be applied across articles of similar context. As far as between ATP and WTA disparity is considered, I have nothing against you willingly changing said font size for past 10 years of WTA tour to either 95 or 85 % or whichever font size to your liking. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Men's Grand Slam Winners Achievements as Tables

Hi all

There has been some disagreements about how to list achievements of Grand Slam Tournament Winners on the List of Grand Slam men's singles champions page. I was suggested to come here and ask.

Following the discussion Here, I pose the question - Should each Title Double have its own table? Also, should each Table be limited to exactly that combination, or should there be double-counting? For example, in 2010, Rafael Nadal won the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. Should Rafael Nadal be added to the French Open/Wimbledon/US Open Triple, and French Open/Wimbledon Double (as part of the Channel Slam), and/or Wimbledon/US Open Double, or a combination of these? .

To give an rough indication of what having all the Title Doubles as tables would look like, https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions&oldid=1016421340#Winners_of_two_Grand_Slam_singles_tournaments_in_the_same_calendar_year gives an indication.

This (LINK) is what it currently looks like. Note the Pre-Open and Open distinctions, as well as the listing of the Channel Slam as the only Title Double as a table.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated. If anyone thinks this deserves an RfC, please also comment on that. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@ABC paulista @ForzaUV @Fyunck(click) @Wolbo @Somnifuguist @Sportsfan77777 @Ddenilson @JamesAndersoon @Mrf8128 @Rubyaxles @Subaryan @The Sports Gnome @Unnamelessness @Mjquinn_id @Revolynka @Spiderone @Another Believer @Qwerty284651 @Tvx1 @Ipigott @Jonaththejonath Pinging. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

DiamondIIIXX It's funny how only now I ran into this discussion, after all has been said and done already in the respective tennis article, and I archived the whole thing... Funny, how things work out some times. P.S. It was amusing engaging with you in the heated back-and-forth discussion over what combo and version to use in the article...Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I really don't think we need double title tables. We need a Channel Slam because it is a press reported issue with sourcing. As for double counting, there are legitimate concerns for both styles. I have always included it myself, such as Graf winning both the Grand Slam and the non-calendar Grand Slam. As far as Pre-Open/Open Era distinctions I'm not big on that... I like greatest in history tables not so much greatest in different eras. There are too many weird things in each era. Womens pre-Open and Open Era differences are minimal compared to the men. Tennis in the 70s/80s also had players that weren't allowed to play big events. There are big differences in the fact that in the last 20 years they changed balls at the French, changed grass at Wimbledon to slow it down, sped up some hard courts. Big differences from wood to composite to gigantic oversized rackets. The Big tournament organization changes in 1990. To say that pre-Open and Open is the demarcation line is not looking at history... twas one of many. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It's already a very long article as it is. Rubyaxles (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need that Title Double table either. Per WP:NOTDATABASE, I even think only the first three sections should be included on the page. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness Comment - I believe these stats were previously on Grand_Slam (Tennis), but were moved here to have all the stats in one place. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to list 3 of 4 at all...UNLESS the player is still active and "could" win the 4th (Calendar or non-calendar). Like "Pending". The only accomplishment below the 4 slams would be the Channel Slam.
I agree with combining Open Era and not... I think it tends to be confusing and not really enlightening. Though it seems to make sense in some of the Misc tables; when things are chronological. I found the two "by country" tables interesting. Clearly shows when Aus and Eng were basically "private" tournaments.
I think there should be a "See also" at the top for the opposite sex page (Men's singles to Women's singles), etc.
1. There is very little consistency between sexes and/or events (Same sections, same order...)
We need to stay with the consistent BOLD being for Active - some pages are using underlined?
Is there a reason we have stopped putting the Portal:Tennis link in the See also section at the bottom?

Just my thoughts - Mjquinn_id (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Important possible change at World number 1 ranked male tennis players

Pretty important change being discussed at World number 1 ranked male tennis players. It's looking like in column two, the No. 2 player will be replaced by the No. 1 amateur. If this is something you like or don't like and want to comment please do so on that talk page topic. It's an important article for Tennis Project and I didn't want anyone blindsided. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Fyunck. Will look into it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Really important change now being discussed at World number 1 ranked male tennis players.

There is discussion at World number 1 ranked male tennis players that may or may not remove some or as some have suggested all rankings from all players. If that's the case we may need to rename the article. Please voice an opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Change to NSPORT notability for Davis Cup and Billie Jean King Cup

Eleven editors decided 7-4 to remove Davis Cup and Billie Jean King Cup participation from automatic notability. It has not changed in our own Tennis Project Guidelines, but keep it in mind when creating new articles based solely on those ITF team events. Some of us had thought a compromise to those players being in the main World Group of 16 countries should have automatic notability, but that did not happen. This is just an FYI to those not privy to that discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) So, what you are saying we should just give up because the discussion was closed by a non-admin. We should and will demand a revote. There is no way this is going unnoticed. You did say it so on the closer's talk page, Fyunck, you will take it up one level. Why the sudden change of heart? Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because the closer did nothing wrong. Their assesment of the consensus is correct. These discussions aren’t even polls with votes, so a revote cannot be demanded. Moreover, WP:Tennis does not have special authority or some veto. Therefore I strongly suggest we adapt our guidelines so that they match the actual Wikipedia notability guidelines.T v x1 21:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a change of heart. Just got back in town and work was piling up. Plus admins I respect said all looked well with the closure. The players picked for Davis cup are usually the best tennis players in that nation (although not so with the US). They are probably notable anyway. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, yeah. It is good to know fellow editors with higher privileges, I reckon. And besides, the higher the coverage for one athlete, whose article was started on the notion of Davis/Fed Cup, the better for said athlete to have their article be expanded upon, rather than removed speedily. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That comment again shows the shortcomings of your argument and why it was given little weight in the assessment. It is based on a personal sentiment not supported by facts. That Davis Cup and Fed Cup teams usually holds true for ties in the World Groups and their play-offs and more recently their Qualifiers and Finals. But that is far from the case with smaller nations playing in levels like zonal group IV. These countries most often select who is available and willing to play and even had to add juniors to the rosters at times because they often don't have sufficient successful players travelling around the tour to fill up Davis Cup or Fed Cup roster with. Moreover, these lower-level zonal ties rarely garner signifacant coverage, let alone the players doing so independently. Just playing one Davis Cup or Fed Cup match ever was way too low for a notability bar.T v x1 22:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That being said, I think both of you are overconcerned about the consequences of the removal of this criterium. You seem to fear that articles of all players who ever played in a Davis or Fed Cup match will now be deleted. I can assure you that's not true. These will really only affect some players from the lower levels of this competition who are just not notable.

On a side note, I think the Hopman Cup should also be removed from that criterium. The Hopman Cup is an invitational event that invites players who have already achieved considerable notability through their performances in the sport. Most often players from the top 100 in the ATP and WTA singles or doubles rankings. I cannot actually think of any player who competed in the Hopman Cup who wasn't already notable before doing so.T v x1 22:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

But that would mean we shouldn't remove Hopman Cup from auto-notability. Back to Davis Cup, someone had mentioned auto-notability would be better assigned to the World Group, and it's hard to fault that choice as you have eloquently said above. And two other things mentioned in that and the previous discussions at that talk page, we don't start removing players article already created, and it doesn't necessarily supersede our own Project Guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Auto-notability does not and should not exist. WP:N only attributes presumed notability. Actually notability is only achieved by siginificant coverage in reliable third-party sources. What I wrote means the Hopman Cup should be removed. It’s presence in the guideline is pointless. There is no tennis player who achieved notability through playing in the Hopman Cup. Lastly, WP:CONLEVEL quite patently dictates that WikiProject guidelines cannot override site-wide guidelines. Site wide consensus supersedes local consensus.T v x1 23:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

What should happen and what does happen are two completely different things. Guidelines are just that that.... guidelines. Common sense prevails over them as has been stated in Wikipedia policies. General guidelines don't always work and everyone who edits here for a length of time knows that. They simply can't cover everything. I'm guessing we won't agree on this subject but that's ok... there are plenty of things we agree on and plenty of things I agree and don't agree with other editors. As long as we are civil to one another things have a tendency to work out most of the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This is true what you said to a degree there, Fyunck. It's just that why go ahead and remove certain guidelines, when it was fime just the way it was with them. Now there was a proposal to takr down Hopma cup from the notability list, as well. Yes, the exhibition tournament is defunct, being replaced by the current ATP Cup, but still. I just don't like it when things get changed so abruptly, on a whim, because to tighten up the creation BLP's articles for player, who are not getting enough coverage by the media in some sufficient/adequate way, form or fashion..It's just...I don't know. I wish you could change things, keep certain guidelines as they are, intact. But this, it seems, is bigger than me. Out of my control. Not much I can do about this, except state my opinion/vote and hope for the best. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The proposal to remove Hopman Cup is not because of it being defunct. It isn’t even defunct but just temporarily absent. It’s because the claim is simply incorrect. There are simply no players who achieved notability through playing in the Hopman Cup.

Fyunck(click), do you have any meaningful argument as to why WP:TENNIS guidelines should remain deliberately contrary to the community consensus achieved at [[WP:N]? “Common sense prevails” amounts to nothing but “for the sake of it”. That’s a really poor attitude. The discussed general at WP:N isn’t even a general guideline but a tennis sub-specific guideline of the specific sports notability guideline. Our WikiProject should reflect the community consensus instead of sticking to a local one.T v x1 13:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tvx1 Is it, in your opinion, advisable to reopen the discussion on the topic? I would do the reopening myself, but would that change anything, 'tis the quandary here. I fear, whilst removing the until-further-notice defunct Hopman Cup, should not spell doom for current BLP's articles on the grounds on WP:GNG, it will on the future ones, for sure. And why do you insist on removing said Cup. I am seeing of pattern the Cups being targeted, which does not have to mean anything, but still why? Furthermore, will these changes affect the WP:WTENNIS'notability criteria, now that the Cups are being removed? Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No I don’t think it is advisable to re-open. A community discussion was held in a correct way and closes with consensus assessed in a correct way. I cannot see any justified grounds to reopen it. I cannot personally vouch for why the cups were discussed. Someone raised the subject for whatever reason and I just gave my opinion. I decided to mention the Hopman Cup because I thought it was best to discuss all of the ITF’s national team events rather than just some. And as I have stated multiple times, yes I think WP:Tennis should be changed in line with the changes at WP:NSPORT. No proper reason no to do so has been brought forward.T v x1 15:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, if I was making the Tennis Guideline today, I would write it as all players in the 16 team World Group of Davis Cup are presumed notable. I think our Guideline should reflect that. If NSPORT wants to follow that, great. If they don't, then oh well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not how it works. A WikiProject should follow community consensus, not the other way round. If you want to start a new discussion at WP:NSPORT to demonstrate that the Davis Cup World Group players are presumed notable, you can always try. But I will reiterate that it would be redundant, since these players are already notable for other efforts anyway.T v x1 17:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not the way it was originally created. Do you actually think that the NSPORT tennis section was created by the community at large? Nope, it wasn't. It was originally created with a just a few lines by someone who knew nothing about tennis. Then they called in Tennis Project and tennis experts to rewrite it as it stood for a decade. Wikipedia knew that people that knew tennis would be better equipped to write the rules of notability as opposed to those who barely know the names of the four majors. Those NSPORT rules were taken from Tennis Project, not the other way around. They didn't have an RFC to do it either... a few helpful folks wrote it, agreed, and then posted it. Now eleven years later a few editors suddenly changed it pretty much without tennis people to help. I look at wikiprojects as better able to figure out details on these things than general guidelines, and there are many many editors who feel the same way. I understand that you don't but even the recent things on the Olympics notability stated that project guidelines should be taken into account. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the fact, which you two, @Fyunck(click)@Tvx1, missed. And that is WP:WTENNIS, not to be confused with WP:TENNIS, mind you. That is [[17]] Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Tennis task force which clearly mentions the Fed Cup as an notability criteria. Notability guidelines. What does one do in this case? Ignore the criteria, put it into account, or what? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click)@Tvx1 I propose we move this discussion on the Sports notability talk page, instead of here, because it has developed into a full blown ping pong game pretty much between certain editors and/or patrollers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Developing a new notability guideline for Davis Cup and BJK Cup

As was already mentioned on this page above, a recent discussion removed the Davis Cup and the BJK Cup (i.e. the Fed Cup) part of the WP:NTENNIS guideline for presumed notability. In short, the rationale for removing these tournaments was that some Davis Cup players who compete in Group IV definitely don't meet WP:GNG, so the entire thing should be removed. We were only notified of the discussion after a request to close the discussion was submitted, so we were largely left out of the discussion. Requests to re-open the discussion have (at least so far) been denied because regular editors of the sports notability page don't think it is necessary to notify editors who don't follow already follow that page and because the late comments from us didn't dispute the reasons for closing. If they don't like that version of the guideline, then let's develop a new one. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't like that the discussion treated the Davis Cup and BJK Cup as single entities. There are different levels of these competitions (Finals, Group I, Group II, etc.) just like in the rest of tennis (e.g. with the ATP Tour, Challenger Tour, and ITF Futures). Here is a breakdown by group...

First, the more obvious ones:

Finals: I think most of us (or even all of us?) would agree that participating in the Davis Cup or BJK Cup Finals (formerly known as the World Group) should confer presumed notability. Tvx1 basically said above that it was so obvious that these players would be notable that they didn't think it would be worth adding the Finals to the WP:NTENNIS guideline because all of these players already have articles. To some extent I agree, but I'd still be in favor of including it for completeness.
Group IV: I think most of us already agree that participating in Group IV does not confer presumed notability. Case in point: Almost none of the 2021 Davis Cup Africa Zone Group IV players have articles, and not many of the 2021 Davis Cup Europe Zone Group IV players do either.

Then, the less obvious ones:

Group I: Davis Cup is simpler since there is just one World Group I. Pretty much all of these players have articles. At least a few of them only have articles because they competed in Davis Cup (e.g. Murkel Dellien and Boris Arias from Bolivia.) Dellien, Arias, and basically all of the other questionable ones seem to have lost their matches. So I'd suggest you actually have to win a Group I match to get presumed notability.
Group II and Group III: I don't think just playing a match or even winning a match is enough to confer presumed notability at this level. In the interest of being inclusive, maybe winning a certain number of matches or playing for a certain number of years would be enough?

Summary:

Keep the Finals in the guideline. (You have to play one match.)
Keep Group I in the guideline. (You have to win one match.)
I'm not sure about Group II or Group III.
Get rid of Group IV.

Thoughts? I'd want to see what the editors who normally create these articles have to say in particular. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

-

Discussion

One thing. The World group might not always be so "obvious", so it needs to be in the guidelines. Remember that it includes 16 teams but only eight from the year prior. The next eight have to play preliminary rounds where upsets from lesser teams happen. Players on those lesser teams may be much more unknown outside their countries. Otherwise I don't usually create these articles but your reasoning is sound. Groups 2 and 3 are probably notable but that can be quite different than "presumed notable." Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

"The World Group" doesn't exist anymore. The current Davis Cup format has two World Groups which are actually the second and third tier. These actually feature 24 teams each. The top tier is currently the "Finals" tier which has a 24 teams qualifying round and a 18 team Finals round.T v x1 17:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The proposal is flawed from the beginning if you ask me. For some reason only the current format is considered, which is recentism and not even presented properly. The Davis Cup does presently not have one but two World Groups and a Finals level above them.

The current format has the Finals, then Group I, Group II, Group III, Group IV. The old format had the World Group, then Group I, Group II, Group III, Group IV. Not much has changed, except the top level was renamed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong. Much more has changed. The old format had World Group and zonal levels below that were teams were nations were group in zones. The new format has Finals and World Groups I and II and the zonal levels only below that. Thus there are three levels now were teas from all over the world are mixed versus only one such level previously.Tvx1 18:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  - That's not really correct. In 2021, Group I has 24 teams. In 2018 with the old format, Group I still had 24 teams: 11 in Europe/Africa, 7 in Americas, and 6 in Asia/Oceania. The fact that they combined the continent sub-groups into one big group doesn't change the level. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the proposed guidelines are just to vague and general to properly deal with a tournament that is actually older than three of the grand slam tournaments. The Fed Cup, recently renamed to Billie Jean King Cup, is younger but equally evolved through the decades. It's too simplistic to say all players who played in a World Group match, of which the Fed Cup had two and the Billie Jean King Cup has none, are presumed notable. Two important things are ignored:

Firstly, quite a lot dead rubbers were played in the years the World Groups were the top tier. These dead rubbers often featured the lowest ranked players of the relevant teams playing for experience and I strongly contend that all players playing such a match are presumed notable.
- That's easy to address. Just change it to live rubber then. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Secondly, players only playing doubles have comparatively lower notability than players who play singles or both. So I do not believe that every player who played even just one doubles world group match (and that could even have been a dead rubber in the Fed Cup) is notable.
- Currently, all of our guidelines apply to singles and doubles players equally. This wouldn't be any different. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  - Which would be wrong as these do not have the same level of notability, let alone they could achieve it equally easily.T v x1 18:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

These are quite big issues and therefore I cannot support the current proposal. Moreover, in general I still believe that players who played in these cups and are notable are notable for other achievements in Tennis and that players who only ever played one match in these cups, whichever level, or not notable just because of that.T v x1 17:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Tennis MSE templates listed for deletion

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#Tennis at multi-sport competitions about numerous tennis MSE navbox templates which have been replaced by Template:Infobox tennis tournament event and Template:Infobox tennis tournament year. Any comments therein by WP:Tennis members would be appreciated. Sod25 (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wimbledon articles: Large move request to move Gentlemen's" → "Men's", "Ladies'" → "Women's

A move request at Talk:The Championships, Wimbledon is taking place to move any Wimbledon article titles that contain Gentlemen's and Ladies' to Men's and Women's. Not sure if we ever decided what to do about this. Back in 2009 a discussion took place to use Gentlemen's and Ladies' because that's what Wimbledon has always used, but I don't see anything since. The current invitational articles still use G&L rather than M&W, and articles before 1903 do also. Not sure who moved them to men's and Womens or why. Does anyone recall a conversation where it was decided? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Camila Osorio

Hello, WikiProject Tennis,

I have some questions whether this article is a target of paid editors so I'm hoping that editors more familiar with tennis and tennis players than I am can confirm that she is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Thanks, in advance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: She's ranked 53 in the world (actually 54 today), was a finalist at the WTA Tenerife Ladies Open 2 weeks ago, advanced to round three at Wimbledon, and won the WTA Copa Colsanitas tournament in April this year. She is very notable. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

ITF and Fed Cup/Billie Jean King Cup charts

Hello to everybody! I'm wondering what is correct way of writing ITF names and how Fed Cup/Billie Jean King Cup table should look like? Most ITF tournaments are represented as ITF + name city, Country, talking about 10/15/25K tournaments, but what about higher level ones? Should there be universal template for all tournaments on the ITF Tour? Names of some higher level tournaments ex. Coleman Vision Tennis Championships (held in Albuquerque) is too long and maybe it will be better to specify the city rather? Also there are some tournaments like Copa LP Chile where saying Cope LP Chile, Chile is a little bit pointless cuz we already can see that tournament is hold in Chile. Talking about Fed Cup/BJKP chart, I can't found proper version cuz on almost all female ralated pages there are not the same chart represented in Article Guidline for Davis Cup. Davis Cup chart is for me unlegible and needs new format. JamesAndersoon (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

National team or Davis Cup/Billie Jean King team

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. However, 力's proposal of "X at the Davis Cup" has some merit and I'd like to see discussion on that without it being unduly influenced by this discussion. Sceptre (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

– I want to move to proper name and per WP:COMMON. --Ruling party (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

No one calls these teams "[country] [competition] team", especially not the mouthful "Great Britain Billie Jean King Cup team". Neither on their own websites (daviscup.com or billiejeankingcup.com) or the associated webpages. See [18] Its "team" and "national team" and "country competition team". "Medvedev to join today national team for 2021 Davis Cup, says Russian tennis chief", Hungarian Tennis Miracle: National Team Plays Davis Cup Final This Weekend same here in spanish... No one calls these teams by competition name - it is not normal and not WP:COMMON
It is more common to call these teams "national team" and "team".. Official pronouncements are very clear: ""cheer on their favorite team at the Davis Cup Finals by submitting messages of support for the national teams competing in the Davis Cup by Rakuten Finals", "Victory over Slovakia returns the Czech Republic to the top category of world tennis with a renewed team. Although they continue to enjoy the experience of Jiri Vesely and Lukas Rosol, the captain has had to make up for the loss of Radek Stepanek and Tomas Berdych from the national team. Jonas Forejtek and Jiri Lehecka are his bet for the future." "Sasnovich replied when asked whether being back together in the national team felt strange after so many months competing" "Each stadium will host its national team at the group stage. Albert Costa, Director of the Davis Cup Finals" The website "daviscupfinals.com" has never used the term "country Davis Cup team". Never a quick Google search proves!
The players and capteins don't call it "country comeptition team". Anders Håseth: "We think Davis Cup is good for tennis in the country and to have more team matches, and more youngsters seeing national team competition" Samsonova: ""It means too much to me (to be a part of this). It was a dream for to play for the national team" Naito: "“I will do my best to contribute to the Japan national team."
The Davis Cup/Billie Jean King Cup are organised jused like FIFA World Cup or any other world cup for that matter... Who organises it? the international sport's federation! Who appoints the captain of the national team? The national sport association. This is a World Cup, and yes tennis is to cool to actually name their competition the "World Cup" - rather they market it as "The World Cup of Tennis". But it is!
Moving these pages would also make the articles more searchable. And hell... all national teams - as far as I know of on Wikipedia - are named national team. England national football team Norway men's national handball team Russia men's national ice hockey team
Some might say, but what about the ATP Cup? The ATP Cup is not organised by the international sport association and has no involvement by the national tennis associations.. That easy.
I see many people arguing that its not WP:PRECISE? How is not precise? Is the England national football team not precise?
Organisation: the Davis Cup is organised in a structure. While the teams of the ATP Cup and Hopman Cup exist and dissolve before and after every tournament the team structure of the Davis Cup does not. Leon Smith works as team captain. In Norway we have "landslagsansvarlig" (meaning "Responsible Officer of the National Teams") and landslagskaptein (CAptain of the National Team). The Swedish Tennis Assocation [19] refers to the team as "landslaget" which plays "landskamper" (national matches). The Danish Tennis Association calls it landsholdet (again, meaning national team).
The Hopman Cup doesn't call their teams "national teams". A quick search on their websites proves that they have never referred to one of their team as "national teams". The ITF doesn't either. That is: no one refers to the Hopman Cup teams as national teams, which means that they're not national teams.

By refusing to change name you're refusing to accept the basic truth: the national tennis associations themselves call these teams the "National Teams"

Does this make sense? It really should....

Suggestion: Move all team to "country men's national team" and "country women's national team".

Note: by refusing to change structure people are proving that Wikipedians are less interested in truth and more interested in keeping things to their liking. No one calls these teams "Davis Cup teams" or "Billie Jean King Cup teams". You all know it. --Ruling party (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - It looks like you are already doing it. STOP. This will require some thought at Tennis Project. You don't ask and start doing it. The title is more precise when you use Davis Cup or Billie Jean King Cup teams. Davis Cup has called it the United States Davis Cup Team so your suggestion that no one calls it that is false. Heck in 1933 they were calling it the United States Davis Cup Team. Article after article uses xx Davis Cup Team. And how about Tennis Canada? This mass moving without consensus needs to be reverted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): You are both right and wrong. Before the 2019 ITF reforms of the national competitions it was not unormal that they called the national teams "Davis Cup teams".. It has, however, stopped 100 percent since that time. Now no, or at the very least, very few call them "Davis Cup team". Just search the daviscup.com or billiejeankingcup.com on their webpages from 2019 onwards.

In addition, you're argument "move without consensus" doesn't start a discussion. If you want a discussion partake in it know. It is happening now no matter how stupid I was. --Ruling party (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't be rewarded with a discussion AFTER you do all the damage. That's putting the cart before the horse. It should all be moved back and then the situation should be discussed. However you are still incorrect. During and within the event it is most common to use Team USA, Team Chile, Team France, etc... But there is also plenty of xxx Davis Cup Team since 2019. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/sports/tennis/2021/11/22/reilly-opelka-united-states-davis-cup-team-open-play-italy/8702312002/ Here is this month], https://bolavip.com/en/sports/john-isner-and-reilly-opelka-lead-team-usa-lineup-for-2021-davis-cup-finals--20211025-0011.html here is last month], Tennis World three days ago, Tennis Australia uses both terms, Australian News, and also Tennis Canada. You make it sound like the term is extinct when it looks pretty vibrant to me. It is a bit of a mouthful to say the Russian Billie Jean King Cup winner, so I'm sure it will be shortened as much as possible throughout an article, but when you're being as precise as you can to our readers, National Tennis Team doesn't make the cut. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Per WP:PRECISE. The proposed titles are too vague for the subjects of these articles. These article deal with Davis Cup and Fed/Billie Jean King Cup teams only. "National team" does not accurately describe these subjects as national tennis teams also take part in other events like the Hopman Cup and the Summer Olympics.T v x1 14:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

But that is not true @Tvx1: The Hopman Cup is not organised or has any involvement from the national tennis associations and is therefore not a national competition in any formal understanding of the term. For those articles, the ATP Cup and the Hopman Cup, the most correct term would be "Great Britain at the ATP Cup" or "Great Britain at the Hopman Cup" per everyother naming convention that exists here on Wikipedia. --Ruling party (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The Hopman Cup is organized but the exact same organisation, the International Tennis Federation, that organizes the Davis and Billie Jean King cups. Moreoever, it is officially marketed as the World Cup for mixed teams. The national tennis associations do not organize the Davis Cup or Billie Jean King cups either. And as a mentioned, there is also the olympics which does have involvement from national associations. Your analogy with other sports just doesn't work. Norway men's national handball team, for instance, deals with a team that competes in World Cups, European Championships, Olympics etc... The tennis articles you renamed deal ONLY with those two cups. Therefore the proposed changes runs afoul of WP:PRECISE.T v x1 15:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

And that is a key entity here. National team sounds like a country forms a national team to compete in all national events like Olympics, Hopman Cup, Billie Jean King Cup, ATP Cup... and that does not happen. It's not precise enough. I'm not saying it might not also be ok with "Brazil in the Billie Jean King Cup", but that's a different RFC and you wouldn't just move every article and then ask if it was ok. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment First, I was very tempted to remove the WP:RM listing as malformed. I'm not going to do that (nor complain at ANI about the fait accompli attempt) but someone else may well do so. Second -- the style Austria Davis Cup team feels wrong, but Austria men's national tennis team is not better and doesn't seem to be accurate. Perhaps Austria in the Davis Cup (a parallel construction to Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest) would be better? (or "at" as suggested above) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@力: Better than nothing, but you seem to forget that the ITF does not agree with you: ". Team Captains also supported the launch of the name change by informing the national team players and posting on their own social channels. Billie Jean King (BJK) sent a personal WhatsApp audio message to players, shared by the Captains, saying how proud she is to represent the players, the nations and this historic competition" Again ITF: Cihak, who spent eight years as a coach for Czech Republic’s Davis Cup team when the likes of Tomas Berdych and Radek Stepanek were on national team duty"... Even official ITF rules refer to the teams as national teams. another rule that calls the teams national team

I might be wrong, as you say, about the Hopman Cup.. But I can't find one single source by the ITF that refers to the Hopman Cup as a national team competition. They call it a mixed team competition and not national team. Which is a big difference in label... Don't you agree? --Ruling party (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Not as well that the Hopman Cup does not use the term "national team" on their own website to describe the teams. --Ruling party (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Equating “national teams” to “Davis Cup teams” is obviously the ultimate desideratum of the likes of D. Haggerty, G. Piqué and company, but it is, by my understanding, not only inaccurate but also degrading to other events and competitions. As pointed out by Tvx1, national teams at the Olympics are no less ‘national teams’ than those that take part in the Davis Cup. The Olympics explicitly refer to them as ‘national teams’ ([20]), Djokovic refers to the Serbian team at the Olympics as the country's 'national team' ([21]), and so on (see this, and this...). Same thing applies to other events such as the Pan American Games and the Mediterranean Games, in which national federations are directly involved.

The above is quite self-explanatory, but in addition I must say that equating “Davis Cup teams” to “national teams” is particularly incorrect and unfair from a historical perspective. Teams at the World Team Cup and at the King's Cup were as ‘national’ as Davis Cup teams, regardless of what the ITF, the UN or NASA might say in 2021 or in 2100. --WTC7812 (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - DC one of many tennis competitions/events represented by a national team. I'm am concerned that "x Billie Jean King Cup team" sounds rather wordy but there is nothing we can do about that. Suggest moving all back to their original names. Is that going to be an admin action? (if this RM were to fail). Jevansen (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Some can be moved back, but some he also made an extra change to the original so it can't be moved back without administrative help. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking more can these all be moved in one go by a bot? We're talking up to 200 pages. Jevansen (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think a bot can execute these moves. The problem is that user automatically created redirects on the source pages by moving them. What are now the target pages to move back to are essentially blocked. We need either an administrator, who can delete the redirects to make place for the moves, or a WP:PAGEMOVER who can complete the moves through a "round-robin" move (a series of moves not leaving redirects).T v x1 21:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Ruling party is still moving pages. Jevansen (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Now blocked for 3 days. Jevansen (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Resubstituted Template:Requested moves simply so it is easier to see examples of what proposer (now blocked) intended, especially after the RM is closed. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

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

All 175 of the remaining articles have now been moved back thanks to those at WP:RM/T. Sod25 (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Championship vs. Championships

Coming from a brief conversation at User_talk:Ytfc23#Championships ... I find things like 2016 Nielsen Pro Tennis Championships where "Championships" seems to be inappropriately plural. I just did a fix at 2015 Nielsen Pro Tennis Championship and related articles, but wanted to get more input before continuing in that direction. Back when nielsenprotennis.com existed, it only used the singular, as far as I've found (but I didn't look further back than 2015); see archived 2016 page. OK to fix these? Is there a similar issue in other championships? User:Ytfc23 suggests that maybe Brits use plural and Americans use singular. Comments? Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. I recall we had a Tennis Project discussion and I believe the consensus was to always use "championships." It appeared to be the most common term and we wanted to be consistent. I think that's the way it happened but @Wolbo: was more a part of the conversation than I was. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

To my recollection we mostly use the plural form because tournaments usually consist of more than one event. That is the reason why the 1877–1883 Wimbledon tournaments are called Championship (only one event) but as of 1884 they are called Championships because there are several events and therefore several titles (champions). I don't think it is a specific British-US distinction. Most of the sources I know have the various official U.S. championships (national, indoor, clay) in plural form, but the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championship is currently in singular form. In summary, we usually go with the plural form, however, if reliable sources say otherwise we should follow that.--Wolbo (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I will attempt to continue to fix the Nielsen to singular, since that's the official and common form for that one, and I won't worry about others unless I stumble into them at some point. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of Singles and Doubles and such

One more thing: on these I was working on, and probably on others, I find " – Singles" and " – Doubles" on titles, where the capitalization does not seem justifiable. So I'm downcasing those. Any objections? Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

On tennis article titles it is Women's Singles and Men's Doubles. That is the normal use in tennis. I know the Olympics Project has a different idea and we agreed to use lower case for them since other Olympic articles do the same, but it is a proper phrase in tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not asking about that phrase, just about the isolated "singles" and "doubles". Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

But wait, does the capitalization from the title leak into the infobox? See 2010 Nielsen Pro Tennis Championship – singles which I downcased. I don't understand templates well enough to get what's happening here. Anyone want to comment on the right way forward? Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure. This Indian Wells article title would be correct as is the prose. If all we see is the word "singles" I'm not so sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what "a proper phrase in tennis" means, either. Book sources don't cap these much. Also not capped at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

A proper name... like "Open Era" should be capitalized. Under our guidelines under "Article types and recommended practices" it says Draw articles, 2008 US Open – Men's Singles, 2007 Brasil Open – Singles. And if you are talking about the infobox at 2010 Nielsen Pro Tennis Championship – Singles, those are their own section beginnings... I would assume Singles and Doubles would be capitalized there since it's like the start of a sentence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I of course understand that we capitalize proper names; I just wasn't sure if "a proper phrase in tennis" was some conventional thing I need to learn about. From looking at usage in books, it looks to me like "men's singles" and such are not usually capitalized. These terms are pretty clearly not proper names of anything, right? As for the infobox title, I agree they should use sentence case; but the template makes that hard if they're not sentence case in the title. I don't see anything in the guidelines and conventions about this case issue. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

And MOS:SENTENCECAPS says When an independent clause ends with a dash or semicolon, the first letter of the following word should not be capitalized, even if it begins a new independent clause that could be a grammatically separate sentence: Cheese is a dairy product; bacon is not., suggesting that we also not cap Men's, Women's, etc., since those are routinely lowercase in sentences and the after-dash context is not to be treated like the start of a sentence. I think I'll work on downcasing all these purely descriptive topic narrowing phrases. Any objections? Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's a tennis template that gets it right (not overcapping singles and doubles, but using sentence case for each linked item):

Because that template is out of context. It's just got two words and nothing else. All you have is the phrase Women's singles. You would also write "I lost my ring in the tar pits." But of course you would also write "I went to the La Brea Tar Pits." Just as many sources say Australian Open - Mixed Doubles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice one -- last time I was at the La Brea Tar Pits was almost 50 years ago, and I got a ticket on the way home for failing to stop for a pedestrian; that was fun but annoying. But this tar pit is different. Hardly anyone caps "Women's Singles" in sentences, especially with the dashed construct. It's not a name, or part of a name. Books say "Australian Open mixed doubes": [22], [23] in sentences. Why don't we use that as title? Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

That would suck. I think I was there about 10 years ago but no traffic issues. I agree that hardly anyone would capitalize "women's singles" as that could mean anything... even a bunch of single women. :-) No problem there. But when put together with Australian Open they do, and I gave you a bunch of sources to prove it... some even with the hyphen. It is part of the name of the event when narrowing it down to discipline. Borg didn't win Wimbledon, he won 1980 Wimbledon Men's Singles over John McEnroe. It's not the "Wimbledon drinking fountains" we are talking about here. Men's Singles is an event name category at Wimbledon. I don't see why we would change countless thousands of articles over an item that has sources both ways. Especially when there are so many other items that actually need fixing in articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody would do what I showed you several sources doing? There are lots more that do that. Similarly with women's singles. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

More discussion about dashes in sporting event titles

See WT:Article titles#Dash in sporting event titles. Please say there if you understand something about the meaning or history or use of these dashed titles. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems that downcasing the stuff after the dash (e.g. "– men's singles") would be most consistent with WP style. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

But not per longstanding Tennis Project Guidelines and sourcing. Please don't downcase. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking we'd need an RFC on this; it goes beyond tennis, but tennis is an outlier in the double capping. Can you point me at relevant guidelines or past discussions in the tennis context? Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth an RFC. The sub-titles could always be justified as proper nouns, so MOS:SENTENCECAPS wouldn't apply. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Plus did you see the draft RFC of Dicklyon? I love D..."D. Do nothing, continue to have random meaningless style variations." No bias there. Meaningless is baloney as many sources use this "meaningless" capitalization. I can't speak for other sports so maybe those sources are different, but it's often a proper name in tennis. I also love the example of no capitalization after the Dash...2013 Nielsen Pro Tennis Championship – singles. It's not capitalized because he just moved it! And the Olympic aberration is because we pretty much came to an agreement to use the Olympic Project nomenclature and Olympic sources rather than Tennis Project usage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that; I wrote it. As for "proper nouns", I'm not seeing how one would get there. How do these things that are not proper names get to be proper names when within the sphere of Wikiproject Tennis? And what is the meaning of the capitalization there that different from other sports or other contexts? You introduced the concept of "a proper phrase in tennis" above, but never explained it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not "within the sphere of Wikiproject Tennis". Sources do treat these terms as proper nouns. We didn't make up that usage. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you show me where I can find evidence of that? I see overwhelmingly lowercase of things like "men's singles" in sources. There may be specific tournament names in which these are capped, but not in the format that we have in our article titles. And it's different in the context of Olympics and other multi-sport international events; where does that come from? "Olympic sources" versus "Tennis Project usage" as Fyunck says? Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Really? I'm surprised that a stand alone Men's Singles got any percentage at all. And look what happens when you remove the apostrophe. It's when it's used in context of the event title that things change, such as at ESPN. Or even IBM stat tracker where everything is capitalized. We didn't capitalize everything. But sources such as the Australian Open draw sheet or the US Open draw are the things that influenced opinions here. You know you ask why we did certain things but from your draft rfc and your ngram with no context it seems like all you want is to get rid of it no matter what. There are many examples within the sport such as Australia's Sky Sports, 2016 SBNation chart. Sure, in a sentence alone it's usually men's singles, but as a header or draw chart it is usually not. Actually we often see all caps more often than not.

Are you not aware that we base capitalization decisions on usage in sentences? See MOS:CAPS. Also note that the usage without apostrophe is very rare, compared to with: [24]. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

When you use the term men's singles in prose it's usually not capitalized. When used as Wimbledon Men's Singles it's a different story. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If the article titles were like Wimbledon Men's Singles and that was found capped in most sources (which is contrary to fact), we wouldn't be having this conversation. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course there are examples of women's singles also as you've shown and years ago the project decided the doubles caps was the best per most drawsheet headers and went ahead and created 10s of thousands of articles based on that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"Per most drawsheet headers" seems like a plausible explanation of where this over-capitalization came from. That's not a reason to not fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This is obviously a per peeve of yours. I would say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. There are so many things that really need fixing on Wikipedia and this isn't one of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, over-capitalization is a pet peeve of mine. It's broken (in a few corners of WP) and ought to be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Basically, all I'm hearing is "tennis is special". That's a problem, not an answer. Dicklyon (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Then you aren't listening and your "pet peeve" may be the cause. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

My Wimbledon Gentlemen's/Ladies' → Men's/Women's move request closed as move to e.g. "Men's singles". This has had the effect of the event link corresponding to the current article no longer being bolded in the event links section of the infoboxes of those articles (example), which is undesirable. This can't be addressed however until all tennis draw articles have a standard capitalization, after which time the infobox template can be updated.

Dicklyon, now that there is precedent to change the capitalization, I will support your RFC, but please make it about sports articles only, as otherwise editors might object to non-sports page moves where there are probably many exceptions, turning the discussion into a WP:Trainwreck. You can always make a separate discussion for non-sports pages. Sod25 (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Singling out sports pages only? That seems very wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No - I specifically said another discussion could be started for non-sports pages. Consensus to move one tennis draw article or set of sports articles essentially mean consensus to move them all given their formulaic nature. Non-sports articles will probably have to be discussed on a more article-by-article or topic area-by-topic area basis for a solid consensus to be reached. Sod25 (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

And I would not single out sports articles by any stretch. If 20,000 articles are going to be moved just in tennis alone then every article at Wikipedia should be in on it... no exceptions at all regardless of sources. We would let all projects know about what will be happening if it's done piecemeal. Don't you see how unfair this sounds? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't assign the concepts of "fair" and "unfair" to matters as trivial as the capitalization of the title of an internet page. This issue only interests me in so far as the templates, which I have put time into improving, are concerned. Sod25 (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well I do look at things as fair or unfair. To many times things get handled poorly and then that change gets used to hurt other projects. It may be trivial (if it's trivial why change countless thousands of articles for triviality) but precedent gets set to do more and more. That seems shady to me and the same type thing has happened to less trivial matters. If it's demanded of sports it should be demanded on all biography, science, politics, and other projects... sourced or not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I agree, at least to part of what you're saying. That's why I work on style issues across all topic areas. It just so happens that I found a particularly odd large cluster of apparent over-capitalization in tennis, and I'm trying to understand it and get to consensus about what to do about it. One can't find and fix all problems at once. I'm working on another big cluster of overcapitalization of "province" and "district" in Southeast Asia. I don't see any sensible way one would combine these efforts, or work on all such clusters at once. Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

On that draft RFC at User:Dicklyon/DashTitleCapsRFC, I'd be happy to have more comments on how to improve it before I "launch" it. I changed the options around a bit to read less biased. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I tweaked and added notes to the draft. Be aware though, if this RfC is implemented, since it could affect millions of articles besides sports I plan on notifying many projects about what is happening, especially entertainment awards and their subsidiaries. If this could affect every project in the future by citing precedent, then every project it could affect needs to know about this right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there's some potential to affect the entertainment awards. Where else do you see potential effects of what we're talking about here? I compiled a list of two-part titles with spaced en dashes at User:Dicklyon/spaced dash titles, and it's dominated by sports events (I ran into text size limits, so only got about half the list into the table there, even after excluding the most common pattern ending in "Singles" or "Doubles" -- see quarry query). I think another common error pattern would be fixed by just replacing the spaced en dash by unspaced en dash (like Rolls – 28), but it takes a lot of work to find and verify, especially in foreign-language cases. Some just should probably have a space and no dash, like Las Vertientes – Reserva Natural Privada. Others, like ÄWPK – Älywapaa palokunta, just need to have one of the redundant parts removed. And some just need to use standard subtitle punctuation with colon, like Revealed – Live in Dallas. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

And where can I read about this longstanding compromise consensus with Olympics that you've mentioned? Sorry if you already said and I missed it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC that WILL affect this tennis project

There is a tennis/sports titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Overcapitalization in infoboxes

Template:Infobox tennis tournament year and Template:Infobox tennis tournament event have the option to lowercase singles and doubles in "Men's Singles", etc., but they default to uppercase, which results in a lot of excess capitalization in infoboxes. I suggest we just remove the option and default to following the advice of MOS:CAPS in using sentence-case heading instead of title-case. Or at least change the default, so that contexts that want the over-capitalization for some reason need to specify so. Yes? Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, this option also controls the links, so looks like we can't really fix it until we fix the overcapitalization in article titles. So it would be better to leave the option as is for controlling the links for now, and just fix the text presented in the infobox to be not affected by this option. Yes? Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's a sandbox diff illustrating the suggested change. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Overcapitalization in infoboxes. We'll see what happens... Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"If" there is overcapitalization in articles titles. The rfc right now is pretty much a no go on decapitalizing everything. I have no idea what others in the project want as far as capitalize or not in infoboxes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not decapitalizing everything, but there's a clear preference to avoid title case where sentence case is WP style for headings and titles. These are not proper names, and you are the only person who has claimed that they are (and I showed you with sources that you were wrong in your statement that "Places like Wimbledon, Australian Open, US Open all use the caps as a proper name as you would La Brea Tar Pits."). Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

PS I showed you already where usopen.org doesn't treat these are proper names. But see also Wimbledon: "Eight-time men’s singles champion Federer will start his bid for more success as the No.7 seed. He will find out during Friday’s draw which higher-ranked players might be waiting in his path." and Australian Open: "Men’s singles: 128 competitors including 16 qualifiers and eight wildcards. Roger Federer is the defending champion." So why would we overcapitalize in WP by default via a template? It's kind of nutty if you ask me. Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And I have already showed you links that those very organizations sometimes DO treat Men's Singles, Women's Singles, Mixed Doubles, as proper names for an event. You just ignored them. The events and press vary quite a bit on the terms as you know quite well. Right now the RFC is all over the map with no real consensus either way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't ignore them. I've stipulated several times that sources DO sometimes cap these things. But nowhere near the consistent capitalization that sources use for proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest requesting a close of the RFC, and if the close is not a runoff between options A and B, then starting a requested move for all tennis articles so we can standardize things again given the Wimbledon moves. I would support your sandboxed change (I added the lowercase param to the infoboxes to support the capitalization style of tennis at multi-sport competition articles), as long as you're happy to update all the wikilinks so we don't link to redirects everywhere. Sod25k (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I requested a close. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Closer says we should defer the dash structure question, and work out the narrow tennis capping question here. This seems the wrong place to me, per WP:CONLEVEL, but it might work, if the consensus is not to try to go against MOS:CAPS. The section below about proper names and headings might get us there. Dicklyon (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

'Davis cup team' renaming

Please tell me where should information about nation's participation in World Team Tennis and ATP cup go??? Will every competition have its own page?? (I cannot believe this nonsense.) Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

2021 Rolex Paris Masters

Please note, the 2021 Rolex Paris Masters' content has been deleted and redirected to the main article. I think it should be restored at least in some form. Cheers, Kacir 21:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverted. Next time someone unilaterally redirects an article like that, just revert it and then improve the article. Iffy★Chat -- 21:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS (and NTENNIS) an invalid argument at AfD

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NTENNIS] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Are "Men's Singles" and "Women's Doubles", etc., proper names?

In this edit, Fyunck capitalizes headings with these terms, that I had previously changed to sentence case, per MOS:CAPS. The article has citations to atptour.com and wtatennis.com, both of which do not capitalize these terms in sentences. It would make more sense to follow those, and to follow MOS:CAPS, than to use title case in these headings. Comments? Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not think they are. Tony (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You know, Dicklyon is presenting this a bit skewed and he knows it. I told him you can also find "Women's Singles" "Women's singles" "Mixed Doubles" "Mixed doubles" "Gentlemen's Invitational Doubles" to "Gentlemen's invitational doubles" all over the place. There are sources like Wimbledon, or TennisGrandstand or TennisGuru using "Gentlemen's Invitational Doubles" as the proper name of the event in question. I see it all the time. It may not be the most prevalent way, but it's common and what Tennis Project has always used. I'm not sure when the consensus happened but it is longstanding. And official tweets by the WTA show us otherwise. You can find capitalized Mixed Doubles in USTA leagues here, and also here. He knows all this but presents it as if it's always one-sided. It's not.

The situation was twofold: It is longstanding consensus to use capitalization such as Women's Singles in Tennis Project articles. I told him this. I also told him that he should bring it here to Tennis Project, plead his case, and perhaps most editors will agree with the changes he is making against that consensus. And he is making plenty in the last 24 hours.... over 1500 changes without discussion. That was my main beef with the situation. If you are going to change countless thousands of tennis articles it should be brought to the attention of Tennis Project to see what editors who build and maintain these articles actually think. I'm glad he brought it here and he stopped changing things. I don't know if our templates link to all the sections he has changed but it could create a huge mess if they do. I wouldn't change things as they seem fine the way they are, but I'm only one voice in a chorus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I also agree they shouldn't be capitalized. If Dicklyon wants to go through and make the changes, seems fine with me. I don't think "long-standing consensus" should be used to override basic Wikipedia standards such as MOS:CAPS when even the organizations such as WTA/ATP don't capitalize. oncamera _{(talk page)} 15:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. This should just be routine, the guidelines are clear. — Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Fyunck says "it is longstanding consensus to use capitalization such as Women's Singles in Tennis Project articles"; but it's also longstanding consensus to capitalize "Other Entrants" and all kinds of other stuff, it seems. And to put spaces into date ranges such as 1 – 5 June (should be 1–5 June). I routinely fix such things when I find them (rapidly, using regular expressions in JWB), independent of what projects put their stamps on them. See WP:CONLEVEL about how a central consensus is not overridden by a local project consensus (and I still don't know that such a local project consensus ever existed, since nobody can point me at a discussion about it).

And Fyunck continues to misunderstand the basis of MOS:CAPS when he says you can find these terms capped "all over the place"; nobody denies that (see above where I said "I've stipulated several times that sources DO sometimes cap these things."), but the criterion for treatment as a proper name is: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. And per WP:TITLEFORMAT, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text. I don't see why he says I have "presented this a bit skewed". He went through and added caps to headings, and not in running text (where it was already pretty inconsistent). Dicklyon (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

They're not proper names, they're just event or "discipline" descriptions like "300 m dash" and "men's triathlon" and "nine-ball". Should be lower case. Because this wikiproject seems unaware of WP:CONLEVEL policy and the fact that the reason it was enacted was to stop wikiprojects trying to make up their own "rules" against site-wide consensus, this should just be subjected to an RfC outside the wikiproject, e.g. at WT:MOSCAPS. 20:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs)

We keep hearing about this long-standing consensus and it has been asked for a couple of times. It is starting to sound like a unicorn. Per DL, these headings are using title case when the term is not being capped in running text of the article. WP uses sentence case for headings. In any case, Fyunck has answered the question: It may not be the most prevalent way, but it's common ... MOS:CAPS states "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". The terms are clearly not reaching this threshold. As SMcC says, we don't cap other sports disciplines either. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Unicorn, yes. Quoting Fyunck from 2015, "You can't keep saying 'we decided this by consensus' and expect editors to wade through the archives to find it. Make it easy for editors." How times change. Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting bit of sway from Dicklyon again. I've been saying it is now longstanding consensus, not that it was decided by consensus. Many items in Tennis project (or any WikiProject) get talked about, tried, and if no challenge happens it becomes the law of the land. You should know better... but I begin to see that never changes with you. Shall I start digging up all your "seeming" contradictions through the years? It's not my style but it is apparently yours. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), at the start of this thread you state: It is longstanding consensus .... I have seen the same statement before in other recent discussions where you (or anybody else) have also been asked to evidence the consensus. You only just now enlighten us by saying: it is now longstanding consensus, not that it was decided by consensus. [emphasis added] Please! This is low on the WP:CONLEVEL compared with P&G - particularly as it clearly goes against guidelines with community level consensus (and probably policy - section headings?). I am thinking that the burden rests with those that want to keep capitalisation, since the question is contrary to P&G but MOS:CAPS also places a burden to show that caps are necessary. Capitalisation is ultimately dependent on sources (and touches on WP:V). So far (particularly considering your own "evidence"), there is a clear and strong consensus to uphold P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You have the burden completely backwards, it's the side advocating for a change to the status quo that has to get a consensus for that change. You can't simply assert that policies and/or guidelines are on your side to shift the burden away from you. Iffy★Chat -- 11:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Iffy, we can agree to disagree. However, MOS:CAPS creates a specific burden and P&G is the status quo of the community on matters of P&G. Regardless, this is not a !vote. P&G and evidence isn't being argued against. The only argument so far is that "we have done this for a while now" and "I don't like that you want to change things (even if it is against P&G)". It isn't carrying much weight. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Fyunck, on Nov. 17, above, you wrote "I know the Olympics Project has a different idea and we agreed to use lower case for them since other Olympic articles do the same, but it is a proper phrase in tennis." Are you now denying that any such agreement/discussion took place? What I'm looking for is where and whether and who said OK go ahead over over-capitalize in tennis-only articles but just not in multi-sport articles. It might be informative. Apparently the multi-sport project doesn't see tennis as being as special as you do. Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

There was an RM in 2020 which closed without consensus, but I can't find anything after then. Also, it was the other way around, the consensus that eventually formed was that Olympic tennis article would use the Olympic format to be consistent with other Olympic articles. Iffy★Chat -- 17:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

That was handled pretty poorly. It wasn't pointed out that the 2020 articles were out of step with all the other Olympics tennis articles at that time. It got fixed later anyway; there's no evidence of any p&g-based objection there, nor any "agreement"; just a small trainwreck discussion, thanks to your comment "Oppose moving thousands of articles just to fix a perceived capitalisation error" when it was really about 4 articles or so. And Fyunck's comment showed clearly that he was not aware any agreement with Olympics on caps at that time. Dicklyon (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to remind people that most consensus on Wikipedia is achieved through WP:EDITCONSENSUS, so not every consensus is achieved through a discussion. Secondly, one of Wikipedia's core principles is that consensus can change. So, just because something was done in one way for a while, that doesn't mean we have to continue doing so eternally. For that reason, having a constructive discussion on a subject is not a bad idea at all and certainly not prohibited. Unfortunately, the focus in this discussion seems to be on hurling personal reproaches at one another instead of just providing meaningful arguments for either of the provided choices. What's even more disappointing to see is that the reputation of an entire WikiProject is being unfairly tarnished. On the subject, I support decapitalisation, because MOS recommends to do so and I cannot find any strong argument not to.T v x1 20:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not a WikiProject Tennis problem, but it is a Fyunck problem, and he attributes it to the project. Nobody else at the project is backing up his assertion that "it's a proper name" (or "a proper phrase in tennis"), nor is anyone else alluding to some long-ago agreement/compromise/consensus with WikiProject Multi-sport events or Olympics or something. He has been obstructing progress on a routine style maintenance issue for well over a month now. I think it's time to ignore him and get it done. Thanks for agreeing on the substance. Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Um. You know I keep trying to be nice and you keep trying to be ... shall we say not. This hasn't been here a month. I told you to bring it here when you made 1500 changes without discussion during a holiday. I figured it would be here a week and if all agree with you we make the changes and move on here. This isn't a race against time. I wanted the Tennis Project to have eyes on what is happening "before" changes are made, and many could be on vacation this time of year. I did not want 10,000 changes and potential template breakdowns without Tennis Project seeing what a change in prose means. Sitting here a week so that everyone will have a chance to see it makes sense to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), the changes are being largely made to headings within articles (and some other routine things like spaces within date ranges. Tennis templates create links to article titles, not to sections within articles. How are the templates going to beak down? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the sentence case (e.g. "Men's singles") is probably more correct for the section headers because of MOS:HEAD, but not because they aren't proper nouns. They still can be proper nouns, and that's even more often the case when they are used in isolation. You can't just say they're not. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Who are you replying to? I'm not saying they're not.T v x1 20:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

For reference here, MOS:HEAD says:

Section headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles (above), and should be presented in sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects in developing countries), not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects in Developing Countries).

with this footnote about where sentence case is used, corresponding to the changes I have been working on:

Wikipedia uses sentence case for sentences, article titles, section titles, table headers, image captions, list entries (in most cases), and entries in infoboxes and similar templates, among other things. Any MoS guidance about the start of a sentence applies to items using sentence case.

Re the comment that we should use sentence case even for things that are proper names, I don't know how to interpret that comment. As a practical matter (as opposed to theoretical), we decide what's a proper name via the criterion in MOS:CAPS (with my bold added):

In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.

Support the decapitalization of these section headings per the policies/guidelines raised by those above. Dicklyon, please also start the mass-move request of tennis articles to e.g. "– Men's singles", which has precedent from the Wimbledon move, and is also the least disruptive solution to the overcapitalization problem (~5k articles needing to be moved vs. ~17k for "– men's singles"). This shouldn't need to drag out for months. Sod25k (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I've drafted a multi-RM at User:Dicklyon/Draft Singles Doubles RM. Please review. The specific lists of articles to move are at User:Dicklyon/Singles to fix and User:Dicklyon/Doubles to fix (these are formatted for WP:RMTR, but I'll change to whatever someone who can automate this prefers). If you see anything else that should be included, or if any of these don't look right, let me know. I'd rather understand whether the Tennis project is going to be supportive before launching this. Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Other than linking the precedential Wimbledon RM for context, I think we're good to go. A full list of the articles needing moving can be found with intitle:/– .+[A-Z]/ hastemplate:"Infobox tennis tournament event", which has several hundred articles not in your lists (qualifying draws, Grand Slam legends events, etc.). I've prepped the list here. There've been no further objections, so I think you can finish downcasing the headings also. Sod25m (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Your lists also included the following non-tennis articles, which should be dealt with separately. Sod25m (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Doubles | 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' doubles
2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Doubles | 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' doubles
2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Singles | 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' singles
2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Singles | 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' singles
2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Singles | 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' singles
2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Doubles | 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' doubles
2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Doubles | 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' doubles
2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Doubles | 2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' doubles
2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Doubles | 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' doubles
2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Singles | 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' singles
2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Singles | 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' singles
2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Singles | 2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' singles
2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Singles | 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' singles
2014 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Doubles | 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Men's doubles
2016 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Doubles | 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Men's doubles
2018 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Doubles | 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Men's doubles
2021 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Doubles | 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Men's doubles
2014 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Singles | 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Men's singles
2016 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Singles | 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Men's singles
2018 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Singles | 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Men's singles
2021 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Singles | 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Men's singles
2014 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Doubles | 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Women's doubles
2016 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Doubles | 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Women's doubles
2018 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Doubles | 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Women's doubles
2021 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Doubles | 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Women's doubles
2014 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Singles | 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Women's singles
2016 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Singles | 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Women's singles
2018 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Singles | 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Women's singles
2021 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Singles | 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Women's singles

Thanks, Sod25k. I see you're better at search patterns and list text hacking than I am. Can I get you to provide the final tennis list after the RM? I'll take care of the non-tennis ones (I hadn't noticed boys' and girls' when I did the badminton, and hadn't noticed racquetball yet at all). Dicklyon (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I have now taken care of moving and editing those badminton and racquetball stragglers "by hand". Dicklyon (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, RM is launched at Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed Doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022. Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The RM concluded consensus to move, but nothing is moved yet. We're waiting on a bot task, using a bot that was waiting for approval on a previous big move task, at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13. Now that task 13 is approved, it is expected to run by Tuesday (downcasing the Thailand Districts etc.), and at that time a bot request will be put in (per User talk:Tol#Another big move job for TolBot) for a TolBot task for these 5000 or so tennis moves. Patience. Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Pardon my interruption into this discussion but I was looking into all of the previous conversations and saw a template issue come up multiple times. Has that been sorted yet or are there going to be thousands upon thousands of fixes necessary after pages are moved. And if so, is there someone volunteering to try and fix any mess left behind? Adamtt9 (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sod25: I think Sod25 knows more about all that template stuff. My impression is that he'll be able to easily make things work right and consistently. Still, there are likely to be a few cleanup edits needed on each page, e.g. fixing capitalization in the lead, for those that have leads. I intend to attack that with JWB, over time; if anyone wants to help, let's coordinate. Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Sod25 and Sod25m are the same person, but Sod25m has indicated on their talk page that they are now retired from Wikipedia. Adamtt9 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I think they're the same person. So maybe we have to find someone else to look at the templates. As far as I know, though, there's no actual problem. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

We'll likely do a 50-article bot test again, and from there we'll see if anything breaks. I think that a bunch of prev/next links in infoboxes are constructed by just changing the year in the title, so when just a few articles are moved, those will construct redlinks (if it works as I imagine); but moving the rest will fix all that. And any links to the old names will still work, of course. If anyone else knows of potential issues, I hope they'll speak up. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, it looks like Template:Tennis events will do the right thing automatically for the infobox title, so no edits needed for that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You can get an idea of the implications of the moves by looking at 1885 Wimbledon Championships – Women's singles, which was moved from 1885 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Singles (along with all the rest). The infobox titles automatically followed, and the prev/next links still work through the old names redirected. No cleanup edits were done, so the lead sentence still has "Ladies' Singles" where "women's singles" would be more appropriate. I can work on those. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The grid in the tennis events template worked for 1885 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Singles because there was a redirect to it from 1885 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles. When 1885 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Singles was moved to 1885 Wimbledon Championships – Women's singles the redirect was retargeted by User:EmausBot. It checks for broken links as the result of a move. I am not certain if it will work in these new cases. I am not certain if it is smart enough to create a new redirect. The simple solution is to leave the old page (2005 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles) as a redirect to 2005 Wimbledon Championships – Women's singles etc. My understanding is that RfC will leave no cases of the form 2005 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles (double uppercase). The template can be easily edited to replace all instances of "Women's Singles" with "Women's singles" etc. There are about three other templates: one for the tournament year infobox and two footer nav templates that would be much the same. Per User talk:Cinderella157#Tennis templates, Sod25m was just waiting for the outcome of the RfC. I think this is pretty much under control. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Peng Shuai RfC

Notification of an RfC on Peng Shuai's article. Would appreciate folk's providing input. NickCT (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ranbir Singh Kapurthala

Couldsomeone from the project please look at this and see if they can add references. He would probably be notable DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Juniors' possessive

At Talk:2006 US Open – Girls' singles#Juniors' possessive I ask whether we really want that apostrophe on juniors' and seniors'. Dicklyon (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Universal Date formatting

I was informed by user (Fyunck(click)) 01:20, 1 February 2022 Sorry per Tennis Project the dates format for American (USA) 🇺🇸 tennis athletes are different then the others , “that it is what we do by longstanding consensus”.

My reply (talk) 1 February 2022‎ : Do not understand why an International tennis athlete page which has a uniform format for all athletes has to have a different date format “MON DD, YEAR” in the case of Sebastian Korda on his page. I thought Wikipedia is working towards uniformity in GLOBAL sports like Tennis . Also “updated by” date or any other date outside the infobox does not make sense to be in that format. A specific date rule does not make sense for a Global athlete page to be followed just for one country (USA) in the case that person is American, when all other pages have DD MM YEAR. Thoughts? Sashona (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a wiki-wide consensus (see MOS:DATETIES) that as Americans use the wrong date format, we should do so as well for articles about American tennis players. Iffy★Chat -- 16:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

if Americans use the “wrong” format why not correct that. Tennis is a global sport and should follow one rule not have an exception for Americans. Sashona (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Americans are not the only country that doesn't use the DMY date format. I hate this too, but it's a Wikipedia-wide policy. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, unless you're in Quebec, Canada uses MDY. Prize money is expressed in dollars, Euros, or pounds, etc... depending on location in tennis articles. And we use American English spelling in articles about Americans, not British English. There are lots of variables and it's not a question of right or wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Multiple pending proposals at Village Pump

Your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS/NTENNIS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:

Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Rankings

Having occasionally updated the world rankings of tennis players in their articles, I have noticed what a tedious process this is with there being 1000s of active players ATP&WTA combined and with the existence of singles and doubles rankings. While recently editing some articles on darts players, I noticed that they use a set of templates and modules which allow them automatically update the rakings in the articles of all players with one centralized edit. I was wondering wether a similat system could be used for tennis.T v x1 17:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be awesome if we could. The darts module is based on the website [25] and I'm not sure it will work for the ATP and WTA. Darts has 120 players total listed on one page. The ATP alone has a couple thousand spread across dozens of pages and the players shift from page to page. ESPN lists the top 150 players of both the WTA and ATP so you might be able to link to that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Monte-Carlo Masters

The main article is called Monte-Carlo Masters, but the year-by-year articles omit the hyphen up to 2007, and include it after that. (See Category:Monte-Carlo Masters). Is this intentional ot an anomaly that should be fixed? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The title is called Monte-Carlo because that is what is used today, but I'm not sure how long it's been done that way. The yearly articles use the title used in that particular year. I'm not sure if each year is correct or not. It has been Monte-Carlo since before 2007 but how long in unknown to me. Maybe others know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Abbreviations v.s. full names at the grand slam seeding sections

I recently read through some of the career statistics articles and found a bit problematic with the grand slam seeding sections. Made some reformatting stuff but has some disputes with JamesAndersoon. Here is one of the situation at the Iga Świątek career statistics article:

Season	Australian Open	French Open	Wimbledon	US Open
2019	–	–	–	–
2020	–	– (1)	NH	–
2021	15th	8th	7th	7th
2022	7th

I believe the abbreviations along with the dashes are unclear to a general encyclopedia for a general audience. It is not like the timeline tables which have a key legend before the matrix, such abbreviations just exist for the don't-know-what reason, especially the short dashes. The first time I came across with that, I thought that meant Did Not Play, then I hover the cursor over the tooltips — which are inaccessible for mobile readers and later being removed because so — that referred to Unseeded. Then why everything has to be abbreviated hence everything is fine as what it stands as Roger Federer career statistics#Career Grand Slam tournament seedings? Would be very appreciated if someone could provide a WP:3O. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Why you need this to be so extended? It's normal for human eye to see something simpler and more readable, isn't it? It literally said "SEEDING" so (–) means it's not seeded/unseeded, while A means Absent. Don't get what you want? Just gonna add legend and problem solved. JamesAndersoon (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

JamesAndersoon,

Why you need this to be so extended?

Just flick through the career statistics article of the the big three, which are believed to be the most visited tennis player statistics articles, whatever it is Roger Federer career statistics#Career Grand Slam tournament seedings or Rafael Nadal career statistics#Career Grand Slam tournament seedings or Novak Djokovic career statistics#Career Grand Slam tournament seedings, all without abbreviations. Yes, you could've agrued WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but that is indeed what a general encyclopedia for a general audience should be.

It's normal for human eye to see something simpler and more readable, isn't it?

No, it isn't. As I said Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia for a general audience, not just tennis fanatics. We should consider general readers. In fact, using full names are more readable for general readers. Just because you can understand dashes refer to unseeded and A means absent does not justify the same situation to other general readers. Also, I don't see any guideline or policy which rules that because of "Seeding", it can only be literally added seed numbers.

Just gonna add legend and problem solved.

Sure. But that raises the question: Hence we use key legends to sort out the issue, then why just straight to the point as the big three statistics atricles? As I pointed out before, it is not like the timeline tables. We have enough width, which is enough for full name. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I will assume WP:CON and take actions as per WP:SILENCE if there is no responses for a period of time. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It should say "Not seeded" like in Roger Federer's career statistics article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Strange socking and over-capitalization in 2022 tournament update edits

Naturally there's a lot of editing going on with 2022 competitions, but what's with all the socks and reverts, such as at 2022 Gran Canaria Challenger – Singles? Not something I would expect at pages that just collect facts. Also, now that all (or most) of the over-capitalization in tennis articles has been fixed, how might be get the attention of editors to the fact that caps are not needed in parentheticals such as "(first round)". Are they following an old script that needs to be updated? I've reverted a few just to get their attention, but at least one of those turned out to be a sock I think. Dicklyon (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That's what we constantly combat around here. No one cares about capitalization differences but rather getting the facts correct and updated, stopping all the vandalism, and making sure articles are created per GNG. Editors simply tend to follow what has been done for years and years so you'll have to stay on top of it or it will slowly unravel. Vandals and socks spring up like weeds around tennis articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

But what is the aim of those socks? Adding false factoids for some reason? Dicklyon (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Every sock/vandal seems to have a different agenda. We'll go through a spate of "deliberate factual errors", then content disputes, then section blankings, etc. Some messing around as a sock because they were banned somewhere else. It's constant, especially around the playing time of the four majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't think that these are necessarily socks or vandals. Probably just editors who create or edit a lot of these tournament articles and are used to doing it a certain way. They probably use a generic sandbox article or copy and past an older article to create new ones. Many of these editors do fine work in relative anonymity and do not often participate in discussions here so may simply not be aware of the capitalization changes.--Wolbo (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

But some are being reverted with a socking accusation. Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Tennis articles needing context

With over 230 tennis articles at categoryWikipedia articles needing context from December 2015 I thought to ask for help here at WikiProject Tennis.

Most need an opening lead sentence to provide context. See "View history" from article 2008 SAP Open – Doubles for an example. Thanks! JoeNMLC (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Part of the difficulty in writing a lead sentence is that the article titles in many cases (not just the 230, but thousands) are not such that they can be incorporated unchanged into a sentence. It's generally necessary to change from e.g. "– Men's singles" to just "men's singles" to make it fit into a sentence. It's worth the trouble. Alternatively, merge all the "sub-articles" into the main articles and get rid of these odd subtitled articles. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I edited 2008 SAP Open – Doubles as an example of what I mean. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NTENNIS

For those that don't have the page watch-listed, please be aware that WP:NTENNIS has been rewritten to remove any participation criteria, after the close of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. Jevansen (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. We also have our own Project Guidelines fine-tuned so I'm guessing it won't matter much unless we link to NSports. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

We've already had a few AfDs in the last 48 hrs on the basis of this change. Jevansen (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

As someone who made (and subsequently withdrew two) AfDs under the assumption that the newest iteration of WP:NTENNIS applies it is confusing that there are now two separate guidelines. I recall that before the village pump discussion the guidelines were generally in sync with one another. All this does is unnecessarily cause tedious debates and discourage good-faith editors from discussing an article's merits - it is reasonable to expect WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS to be the relevant guidelines to look at when creating an article or nominating one for deletion, especially when WP:SNG essentially states that WikiProject guidelines should be treated as essays. Of course, you don't need to be a member of or even be aware of WP:TENNIS to edit tennis-related articles.

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here as I know that I don't have much experience with editing, but I think there could be a reason to establish consensus for a participation-based criterion in WP:NTENNIS. Bonoahx (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:TENNIS guidelines should simply be made compliant with the relevant SNG and GNG. WikiProjects cannot stonewall to override site-wide guidelines. That's just not how it works.T v x1 14:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we should come up with a new guideline consistent with what is allowed. The actual village pump outcome wasn't against having replacement criteria, just that waiting for new criteria wasn't an obstacle to remove current guidelines. Before that, I don't think there's any rush to delete anything (or everything). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

But SNGs aren't thrown in the dustbin. They are still quite viable and help us no end in stopping edit wars, stopping vandalism, creating article. It's just that nothing superceeds GNG. If an article is created via an SNG and gets challenged, you'd best be prepared to show GNG. Plus that rewrite was undone recently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Another downcasing task

At User talk:Dicklyon#Suggested task, another tennis editor asked for my help with downcasing "draw" and related changes. Please review there before I do much more of that, and let me know if there are any reservations or alternative suggestions. Dicklyon (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the articles they lead to are not called "draws", often because they contain much more than just the draw (such as seeding, withdrawals, etc), wouldn't we want to keep it short and simple and just use Singles, Doubles, and Mixed doubles (or just Mixed)? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Letcord: I'll hold off until you guys talk this out here. Happy to help either way you decide. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The most recent yearly season articles use "draw", so I assumed that's the preferred style. Both options work, I just saw Dicklyon's edits changing "Men's Singles" to "Men's singles" and thought changing "Singles Draw" to "Singles draw" and standardizing all the yearly season articles would be another useful change in the same vein. Letcord (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely I can go ahead and downcase "draw". As to the changing "Singles" to "Singles draw" and such I'm less sure. Also, on the ones that don't have links to anywhere, why not just remove them? Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, finished another pass with downcasing; let me know if you see anything I got wrong, or missed. As for converting to say "draw", it looks like those were all finished already in the first pass yesterday; let me know if some should be undone. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wolbo: reverted the addition of "draw" in a bunch, so I guess I don't need to worry about undoing. Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Correct, originally these year articles had the links including the word "draw" but these have been changed over the last few years (also by myself) to shorter links without the word "draw", so just e.g "Singles" or "Doubles". Main reason is to keep that box which contains a lot of tournament info as clear and concise as possible and secondly, as Fyunck pointed out, the articles which they lead to do not contain the word "draw" so the link does not have to either. Final small advantage is that the concise version always fits on one line whereas the longer version sometimes requires two.--Wolbo (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

And I also had to correct the mass changes. I'm sure there are many more that have been missed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently "correct" or "incorrect" with either option - the styling of these articles is just a matter of taste. Nevertheless, I've now removed "draw" from all the remaining season articles to keep things consistent. Letcord (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Standings

Speaking of rankings, we have this oft-repeated notation:

Standings are determined by: 1) Number of wins; 2) Number of matches; 3) In two-players-ties, head-to-head records; 4) In three-players-ties, percentage of sets won, or of games won; 5) Steering Committee decision.

Can we change it to reduce over-capitalization, and maybe replace the one-sided paren with something more normal? Maybe:

Standings are determined by: 1. number of wins; 2. number of matches; 3. head-to-head records in two-player ties; 4. in three-player ties, percentage of sets won, or of games won; 5. steering-committee decision.

Other suggestions? Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Seeing no particular interest here, I went ahead and just did the lowercasing and changing of one-side parens to dots. Also added dot of end of those sentences that were missing it. And changed a few other variations to be alike. No wording changes, except maybe a few of the first ones before I stopped that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Since you criticized me for not commenting on this after you made the changes, I'll point out that there are issues with both versions. Criteria 3 and 4 are not really separate criteria. (I think Criteria 4 might go back to Criteria 3 if it breaks a tie. Is that possible?) In your version, I think it's weird to change it so that Criteria 3 ends with "in two-player ties", while Criteria 4 starts with "in three-player ties". They should both start with "in #-player ties". More broadly, I think other sports projects might do a better job of listing out these criteria than we do, so it might just be worth copying them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. I was just working on the styling (caps and punctuation), but rewording them or restructuring them might be a great idea, too. Dicklyon (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Tweaked the tennis guideline

If there's a problem from our project members let me know or revert, but I just went ahead and changed our guideline rows from Win–Loss to W–L. It matches what we already use for our columns and there are some who don't want the double capitals of Win–Loss. This seems the best compromise as suggested by @Sportsfan77777: and I'm getting tired of all the back and forth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted that change. Using an acronym when the full words fit easily looks bad, and the "Win–Loss" vs "Win–loss" discussion is still ongoing. Letcord (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree but no problem. That's why I posted the change here like I always do. But that discussion has nothing to do with how we make our tennis charts. We can use W–L if we feel like it just like we do in the columns (where the performance key tells us exactly what W–L means). It's far better than Win–loss and seemed like a good compromise to break the logjam so everyone could go on their merry ways. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Year-end championships

Speaking of Roger Federer, I did this edit trying to reduce the variability into how "year-end championships" is rendered. Case, hyphen, and singular/plural variaitons abound. Most commonly it seems that "year-end championships" is used, or "Year-end championships" for sentence case. Is the singular cool, too? I didn't touch that one yet there. Advice? Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This has always been a strange one. ATP Finals and Year-end Championships should be synonymous and sometimes they are. But you are correct that usually you will see it as year-end championships. I have no idea why that is as I would always use it as a proper name i.e. Federer won the Australian Open, Nadal won the US Open, Djokovic won the Year-end Championships. If I submit articles to magazines that's how I do it, but I'm in the minority on that. Perhaps where ATP Finals is formal many consider year-end championships to be an informal rendering. Not sure. Per tennis consensus we always use championships as a plural. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think before 2000, the Year-end Championships (in plural) used to refer to more than one tournament played at the end of the season, the ITF Grand Slam Cup and the ATP Masters Cup so it made sense "Championships" was in plural. Since 2000, there has been only one Year-end Championship (the ATP Finals). ForzaUV (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

"Top ten" lists

Below is a list of the tennis "top ten" templates, taken from Category:ATP Tour navigational boxes and Category:WTA Tour navigational boxes. I can't help thinking that this is a massively long list (160 or so) and I'm interested in people's thought on these. I know there sort of things were quite popular in the early days of Wikipedia but my own view now, is that I don't find them at all useful. They're WP:NAVBOXes, meant to help readers navigate between articles, but I'm pretty doubtful that they serve that purpose. In addition most of them only get updated sporadically, so we're providing out of date information to readers. And I can't help thinking that there's either going to be a large amount of effort maintaining these for no real benefit or they're almost always out of date. My suggestion is that we have a cull of these, which would hopefully focus effort on the few remaining ones. Is anyone really interested in doubles rankings? Thoughts? Nigej (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to build a list of matches where one player beat the #1 at the time. Is there a source of all open-era matches, and a source of players rankings on each week, that I could cross reference to build the list I mentioned? Or otherwise is this list already availabe somewhere? (sorry if I posted this in the wrong place, I'm new here :-) ) Gustavoexel (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gustavoexel, is this for an article or for your personal use? Male or female (or both)? Letcord (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

Male singles

Male doubles

Female singles

Female doubles

~~I don't really have a problem with them.~~ And of course there are 160+ since there are a lot of countries that have tennis federations. Now the "up to date" part of the query is a very good point. There is no chance I'm going to update the top ten Hungarian female tennis players so it needs to have a following that updates it to be worthwhile, or needs to be automated in some way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm just wondering WHY were trying to maintain them. Why would anyone want out of date information here when they can go the official site and get the correct information. We're not really in the business of constantly mirroring other sites, its not something were very good at. Nigej (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You are correct we aren't really good at it. However we maintain every single player ranking in the infobox even though those are often out of date. Perhaps it would be better if we simply give a link in the external link section to the appropriate country's rankings? Then we don't have to maintain them? In fact as I look at the source for your first item on the list I see ATP Belarusian male singles tennis players. That's really all we need in the external link section. It's maintained by the ATP and is always up to date. So as I rethink, I do have an issue with these templates... they are more trouble than they are worth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting to me that there's such a big difference between the golf and tennis projects. Maybe reflecting the effort available. For golf we don't have any of these sort of templates. Regarding rankings we have articles for the world number 1s (men/women professional/amateur), an article about men who's ever made the world top 10 and the male players infoboxes have their highest-ever ranking (provided they got the world top 100). Typically about 5 players in the top-100 reach a new career high each week. This last one is done (by me) through a centralised system. Nigej (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to link to WTA rankings by country? If I select a country under "Filter by region" at https://www.wtatennis.com/rankings/singles then the country is listed correctly but the url doesn't change. https://www.atptour.com/en/rankings/singles works differently and does change the url. https://www.atptour.com/en/rankings/singles?rankdate=&rankrange=1-5000&countrycode=blr shows Belarus. It doesn't work to try the same query string at WTA: https://www.wtatennis.com/rankings/singles?rankdate=&rankrange=1-5000&countrycode=blr (I didn't expect it to work). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that. But a cut-and-paste solution may be possible. For a relatively simple example see the snooker rankings here Template:Infobox snooker player/rankings where the rankings are updated with some relatively simple editing from https://wst.tv/rankings/ (I use Vim) and magically all the rankings get updated simultaneously (see eg Hossein Vafaei current ranking). I've never been sure how efficient this is but it seems to well work. Nigej (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean by the WTA links. That actual filtered link is hidden and I'm not good enough to see in the sourcing what it really links to. But as far as updating the templates every week it is still better to link to the WTA ranking page since it only takes one more click to bring up the country. Unless someone can figure out the actual linked page we can plop it in external links with the title of something like "Top Belarusian female tennis players (filter by Belarus)". At least it would be automatically updated even though it would take an extra click. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That would work for me. I doubt there is an actual linked WTA page. They probably generate the content on request without a url for it anywhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It's fetched from an API, e.g. https://api.wtatennis.com/tennis/players/ranked?page=0&pageSize=20&type=rankSingles&sort=asc&name=&metric=SINGLES&at=2022-01-24&nationality=USA . Players constantly drift in and out of their country's top ten, so even external links would become out of date quickly. Sod25 (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

These should be deleted as all they do is waste editor time hand-mirroring content available in two clicks on the ATP/WTA sites while becoming out of date almost immediately. Given how out of date most of them are (~6 months on average to 3+ years), they reflect poorly on this project. Sod25 (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. These have no added value.T v x1 06:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, when they are up to date they do give value. It's just that so few are up to date or will ever be up to date. They should be removed but replaced with a link to the ATP top players by country or the WTA top players websites. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I've nominated a bunch here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Top ten male doubles tennis players templates, for deletion. Nigej (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that doubles templates do not have value. Singles players are playing doubles, example Nick Kyrgios or Matthew Ebden are singles players who just reached the Australian Open Final, on the women side Krejcikova is No. 3 in singles and No. 2 in doubles, Iga Swiatek, Coco Gauff also. If we are maintaining the singles we should be able to maintain the doubles template as well. Sashona(talk) 17:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I take the point. However, the fundamental issue is whether any of these should be kept and, importantly, why they should be kept. Anyway, the discussion is open for comments there, which is now a better place for them. Nigej (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I explained to you why they have value and would be kept. For example a tennis player like Jessica Pegula is No. 2 American player in singles and No. 9 in doubles as of 31 January 2022. So an important player in singles and doubles. People that follow tennis would want to see that information. The templates can be updated every three months let’s say if every month is too much to ask. They also could be real-time live links to the rankings and will not require any manual maintenance. Sashona(talk) 22:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I've nominated another set of these here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Top ten male singles tennis players templates where you can comment on these templates. Nigej (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

“Top ten Italian male doubles tennis players” needs to be deleted. Still showing in Wikipedia. Sashona(talk) 19:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not in Category:ATP Tour navigational boxes, which is why I missed it. I'm happy to nominate for TfD. Nigej (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

US National Championships Mixed Doubles 1887 - 1891

Hello. I was wondering if anyone had sources for US National Championships Mixed Doubles winners from 1887 - 1891. While I realize these were unofficial events, I was hoping to update List of US Open mixed doubles champions as there are names from List of Grand Slam mixed doubles champions not in the US Open page. Also, it would have to state those years were unofficial like some years at List of French Open mixed doubles champions. I checked The Bud Collins History of Tennis book but it doesn't have those years for mixed doubles. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333, did you end up finding a source for those years? I found the results at it:Albo d'oro del doppio misto dell'US Open, and have copied them to List of US Open mixed doubles champions, but have not yet found a source. Letcord (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Letcord: No luck for me as Collins doesn't have the unofficial events. I do wonder where these stats came from. Thank you for completing the update :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move of Tennis Masters Series records and statistics

This seemed like a pretty big article of Tennis Project so I thought all should be informed of a potential move of Tennis Masters Series records and statistics. I'm not exactly sure where or whether it should be moved but maybe some here have some good ideas. See discussion at Talk:Tennis Masters Series records and statistics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Mixed at yearly articles... should we change?

Our tennis articles, such as 2021 WTA Tour, under the "tournament" column of the four Majors, says Singles–Doubles–Mixed or Singles–Doubles–Mixed doubles. I see no need for Mixed doubles as there is only one discipline for Mixed. Do we need to add doubles here? It seems tighter to use one word for the link. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No need to add doubles to the end of mixed, for the term alone is pretty self-explanatory. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that mixed refers to mixed doubles and not something else. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

While indeed you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out, mixed doubles is the proper name for those events, and it looks more professional to use the full, proper names. Mixed singles does exist, so using the full name also eliminates any possible ambiguity. Letcord (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

But also adds extra line in the table which look crowded for mobile users. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with just "Mixed", per Fyunck and Qwerty284651. No need to add an extra word. There has never been an official "mixed singles" event on tour. I don't even know if that's what they would call it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

While we might know that "mixed" invariably refers to mixed doubles in these article, we shouldn't assume that our readers—many of whom will be learning about tennis and the tours for the first time—do as well. It's always better to use the unambiguous term. Informal clippings such as "mixed" or "stats" also give the encyclopedia an amateurish feel, which we should try to avoid. Letcord (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

But there are all kinds of abbreviations in tables. We use "hard" or "clay" instead of Hard court/Clay court. We use 56S/16Q/28D instead of 56 Singles Draw or 28 Doubles Draw. On the same article we use column headers such as Grand Slam and Year-end instead of Grand Slam tournament or Year-end Championship. This is done all the time and in this case it's better to use Singles-Doubles-Mixed. No one is going to get confused and if they click on the link it will take them to the proper place. This isn't an article full title, this is a shortened form in a small table box. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Over-capitalization still

There's still plenty, in tennis, in other sports, and all over Wikipedia. One item common to a few thousand tennis articles is the phrase "Win–Loss" in a table, where sentence case might be OK, so it should be "Win-loss", and also in some contexts where it needs to be "win–loss". So I fixed a few thousand of those (not just in tennis). Now User:Sportsfan77777 argues that where the abbreviation W-L is used, loss ought to be capitalized. I'm pretty sure that's contrary to MOS:CAPS#Expanded forms of abbreviations, but he wants to discuss it. He also says that sometimes the dash should be a hyphen; not sure how he thinks so. Opinions? Dicklyon (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, without any discussion, Dicklyon has just changed the tables in all of our articles from:

Tournament	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	SR	W–L	Win %
Australian Open	Q2	1R	SF	3R	SF	SF	0 / 5	17-5	77%
French Open	1R	2R	4R	SF	F		0 / 5	15–5	75%
Wimbledon	1R	4R	1R	NH	1R		0 / 4	3–4	43%
US Open	Q3	2R	1R	3R	3R		0 / 4	5–4	56%
Win–Loss	0–2	5–4	8–4	8–3	13–4	5–1	0 / 18	38–18	68%

to:

Tournament	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	SR	W–L	Win %
Australian Open	Q2	1R	SF	3R	SF	SF	0 / 5	17-5	77%
French Open	1R	2R	4R	SF	F		0 / 5	15–5	75%
Wimbledon	1R	4R	1R	NH	1R		0 / 4	3–4	43%
US Open	Q3	2R	1R	3R	3R		0 / 4	5–4	56%
Win–loss	0–2	5–4	8–4	8–3	13–4	5–1	0 / 18	38–18	68%

There is no example in MOS:CAPS#Expanded forms of abbreviations related to any uses of dashes, so you can't just cite the Manual of Style. You have to explain why you think it applies. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It should absolutely be Win–Loss. It's pretty much a tightly bound phrase when used together like this. We could have used two different rows, one with Wins and the other with Loss, but they always get combined as W-L or Win-Loss. I don't know what he's thinking. He absolutely must stop that and I have warned him as such. This is really taking things to minutia limit. Goodness. I guess it's a miracle he didn't change column nine to W–l. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Roger Federer's timeline already had "Win–loss" before Dicklyon's edits, for what it's worth. Letcord (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There are always a few. We can't check every article since there aren't enough of us. Someone changed it six months ago and no one noticed. But while you may see occasional writings of win-loss in a sentence and mostly Win-Loss... you will not see Win-loss or W-l. It's just not done as Sportsfan77777 said above. It actually looks silly written that way. I just corrected about 500 of these changes... I didn't have time for more yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

In sources, it's overwhelmingly lowercase win–loss, and it is also so in Wikipedia (though with a mixture of hyphen and dash and slash styling). For a table heading, we use sentence case, so it becomes Win–loss. This is also commonly seen in sources. What would be a reason to cap here, when our MOS says we avoid unnecessary capitalization? I certainly didn't expect any controversy around this routine case fixing work. Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ngrams can be a funny thing. Here it is overwhelmingly Win–Loss. Even your source example shows Win-Loss wins out but the ngram changes it to Win - Loss, so it's not totally accurate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

In n-grams, they treat the hyphen or dash as if it's a word; they're not looking at spaces. The point of those statistics here is to show that "Win–loss" is not an unusual capitalization pattern (contrary to what you asserted on my talk page: "You would NEVER or nearly NEVER see loss not capitalized in regards to wins."). Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is a more informative n-gram report. Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not a routine change. It's never a routine change. Any change you want to make on a project-wide scale you have to bring up for discussion here, and you have to give people time to reply (something you didn't do as recently as two weeks ago). You would know that of course because you have been WP:HOUNDING this project for at least three months now and lately more and more you have been pretending like we don't exist. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's a routine change. It's part of the Manual of Style. It's been part of the Manual of Style for as long as I've been around. We use sentence case for article titles, for section headings and for headings in tables. This is a routine change I wouldn't think about. Why would tennis would be an exception? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 16:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is a routine change if it goes against consensus on thousands of articles. It doesn't matter how obvious it is. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Sentence case for headings in tables is the consensus in hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of articles and the long-term consensus in the Manual of Style. Making tennis articles match the rest of the encyclopedia is routine. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we agree that the headings in the table should be sentence case. That's why the table is in sentence case. The places where it looks like it's "not in sentence case" are for good reasons (first word in a term, proper noun, etc.). That's the existing consensus right now. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That Google ngram search doesn't show the proper usage because "win-loss record" in prose is not the same as "Win–Loss" as a header. In prose, it's one term. As a header, it's two terms in the same row for convenience. It's like the article titles from a few months ago, where capitalizing multiple words is allowed because you have two parts to the title. That's why capitalization was allowed there, and that's why it's still allowed here. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Win–loss in prose is typically used with a pair numbers just like in the tables. How is it a different thing? Dicklyon (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Because in the table it says "Win–Loss" and in the prose it says "win-loss record". You see there is an extra word. That extra word makes the usage different. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Does "Win-Loss" in the table denote something different from what a "win-less record" denotes? And the difference somehow promotes loss to proper name status? I think you're grasping at straws here. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It's two names. (e.g. We could call it "Win count – Loss count" and that would be fine because both parts are sentence case.) I said this above and you are ignoring it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: it appears you did a bunch of these loss downcasings last August 15, citing MOS:CAPS. Did you see any potential controversy, or get any pushback? I wouldn't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember any problems - there's nothing on my talk page (prior to next cleanup) - but it was a while ago.

I agree that it should be "win-loss" in running text or "Win-loss" in a table header, because "loss" is not a new sentence or a proper noun. MOS:CAPS says to use sentence case in general, and WP:MOS § Heading-like material says that the rule also apply to table row and column headers. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, you have not explained why you think "W–L" is allowed, but "Win–Loss" is not allowed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Initialisms typically use caps, to indicate that the letters are abbreviations for words. The dash is a bit unusual, but it's hard to imagine anyone suggesting that w–l or W-l would be a sensible alternative. Here's a book example with "Win–loss" and "W–L" in the same line. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

But if you went by that source, and I would gather 99% of other sources, none of them use an ndash to separate W-L or Win-Loss. Just a hyphen. Yet we go against all those sources and use an ndash. I should say I have no issue with that at all, but it shows that we don't always follow most sources here at wikipedia. You just went through and changed all our events from "Australian Open – Men's Singles" to "Australian Open – Men's singles"... recapitalizing after the ndash. Here we have Win, then an ndash, then Loss. Pretty much the same thing. We have two separate ideas portrayed as a whole as if they were columns. Wins and Losses... Win–Loss. There are a lot of iffy rules here at Wikipedia, but this seems to defy common sense. You might see Win-Loss or win-loss but not very often Win-loss as a heading. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

No, of course, I have never advocated that we just follow the majority of sources. We have our own MOS. My point is just to show that styling it according to the guidance of our MOS doesn't make it an unusual outlier, caps wise. Sources show clearly that those caps are optional, not necessary, and the key point of MOS:CAPS is that we avoid unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As for the capping of "Men's" after the dash, I was not arguing for that, but we failed to achieve a consensus to downcase it, treating the Men's singles as a subtitle, even though title policy says not to do that. This is completely different; Loss is not a subtitle to Win, but rather a classic parallel "and" or "versus" relationship for which the unspaced en dash is conventional in English typography and in WP style. Whole different kettle of fish. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That example is for "Win-loss percentage" not an isolated "Win–Loss". Show me an isolated example of "Win–Loss" where "loss" is lowercase. Sportsfan77777 (talk)

If you agree that "W–L" should be capitalized, then even if you could get consensus that "Win–Loss" is not allowed, we would probably switch it to "W–L" to leave the capitalization. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

More than likely. But there is no real consensus for change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

With 5 editors in favor of following MOS:CAPS and going with Win–loss, and only 2 objecting, I think I'll go ahead. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That consensus seems clear enough here. But I don't see changing "Win–loss" to "W–L" as a net improvement. Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No it does not! Plus only two days? You have to be kidding. We would change it to W–L if it came to that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:SENTENCECAPS. We use sentence case. We don't cap after a dash or colon. Tables are not an exception to using sentence case and nor is a dash. The burden set by MOS:CAPS is to avoid unnecessary caps. It isn't necessary. If it isn't capped in a sentence we wouldn't cap it in a table either. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Sentence case, please. Tony (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
For the little it's worth, I prefer retention of both capitals, or loss of both capitals, so "win" and "loss" are treated as balanced equals. But honestly, there are more productive things to do with life than get embroiled in correction of so-called errors like this, which is why I've avoided comment so far. I also feel that 2 days is far too short a time to reach an agreement in WP. Editors with strong views may not log on daily. This hasn't been handled correctly. Elemimele (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@Elemimele: I think your comment and opinion are worth a lot. Thanks. I agree that "win" and "loss" should be treated as balanced equals; that's what an en dash is for – joining balanced equals. "Sentence case" should not be applied here. If you read the column vertically, "Tournament" at the top is capitalized as the first word in the table-sentence-column. Win–loss is the last "word" in that "sentence column" so it should not be capped. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Now there's a novel idea! But generally each row or column heading (and sometimes each table cell) is done in sentence case. The idea that the row headings down the first column make up a sentence is not something I've ever heard or imagined before. But you're right that the en dash signals that the two connected parts are equal and parallel. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

that's what an en dash is for – joining balanced equals
According to whom? Certainly not MOS:DASH, or Dash.

If you read the column vertically
This is the English Wikipedia, where we read left to write, not an East Asian Wikipedia that might read vertically. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
According to MOS:ENBETWEEN: the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
And by capitalizing the W but not the L you're saying that they aren't equal – a Win is more important and has higher status than a loss. Or maybe a win modifies a loss, making it less bad. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Ha ha. Only East Asians read table columns vertically. I don't think so. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ENBETWEEN - fair point. However I think that applies only to the meanings of the words; it does not affects the rules of grammar and casing. Eg (first example from ENBETWEEN) we would write "Boyfriend–girlfriend problems are a cause of stress." (lowercase girlfriend) not "Boyfriend–Girlfriend problems are a cause of stress." (uppercase Girlfriend). Thus "Win–loss numbers exclude ties" (lowercase loss) not "Win–Loss numbers exclude ties" (uppercase Loss), thus "Win–loss" not Win–Loss". Mitch Ames (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Exactly! The dash has nothing to do with the capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose sentence case because this is not a sentence. "Win–Loss" is best for symmetry with "W–L". BTW, what bothers me most in the table in question is SR as I'm not sure what it means. A brief search indicates that it might mean special ranking, but I'm still not sure. See also WP:WINNING. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
No, in those tables it means Success Ratio.T v x1 19:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
If you say so, but I'm still not sure what that means, as a different thing from the Win %. And now I notice another issue. The cell in question seems to be explaining the nature of the bottom row of the table. But isn't that a total line or summary of the stats across the four events? Why is it called "Win–Loss" when there's a mix of different stats being summarised, not just "W–L"? I would expect it to be called something more general such as "Total". Andrew🐉(talk) 19:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Strike rate (events won/competed); see next subsection here on tooltips. Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm following this discussion because I do a lot of gnomish tasks like correcting capitalization to match the Manual of Style. Right now I'm going through and changing "Federal Bureau of Investigations" to "Federal Bureau of Investigation" or "Federal Bureau of Investigation's". It's not exciting work, but it helps make the encyclopedia better and it keeps me busy. Sentence case is and has long been the standard for article titles, section headings and table headings. It is not only used in complete sentences. I'd be just as gobsmacked if someone objected to a change from "Win-Lose" to "Win-lose" as I would be if someone believed fervently that the right word was "Investigations". This is all pretty insignificant, and if I ran across this issue and people objected, I'd probably just go elsewhere because there's plenty of other work to do, but more power to Dicklyon for sticking to it. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Use sentence case, like in every other topic. There is nothing magically special about tennis or other sports, and we have MOS:SPORTCAPS for a reason. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Sentence case. The MOS is just a guideline, but we shouldn't be making exceptions without good reason. The objections raised above, like (paraphrasing) "readers will then not understand W–L", "it implies that wins are more important than losses", and "we only use sentence case for sentences" have no basis in policy or guideline. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 04:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment - "Win-Loss" is not a sentence. Therefore, I oppose lower-casing. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, lot's of comments above! Still, no one has provided what I asked for: an example of "Win–loss" being used in isolation (as in, just "Win–loss", not "Win–loss record"). To clarify, I would be happy with "Win–loss" if I saw an example from a good source, or an example of another WikiProject using "Win–loss" in a table. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel one example would be good enough to overturn normal usage. It would be great to see in a table someplace but I think it's overwhelming Win–Loss. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, to those of you above (like Firefangledfeathers) who are still confused about which policy "Win–loss" violates, it's MOS:ABBR. To paraphrase MOS:ABBR, "Avoid making up new abbreviations. For example, "Win–loss" seems like a good abbreviation of "Win–loss record", but "Win–loss" is not used by any official tennis websites or tennis reliable sources; use the full name "Win–loss record" or an abbreviation that's used in practice: "W–L" or "Win–Loss"." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Since you keep asking, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Grand Slam tournament only timeline (under the tooltip). The project's guideline isn't even consistent in its usage. As to the claim that "Win-Loss" is an abbreviation of "win-loss record", that is a really long bow to draw. The first is a shortened form of a fuller term. One sees many instances of such shortenings but it is novel that you would call it an abbreviation in the more usual sense and the specific context to which the guidance is being applied - ie contractions or truncations of words and initialisms. But if this is the case, then, until the recent amendment to the key, articles were providing no to key to what "W-L" means or that "Win-Loss" is an "abbreviation" of "win-loss record". It appears to me to be a fabricated and sinking argument. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not true. It was consistently "Win-Loss" for both ATP and WTA players before Dicklyon changed it. The fact that someone updated the guideline example recently and put in the one example of a table using ""Win-loss" without realizing it doesn't mean that's the new guideline. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I also don't see why you pretend to be more familiar with the project guidelines than the actual project members who helped put those guidelines in place. That does not assume good faith to me. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

"One sees many instances of such shortenings" --- Yes, that's what I am asking for. Show me those shortenings, and I'll concede! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not true. It was consistently "Win-Loss" for both ATP and WTA players before Dicklyon changed it. It wasn't Dicklyon that changed it. It was in the table when it was originally added here and, I believe it was copied into the guideline from Roger Federer#Grand Slam tournament performance timeline, where it is also "Win-loss". See also David Ferrer#Grand Slam tournament performance timeline. I am sure that if I keep digging I will find more. You asked for an example. I provided it and now another two - though yes, it may not have been realised or it may even have been a concious decision when the guideline was edited (neither you nor I can say). Regardless, the guideline was inconsistent and it wasn't because of DL (though it has just been amended). If nothing else, this external scrutiny is helping to clean up a few inconsistencies. I am not pretending anything. I made a statement of fact that the guideline was inconsistent. Waving around WP:AGF strikes me as being a bit WP:POT. "One sees many instances of such shortenings" --- Yes, that's what I am asking for. Well, that wasn't your original question (I answered that). This is a new question. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom ... "United Kingdom" is a shortened form. It is not referred to as an abbreviation. Similarly, Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia ... [Links added in both cases] See House Un-American Activities Committee#Precursors to the committee, where it is simpy referred to in a shortened form as "the committee". At Infantry in the Middle Ages#English longbowmen, "bowmen" is used as a shortened form to refer to "longbowmen". These are all common examples of a shortened form of a fuller term and they aren't considered abbreviations (per my statement) and, if they are capitalised, it is becase they are considered proper nouns/names in their own right. Asked and answered (again). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

When Renamed user qoTkZBdUBi (Somnifuguist) changed the guideline, it was not their intent to change the guideline for "Win-Loss" (their intent was to use a recent player's timeline as the example). As Dicklyon pointed out above, Mitch Ames was the one who changed Roger Federer's timeline. As is quite apparent from the discussion above, that change would have been reverted if it was caught. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Even though Somnifuguist accidentally changed the guideline, our actual hundreds of articles on ATP and WTA players virtually all still kept Win-Loss in the table, as we intended (except for few that were changed by Mitch Ames or possibly someone else that no one caught). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

What I was specifically asking for (and still am asking for) is:

A different WikiProject (presumably in sports) that uses the term "Win-loss" in a table (not e.g. the full "Win-loss record"), OR
A tennis website that uses "Win-loss" in a table. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I think what I was I asking for was quite clear from my original statement: "To clarify, I would be happy with "Win–loss" if I saw an example from a good source, or an example of another WikiProject using "Win–loss" in a table." If someone showed me one of those things, then I would agree with you that "Win–loss" is an acceptable usage. Do you think you provided the example I was looking for? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777, your second question was: "One sees many instances of such shortenings" --- Yes, that's what I am asking for. Show me those shortenings, and I'll concede!. My post immediately above answered that question. But answering your question immediately above now, see Thierry Lincou, David Palmer (squash player) and Nick Matthew. I stopped at three. It is consistently used in a table in squash as "Win-loss". Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I meant before Dicklyon made these changes last week. (As in, editors familiar with sports decided that "Win-loss" was appropriate. We are quite aware Dicklyon is not familiar with sports, or at least, not tennis.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777, I suspected that you might make this additional condition. However, it is notable that here doesn't seem to be any objection to the amendments at squash (or indeed, other projects). However, the table below (Template:Performance timeline male squash legend) contains "Win-loss" in a table from another project and is not followed by the word "record". It appears in all three of the squash articles I linked. The edit history shows that it was in that form prior to the edits by Dicklyon. Well? Cinderella157 (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like you're just trying to find loopholes in what I'm saying. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean examples of something like this:

Win–Loss	10–5

rather than this:

Win–loss	10–5

If we had something like

Titles / Tournaments	2 / 15

That's perfectly fine because it's two separate terms and two separate quantities. (i.e. it's starting "a new sentence".) There is no rule in MOS:CAPS against that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"Titles / Tournaments" is read as "Titles or tournaments" not "Titles or. Tournaments". The slash certainly does not represent the start of a new sentence. Similarly "Win-Loss" is not read as "Win to. Loss [record]" but "Win to loss [record]". It really is a bit WP:POTish to cite WP:AGF in one breath and then accuse me of acting in bad faith in the next. I did what you asked. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting that Template:Performance timeline male squash legend had hyphen instead of dash, and had capped "Up" in "Runner-Up"; I fixed it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ABBR (guideline, not policy) would apply if W–L were not a common abbreviation, but it is. The fact that official tennis sites use the capitalized Win–Loss in tables would matter if we used the style guides of our sources, but we do not. MOS is very clear on when to capitalize and when to use sentence case. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Terms
W–L	Win–loss	NWS	Not a World Series event
NG50	Not an international event	NH	Not held
A	Absent	LQ/#Q	Lost in qualifying draw and round number
RR	Lost at round robin stage	#R	Lost in the early rounds
QF	Quarterfinalist	SF	Semifinalist
SF-B	Semifinalist, won bronze medal	F	Runner-up
F	Runner-up, won silver medal	W	Winner

@Sportsfan77777: are you conceding now, or do you still have something you want to discuss before I get back to fixing tooltips and table headers to sentence case (without prejudice against later changes if y'all decide that all lowercase, or W–L, or no tooltips is preferable)? Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We're in no hurry as there is no consensus here either way here. But even with no consensus we might still want to use W–L instead of changing anything. Best to get it right the first time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've about done with the case fixing in tennis. Y'all go ahead and do the W–L change or whatever you want. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Without consensus it might be back to Win–Loss. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Tooltips, too

Besides the use in the table heading, I had also downcased the tooltips that said "Win–Loss" to "Win–loss", but that was apparently not an issue. Or so I thought. Now Sportsfan77777, in this revert, is saying that "Strike Rate" needs to be capped (not "Strike rate") in a tooltip. Not clear what theory of capitalization he has in mind. I'm again shocked that this routine fix can be made cnotroversial. Can anyone explain? Does WP use title case for tooltips? See Template:tooltip. Uses in other topic areas don't seem to have an issue with sentence case (e.g. see 1966 FIFA World Cup Final). Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure on the tool tip. It's not been discussed either way afaik. However, your mentioning 1966 FIFA World Cup Final is interesting. Most times when I glance through Google I see sentence case "FIFA World Cup final." Perhaps the football group would react differently if you started changing the article titles to reflect that? Not sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that's definitely a sports over-capitalization case. I don't need another just now, thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

As for the tooltip, is there some theory under which you think title case makes sense there, such that we'd have something to discuss, or should I just go ahead and revert Sportsfan's nonsense? Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a neutral way to start a discussion for three reasons:

You started out by calling this a "routine fix."
In your next comment, you called my edit "nonsense".
You completely misrepresented my point. I didn't say the tooltip should be capitalized. Either the tooltip should be (1) all lowercase --- there is no reason to capitalize it, or (2) removed entirely --- tooltip use is discouraged because tooltips are not very accessible on mobile devices. We moved the explanation of SR to the performance key to explain it there. Many of our articles don't have the tooltips anymore, but as far as I know there was never a discussion about whether to remove them from all articles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, it was a routine fix from title case to sentence case. Your revert was not very neutral, and was not explained by reference to any guideline or other theory. The SR tooltip is in tons of articles (now mostly as "Strike rate", which would be the normal case for such things, though all lowercase might also be OK). So your restoring it to title case made no sense. Change it to lowercase or remove it if you like, or just revert to what's typical (like in the first other article that I found with multi-word tooltips, a sample of 1). Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I started a more neutral discussion at WT:MOSCAPS#Caps in tooltips. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the topic Uppercase/lowercase, it's seems to mostly come down to WikiProject vs MoS. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:CONLEVEL, MOS wins. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

While under discussion I wouldn't change the tool tip. If it does change I might use all lower case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed Template:Performance key, a tennis project template where all the tooltips are in sentence case. Case closed? Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Key
W	F	SF	QF	#R	RR	Q#	P#	DNQ	A	Z#	PO	G	S	B	NMS	NTI	P	NH

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

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

You're just saying the same things we are saying about "W–L". As Firefangledfeathers articulates above, "The objections [you raise]... have no basis in policy or guideline." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The examples on the tooltip page use lowercase: e.g. {{abbr|TKO|technical knockout}}. If you wanted to use SR in a sentence for some reason, you would write e.g. In tennis, SR (strike rate) is the ratio of the number of times a player has won an event to the number of times a player has competed there. If it's used like that in prose, you wouldn't capitalize it just because it's in a tooltip. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It is always good to provide a link to where you are going and I guess you are referring to Template:Tooltip? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's where a couple of lowercase tooltip examples can be found. Also least one title case and one sentence case. Seems like a mess. That's part of why I inquired at WT:MOSCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

And in an example where it is talking about compatibility of the template with linking to sections in other articles. Letter-case isn't the issue of the example and it was probably written without even considering what the case should. It really isn't a good foundation for what the case should be. How we capp mid sentence isn't the issue either. Tooltips are directly analogous to other "fragments" such as headings in tables and for captions and MOS:CAPS gives us guidance on these. As you would say, consistency with the most common form used (in tennis) is very compelling. Arguing against that would seem to be more about perpetuating the argument. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

That's the issue with you Cinderella157. We're trying to have a "discussion", you're trying to have an "argument". WP:AGF. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm just observing that the tennis project has a widespread use of sentence case tooltips, so my fixing a couple of others to sentence case makes them more consistent. Yes, all lowercase could be another possibility, but it would be odd to do that just for strike rate and win–loss when the sentence case ones are so widely used via that key template. Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I've always thought the tooltip capitalization in the key was wrong. The list below the key is meant to be a carbon copy of the tooltips, yet the tooltips are capitalized and the list is lowercase. That doesn't make any sense. It's not consistent. Either they should both be capitalized, or neither should be. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the tool tips should be one way or the other, both capitalized or neither. I think this was mentioned before. It might actually be better to be lower case. But only for tool tips. Other uses in articles would need to be looked at and presented before implementing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Both capitalized (title case) is not an option compatible with Wikipedia style, but sentence case is, as is "dictionary case" as Cinderella called it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible way forward

The current proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Caps in tooltips is to "Capitalize the expanded form as if it were in parentheses following the abbreviation". That would mean "win–loss" and "strike rate", but also a lot of other downcasing in tennis templates and articles. If people are comfortable with that, I can implement it (I won't do just those two). I see just above that Sportsfan is in agreement. Dicklyon (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If there is a separate legend (as there is in many/most cases) then the tooltip is redundant and probably should be removed. See Template:Performance key as an example, which is actually a legend. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Why don't you go ahead and do that, which avoids case issues? Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I made a couple of test edits to Template:Performance key, first to lowercase tooltips, then removing tooltips. It would be good to hear what people prefer there and other contexts. Dicklyon (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Key
W	F	SF	QF	#R	RR	Q#	P#	DNQ	A	Z#	PO	G	S	B	NMS	NTI	P	NH

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

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

There's still some odd punctuation to fix in the legend. Dicklyon (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Think I fixed that. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Are all our tennis editors on hiatus?

General Comment for our tennis editors. I understand that most of the poll editors here are heavy into lower case since the discussion above was posted on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters page. That's ok. What I'm amazed at lately is that tennis editors whose opinions I respect have pretty much disappeared from these conversations. I have no idea what our hundreds of tennis editors think on these issues but it seems no one cares what these articles and tables look like anymore to even voice an opinion. Maybe we should just hand off all our guidelines, charts, biographies, etc and have them handled by WikiProjectMOS, WikiProjectMusic, WikiProjectMilitary, etc. It would sure be easier to maintain if we let others handle things. It seems that everyone has disappeared lately. I don't care if our opinions differ but it's strange you wouldn't get in the game. And not just this current issue either. I realize that things have changed here a lot since I joined where we had tennis editors coming out of the woodwork, but the last year or so has been disappointing in participation. We supposedly have 245 members listed and goodness who knows how many who didn't actually plop themselves on out list. It just seems strange to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should just hand off all our guidelines, charts, biographies, etc and have them handled by WikiProjectMOS — Yes please! As an AWB-wielding copy-editor-for-style over a large range of topics, I have trouble remembering all the non-MOS-compliant style quirks that every project seems to have (sports are the worst), which leads to occasional friction when I fix some style issue (eg capitalisation) on many articles in a short time (not necessarily all in one project, e.g. I might be processing articles under Category:Western Australia), only to be told that I'm wrong because "Project X does it differently" - and my appeals to WP:CONLEVEL fall on deaf ears. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Win–Loss is very iffy on that front but I'm talking in general on everything. Every time a new tournament gets created by the ATP or WTA and we have to decide whether it merits chart inclusion; every time we have a player bio where it seems something gets added that could be too trivial; every time we want to add a new column to a universal tennis table; we can just hand it off to another group so we don't have to make decisions. It gets old real fast if no one participates so perhaps MOS can handle those items too? Shall we create a new chart for this year's Australian Open... gosh I don't care why don't you ask the editors at Wikiproject Health to decide. I seem to get asked all the time to help or solve tennis article situations, perhaps because I get asked by editors who only care about one article rather than many or all of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Of the 245 listed WikiProject Tennis members, only 68 have contributed to Wikipedia in the last month (111 in the last year). Of those 68, only 31 have ever edited this page. Many of those wouldn't have this page on their watchlists, and most of those that do probably don't care about capitalization, or any given issue raised here. The end result of all that funneling is low participation rates in most discussions, but few problems need to be looked into by more than one or two pairs of experienced eyes (such as yours), so that's no reason to dissolve the project. If people care enough about an issue touching their niche, they know where to come and comment on it. Letcord (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Projects tend to not be very active or cohesive. WP:WikiProject Manual of Style has been "defunct for years". Projects have noticeboards where proposals affecting their tagged articles get listed, but MOS doesn't have that; that's why some of us list discussions manually at WT:MOS and WT:MOSCAPS; typically that will attract 2 or 3 editors to comment. I too am often surprised at the low participation; and discussions we don't notice get even less participation from anyone who cares about style. Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the MOS doesn't have a lot to contribute to your "guidelines, charts, biographies, etc" or inclusion criteria. But where they do have something to say, like on capitalization and dashes and other style issues, it would be a welcome change if you would not fight against the guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Case-fixup loose ends

Now that some other distractions are passed, let's get back to deciding what we want to do. Here I list a few options in two categories (tooltips and table headers) that remain inconsistent. Other editors are invited to add more solution options if I haven't covered what they want (though adding options that are at odds with MOS:CAPS is not advised). Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Tooltips

(e.g. where currently we have mostly Win–loss or Win–Loss, Strike rate or Strike Rate, etc.)

1A. Use sentence case (Win–loss, Strike rate).

1B. Use lowercase (win–loss, strike rate)

1C. Remove all tooltips (if any are not already explained in a legend, add a legend instead)

1D. Something else

2. Table headings

(e.g. where currently we have mostly Win–loss or Win–Loss, Titles / Tournaments or Titles / tournaments)

2A. Use sentence case (Win–loss, Titles / tournaments) (pretty standard for table row and column headings)

2B. Use Win–Loss as being intrinsically linked as two equal statements. As if it was two separate columns... (Win–Loss 27–33)

2C. Use W–L. as W–L is already in the key above this is a simpler remedy than 2B

2D. Something else

Discussion

For background, please review discussions at WT:MOSCAPS#Caps in tooltips and WT:WikiProject_Tennis#Over-capitalization still. Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) and Sportsfan77777: if you have other options you want us to consider, please add them in the lists where I have "Something else". Or say here if the lists seem OK or not. Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For 1) tooltips I would use 1B. win–loss, strike-rate. For 2) Table headings it would have to be a hybrid of 2B. Where "Titles / tournaments" I can live with but it needs to be Win–Loss or a simpler W–L. That should be 2B and 2C and have something else as 2D. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Time to say so in the poll below. Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Are there any cases in tennis where tooltips are used and there isn't a legend provided? I have a feeling not. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know. I just added the parenthetical to 1C above to say add a legend if needed. Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I also don't know, but I don't think so. It's mostly on the performance timelines and they have a mandatory key required. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Implementing 1C would be a pain. I did it for the templates that had legends already, but doing more will be hard to semi-automate. For consistency, that would mean 1A, I think. I don't know whether any "Win–loss" will show up in that process, or whether anyone but Fyunck would be bothered by that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, there are a handful of articles still with table header Win–Loss in Title Case still (like 2B; in violation of guidelines). It still looks like Fyunck is not representing the project in being bothered by that, and there's a pretty broad consensus to follow MOSCAPS, here and in general. So I'll put those back to Sentence case (like all other table headings). If the project decides to switch to W–L, having them all alike will make that easier, too. Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You make it sound like there are 100 editors replying here in favor of your view. It's usually the same handful that follow you here from your posts in MOS. And yes quite often I'm only a voice of one or two like Sportsfan77777 because Tennis Project members are being silent on this. Maybe they don't care, maybe they disagree with me, maybe they are throwing their hands up in disgust, or maybe they are afraid of you. Only they know. And mass implementation in five minutes isn't always the goal when changes are made. You get the consensus, you change the guidelines, and you make sure that new articles are handled that way. Old articles gradually get changed through the years since it's procedural and no harm is actually being done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

No guideline changes are needed, and WP:CONLEVEL tells you there's a huge consensus to follow the MOS. I'm not doing mass changes, just the few outliers – I'll go slow. And maybe tennis project members just don't want to get on your bad side, so aren't supporting following the guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done about 50 of about 200. Lots of other case fixing found in the process. Inspections/feedback would be appreciated before I do much more. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done a few more. I'm using lowercase for things like "did not play" and "not held" in table entries, which were previously title case. Since it's not a header or a sentence, sentence case didn't seem like a good alternative. Dicklyon (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Done with those. Any other case stragglers that people notice? Or more tooltips to be removed? Dicklyon (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Pause

I suggest holding off posting your !votes here until after we get the list of options finished and some discussion going. Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that after the unhappiness that was expressed with your efforts in this area, you step away and find something different to do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I did some of that. To show you how I've evolved from deletionist to inclusionist, I made for you the Square root of 6 article. Enjoy. Now also Square root of 7. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Poll

OK, I think the alternatives are fleshed out; time to poll. I'll start:

1A or 1C; 2A & 2C. Note that we have a lot of row headers like "Career win–loss", "Indoor win–loss", etc, that under 2C should go to "Career W–L", "Indoor W–L", etc. Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Note: also not 2B (and also not all-lowercase table headers) since as Cinderella points out below, our style guide is pretty explicit that sentence case is used there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Not 2C: Using abbreviations when the full words fit easily is worse than any capitalization style. Win–Loss vs Win–loss in table headings I am neutral on, but "Strike rate" should be sentence case. In tooltips either sentence case or lowercase is fine. Letcord (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
1B or 1C and 2B or 2C. Pretty flexible on any of those four items but not 1A/2A. One trouble is that 2A has an apples and oranges example given. "titles / tournaments" would usually be done lower case (sentence case per MOS) but not so with Win–Loss. MOS is not clear on that at all. We have plenty of article titles where after the "–" we have a capital letter. Win–Loss is quite different than "titles / tournaments." Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), the dash in tennis article titles only exists because of a local consensus and not because of a broad community consensus to keep them. Further, the dash as used in those article titles is conceptually quite different in context of usage, where it is a substitution for "to" and WP:MOS appears quite clear on this. It is not, as you would say, "apples and apples". A statement made made broadly without specific reference to evidence is pretty much opinion. If you have good reason to believe that the MOS is not clear on the matter of "win-loss", then it would be a benefit to all of us if you could clearly evidence how and where this is the case. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I was never made aware that the ndash was handled differently. I see no implied inflection anywhere. And it is MOS that has to show us where W(ndash)L is different than Win(ndash)Loss, and the way other publication chart sources handle things, not the other way around. My mantra at Wikipedia is always what is in the best interest of our readers regardless of what someone tells me. Do I lose many of those battles... sure... to the detriment of our readers, but that's the way Wikipedia works. I know that. That doesn't mean I will quit trying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

And it is MOS that has to show us where W(ndash)L is different than Win(ndash)Loss — W-L is captialised as an initialism (MOS:ACRO), but MOS:EXPABBR says "Do not apply initial capitals ... in a full term that is a common-noun phrase just because capitals are used in its abbreviation". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not done "just because".. we see W–L and Win–Loss in publication charts and MOS doesn't say we can't use Win–Loss. This isn't something etched in stone at Wikipedia. And it's not just capitals we also have an ndash. This is very oddball compared to outside articles I write. Every organization has oddities but this one is head-scratching time odd. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ENBETWEEN deals with cases where the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements. This is a case directly comparable to "win-loss". In examples where the two terms are not proper nouns (ie not usually capitalised when they appear alone) neither term is capitalised when they are combined using a dash. I don't see any reason to think the MOS is not sufficiently clear on this? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The idea that the mixed-case "Win–loss" is unusual or odd is contradicted by the data. It's a pretty common style choice. Nothing special about tennis here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

But it shows Win–Loss is much more common and it doesn't take into consideration chart headings where Win–Loss is likely off the charts more common. That's why it would look strange and unusual. There you're setting it against the value of "Win–Loss: 62–47". Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

More common in some years, but not much more. And more common is irrelevant to Wikipedia style. Table context is also not relevant since our style guide says to use sentence case there. Dicklyon (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

1C then 1A ~~or 1B~~ and 2A On 2A, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Heading-like material is quite explicate that sentence case is used. Per Letcord, we should avoid abbreviations if at all possible. I believe that most tennis tables are covered by a key, a legend of abbreviations, that makes the use of tooltips redundant and consequently should be removed - hence 1C. To 1A or 1B, there is a rational case to be made for either. It would be best if a broad consensus could be established for one or the other but lacking that, it is only (as a minimum) necessary that usage is consistent within an article. However, as the tables affected are part of the tennis guideline, broader consistency is reasonable. There is no reasonable argument for title casing the expanded forms in any instance. It is already acknowledge that they would not be capped in prose even if "win-loss" was not followed by "record". See also MOS:ENBETWEEN. We would not cap "titles / tournaments" in prose (ie titles or tournaments), not that we should be using the slash in such a way in prose at all. 2A is therefore how it (the expanded form with a dash or like) should be used in headings. There is no reasonable doubt as to the guidance on this. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC) PS. 2C should only be used where it is reasonably necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Striking 1B as the consensus at WT:MOSCAPS#Caps in tooltips is for 1A. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

1A or 1B per MOS:CAPS. 2A per MOS:HEADCAPS, or 2C (with tooltip) only if space is short. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
1A and 2A. Keep it simple, and do what WP generally does. One wikiproject cannot make up its own "anti-rule", per WP:CONLEVEL policy. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Lowercase rankings?

Since sources mostly say "ATP rankings", "WTA rankings", and such w/o caps, I've started a move discussion on those: Talk:ATP Rankings#Requested move 2 April 2022. Dicklyon (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Bot for renaming/moving tennis articles

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13A, where User:Tol is requesting permission to move/rename/downcase 5425 tennis pages with his bot, per the discussion above and the RM close. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

With respect to Adamtt9's query above, I made all the needed edits to the template sandboxes linked here, which just need to be transferred to the templates once the articles have been moved. I thought that would be enough to leave things in others' hands (and safely retire), but it occurred to me today that another non-trivial issue will arise that will require my attention, so I'll stay on until after the job is complete. I'll need the AWB permission for the cleanup, but it seems to be a slow process to get it. Sod25 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I managed to get the permission pretty quickly. If you have trouble, or want to be more retired, just show me what's needed. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

50 test moves are done. Take a look, all. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, the bot has done the 5425 article moves. I'm going to go slow on cleanup edits, learning more about regex as I go. If anyone wants to help, let me know. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup edits

I've been developing the replace expressions to clean up 16000+ tennis articles; see User:Dicklyon/Tennis cleanup JWB JSON. Please review my edits (mostly of Feb. 1) to see what these do, and let me know if you see any errors, or if you can suggest improvments. If we converge on the patterns maybe I can get a bot to finish the lot. Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon, I was having a look at a sample set. As an example, I am seeing "Main article: 2005 AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Singles" at 2005 AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Also seeing capped usages in tables eg at Miami Open (tennis). Cinderella157 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I fixed the "Main" links a few hours ago (but I haven't editted that one you linked since a month ago). That Miami Open article doesn't follow the usual pattern so yeah, I missed that. I'll see about adding some clauses... Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, 729 down, 16,000 to go. I'll stop there. Big work day on Feb. 2. Please review. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you might see this edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I could work on succession boxes. But there aren't many, so I'll leave them for now and later can try a pattern to target just those. Remind me if I don't. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I included the succession box fixes in my list of replaces in the bot request. Thanks for pointing it out. I found there were over 600 files, so decided not to do them by hand. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of my recent edits were incremental, as I added a few more replace rules. But all the recently edited articles should have ended up in a good place, with a few things left to fix like the occasional succession box. I mostly want to make sure there are no "false positive" downcasings, or other weirdness. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

After about the first 788 files, I get a screwup at this most recent edit]. So, work to do. Later. Dicklyon (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Got that fixed in latest patterns. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

A bot request for approval has been filed: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DoggoBot 5. Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

If anyone else in the project has looked at a few of my last thousand edits, your comments here or at the BRFA could be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Bot approval is slow, and apparently I need to learn to be more patient. This may get done eventually. Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

They didn't get around to approving a bot. I finished the edits "by hand" with JWB instead. No errors have been pointed out, but there are bound to be a few cases where case fixes are still in order. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

One error has been pointed out and reverted here. Since the redirect didn't get moved, the updated "previous" link make a redlink. There could be more like that, I suppose. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Are you planning to fix the "main article:" links in tournament article such as 1983 Australian Open? You already changed the headings, and it looks wrong to have the two casing styles right next to each other. Letcord (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Do Grand Slams have the draws' names capitalized or not? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: Do you mean things like "Men's singles" or "1983 Australian Open – Men's singles?" If so it was determined very recently that after the ndash it should be sentence format where we start with a capital after the ndash and then use lower case. The change has created many issues and red links but hopefully the problems will all be fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Dicklyon, 1908 Australasian Championships – Singles is invoking a template "Tennis Grand Slam events" that should have been merged with Template:Infobox tennis tournament event. Other ones in the series are invoking "TennisEventInfo". The 1908 events template has the parameter "| before_name =". The target is being forced by the parameter rather than by pattern (per Sod25's fixes). Forcing the "after" parameter could also be a problem but wasn't in this particular case. I would look for articles using the before or after parameter. Hope that helps if you haven't already worked it out. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I did fix the main links in most cases, I think. Not sure why that one was missed. I'll look into it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess that one missed my cleanup edits due to using the different template, as Cinderella says. I'll try another pass over files using that template. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon there are still about 1000 that you've missed, that can be found with this and this search phrase. Also there are a handful of player performance timelines that have "Strike Rate" as a header, which you missed in your latest sweep changing the tooltips to "Strike rate". There are also these and these which have over-capitalized headings such as "Wheelchair Quad Singles" and "Earlier Rounds" that need fixing (with some false positives like "Challenge Round", which is a proper noun). Letcord (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I noticed many tennis-related tournament's draws' links on various BLP's and other tennis articles have been renamed with JWB to redlinks. I already informed @Dicklyon about this, which is his doing, but now I guess, redirects are in order for the hundreds of tennis articles, that need renaming to avoid the redlinks... Oh, boy...This is gonna be doozy. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, there's work to be done. Like the "One error" reported above, the problem is that some links are to redirects, and redirects didn't get moved. It should be straightforward to collect a list and get them moved (or new redirects created, equivalently). I'll work on it... Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, @Qwerty284651: I'm putting together a list of such redirects... will be done shortly. In the meantime you can continue with the cleanup. Letcord (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me know how you go about making that list. I've got some stuff going, too, but it's kind of slow and painful. Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Progress is that I've got a list of all tennis articles with endashes and hyphens, and have a list of the pages that they redirect to if they are redirects. I'm now just querying the redirects relevant to this situation, and then I'll publish the 100% complete list. Your time is best spent finishing the cleanup I think. Letcord (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You guys, @Dicklyon @Letcord are probably using AWB or JWB. I am not experienced with either tool. The best solution would be to have the tournament's draws articles redirected from Doubles → doubles and then change the wikilinks on various BLPs from Doubles → doubles to avoid redlinks. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been using various combinations of quarry queries, a text editor with regex replacements, and JWB. Letcord, the problem is to find the redirects that are linked to but are missing. Or find the redirects that end with Singles or Doubles such that the corresponding lowercased one does not exist. Dicklyon (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, User:Dicklyon/Redirects_to_move is a list of about 581 redirect moves that I think will care of things. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I did say I had it covered, but no worries. Got side tracked with another issue which is why it took so long. A complete list of 2175 is here. Contains some non-tennis articles, mainly near the bottom, but I can filter those out later. Letcord (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Where do you, guys, have the patience and time for all these redirects and moves, honestly? And why must it all be lowercase across the board? And why do draws from the same tournament with different sponsors are renamed/redirected to a new tournament article draw subpage with the same name? Just keep the original name. Don't have to unify everything, you know? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to do anything about the ones with hyphens instead of en dashes; if there were links to them, those were not changed (I think); if links exist they should be fixed to the dash form. Dicklyon (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, so, convert wikilinks with hyphen - to en dash –? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would generally be best. I haven't run into any, but then again I wasn't really looking for them. Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

So, converting Championship into Championships, hyphens into en dashes, Singles & Doubles into singles & doubles. Any other typographical correction endeavors I may have overlooked? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There has been a massive amount of over-capitalization in sports pages; I've been working on more than Singles and Doubles, but that was one big concentration. There was a big of dash fixing, but not very much; tennis already embraced the dash. Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

There are many articles that have links using a hyphen instead of an en dash; 7000 player articles alone contain one or more of them. It's quite possible that you replaced "Men's Singles" with "Men's singles" and now there are redlinks in some, or that another editor will naïvely do it at some point. Redirects are WP:CHEAP anyway so there's no harm in creating a few more. My list should now be finalized. Letcord (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Shall I go ask the operator of TolBot 13 if he can execute those moves? Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Getting a bot to do it would probably be the quickest way, so yes. Do you plan on emptying the first two lists I gave you above? Letcord (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I've queried the operator at User talk:Tol/Archives/2022/03#Another job for TolBot 13 (same bot and operator that did the other tennis moves), Not sure what you're asking about emptying lists. Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

My 14:29, 14 March comment has two search phrases that had about 1000 articles that have over capitalized "main" templates in them, and still have around 700. It would be good to get them both down to zero. Letcord (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Right. I just now extended my main-link-fixer regex a bit and knocked off about 150 of them. The rest aren't matching. Looks like I have to do a further extension to handle the two-pipe main-template form. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, no, I missed more than that; I'm knocking off another batch of easy ones now. Dicklyon (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, those lists are down to about 100, all or most of which are false hits. Let me know if you find any pattern that will find others to fix. Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what Java codes/scripts do you use to look up such patterns. I would like to help out, but don't have the know-how to do it. Any tips? Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

WP's built-in search supports regular expressions, I just learned; apparently of the same form that AWB supports, but put between slashes to indicate regular expression, if I understand correctly what Letcord has done there; see Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Regular expression. I use the JWB script, copying his regex into it's "Generate" search. If you don't already know regular expressions, you'll have a steep learning curve, like I did. Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, @Dicklyon. Qwerty284651 (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup edits #2

Yes, the patterns are not "looked up", but rather pieced together to match certain text that you want to find in articles. In this case, I'm finding over-capitalized text in articles and then creating patterns that will match it to find all articles with the same type of over-capitalization. Dicklyon, here are a few more issues I've found that you could work on (listed in order of priority):

{{See also}} and {{further}} templates that need the same downcasing as {{main}} did: search 1, search 2 (~50 articles)
Over-capitalized "Singles"/"Doubles" in tables: search 1 (~350 articles). I can give you a specific find/replace for this one. Search 2 is not needed.
Over-capitalized "Round" in tables: search 1, search 2 (~100 articles).
Over-capitalized "Place" in tables: search 1, search 2 (~20 articles).
"Main Draw"/"Qualifying Draw" in external links: search 1, search 2 (~7000 articles).
"Official Website" in external links (not just applicable to tennis): search 1, search 2 (~1000 articles; many more outside of tennis). If you do this one, you have to completely empty search 1 by replacing with "official website", then work on search 2 by replacing with "Official website". You can also remove "tennis" from the query to search all of Wikipedia, but this will time out. Letcord (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm short on time today and tomorrow. Is anyone else here good with AWB or JWB? Dicklyon (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
None of this is needs to be done and certainly not in any short time frame, but since you asked for "any pattern that will find others to fix"... I obliged. Letcord (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
One question pertaining to AWB. Which regex would you use to find as many cases as possible of redundant/obsolete tags, such as, <center> and replace them with style="text-align:center" or {{center}}, for that matter? To remove lint errors, without having to stumble upon them by accident when visiting a wiki page for something. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The regex for those tags is "\<center\>", and you can find tennis articles with them with insource:/\<center\>/ tennis. As for replacing them with style="text-align:center", that's more tricky. A relevant discussion is here, and the people there are probably the best ones to ask about that. Letcord (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Good; no rush. I'll get to it. Finishing this cleanup is definitely on my plate. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't usually been doing external links, as I'd have to check and see if those are actual titles. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Send me that "specific find/replace for this one". Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Try replacing "((\||!) *'* *[A-z0-9][^\{\}\|=\-–\[\]!]+ )(Singles|Doubles)" with "$1{{subst:lc:$3}}". Letcord (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Done. There were a fair number of false positives to work around; I might have allowed a few to slip through. I did more case fixing in those, too. Dicklyon (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Great. A second pass will be needed for those to finish the job as my patterns didn't account for bolding (I've updated the searches and find/replace in my above comment for you to use). Here is the find/replaces for the "Round" searches:
Done the bolds. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"((\||!) *'* *[A-z0-9][^\{\}\|=\-–\[\]!]+ )Round" → "$1round".

And for the "Place" searches:
"((\||!) *'* *[A-z0-9][^\{\}\|=\-–\[\]!]+ )Place" → "$1place".

Letcord (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Done Place and Round. That's probably got 99% of the over-capitalization in tennis now. Thanks for the help. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@Dicklyon, there's some capitalization within the seeds' results in brackets in draw articles that you missed: search; replace "(\# *\{\{[^$]+\([A-z][^$]+)([A-Z])" with "$1{{subst:lc:$2}}". Letcord (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
That pattern is too broad, as there are often proper names in that field. I'll restrict it to just "Lucky loser" downcasing. I verified already that it's not usually capped in tennis books. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Also plural "Lucky losers" and a few things like "Quarter Finals" fixed. The search is down to 420 articles, almost all with proper names. Let me know if you see any other pattern needing work there. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Another few @Dicklyon:
replace "(== *(Men's|Women's|Boys'|Girls'|Ladies'|Gentlemen's|Mixed|Quad) )(Singles|Doubles)( *==)" with "$1{{subst:lc:$3}}$4" for this search.

replace "('+(Men's|Women's|Boys'|Girls'|Ladies'|Gentlemen's|Mixed|Quad) )(Singles|Doubles)('+)" with "$1{{subst:lc:$3}}$4" for this search.

replace "(![^!\|]+\|+( |')*(Men's|Women's|Boys'|Girls'|Ladies'|Ladies|Gentlemen's|Mixed|Quad) )(Singles|Doubles)" with "$1{{subst:lc:$4}}" for this search.

Letcord (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Done. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm done too now with this cleanup. I would agree we're at 99% of the over-capitalization fixed now, with the remaining being in prose or in rare formats/table types/templates. It would be nice to get the "Main Draw"/"Qualifying Draw" external links' text decapitalized, but it's low priority. Thanks for your efforts in this area. Letcord (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup edits #3

Why don't you do a run on all tennis biographies downcasing all the links so that editors don't end up copying the wikitext for old links and changing the year to link to new tournaments, which will produce red links and therefore ongoing confusion, as redirects won't exist from the old title casing style to those new tournaments' articles. There was also an old discussion I found in the archives about changing the colour of faded text in timelines from #696969 to #767676. You could kill two birds with one stone by making those changes as well. Letcord (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

If you can prepare a search and replace for links that doesn't get false hits, I can give it a try. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

"

(\[\[[^\]]+(–|-) )((Men's|Women's|Ladies'|(Senior )?Gentlemen's|Mixed|Boys'|Girls'|Wheelchair (Men's|Women's|Quad)|Quad|Legends(')?( (Under|Over) (45|50)| Mixed))( (Legends(')?|Invitation))? )?(Singles|Doubles|Champions Invitational|Draw)( Qualifying)?(#[^\|\]]+)?(\||\])

" → "$1{{subst:ucfirst:{{subst:lc:$3$14$15}}}}$16$17" will do it with no false positives. This should be done for all articles with hastemplate:"Infobox tennis biography" (the bulk), incategory:"Tennis career statistics", hastemplate:"Tennis records and statistics" and hastemplate:"Grand Slam champions". The color one can be done by just replacing 696969 with 767676 (the color that Sportsfan77777 suggested as the faintest that passes accessibility guidelines, but wasn't changed to because nobody had access to the semi-automated tools). Letcord (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I tried that on Serena Williams (which needed a "See also" redlink patch), and on Rafael Nadal. Please review. Dicklyon (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

If I take out the hyphen and just do the dashed ones, there will likely be fewer such redlinks created. Dicklyon (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, replacing the hyphen by the dash is better. I'll watch for redlinks. Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I did about 500 of those (of about 10000). Let me know if you see any issues. Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I spotted a few redlinks that should be taken care of by the proposed bot action at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13B. Dicklyon (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, I've updated the find & replace patterns so that links with anchors are matched as well, which some newer articles have. Letcord (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I started over with the change in case some had been missed. But then most of the ones I had already edited got null edits, because JWB won't "skip if no changes" if something like subst:lc: is in the source but there's no change after substing it. So I'm just clicking away on Save instead of looking for when to switch to Skip, which would slow the process down. Dicklyon (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Those null edits were coming from " – Singles" and " – Doubles" links; I fixed so that they're skipped instead. Still about 1400 to go now. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Singles/Doubles links were included in the pattern in order to replace hyphens with dashes. There aren't any with hyphens now so either there were none in the first place or you fixed them all while you still had them in the pattern. Letcord (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. But only for that first "hastemplate" ("the bulk"); I'll check the others soon. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Final 300 done. Dicklyon (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it's very satisfying to see all of that finished. Perhaps you could ping the bot approval people on the request page to get the ball rolling again now that all those red links actually exist in articles. Letcord (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

One thing to be aware of, a handful (5) of the several thousand articles you've done so far linked to draws within references, where substitution doesn't work. All such instances can be found with insource:/\{\{subst:ucfirst/ (empty now), and they have to be fixed manually [26] after you've done the replacement. If the reference is just a link to a Wikipedia article, it can be removed per WP:CIRCULAR. Letcord (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I still have thousands to go. If you can keep an eye on that tweak, I'd appreciate it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

There were only a couple more (now fixed). There is a curious assortment of failed substitutions found with insource:/\{\{subst:/ -insource:"Anchor comment" ("Anchor comment" is a false positive). Letcord (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all your helping getting such things fixed up. Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, a few more tennis articles that need the same replacement: search 1 search 2. Letcord (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Some had no changes; please review. And some have this pattern to fix still. Dicklyon (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No changes happens when the overcapped links are within hidden comments, which you can edit if you untick the ignore unparsed content box, but it's not necessary as as they're just comments (and subst: might not work). The user you pinged below is partially reverting your edits where they create red links [27]. I've told him that this isn't necessary, but once all the redirects have been created it would be worth doing another pass of search 1, which contains all articles that have had this happen to them. The "pattern still to fix" was only in 5 other articles - I've just removed those see also sections as all those links are in the infoboxes. Letcord (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Letcord, @Dicklyon, thanks guys for all the work you've done so far. Just letting you know that some of those automated edits are causing red links; see Fed's career timeline here.

One more thing, could you please remove the flag icon key box form draws articles, it used to be added by some editors in the past but it's not needed anymore because the flagicons are now clickable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForzaUV (talk • contribs) 23:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, thanks for the feedback. The red links are a known problem, and there's a bot task awaiting approval to create all the necessary redirects, based off of this list.

Dicklyon should be able to remove the flag keys by replacing "

\{\| *width="?[0-9]+%"?\n\| *valign="?top"? +width="?[0-9]+%"? +align="?left"? *\|\n\{\| *class="?wikitable"?\n\|\- *bgcolor="?#eeeeee"?\n\|'''Flag (I|i)con (K|k)ey'''\n\|-\n\| *\[\[List of IOC country codes(#Current NOCs)?\|List of National Flags\]\]\n\|\}\n\|\}\n

" with nothing with JWB for the articles in this search. Letcord (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I ran that. Most of the search hits had no change. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it's hard because it has to match an entire table. Try again with the new pattern (please). Letcord (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Nailed it! Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You are a regex God, Letcord. Excellent work and that list of redirects should fix most if not all the redlinks but I have a question. Why the branded name is used for some tournaments but not the others? For example, in that list I see (1988 Cincinnati Open) will be moved to (1988 Pringles Light Classic) but (1990 Peugeot Italian Open) will be moved to (1990 Italian Open)?

Another task for you and Dicklyon: F-S / F–S → S and SF-B / SF–B → B. ForzaUV (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Haha no, I'm intermediate at best, it's just that matching longer strings (like entire tables) that vary slightly in format requires anticipating all those variations. That key really should have been a template. Replacing "\| *(SF|F)-(B|S)" with "|$2" for the articles in this search will do that new task, though I note that you made the relevant change to {{Performance key}} [28], so I hope there is consensus for it (I see the merit in both formats, personally). Letcord (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon: You've been undoing some of these case fix edits, possibly by editing slightly old versions. Most of these have been undone by an IPv6 user, and I undid one (you'll need to reapply your intended updates). Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Multiple move requests pending.

Hi, i thought to let you know about these move requests, since they are generically deserted by editors. I thought that posting here could maybe draw someone interested to take a look at them. Cheers.79.42.106.116 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

~~Cleveland Challenger~~ Done.

~~Sanremo Tennis Cup~~ Done.

~~Challenger ATP de Salinas Diario Expreso~~ Done.

~~2021 Città di Forlì II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.42.106.116 (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)~~

MfD nomination of Portal:Tennis

Portal:Tennis has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tennis. Thank you. Letcord (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Outline of tennis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Outline of tennis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of tennis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Letcord (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1989 Czechoslovak Open#Requested move 16 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1989 Czechoslovak Open#Requested move 16 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 08:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Big mistake on Prague's tournaments. A needed correction.

Hi, i went by accident on the official page of the ATP Prague Open and found something amiss among past finals, i double check on its reported website and found nothing, apart some comments on last year Prague winners. Then i checked with the wikipage of I.ČLTK Prague Open and found something peculiar there. After checking the history section of its website https://www.pragueopen.org/history-historie i found out the reason.

I.ČLTK Prague Open is an offspring of ATP Prague Open, that is until 2013 all past finals are correctly listed on ATP Prague Open but since 2014 they are separated and enlisted on I.ČLTK Prague Open, while Sparta Prague's editions are attached to ATP Prague Open and as you can see from the aforementioned link that was fundamentally wrong. The Sparta Prague's editions were the one who should have written under a separated article.

Upon researching what was the problem here, i found out that someone (i mean here and here) wrongly wrote on ATP Prague Open's infobox that since 2014 the tournament switched venue, going to Sparta Prague, which is clearly false since again the history page says there wasn't such a switch but only continuity on the same venue under different sponsor.

So, finally and rightly, we need to divide the two tournaments by venue. In order to do this we clearly have to cut half of ATP Prague Open's past finals and attach them to I.ČLTK Prague Open. Then we need to change the title of ATP Prague Open into Sparta Prague Open, and put in there indeed all the previous Sparta Prague TK editions, 2014 Prague Open (which by the way is wrong as it should be "2014 Sparta Prague Open" which is the title currently used for women tournament which on its turn should be changed into "2014 WTA Sparta Prague Open" or unified with men's tournament in one only article. I prefer them to stay divided), 2015 Sparta Prague Open, 2016 Sparta Prague Open, 2021 ATP Prague Open and 2021 ATP Prague Open II. All tournaments correctly played at Sparta Prague Tennis Club.

There are two other problems involving Prague tournaments. As i said above WTA Prague Open is a redirect from Sparta Prague Open. I think this title is more correct for ATP Challenger tournaments and so we should cut that redirect and rename the women's yearly tournaments as 20XX WTA Sparta Prague Open and leave under the title a line to say something like "if you were looking for the men tournaments played on Sparta Prague , this is at ... "insert wikilink". OR we need to unify men's and women's tournaments played on Sparta Prague venue. I'd rather prefer to keep things as simple as possible, so i'm against unifying them. And anyway, we need to change womens' yearly tournament edition 2014 Prague Open, because that name now goes for men's tournament.

And finally I checked other Prague's tournaments since 2001 and found out only Czech Indoor Open but it was played on a different venue from the two mentioned, so at least we don't have this headache too to think about. I didn't know where to start, since one move is consequential to another, so i didn't put any template "move" or "cancel/unify/etc.." over the pages since i wanted to check here first --95.250.109.34 (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody have any objection to naming the Sparta Prague tournaments at Sparta Prague Open Challenger or even Sparta Prague Challenger to differentiate between the different Prague tournaments. The comment above about the women's tournaments not being named the Sparta Prague Open is incorrect, so we could place the Challengers under one of my proposed titles to differentiate between the two. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Can we please change the title of ATP Prague Open back to I.ČLTK Prague Open. This tournament has been a joint tournament since 2015 and the title is not representative of the ITF Women's tournament. You can see that the website https://www.pragueopen.org/ has both ITF and ATP tournaments together. Keroks (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

You can request a page move if you'd like. I tried moving it to that title but it doesn't allow me to do so. I think it needs someone with page mover rights. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

2020 Advantage Cars Prague Open split proposal

Hi, it occured to me while re-ordering Prague tournaments that this one 2020 Advantage Cars Prague Open has a title which doesn't exist, since MD, official website and the official bulletin of the tournament show a different name. If you're interested you can leave a comment on its talk page --95.250.109.34 (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Opencross (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1992 Czechoslovak Open#Requested move 16 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1992 Czechoslovak Open#Requested move 16 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 08:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Opencross (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Castle page, code to convert currencies

I have tried to convert US dollars to British pounds on the Andrew Castle page, but it is not working. Can anyone help please? BrightOrion (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

ATP Tour article naming

Looking at Category:ATP_Tour_seasons, I see that the tour article and category titles refer to "ATP Tour" generally, but from 2009 to 2018 they use "ATP World Tour". Did something change during those years, or is this a naming anomaly that should be fixed? Colonies Chris (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That was the name used by the ATP for those years. The articles are correct. Iffy★Chat -- 09:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2009 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso#Requested move 3 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2009 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso#Requested move 3 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Opencross (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Challenger ATP de Salinas Diario Expreso#Requested move 3 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Challenger ATP de Salinas Diario Expreso#Requested move 3 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Opencross (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2009 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso – Doubles#Requested move 3 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2009 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso – Doubles#Requested move 3 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Opencross (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 Wimbledon Championships

I noticed that the article on the 2022 Wimbledon Championships still hasn't been created. I feel though that it's more than appropriate to create it, given the fact that the event has been discussed al lot in the press for weeks already. This because of a highly controversial decision to ban any player with Russian or Belarusian nationality to enter and the ATP, WTA and ITF's subsequent sanctions against the tournament. Any thoughts?T v x1 12:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how far ahead we can or should normally create tournament articles but given the level of coverage on the 2022 Wimbledon Championships in reliable media it indeed seems appropriate to create the article.--Wolbo (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Usually, being this a sport related project, tournaments' pages are created when seeds and entry lists are known, i.e. the week before the events are played.

I'm not sure about what you want to write on Wimbledon dispute with ATP/WTA, but keep in mind that longstanding and intricate disputes such as Djokovic-2022 AO affaire did get only essential and resumed coverage, as you can see here and here. Opencross (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow. I would say that in regards to the four majors, I usually see them created one to two months before the event. There is always something in the news far ahead of time that is relevant to article creation. Looking at 2018, AO was two months, FO was 1.5 months, W was 1.5 months, USO was 1.5 months. 2017 AO was 2.5 months, FO was 1.5 months, W was 1.6 months, USO was 1.75 months. Based on precedent, we are a couple weeks behind in creating our Wimbledon article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you, Opencross. The articles on the individual events (e.g. Men’s Singles) tend to be created when seeds and entry lists are revealed, the main tournament articles are generally created earlier. Also, I don’t believe it’s fair to make the comparison with the Djokovic incident at the AO. The scale and implications of the Wimbledon controversy are far bigger than that. What happened in Australia affected one player and was not down to the tournament organizers. What’s brewing in Wimbledon is going to affect many, many players. The governing bodies of the sport have stripped the tournament of ranking points. This means that every player who participed last year and intended to defend their points is going to drop them entirely and multiple players might end up tumbling down the rankings and see their ability to enter subsequent tournaments massively reduced. This could well be the most controversial event in the history of the sport. As for your question what should be included, the answer is simple. An objective description of a)the controversial decision of the organizers, b)the critism of that decision, c)the sanctions of the governing bodies and the consequences.T v x1 22:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I was talking about tournaments in general not about Grand Slam specifically when i wrote about tournaments' pages.

As per Fyunck, it seems really that the Wimbledon's page is overdue, not far ahead.

Regarding your ideas onto Wimbledon vs. ATP/WTA quarrel, it's obviously different from Djokovic's case, and i agree with you this is about the "tennis system" being broken. That was about a player. It's different.

I was just citing a similar case to that you're going to talk about, just to advise you on what kind of coverage it gets (not much as you can see), since you didn't mention what you had in mind. I didn't question the relevance of the subject. So, good editing, then. But also keep in mind the dispute is ongoing and generally speaking only "definite" events are referred to onto wikipages, so writing about that now could open the page to a flurry of edits (if the case) and possibly hard takes by other editors (potential edit war), due to the sensitive subject at its base. Cheers. Opencross (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

If any form of disruptive editing arises, Wikipedia has plenty of protection mechanisms to deal with that.T v x1 10:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I have started a draft. With feedback and additions from the WikiProject we should be able to make an article from this that is can be moved to main space.T v x1 19:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Any comments??T v x1 11:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I've made a few small improvements. Once the cite error with citation #1 "1May" is fixed, I'll move it to mainspace. Iffy★Chat -- 14:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Some text in the bracket templates is too small

I have noticed that some text in some of the bracket templates listed at Category:Tennis tournament bracket templates is too small. The text in the whole template is set at 90%, and then <small>...</small> tags are used inside the template, reducing the size of the text below the 85% minimum threshold set by MOS:FONTSIZE for accessibility. I removed the font-size declaration from one of the templates, leaving the small tags, but then I saw that there were more templates and thought I would ask here before continuing. Do you want to remove the font-size declarations, remove the small tags, or find some other way to fix this problem? – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I do fear that removing the 90% will result in tables that are too wide for what they were designed for. I'm not sure. Especially the 32 player draws. The one you did that I looked at was this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You should remove the small tags, not the font size declarations.T v x1 09:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I got them all. Please revert and ping me if I made any errors. Thanks for your help with improving the accessibility of Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

WTA 125 tournaments

Hello,

WTA 125 tournaments are played as top level tournaments and their number is increasing every year. Could competing in the main draw in one of the top professional tournaments be an important criteria area for Tennis figures? Vecihi91 (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope, and there was actually a recent discussion somewhere (I can't seem to find it so if anyone can please link it) that competing in the main draw of ATP and WTA tour level tournaments isn't enough to deem notability. I think it would be rather difficult to show that certain players competing at these 125 tournaments meet WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

However per Tennis Project, being in the main draw of a top level event is pretty much a slam dunk for notability. It has not been discussed here where it is most important. Things were changed with no discussion here at all. But WTA 125 is equivalent to the men's challenger tour... professional but minor leagues. It is a step down from the main tour but a step up from the ITF tour. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

"Tennis Project" does not trump Wikipedia guidelines and policies. You cannot override those with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. GNG is most important.T v x1 19:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

In many respects it can override other "guidelines" when it has support, but GNG is most important. The thing is we have always wanted sources for every article. But consensus is still the driving factor and if a page gets put up for deletion and more people come by to save it because they are interested in the topic, that consensus will easily win out regardless of any guidelines. Wikipedia Policy is a different matter. Often guidelines are very general in nature because they simply can't handle the intricacies of every situation. That's where WikiProjects shine. However all that aside, no one should be able to just change what is written at a wikiproject without input from that project. People could change all our charts and we have no say? That would be anarchy. The problem arose because people would make articles with no sourcing and that should not happen. But 125 events are still the minor leagues with minor league points... you need to win one of those events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, the way that was handled was a shambles.--Wolbo (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Tournament's Singles and Doubles pages: what are they for?

I was recently changing a section header into a lot of tournaments' Singles and Doubles page, so i went through any single page of them in the ATP, WTA and Challenger circuit. Not only in the last years, but also way back in time. And they are pretty much the same. They are essentially a copy of the draw linked at the bottom, (which you cannot dispense of in any case since you need a source to back the wiki-rewritten draw). Apart from that, there are info on the seeds, qualifiers and such which are repeated/copied from the yearly page of the tournament. The lead is the most discomforting of them all. Usually is in the form "X was the defending champion. He defended the title defeating Y a-b, c-a, a-d" with little expansion over the tournament development at all.

This is actually the standard of the ATP Challenger Singles and Doubles page. Hardly you'll find something more.

In the ATP/WTA Singles and Doubles page, there's occasionally some elaboration related to a player retiring, or some sort of statistics about being that the 100 masters win of X player, and such. This elaborations though, are present on few tournaments, while the overwhelming rest has usually the Challenger's treatment "X was the defending champion...".
Now i saw the argument "the lead will be expanded in the future" mentioned when this issue was recurringly brought to the attention of the project. I can mention one of such prominent case, during Estoril Men's singles page's AfD. It was said it needed to be expanded from the Challenger's standard and guess what? in 18 years it stayed the same 2 lines.

So, i think this project need to face that apart few cases, the whole (ATP WTA and Challenger) Singles and Double articles will stay the same 2 lines, and will not be expanded. You can check for yourself. Just to give you an example, let's see the case for 2021: ATP has 10 Tournament's Singles articles with leads exceeding 5 lines, (excluding Grand Slam and Olympics), WTA did better with 12-13 articles but many were around 6 lines. The ATP Challenger had 0 Singles and Doubles articles exceeding 2 lines (well, to be fair maybe 10 went up to 3) out of 147 Singles page.

And just like that, we need to figure it out what to do about. They gave redundant information, the most article size is taken by copying a link into a wiki-draw, and the rest is copied from yearly edition of the tournament.

Proposal
I think those articles should not be made anymore. All the info they have is already in the yearly edition. I think we should add the official draw links there and dispense with the standalone Singles and Doubles pages altogether.
In the case some relevant and encyclopedic news are coming up, those can be added into the usually short lead of the yearly edition page, maybe under a Development section, if one want to make them stand apart, which anyway won't constitute a size problem at all for the page. That is valid for ATP/WTA and ATP Challenger Tour.
About Grand Slam pages, since they involve much more players and are divided into more competitions ( singles, doubles, mixed, boys,...) and there is usually a plethora of news coming up, (not to mention their Single pages usually exceed the 20 lines) in that case also for WP:SIZE reasons too, it's better to have those as standalone page. But i strongly suggest to regroup them by category, i.e AO Women would include both previous Women's Singles and Doubles pages, so for Men, etc... The mixed page would remain as standalone page, of course, since it hasn't the requisites to be included in any of the category mentioned. And this model should be valid also for the Olympics pages.

This proposal would have the effect of eliminating the superfluous repetition of the same info over and over (up to four time alone in the singles and double pages: lead, infobox, draw, and external link), and freeing resources to be used on more effective practice and needed articles improvements. Opencross (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Change "Rosmalen" into "'s-Hertogenbosch" in the ATP Tournament Rosmalen Grass Court Championships' title

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis be renamed and moved to 's-Hertogenbosch Open.

result:
Not moved. See consensus below to not rename this page as proposed. Since a variation has been suggested below, there is no prejudice if a different new title is proposed in a new move request. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 01:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Result:
Not moved. See consensus below to not rename this page as proposed. Since a variation has been suggested below, there is no prejudice if a different new title is proposed in a new move request. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 01:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Rosmalen Grass Court Championships → 's-Hertogenbosch Open

I see the trouble here. The official name of the tournament is a sponsor name "Libema Open". So, according to internal tennis project guidelines, only yearly editions can bear the sponsor name in the title, but not their main articles.

Well, we have a good example of how to do it correctly with Cincinnati Masters.
It's actually known with its sponsorship name "Western & Southern" and it's held in the city of Mason, OH. Does it get called "Mason Masters"?? No, it's called "Cincinnati Masters".
So, leave Rosmalen in the location into the infobox (like it's done for Cincinnati Masters) and change Rosmalen into 's-Hertogenbosch in the title of the main article. As for the apex in the name, the official wikipage of the city has already solved the problem, and just using some semi-automatic bot, AWB for example, it can be easily changed into all the previous wikipages.--Opencross (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Just because one article does something one way, that doesn’t mean an other should too. WP:COMMON is important on deciding article titles. Cincinnati Masters uses Cincinnati because that is the geographic name commonly used in the sources (though I believe it should be Cincinnati Open instead of Masters). I have never seen Mason Masters in any source. However, Rosmalen is commonly referred to as such. I have never heard “‘s-Hertogenbosch Grass Court Championships” in any coverage. In its native Dutch language it’s always referred to as “toernooi van Rosmalen”.T v x1 22:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Tvx1. You have to judge this on a tournament basis and look at the sources. The difference between these two tournaments is that the common name per most reliable sources for the Mason tournament is either the sponsored name or the generic name Cincinnati Masters whereas the Rosmalen tournament is mostly referred to by either the sponsored name or Rosmalen Grass Court Championships or simply just Rosmalen Open.--Wolbo (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I see.

I usually prefer to go by name of the main city the tournament is held, so it buffled me it was used this iperlocal... location, which is nonetheless correct. (Per comparision it sounded strange that we have Anif as location for ATP Salzburg Open, but in that case it sounded good since the official name was Salzburg Open).

~~Ok then, thanks for the reply.~~

ps: Can i ask you also about the location of the Grand Slam? It's postal address format for Wimbledon (do you know why we need to have "SW19" there?), neighbourhood for French Open, city for the other two.

Since we go by the common name, i never heard the French Open is in the XVI arrondissement, usually i hear it's in Bois de Boulogne. Also I think Flushing Meadows is used a lot for the US Open's location ( maybe we should add it in the infobox?). For the AO i think it's ok just the way it is. Cheers

Didn't have the time to check thoroughly about the different nametitles, following the popularity principle.

Today i have: here's the google results:

's-Hertogenbosch Open 7.670k vs. Rosmalen Open 8.350k.
Then it comes ATP which uses 's-Hertogenbosch on its official page. ATP 's-Hertogenbosch gives 1.260k results vs. ATP Rosmalen's 251k. For WTA, google gives back these other results: WTA 's-Hertogenbosch 1.380k vs. WTA Rosmalen 516k.
Libéma Open, notwithstanding being the official name, has very low popularity, being cited 211k times in google.
's-Hertogenbosch Grass Court Championships 44,3k vs. Rosmalen Grass Court Championships 173k. This last choice is the very name used in wikipedia, which has the lowest popularity of all the variants, thus by all means it needs to be changed.

So, all in all, summing all the previous results to get what city name has the highest grade of popularity, Rosmalen* was used 8.350k + 173k + 251k + 516k = 9.290k times, while 's-Hertogenbosch* beat it with 7.670k + 44,3k + 1.260k + 1.380k = 10.354,3k. By the argument made, Rosmalen is less popular than 's-Hertogenbosch and so it has to be changed. To me, 's-Hertogenbosch Open is the preferable choice here. Cheers. @Wolbo: Opencross (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

You are making a mistake here, with regards to your second group of hits. You are giving that undue weight. ATP and WTA don’t use ‘s Hertogenbosch as a tournament name, but merely as its location. As a tournament name they currently use Libema Open. Thus these results are irrelevant to this argument. And if you look at the remaining ones, Rosmalen is the more prevalent name as I already pointed out.T v x1 18:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Uh? I am making it by purpose, because the problem here is not what to attach in the title after the name of the city, but the name of the city itself.

Therefore it is relevant to know which one is more popular among tennis fans, and as you can see, people, not me or you, is making 's-Hertogenbosch search way more popular than Rosmalen. I like to highlight that i just didn't pick ATP 's-Hertogenbosch over ATP Rosmalen to say the first is the right choice. That would have been equally wrong. I counted all the possible and equivalent google searches for this tournament and summed them up to see which city was more relevant in the counting and that happens to be 's-Hertogenbosch. I did the sum just for the purpose of not being biased by any particular denomination of the tournament, to avoid being picky and chose what we like or what we don't like or sound good or bad, and exclude them from the counting. There's a policy in wiki explicitly against these biases. From the gathered data it's also clear that "Rosmalen grass court championship" is totally irrelevant in the google search, which means it's highly unpopular, which means by the wiki WP:COMMON policy you yourself brought up, it has to be changed.

Of course, regarding yearly editions, the wikiproject guideline of citing the sponsor still stands. But on the main article, we have to go with the most recognizable, popular, known name used by people to refer to it, and that clearly has to include 's- Hertogenbosch. Opencross (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh? Why on earth is “Rosmalen Grass Court Championships” irrelevant?? Now, you’re making up rules yourself. Again, you’re giving undue weight to the ATP and WTA results. We‘re discussing tournament name here, not the name of the venue’s location. If you look at the results that actually deal with the tournament’s name, Rosmalen is far more prevelant. So your claim that the most recognizable, popular, known name used by people to refer to it is, is 's- Hertogenbosch is patently false.T v x1 11:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm following WP:COMMON on the actual nametitle for the tournament. And not cherry-picking results i don't like it, that is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument.

I did some research on the popularity of the names used for the tournament, reporting the actual numbers google search gives back, and based my decision on them. 82.49.110.215 (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to log in before replying, the message above is mine. Opencross (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m not cherry picking results. And liking or not has nothing with it. Please assume good faith. I have thoroughly explained why those results have little relevance. They don’t deal with the nametitle of tournament. If you refuse to understand basic English language, that’s not my problem. Your certainly not going to achieve anything by issuing personal accusations.T v x1 16:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

" If you refuse to understand basic English language" sounds pretty offensive to me.

I advice you to not use your loaded language to me, again. Opencross (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

And moving a page despite no one supporting you to do so and the didcussion still being open is something you should NEVER do. That’s among the lowest of behavior here. Stop forcing your own personal preference through.T v x1 16:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Tvx1 here. I think there is a misinterpretation of the results that User:Opencross keeps talking about, and Rosmalen is actually the more common name. Just moving the pages even though the discussion is still ongoing is also not gonna help your cause. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I am following WP policy and guidelines, as stated above. I gave time for others to dig in and have their saying, but nothing emerged, apart from WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument.

Also i am moving yearly pages editions of that tournament ( quite a lot of pages ) to the correct title as per wikiproject guidelines, which is a long overdue and overlooked task. Opencross (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

No, you’re not following WP policy and guidelines. Firstly, you ignored WP:CONSENSUS. Secondly, you continue to disrespect WP:AGF with your repeated utterly false accusations of just liking it. Personal preference has nothing to do with it. We have provided clear arguments, but you’re YOU’RE JUST NOT LISTENING. And there’s no WP:DEADLINE on Wikipedia. T v x1 17:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You seem unable to have a civil discussion without using a loaded language.

Writing "you don't understand basic English language" and writing capslock sentence is pretty rude and against WP etiquette and i must say even internet etiquette (for the capslock case).

Stick to your argument if you think you have one strong to offer, and don't insult people you disagree with. It's not pleasant and you'll have me call for it, if you insist on that line (and i'd rather not). Thanks and don't reply to me in such terms again and for the third time.

So be civil with everyone. Opencross (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Since the move has been contested i have started a move request on the tournament's talk page. Opencross (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You have to have some nerve to accuse me of being uncivil when you're the one who started the incivility by spouting false bad faith accusations here. So pardon me if I don't take nicely to people who falsely accuse me of things. Oh, and you can add WP:FORUMSHOP as another part of guidelines and policies you're not following. We're already discussing the potential move here, so there's no need to start a second one at the same time. That only creates unnecessary confusion.T v x1 22:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Tvx1, it was actually me who advised Opencross to start an RM discussion, after I carried out your RM/TR request to fix your page move. I don't see this as forum-shopping; an RM is in fact a more correct place than this talk page to request such a move, and the listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves will invite opinions from the broader community (including additional editors who are experienced with dealing with guidelines like WP:COMMON). I think that would be a clear benefit to this discussion, which is quickly devolving into a back-and-forth, and as someone who has no opinion on the name either way, I would suggest you self-revert and let the RM continue. I see that you, in good faith, tried to redirect the RM discussion notice here (Special:Diff/1091713750), but hatting the talk page discussion and modifying the banner caused the RM bot to both remove the banner entirely as well as the RM listing. Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

DanCherek, I have no problem with making this a formal RM. My problem is with having the same discussion on two different talk pages. WP:FORUMSHOP says that raising the same issue on different talk pages is unhelpful. And also take into account WP:MULTI. They should simply have put the tag here. Keeping the entire discussion together here is the best action.T v x1 09:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks to Paine Ellsworth for fixing the RM tag here! DanCherek (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

my pleasure! Paine 12:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Oppose - Because tennis tournaments have a plethora of sponsored names every year, tennis project has always used the common non-sponsored name for the encompassing event... something that coverers all (or as many as possible) naming varieties of the event So whether it's the BBC, or Live scoring, or The Nine news, the city it's played in, Rosmalen, is prominent in the event name. And for WP:concise "Rosmalen Grass Court Championships" seems to fit the best. I would understand a move to "Rosmalen Championships" since that phraseology is also used and sourcable, and maybe "Rosmalen Open" though not used as often, but not " 's-Hertogenbosch Open." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
ok, very funny, Fyunck, but do you really think "Rosmalen Grass Court Championship" is coincise??

What would be not "Legion Sudamericana DOVE MEN + CARE Challenger de Tigre"??

Just because you ~~did come up with such name~~ to be fair you didn't made it up, you took the name of the first 4-5 editions, that was your argument if i recall it rightly back in the 2011, as per relative tournament's talk page [29]. Anyway, it doesn't mean it was good, or it is now. In fact it was contested as too long name already in 2012, see again the tournament talk page.

About Rosmalen being popular because a few journalists wrote this title on their newspapers, i mean, google has 20 millions of search results for this tournament, 20 millions! Unless we want Wikipedia to sound elitarian and watch only what few people decide (instead of millions), i think this is also contrary to the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME wiki policy of having a titlename that is "recognizable, natural, short, coincise". Opencross (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
"Ok very funny"? I wasn't trying to be funny. I was stating my point as to why it should not be moved to 's-Hertogenbosch Open. It's in Rosmalen and sources use that town. Sure most google hits are at whatever it is for a given year, but we need to encompass all. And we don't just move it to shorten it to an unknown name. You mentioned google and no matter what you put in the first hit at the top says "Rosmalen Grass Court Championships" and gives core updates. So I absolutely oppose 's-Hertogenbosch Open. Now there are sources that use "Rosmalen Championships" or "Rosmalen Open" such as Getty Images and Tennis World Live or the Washington Post. Is that the name of the town it's in...yes. Is it as concise as RGCC... no, but neither are bad. Is it shorter.... yes. Can it be sourced... yes I just did. If it was going to be changed at all I would move it to "Rosmalen Championships" as that is most of the original name, is still used today, and is the town. But I'm not convinced it needs to be changed just to shorten it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Wow, not even close to reality in any of your counterpoint. I go through them one by one.

1) The sources don't use Rosmalen. ATP, tennis.com, google search are prevalently using 's-Hertogenbosch. as showed in my comment above. I wrote down the numbers, didn't i? It's futile to keep adding 3-4 newspapers as sources on your part. I have millions on mine. The more you persist on doing it, the more you are advocating for an elitarian point of view of wiki, which is against their policy. And anyway, where is written the titlename should be in such a fashion to be easy to look at into sources??? If you want to look for, say "Bertens Riske final" in there in 2019, you' ll digit that and not "Rosmalen Grass Court Championships 2019 final Riske..." and stop! since it used all the space available on google bar search, before it changes from static to dynamic. So the google results say.

2) Google search can use filter by year but i didn't use it in my report, so they represent historic cumulative searches for the tournament. And thus is much more reliable and valid than other methods used.

3) About historic name, just take a look at Rotterdam Open, their yearly edition went from the long title "ABN AMRO World Tennis Rotterdam" to "ABN AMRO Rotterdam" not the other way, the historic preserving way you are advocating for. And that's the yearly edition, on the main article is even a shorter Rotterdam Open, not Rotterdam World Tennis Open.

The only chance to keep Rosmalen in the title while not contradicting wiki policies and guidelines, could be to adopt "Rosmalen Open". As Adamtt9 has said, (i double checked on that), the actual official name for this tournament is indeed Libéma Open Grass Court Championship, and that is commonly reduced to Libéma Open, even by the same official order of play (look at right high angle, and front high)!!. It was not reduced to Libèma Grass Court Championships, or Libéma Championships, you see... Opencross (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
If think the proposed change actually mixed up issues. The proposed changes Rosmalen -> 's Hertogenbosch and Grass Court Championships -> Open are really separate issues. I can see the argument for the latter", but that should really be dealt with in a different discussion to avoid things to get too confusing.T v x1 14:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

If you look at the official website of the tournament, they go by Libéma Open Grass Court Championships, so it's as concise as we can get. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
didn't see the link, did you forget about it? I think it's just Libéma Open. But, i mean, even if it is, should we go and change Challenger de Tigre into "Legion Sudamericana Challenger de Tigre" because it's shorter than the official name?? Opencross (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - I'll add my oppose here as well just to keep it organized, but per Fyunck and Tvx above, Rosmalen is the more common name. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose changing Rosmalen to 's Hertogenbosch, support changing "Grass Court Championships to Open - Having thought long and hard about this, moving this to Rosmalen Open would bring this more in line with WP:CONCISE. Since 2002 the name of this tournament has consistently been "[Name of sponsor]" Open Grass Court Championships". The more concise name commonly appearing in the sources is "[Some sponsor] Open". "Grass Court Championships" sees a lesser use. However I do not agree that "s Hertogenbosch" is most commonly used in the tournament names the sources use and therefore oppose that part of the proposal.T v x1 16:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

[WikiProject Sports] has been notified of this discussion. Opencross (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Discussion regarding Internazionali di Tennis Città di Forlì

A discussion is ongoing regarding at Talk:Internazionali_di_Tennis_Città_di_Forlì regarding the tournament's history. Any additional input is welcome.T v x1 14:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there any rule on TENNIS guidelines preventing to add specific Categories in ATP Challenger Tour tournaments?

Lately i saw no categories are used for ATP Challenger Tour tournaments draw pages. I went back to previous years, and it's pretty much the same pattern. So far the proportion is 98% with no categories apart from "YYYY ATP Challenger Tour" alone, to 2% with them (few i have been making, and some other which are mixed tournaments Ch/ATP or Ch/WTA). On ATP and WTA pages it's pretty much the opposite with a reversed proportion. Also over there is even used prevalently the category "YYYY Rfgndgo Open" under tournaments draws pages, which is pretty specific, and it goes against historic practice of using "Rfgndgo Open" category some years ago instead, as i checked. I'm not going to see if there is any unofficial guideline about it into the previous 20 archived pages in here, but please if you have a link to where it was discussed, then provide it. Thanks. --Opencross (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know it hasn't been discussed. I see no issue about adding some extra categories to Challenger level events to help our readers find a whole bunch of yearly tournaments all in one place. Links to categories on the page bottom really aren't obtrusive unless there are heaps and heaps of trivial categories. I say go for it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Nottingham tournaments' mess.

With the grass court season underway and watching some of its coverage, I took a look at the Wikipedia coverage of the Nottingham tournaments. Under the impression that we had articles on three separate tournaments, I stumbled on the fact that a major merge of Nottingham Challenge into Nottingham Open, without any prior discussion. Thus I decide to revert, but I was immediately re-reverted and my action was added to an ANI complaint. Note that the ATP lists the Challenge's finals seperately.

With that complaint now resolved, I decided to start this thread to try to finally clean up these articles. Nottingham Challenge is now a redirect. Nottingham Open incorrectly claimed that it was replaced by the Challenge in 2009, even though that tournament didn't start until two years later. Notttingham Trophy claims it deals with a tournament that started in 2009, yet the results tables, list men's tournaments all the way back to 2004. I have been digging through archives and did indeed find draws of Challenger which took place in Nottingham in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. There is no indication whatsoever that these were editions of the Nottingham Trophy. In fact, I even found two earlier editions (2002and 2003), though these took place on hard courts.

Any thoughts on what the correct facts are regarding the Nottingham tournaments?T v x1 14:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

My quick thoughts. ~~The Nottingham Challenge and Nottingham Open are two unique tournaments, so the merge needs to be reverted.~~ We also need to remove the prose on the Nottingham Trophy article that mentions it starting in 2009, because the PDF draws linked and the article page itself has results back to 2004. I am not quite sure what to do with the 2002 and 2003 tournaments. They are on a different surface and at a completely different time of year, so I reckon it differs from the Nottingham Trophy, but I don't know if anyone can find any connection to that tournament or if it is separate. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I also want to add that the ATP website does a poor job of organizing these tournaments so I don't think it can be used as a reliable source. It struggles once there are multiple editions of a tournament in the same city. For example, at Città di Forlì, you can see that five tournaments were held this year, but the ATP considers each of them as a different tournament, so the results history on the ATP page doesn't necessarily match up. They have results pages for the tournament here, here, here, here, and here. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The official website of the Nottingham Open does have the Nottingham Challenge history as part of the tournament as you can see here, so it is possible that the merge of the two is correct. However, the 2009 and 2010 editions of the Nottingham Trophy are also listed on this page, but not from 2011–2014. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

We also need to remove the prose on the Nottingham Trophy article that mentions it starting in 2009, because the PDF draws linked and the article page itself has results back to 2004.

But these draws don’t identify the 2003-2007 tournaments as editions of the Nottingham Challenger. Most say “Nottingham challenger”, while one says “LTA summer challenger”. These tournaments were also always held in July after Wimbledon, while the Nottingham Trophy was held in June or May prior to Wimbledon.T v x1 19:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I would say to start a new page titled Nottingham Challenger for the 2003-2007 ones since they have a somewhat consistent name in Nottingham Challenger. We can leave a hatnote at the top of that page to lead readers to the other pages like Nottingham Open and Nottingham Trophy. I still don't know what to do about the ones in 2002 and 2003. They are named Nottingham Challenger but other than that don't have anything similar to any of the other tournaments. The ATP website connects them to the tournaments held between 2003 and 2007, so we could maybe do the same if no other solution arises? Adamtt9 (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like User:JeanBaguette added on the 2003-2007 tournaments onto the Nottingham Trophy page incorrectly. We should just remove them into a separate article and add on the 2002 and 2003 results. That should at least have all the results in the right place. Then we just need to fix any prose errors to make sure all the dates and results add up. I have started a draft for the Nottingham Challenger page here. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If nobody has any further objections, I will move the incorrect tournaments out of the Nottingham Trophy and into a separate article later today. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The draft is reasonably written, but it needs some sources other than the draws.T v x1 12:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

v t e Grand Slam tournament champions
Grand Slam overall records
Australian Open	Men's singles Women's singles Men's doubles Women's doubles Mixed doubles All disciplines
French Open	Men's singles Women's singles Men's doubles Women's doubles Mixed doubles All disciplines
Wimbledon	Men's singles Women's singles Men's doubles Women's doubles Mixed doubles All disciplines
US Open	Men's singles Women's singles Men's doubles Women's doubles Mixed doubles All disciplines
All tournaments	Men's singles Women's singles Men's doubles Women's doubles Mixed doubles Boys' singles Girls' singles Boys' doubles Girls' doubles Wheelchair men's Wheelchair women's Wheelchair quad
Men's singles finals Women's singles finals Open Era singles finalists Australian Open French Open Wimbledon US Open

Infobox tournament wins

(non)Guidelines

Qualifying color in performance charts

Discord

Overall Win-Loss

Tennis portal

Acceptable sources

Federer up for GA reassessment

See Also Section

Arthur Ashe

2020 US Open

Santo Domingo Open

Discussion going on at Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players

Afd notice

Květa Peschke

Accessibility issues

Draw links on season templates

Tournament draw wikitext generator

Merge proposal

What should be in Big Three (tennis)?

Naming convention for sports stadia

Important page move - The Championships, Wimbledon

Wikipedia tennis pages. Sources.

Resolution to current conflict on sources

2020 Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma

Djokovic–Federer rivalry

Known flags for the next round

Singles/Doubles category sorting

Abu Dhabi Open needs to be looked at

Error in Draw of 1983 Australian Open Men's Single Tournament

Do we need another article bottom template?

Category:Fed Cup

Request for Comment on SSN at WP:Notability (sports)

Proposed change in sports notability policy

There is an irish?

Just a heads up on a player article move request

RFC on flags

Junior Fed/Davis Cup

Ranking tables in GS events

Proposal to change the day-by-day summaries article name

Arrest at Roland Garros

And editor made a request to change a tennis template

Potential change to template "Infobox tennis event"

Proposed split of Grand Slam (tennis)

Notability guidelines for matches

Help needed for Draft:Dermot Bailey

Women in Red hosting Olympics and Paralympics

New small chart for guideline page

Cannabis and sports

Proposal to subcategorize the Event section in yearly grand slam articles

TemplateQ: Infobox_Tennis_tournament_event - Errors: Before_name and After_name do not work when same as current

Early Wimbledon naming

Universiade and notability

Russia or ROC

New UserBox (Need consensus please)

Chang, Becker and others missing from youngest winners

The rowspaned NHs in the performance timeline table

Template changes:WikiProject banner

Player Templates?

"Top Seed Open" listed at Redirects for discussion

Proposal to remove the Rankings tables for Yearly Masters tournaments' draws

Time to allow that one player to have her own name?

Ensuring a "since" is included in attribution of records

Notability criteria discussion at WP:NSPORT

Proposal to deal with "Partial Season" played out in Tennis like for the year 2020

Table font size disparity between ATP and WTA

Men's Grand Slam Winners Achievements as Tables

Important possible change at World number 1 ranked male tennis players

Really important change now being discussed at World number 1 ranked male tennis players.

Change to NSPORT notability for Davis Cup and Billie Jean King Cup

Developing a new notability guideline for Davis Cup and BJK Cup

Survey

Discussion

Tennis MSE templates listed for deletion

Wimbledon articles: Large move request to move Gentlemen's" → "Men's", "Ladies'" → "Women's

Camila Osorio

ITF and Fed Cup/Billie Jean King Cup charts

National team or Davis Cup/Billie Jean King team

Championship vs. Championships

Capitalization of Singles and Doubles and such