Talk:2020 French Open

Event postponed

The event has been postponed. NY Times 2001:818:E74D:CC00:2586:42BC:81C8:7FAF (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Article changes

Please see Talk:2020 US Open (tennis)#Inclusion of supporting tables to discuss of removing seeds in annual Grand Slams. ApprenticeFan work 07:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask, why is this article not laid out in the same way as the yearly articles for Wimbledon & the US Open? Martin Petherbridge (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 US Open is, as is the 2020 Australian Open. There was no 2020 Wimbledon. The others years haven't been fixed yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh! So this format is new and is going to be the norm? Ok, well that's interesting, but you're making it worse not better.

Opinion: I think detailed info on EVERY withdrown player is rather unnecessary in a draw article (already described in the main article) – 333-blue at 12:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"2020 French Open – Mixed Doubles" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2020 French Open – Mixed Doubles. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#2020 French Open – Mixed Doubles until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – 333-blue at 11:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Seeds

Can someone please add the section on Seeds (for Singles and Doubles), as seen in the 2019 article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_French_Open#Singles_seeds)? Thanks!

Seeds are now in the individual singles articles, not on the main article page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Singles players tables

Hi there, everyone.

As for those two tables, I don't think they need to be collapsed anymore, it would be better to have them expanded. I understand they have always been like this but that was when there were other tables for seeded players, so they were collapsed to minimize the clutter. This is not the case anymore. For all the slams form 2020 onwards I prefer the page layout to be like how I made it in my most recent edit. That's a bit better layout I think, you can see all the players who made the main draw and how far they went in the tournament, in addition to the winner's picture next to the table. What do you think? --ForzaUV (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not true. The collapsed tables were created in the new design and were given thumbs up by those who rate articles (when it was going through the good article vetting process). One of the reason for the collapse was so that the winners of each event weren't so far down the page. If they were ever to be expanded they would need to move to the bottom of the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The new design can be seen only on five articles for now (2020 AO, FO, USO and 2021 AO, FO) and those two collapsed tables have been there for years, you can find them here in 2012 for example, so I'm not sure what you mean they were created in the new design. I love this new design by the way, simple and clean, thanks to everyone who contributed to it. However, I don't understand why those two tables are still collapsed, they are the only ones on the page and they're significant imo. I very much doubt the article would be given thumbs down by people who rate article if the tables were to be expanded. Have you seen the edit I linked above, you don't think it's for the better? --ForzaUV (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course I saw your edit, and I think it's far worse. Considering we have the day by day articles and the individual discipline articles i don't find them as significant as you I guess. That why the new format created last year has them collapsed. As I said if they were to stay opened up they would need to be below the Events section. There is nothing more important than that section and the anger from many readers confirmed we need them at the top, right below the prose. Anger from readers was the main reason for the change to begin with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Far worse lol, fair enough but obviously I don't share you opinion. There is nothing more important than that section, I agree with you there and that's why I want its info to be displayed not concealed, makes sense, doesn't it?. And there is absolutely no need for the section to be relocated below the Events section, you make it seem like the page structure would be broken or disorganized if the content of the tables were to be shown but that's not true, it's actually a minor edit most people would not see a problem with it. Furthermore, the tables are actually expanded when you browse the page on mobile. Desktop mode should be the same. Could you please browse the section on mobile without and with the edit I made, maybe you will change your mind, if not then we're gonna need more editors to weigh in. Thank you. --ForzaUV (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)