Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

We can't use flags per MOS

We have to follow per WP:MOS.. From now on, we will need to use country codes in career statistics articles (as they do in the official ATP rankings)... As it stands, the use of flagicons is the only thing which makes it impossible to nominate tennis lists to FL-status, and therefore should be removed. Any comments? --TIAYN (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This was just discussed a month ago...No Policy bans flags, and consensus here and our guidelines state we use them in certain cases. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
But not in tables, everyone else (with the exception of this project) agrees upon that.. Consider this discussion reopened. --TIAYN (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
And you left off other sources that use them... sources like the Olympics, the International Tennis Federation (the governing board of tennis), the WTA and the ATP. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Where does WIKI POLICY state that flags are banned in tables? You have made a drastic change to the Roger Federer career statistics article, and when it was reverted you instead reverted it back before discussing here. That's not the way we do things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
What's the point of flag athlete and IOC athlete then? Which displays both the flag and the country code? And is most certainly used to represent nationalities in tables 92.18.26.3 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
So why is the Aus Open, Wimbledon and US Open men's champions singles lists featured when they use a hybrid of the flag template is flags are not allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.26.3 (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This wikiproject is hardly alone on this. To name a few, List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar, List of Olympic records in athletics, List of UEFA European Football Championship finals and List of Eurovision Song Contest winners, all have flags in tables and are all featured lists. Jevansen (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's permitted on yours and my examples (exclude UEFA and Eurovision) as they are a separate field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.26.3 (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), the sources you gave just prove my point, when it comes to list none of them uses flagicons, they use the country code... When it comes to player biographies they use the country code and the flag, but they don't do that in lists. Secondly, what people face to understand is that the flagicons hamper, stop sortability in tables.. I can't sort the tables when using flags. --TIAYN (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's get this straight. Flags aren't "banned" in tables. To quote WP:MOSFLAG " In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." What the Manual of Style states is that "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as virtually no readers are familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. " In other words, Flags should only be used alongside the country name or code (or at least, the first use should come alongside these). We only have to do this in the first instance, but in practice it might be better to do it throughout. I wouldn't simply replace them with country codes. Is there any evidence that people recognize "(BLR)" as Belarus any more than they would recognize "Belarus"? Neither are particularly clear that they are 'Belarus'.
So I agree that Wikiproject Tennis ought to get in line with the rest of Wikipedia here. Can I suggest that we go with the format of Marc Rosset (  SUI) instead eg:
Outcome No. Date Category Tournament Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. 13 February 2000 250 series Marseille, France Carpet(i) Marc Rosset (  SUI) 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
This uses the template {{flag|SUI}} . I also suggest that the consensus is retained until after this discussion. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
As per List of Grand Slam men's singles champions we have used the country name on first use in some articles. Football article lists have said this is not necessary. It looks very strange to see a flag after the player name imho. The other thing is that nowadays at wikipedia, as opposed to adding the country code, when the mouse runs over the icon the entire country is spelled out for everyone so there is no loss of information. In fact the country code doubles it up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I never understood the logic of using the country name only on first use as per List of Grand Slam men's singles champions. It is not intuitive or user–friendly and leads to confusion as is shown by the frequent edits to remove the country name in those articles. In my view it's a poor compromise between using only flagicons and consistently using flagicons + country name. We do have articles that follow the flagicon + country name approach, such as List of Australian Open men's singles champions. Aesthetically I prefer flagicons only (fewer columns and therefore easier to scan/read) but if a combination with country names (preferably abbreviations) is required to comply with relevant guidelines/policies so be it.--Wolbo (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually I agree with you. Multiple admins have pointed out to me it's need on first use so that why I police it. I'd also rather have just the flagicons. What about a separate column for just the flagicons? It would add 4 new flag columns to those charts. Adding the country name would probably make it much too wide for many browsers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm unsure if a separate column for just the flagicons would be beneficial. In my post I use the term 'country name' but I agree that using the full name is not practical and it should therefore read 'country abbreviation'.--Wolbo (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I am certainly open as to how we display the flags. I see one choice was to have a separate column for the flagicon just before the player's name. I can certainly live with that and I think we can incorporate that into the Project guidelines without too much fuss. What I don't like is personal attacks on my talk page and untruthfulness about a policy on flag-banning. Also the tables have been drastically changed without letting us know beforehand. We have no need for a full date being displayed as opposed to just the year. The tournament page itself will tell you the full date if you need it. He also removed the Tournament name and inserted just the city... a huge error. We use the non-sponsored name and link to the the yearly event. Just the city name is useless. He removed the single table of Masters 1000 tournaments... one our readers usually like to know about. The 500s and 25os are tiny blips in comparison so combining them all may not be a good idea. Putting Davis Cup and Hopman Cup together lower down however may be a good thing, so it's not all bad, but forcing all these changes down our throats is not the way to go when the initial change was reverted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I like how Super Nintendo Chalmers think, however I've altered the layout a bit.. Secondly, I didn't lie, I misunderstood, if you check the Mikhail Youzhny career statistics FL review, I was told using flags were against WP policy (that's why there are no flags, but I will be readding them now).. Thirdly, I told you guys about the tables in the section "Career statistics lists have to change", and I likened them to those in the Mikhail Youzhny career statistics article. Secondly, since the ATP World Tour now have sorting, and since I added a category section, a user can quickly see how many Masters 1000 Federer has won, try using the sortability. It does work. Thirdly, you said everything was okay, with the exception of the flags. I'm readding the flags. But I did tell you guys beforehand in the section "Career statistics lists have to change" (but the flags I fogot, I thought I mentioned them, but I did not, but none of you responded). And last, I did mention in the section "Career statistics lists have to change" that I was open to create different tables for the masters 1000, 500 and 250, but again, none of you responded. --TIAYN (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Outcome No. Date Category Tournament Surface Country Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. 13 February 2000 250 series Marseille, France Carpet(i) Switzerland SUI Marc Rosset 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)

Does this work? --TIAYN (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. As I said, a separate column can work though I see no reason for the country code when a mousever gives the full name. However, the full date needs to go, the non-sponsored tournament name MUST be there with a link (not a city name). The 250 series must also go... it was not invented until 2009 so that is an error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't do that on my computer.. When my mouse touches a flag nothing happens (the same with alt text).. It may have something to do with the fact that I have a mac.. Secondly, I didn't add the full dates, they've always been there, i'm readding the tournament names (I told you I would at you're talk page, so why keep complaining about It? No personal attack ment), and what should 250 series be replaced with, with "minor" tournament? --TIAYN (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
One other thing. Advice...You have now reverted that article 4x in 24 hours... after being told by editor chalmers to wait. You can be blocked instantly for doing so if any editor reports you. It's pretty much non-negotiable. Please self-revert to the original form before that happens. Show us here what you want to do so we can comment, but don't do it lest a block happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
It's probably best to limit this discussion to the topic of flagicons / country names and leave other issues regarding the tournament tables (category, dates) to a separate discussion (if needed). Otherwise it quickly gets convoluted and it becomes less likely this discussion will lead to a meaningful outcome.--Wolbo (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I concur.. However, I want you guys to know that I've readded all the flags I've removed at the Roger Federer career statistics.. The flags are now there. Secondly, this being directed at Fyunck(click), I'll be readding the official, non-sponsored tournament names tomorrow after University/real work tomorrow, OK? --TIAYN (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I said he misunderstood (which he did, since I told you I would be readding the flags, as you wanted, I've been at work, that's why I couldn't do it earlier). .. You reverted me originally since I removed the flags, now I'm readding it, so what's the problem? It does take time, as you noticed yourself, there over 100s of flags missing, or more correctly, more than 300 flags missing.. --TIAYN (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Unfortunately we can't rely on the 'hidden text' from the mouse hover displaying when people hover a mouse cursor: a large and growing percentage of people now access Wikipedia through touchscreens which don't have a mouse cursor and which (as far as I know) can't display the hidden text. If we're going to change this to follow policy, then we need flag and name/code. I also agree that only showing the country name in the first instance of use causes my confusion than it solves. This also has implications beyond career statistics tables as well. The MOS applies to all pages. I've done edits of 2012 US Open – Men's Singles and 2012 US Open (tennis) to exemplify this. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I can say right off that it is absolutely horrible and confusing on 2012 US Open – Men's Singles. Country codes running into players names. There could be a list of flags on the bottom as a key if you have to have the names... but those codes have to go from those charts. In fact that could solve this problem too. A drop down hidden key for people unfamiliar with the flags. TIAYN is good at creating those so please show us an example of a hidden key we could use. Then we could simply use the flagicons, dump the first use codes, and simply add new flags as we go. Or create a template that we could use so all we would have to do is add {{tennisflag key}}. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Goodness, I just checked 2012 US Open (tennis) change you made it it's even worse. Wow... that can't stay that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily asking for the pages to look like that. FWIW, though it took a minute to get use to, I don't think it looks that bad - we need to keep in mind that we may have to settle for aesthetically worse options which are more informative. But I agree that it looks chunky, particularly with the doubles teams. My intention was simply to indicate that this needs doing everywhere, and we need to find a way to make it work. Yes, I had wondered if a drop-down flag key was the best option here. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
With that we wouldn't have to alter the pages, just make sure that the key is there. Again that appears to be up TIAYN's alley if we can create a small enough key that can be dropped down. I also agree with Wolbo that I don't really think the codes are more informative... those country codes can be quite confusing, and not always very intuitive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
This is why we have a flag athlete template to stop ugly botch jobing like above. What's so wrong with  Andy Murray (GBR)? Also a list would do as I gather that is a compromise on snooker season articles, don't know how that will look on tennis draws etc though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.46.233 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
At the moment I'm favouring either 'flagathlete' or a key of some sort. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
First career statistics and US Open draws can not be organized in the same way, since they are organized very differently.. The key system, at least the first I could think of, would go something like this (I can do better, but its the first one I came up with :p) ... Can we wait with this discussion, and first figure out the career statistics one (the table one), and then we can fix the others. One subject at a time, so as to keep this discussion focused.
Abbreviations used
United Kingdom Great Britain
etc etc...

Secondly, let's go back to the career statistics... We've agreed to use both the country codes and flags. I support either 92.18.46.233's proposal or my own, what are you're thoughts? --TIAYN (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

We have not agreed to that at all. If we have a key we can dump the country codes. The flag athlete might be better though... but I'd have to see it in a list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem with having the flag first is that tables won't sort. While flagathlete is a nice idea, the tables need to be able to sort. Sortability is key, and its one of the key reasons why I'm against the use of flags before player name in the first place.. --TIAYN (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, they do sort, just not the way in which you want. It shouldn't be a necessity that they're sortable anyway. Jared Preston (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, they don't.. They don't sort after first name, or surname, it just fucks up.. So saying they sort is completely wrong. Anyhow... I've found a way to implement the flagathlete model (but its hard work, and implementing it will take long..... long time)... So here, two alternatives with sizable models: --TIAYN (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
In TIAYN's proposal if you're going to do that and use the flag template just write the whole name instead of codes far easier to understand and I'd prefer nation to come after opponent as tennis is an individual sport which happens to represent a country not the other way round. 92.18.39.11 (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Tournament names, cities and countries in the career statistics tables

I don't want to kill the other discussion, but here it goes. Including official, non-sponsored names, cities, and the countries take much needed space in the tables.. Seeing that the official names are more often than not includes the cities name, can't we instead of having tournament, city and country have only tournament and country? Its repetitive. To take a few examples, Rotterdam Open, Netherlands, Shanghai Masters, China, French Open, France... Another alternative would be Shanghai, China ... These are the three alternatives, are any of you willing to seek a change? --TIAYN (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Outcome No. Date Category Tournament Surface Country Opponent Score
Winner 33. 8 October 2006 500 series Japan Open Tennis Championships, Japan Hard  GBR Tim Henman 6–3, 6–3
Outcome No. Date Category Tournament Surface Country Opponent Score
Winner 33. 8 October 2006 500 series Tokyo, Japan Hard  GBR Tim Henman 6–3, 6–3
Outcome No. Date Category Tournament Surface Country Opponent Score
Winner 33. 8 October 2006 500 series Japan Open Tennis Championships, Tokyo, Japan Hard  GBR Tim Henman 6–3, 6–3
Why have a column for "category" when we facilitate background colours? As for the third option, seems a bit like an WP:EGG to me, especially when the city name isn't in the title. As for "country", it'd be better to sort out the mess in the discussion above first. We'd be running before we can walk otherwise. Jared Preston (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Because at the Mikhail Youzhny FL review a reviewer said the old colour coding didn't work - for instance, a colorblind reader would not understand with the "current" version used in the the majority of career statistics articles which tournaments are Masters 1000, ATP 500 or ATP 250 (since its only showed by the use of colors)... while its a point that colorblind readers are not the majority of readers, the FL reviewer had a point, we can't leave them out.. This is why I don't use the old color coding.
No entirely true. Many charts use colors and symbols like a †, so you could use that instead of just color. He's correct in that color cannot be the only way to determine something because of colorblind readers, but it can be the main way to do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


But to the point, lets take another example;
Outcome No. Date Category Tournament Surface Country Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. 13 February 2000 250 series Marseille Open, Marseille, France Carpet(i)   SUI Marc Rosset 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Outcome No. Date Category Tournament Surface Country Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. 13 February 2000 250 series Marseille, France Carpet(i)   SUI Marc Rosset 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Outcome No. Date Category Tournament Surface Country Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. 13 February 2000 250 series Marseille Open, France Carpet(i)   SUI Marc Rosset 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Morselle is mentioned twice.. And secondly, is where the city is held that important? --TIAYN (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
What do we do when the tournament is not a 1000, 500, or 250? Those were invented in 2009 and we just know the ATP will change the terms again. This was discussed way back in May of this year. We were looking at the following:

Per Tennis project guidelines it MUST be:

Outcome No. Date Championship Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. February 13, 2000 Marseille Open, Marseille, France Carpet (i) Switzerland Marc Rosset 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 2. October 29, 2000 Swiss Indoors, Basel, Switzerland Carpet (i) Sweden Thomas Enqvist 2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner 1. February 4, 2001 Milan Indoor, Milan, Italy Carpet (i) France Julien Boutter 6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up 3. February 25, 2001 Rotterdam Open, Rotterdam, Netherlands Hard (i) France Nicolas Escudé 5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 4. October 28, 2001 Swiss Indoors, Basel, Switzerland (2) Carpet (i) United Kingdom Tim Henman 3–6, 4–6, 2–6

This was another option:

Outcome No. Date Championship Location Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. February 13, 2000 Marseille Open Marseille, FRA Carpet (i) Switzerland Marc Rosset 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 2. October 29, 2000 Swiss Indoors Basel, SUI Carpet (i) Sweden Thomas Enqvist 2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner 1. February 4, 2001 Milan Indoor Milan, ITA Carpet (i) France Julien Boutter 6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up 3. February 25, 2001 Rotterdam Open Rotterdam, NED Hard (i) France Nicolas Escudé 5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 4. October 28, 2001 Swiss Indoors (2) Basel, SUI Carpet (i) United Kingdom Tim Henman 3–6, 4–6, 2–6
Bogus Entry 80. April 18, 2010 Indian Wells Masters Indian Wells, CA, USA Wood (i) Togo John Doe 7–5, 3–6, 1–6, 4–6

We could do it per 92.18.46.233 proposal:

Outcome No. Date Championship Location Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. February 13, 2000 Marseille Open Marseille, FRA Carpet (i)  Marc Rosset (SUI) 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 2. October 29, 2000 Swiss Indoors Basel, SUI Carpet (i)  Thomas Enqvist (SWE) 2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner 1. February 4, 2001 Milan Indoor Milan, ITA Carpet (i)  Julien Boutter (FRA) 6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up 3. February 25, 2001 Rotterdam Open Rotterdam, NED Hard (i)  Nicolas Escudé (FRA) 5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 4. October 28, 2001 Swiss Indoors (2) Basel, SUI Carpet (i)  Tim Henman (GBR) 3–6, 4–6, 2–6
Bogus Entry 80. April 18, 2010 Indian Wells Masters Indian Wells, CA, USA Wood (i)  John Doe (TOG) 7–5, 3–6, 1–6, 4–6

I still think a collapsible key might work best for the types of charts that were changed by SNC... but with Federer the last might be best. We may not need the location column at all (as per chart one) where we could simply use the country name with no city. This also sorts just fine though I don't think it's a necessity. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to forget one thing, the guidelines CAN BE CHANGED.. That's why we're having these discussions, nothing is set in stone! ... I have no clue why CA is included, we wouldn't include the state Chennai is in, or the republic Moscow is located in, but we would include California? American exceptionalism has no place here! --TIAYN (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course they can change... that's why I gave these options. One is simply how it must be right now so we have a starting point. If we can't agree we go back to the original. But certainly things can change. I would dump the state too and probably just have the country. However, once decided, it is set in stone until the next time a major discussion is held here. We don't change the page first and then have a discussion. That's why we're here. The article should still be in it's original form until we decide if we'd like to change it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I like what has been detailed above, just need to have the full names of the countries within the tournament, the country codes (and the flags) can remain for the opponent. It's what I like to call Olympic standard. MasterMind5991 (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Its not going back to duplicating.. Really, there is nothing left to argue about, the only thing, the flags are being discussed here... Secondly, why should the city be mentioned.. The tables clearly asks for the Tournament.. Wouldn't it wiser to write Rotterdam Open, Netherlands.. I'm worried at the doubles tables for the most part. Look at the top 10 win double tables: --TIAYN (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
That is a mess. Anytime the scores have to wrap should raise red flags. Certain categories do not need sortability, and ranking should be the team ranking...not individual ranking. If he beats a doubles player ranked number 3 who is playing with a player ranked number 562, it means nothing. It should be a team ranking. We could try this...
Roger Federer's top 10 wins in doubles
# Partner Opponents Rank Type Tournament Year Surface Rd Score
1  Dominik Hrbatý (SVK)  Wayne Arthurs (AUS)
 Leander Paes (IND) 		1 1000 series Miami Masters, United States 2000 Hard 2R 7–6(13–11), 6–4
2  Dominik Hrbatý (SVK)  Todd Woodbridge (AUS)
 Mark Woodforde (AUS) 		9 1000 series Miami Masters, United States 2000 Hard QF 3–6, 6–4, 6–3
3  Nicolas Escude (FRA)  Ellis Ferreira (RSA)
 Rick Leach (FRA) 		3 1000 series Monte Carlo Masters, France 2000 Clay QF 6–4, 6–2
4  Dominik Hrbatý (SVK)  Alex O'Brien (USA)
 Jared Palmer (USA) 		7 250 series Swiss Indoors, Switzerland 2000 Hard 2R 6–2, 6–3

This is more compact, gets to the point without extra trivia or columns. To be honest the round is overkill too imho. The tournament link should be to the actual draw article so a reader can see the round there if they're really curious. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

So then we'd have:

Roger Federer's top 10 wins in doubles
# Partner Opponents Rank Type Tournament Year Surface Score
1  Dominik Hrbatý (SVK)  Wayne Arthurs (AUS)
 Leander Paes (IND) 		1 1000 series Miami Masters, United States 2000 Hard 7–6(13–11), 6–4
2  Dominik Hrbatý (SVK)  Todd Woodbridge (AUS)
 Mark Woodforde (AUS) 		9 1000 series Miami Masters, United States 2000 Hard 3–6, 6–4, 6–3
3  Nicolas Escude (FRA)  Ellis Ferreira (RSA)
 Rick Leach (FRA) 		3 1000 series Monte Carlo Masters, France 2000 Clay 6–4, 6–2
4  Dominik Hrbatý (SVK)  Alex O'Brien (USA)
 Jared Palmer (USA) 		7 250 series Swiss Indoors, Switzerland 2000 Hard 6–2, 6–3

This makes it even tighter and easier to follow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

and since this is really about the opponenets, and not his partner, the chart should probably reflect that.

Roger Federer's top 10 wins in doubles
# Opponents Rank Type Tournament Year Partner Surface Score
1  Wayne Arthurs (AUS)
 Leander Paes (IND) 		1 1000 series Miami Masters, United States 2000  Dominik Hrbatý (SVK) Hard 7–6(13–11), 6–4
2  Todd Woodbridge (AUS)
 Mark Woodforde (AUS) 		9 1000 series Miami Masters, United States 2000  Dominik Hrbatý (SVK) Hard 3–6, 6–4, 6–3
3  Ellis Ferreira (RSA)
 Rick Leach (FRA) 		3 1000 series Monte Carlo Masters, France 2000  Nicolas Escude (FRA) Clay 6–4, 6–2
4  Alex O'Brien (USA)
 Jared Palmer (USA) 		7 250 series Swiss Indoors, Switzerland 2000  Dominik Hrbatý (SVK) Hard 6–2, 6–3

anyway that's my attempts at a fix. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

First, is this you're way of saying you support the flagathlete version? If so, good. Secondly, if we are to use it, we have to use "data-sort-value="Hrbaty, Dominik | | Dominik Hrbatý (SVK)" (for instance) so that it sorts properly.... But if we are to shorten the tournament info in doubles top 10 win sections we have to do it in the other tables too.. The list has to be consistent, some tables can't have [tournament name], [city], [country] and others only have [tournament name], [country].. I for that matter want [tournament name], [country].. While the city info is a nice add, it takes much warranted place, and its not needed. Thirdly, how do you find doubles team rank info? Its about top 10 player wins, not top 10 team wins. Please figure this out for me, it would be nice to solve it (if its even possible)... Fourth, we should keep the round information, in you're version to much space is given to the score, and since round information is given in top 10 singles win (i'm again thinking about consistency)... At last, I have to ask (since you used the "flagathletes" mode in you're example), is this you're way of saying you would support "flagathlete" alternative? --TIAYN (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I would be with others that think the code is unneeded, but it's way better than a separate column. And that's for these types of charts... not for draw charts which are very limited for space as is. The score column should be flexible in size to cover 5 setters with tiebreaks. The score should never wrap. Partner sorting I don't care one way or the other... if it's sorted by Dominik, or Hrbaty, or flag, I don't think it matters. I agree that we should determine if "tournament, country" is what we want or if we leave it as an option if the tables get to wide. I'm ok with either. To be honest I would dump the round in singles as well, but that's only an opinion. Also not every chart we have in tennis articles needs to have an exact parameter. Many should, but cookie-cutter articles that all look like clones of one another is very tedious and should also be avoided. A clean look, certain charts like performance timelines should be the same, readability, ease of use for our readers. If two articles follow that yet look very different that's just fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, good... Now guys tell me, whats the remaining issues with the Roger Federer career statistics (yes, its currently working as a "testing article")???? --TIAYN (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I haven't looked at it yet but in the future that is not the proper way to do a test article. Either do the change and immediately change it back but link us to the change, or better create it in your sandbox (where you can work on it to your own delight) and show us that. Don't keep doing it to the original article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
On first look there is one big problem. Per the ATP site, the site everyone will use to get their info, Federer career ATP finals is at 112 (77–35). That is now nowhere to be seen and every article uses it the same way. It IS his proper ATP recognized total. Yes it's ITF sponsored but they are intrinsically linked. By your well meaning intentions readers and editors will be confused because the total you give of 87 (60 titles, 27 runner-up) is not right. You may not like doubling up of that one table but certain things simply overlap and are part of both. I'm not sure yet on whether I like the Majors as all one color as opposed to what we had before with three separate color. Nothing in MOS precludes doing that. That one I have to think about. More later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. --TIAYN (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I think tables documenting career finals should be kept like this:
Outcome No. Date Championship Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. February 13, 2000 Marseille Open, Marseille, France Carpet (i) Switzerland Marc Rosset 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 2. October 29, 2000 Swiss Indoors, Basel, Switzerland Carpet (i) Sweden Thomas Enqvist 2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner 1. February 4, 2001 Milan Indoor, Milan, Italy Carpet (i) France Julien Boutter 6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up 3. February 25, 2001 Rotterdam Open, Rotterdam, Netherlands Hard (i) France Nicolas Escudé 5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 4. October 28, 2001 Swiss Indoors, Basel, Switzerland (2) Carpet (i) United Kingdom Tim Henman 3–6, 4–6, 2–6

Its simplistic, easy to understand and readers can always check which category a tournament is part of by looking at the colour coded key/legend at the top of the page. Plus the old format keeps all of a player's finals in one table rather than splitting them off into categories, which is unecessary especially if the tournament isn't considered significant (i.e. grand slams, masters 1000 or year-ending championships. Not to sound offensive, but the suggested format just adds a whole lot of redundant data. The old format works fine, should be used across the board and should continue to be used in the future. JayJ47 (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The only problem with that is it is against MOS to rely on color as the only way to tell about a category. This is because of colorblind and also blind people with verbal readers attached to their computers. We can add multiple things like symbols to the already established color, but it can't be just color. The flags can stay as they were, have separate columns for country codes, use flagathlete (which adds a country code), we could add a key of country flags with full country names, etc. MOS says we should have the country code or name on first use of a flagicon, which we've done on some lists, but some have said that looks dorky so maybe change is in order. My position is to look at what is best and easiest for all our readers, regardless of whether Feature List can be attained. If it's worse for our readers then I don't give two hoots or a holler about FL status. Only if it's against "policy" must we change things... and none of these are against policy. But I will always look to make things better for our tennis fans who want info about their favorite players. What do others think about splitting apart all the finals from a singles chart. I know TIAYN has a problem with doubling up info, but that is his problem not wikis problem. If he can convince enough of us that it's bad to double up, great, we can change. But it's not mandatory nor do I think it will cause an FL request to fail. Only color coding WILL cause an FL request to fail. That's what we are discussing here. We may go back to the original article page if every agreed, but the color only really should be addressed lest it come up again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer to have everything in one table. I've found another way, without creating a "Category/Type" section, we use these instead
Key to the list of finals
† A Grand Slam event
‡ A tour final event
& A ATP World Tour Masters 1000 event
§ A ATP World Tour 500 series event
↑ A ATP World Tour 250 series event

Of course, you'll have to see how they turn out first, but I will turn the current version into one unified table, with sorability (so they sort how many GS Federer won by just pushing Tournament (arrow - sort). .. Good idea? --TIAYN (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You should do it on your sandbox page and let us see. It may look worse than what we now have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but we really don't have a choice (as far as I see) if we are to create tables for colorblind people too... Its either a "Category/Type" section, the use of symbols or as we have now, which none of us like.--TIAYN (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't say none of us like it. And you never know what someone will come up with if they see multiple choices and an idea hits them. Even in adding a category all the original colors could be kept. You'd just have to add a category to the original chart and leave the rest alone. So we'll see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

edit break

I think this is the answer.... "Outcome" was replaced with "Result" (it takes less place).. Symbols (which is used to help colorblind readers) replaced the current sections/formerly "Category"/"Type" tables sections and gives more place.. The flag template has been replaced by flagathletes. And at last, all tournament categories have been sorted by number.. Grand Slams are 6, tour finals 5, Masters 4, 500 series 3, 250 series 2 and Olympics 1 ... This makes the template sort even better, and having other sections (as we currently have now) within the ATP World Tour sections or having a "Major finals" section (which existed before) becomes superfluous.. At last, the player's names are sorted properly too, all after surname. Is something missing? The full table is below. --TIAYN (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Key to Grand Slam–ATP World Tour finals
† Grand Slam event
‡ ATP Tour final event
↕ ATP World Tour Masters 1000 event
↑ ATP World Tour 500 series event
↓ ATP World Tour 250 series event
§ Summer Olympics event

New improved table discussion

I would consider putting the icons before the tournament name; and in the key box, you could simply put "Grand Slam events"/"tour final events" and so on, rather than "A GS event", "A tour final" event etc. Also, for the data sort value of players' names – if you omit the given names, you'd save a lot of unneeded bytes. Looks OK though... Jared Preston (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I changed the first 4 entries to before, and I superscripted them to make them a bit less pronounced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't merge the sections in the "Key to Grand Slam–ATP World Tour finals" infobox, then the whole point would be gone.. It exists to explain to colorblind readers what category tournaments are in. Or do you mean I should write instead "Grand Slam" instead of "A Grand Slam event".. If thats what you meant I'll comply.. I'll wait another hour, but If I don't here anymore constructive criticism, I'll replace the current format which exists in the Roger Federer career statistics article/list. --TIAYN (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
yes the letter "A" in the key looks bad. Also, because you refuse to do this on a sandbox page, finding this thread to comment on is extremely difficult. I had to scroll back and forth for a minute or so just to be able to write this. Others might give up completely. You also seem to want this done instantly and many of our editors only check this area once a week or so. So whatever is decided we must wait a week before implementing so everyone has time to comment. This is why the page should have been left in it's original form instead of changing it every day with new ideas. I also say superscript those characters. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
What does "superscript" mean? OK, we'll implement the changes on Monday. Good enough? ... And yes, I like to take as short time as possible.. --TIAYN (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not good enough. The changes being proposed here affect thousands of tennis articles. For that reason alone we should let this discussion run its course and ensure we have thoroughly addressed all relevant aspects and reached a consensus. Only then will we move forward with the implementation. We should take all the time we need and preferably get more input from other tennis editors. There is no need to rush and setting arbitrary deadlines is not helpful to the process.--Wolbo (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should go back to the original approved consensus version while we wait for other editors to take a look at this? Jajj47 has been fighting a losing battle, mostly by himself, trying to do so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
We'll wait until monday. --TIAYN (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion (for or against table above)

I just changed the key you made to what I think are more logical choices for symbols. 1000, 500, 250, now being double arrow, up arrow, down arrow respectively. They are also super-scripted. Whether this is better than simply having a column that says 1000, 500, 250, etc... is a matter of opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I am for the "amended table" presented above. It keeps all the info in one table and I think this option would be best for all. It clearly identifies all the tournament categories and isn't too much of a drastic change from the existing format, which is still the best in my opinion. Its just unfortunate that color blind readers would not be able to read the data in this format. JayJ47 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I haven't followed the discussion above very much but I think the use of both flag and country code should be left for the Olympics' draw sheets where players are playing for their nations more than at regual ATP events. I must say I'd actually prefer the use of only country codes, the flags give an impression of players playing for their flag. But that was just my two cents. --August90 (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Do I like this new table for career statistics better than the old table... no. The old table is on thousands of articles and our editors are very comfortable with it. I would guess that thousands more will be created in this same manner since there is no way we will systematically go through and change them. That said I can't think of an alternative other than the one proposed that will also be helpful for the handicapped that view our wikipedia tennis articles. If anyone can think of another possibility please speak up in the next week or so. It looks like we have two important items that are being discussed here. Whether, in career statistic sections only, to change from flagicon to flagathlete; and whether to change the key to include symbols for the tournament types as opposed to just color. It was also suggested that we simply use a new column with tags such as 1000, 500, 250, grand slam, etc instead of using symbols. That might actually be easier for new editors. Neither of these changes is required by wiki policy but to get one of our articles to "Featured List" we cannot use just color as a label per Wiki MOS. The flag issue is more of a like/don't like thing. For me the old way of a simple flag icon for players works fine, but many editors like to see the country code also (at least on a flagicon's first use). We could leave it as or use a more universal flagathlete, which does lengthen a column but adds a 3 letter country code after each name. I believe it may make it easier to sort? Not sure on that. But there we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so this is what I'm seeing in the discussion that we are deciding on. Remember this is what is best and easiest for our many readers... that's always the bottom line.

  • Choice 1. Per Guidelines now. Until changed by consensus this is the table we use. There is talk of changing the word "outcome" to "result" but that is a very minor issue.
Outcome No. Date Championship Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. February 13, 2000 Marseille Open, Marseille, France Carpet (i) Switzerland Marc Rosset 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 2. October 29, 2000 Swiss Indoors, Basel, Switzerland Carpet (i) Sweden Thomas Enqvist 2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner 1. February 4, 2001 Milan Indoor, Milan, Italy Carpet (i) France Julien Boutter 6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up 3. February 25, 2001 Rotterdam Open, Rotterdam, Netherlands Hard (i) France Nicolas Escudé 5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 4. October 28, 2001 Swiss Indoors, Basel, Switzerland (2) Carpet (i) United Kingdom Tim Henman 3–6, 4–6, 2–6
  • Choice 2. The chart below incorporates five changes; 1) using flagathlete instead of flagicon, 2) using symbols to designate the tournament type (we would insert these symbols into the key), 3) using only the country name after the tournament to conserve space, 4) using colors for surface field and 5) using the championship color only on the championship field.
Outcome No. Date Championship Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. 13 February 2000 ↑Marseille Open, France Carpet (i)  Marc Rosset (SUI) 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 2. 29 October 2000 ↑Swiss Indoors, Switzerland Carpet (i)  Thomas Enqvist (SWE) 2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner 1. 4 February 2001 ↑Milan Indoor, Italy Carpet (i)  Julien Boutter (FRA) 6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up 3. 25 February 2001 §Rotterdam Open, Netherlands Hard (i)  Nicolas Escudé (FRA) 5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 4. 28 October 2001 ↑Swiss Indoors, Switzerland (2) Carpet (i)  Tim Henman (GBR) 3–6, 4–6, 2–6
  • Choice 3. The chart below incorporates five changes; 1) using flagathlete instead of flagicon, 2) using a new column to designate the tournament type, 3) using only the country name after the tournament to conserve space, 4) using color for surface field and 5) using the championship color on the championship name/type. This takes up more width than our guideline chart but then again since only the country name is used in tournaments it's pretty much a wash.
Outcome No. Date Category Championship Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. 13 February 2000 250 series Marseille Open, France Carpet (i)  Marc Rosset (SUI) 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 2. 29 October 2000 250 series Swiss Indoors, Switzerland Carpet (i)  Thomas Enqvist (SWE) 2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner 1. 4 February 2001 250 series Milan Indoor, Italy Carpet (i)  Julien Boutter (FRA) 6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up 3. 25 February 2001 500 series Rotterdam Open, Netherlands Hard (i)  Nicolas Escudé (FRA) 5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 4. 28 October 2001 250 series Swiss Indoors, Switzerland (2) Carpet (i)  Tim Henman (GBR) 3–6, 4–6, 2–6
  • Choice 4. The chart below incorporates four changes; 1) using a new column to designate the tournament type, 2) using only the country name after the tournament to conserve space, 3) using color for surface field and 4) using the championship color on the championship name/type. This uses our standard version of flagicon (which seems to sort just fine) and has passed muster on other FL attempts. If needed a large collapsible flag key could be inserted on every tennis article to show users the full country name of the flag instead of a country code (which many find just as tough to decipher as the small flag).
Outcome No. Date Category Championship Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. 13 February 2000 250 series Marseille Open, France Carpet (i) Switzerland Marc Rosset 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 2. 29 October 2000 250 series Swiss Indoors, Switzerland Carpet (i) Sweden Thomas Enqvist 2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner 1. 4 February 2001 250 series Milan Indoor, Italy Carpet (i) France Julien Boutter 6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up 3. 25 February 2001 500 series Rotterdam Open, Netherlands Hard (i) France Nicolas Escudé 5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 4. 28 October 2001 250 series Swiss Indoors, Switzerland (2) Carpet (i) United Kingdom Tim Henman 3–6, 4–6, 2–6
  • Choice 5. I also guess we could use a combo of sorts, though it wasn't discussed. This would be the like choice four except the color representing the tournaments would go across the whole row and we'd go back to no court color. So... The chart below incorporates two changes; 1) using a new column to designate the tournament type, 2) using only the country name after the tournament to conserve space. The color across the entire row could be used on any charts above, if preferred.
Outcome No. Date Category Championship Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. 13 February 2000 250 series Marseille Open, France Carpet (i) Switzerland Marc Rosset 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 2. 29 October 2000 250 series Swiss Indoors, Switzerland Carpet (i) Sweden Thomas Enqvist 2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner 1. 4 February 2001 250 series Milan Indoor, Italy Carpet (i) France Julien Boutter 6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up 3. 25 February 2001 500 series Rotterdam Open, Netherlands Hard (i) France Nicolas Escudé 5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 4. 28 October 2001 250 series Swiss Indoors, Switzerland (2) Carpet (i) United Kingdom Tim Henman 3–6, 4–6, 2–6
  • Choice 6. Category section, surface coloring, flagathlete and the old coloring going through.
Outcome No. Date Category Championship Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. 13 February 2000 250 series Marseille Open, France Carpet (i)  Marc Rosset (SUI) 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 2. 29 October 2000 250 series Swiss Indoors, Switzerland Carpet (i)  Thomas Enqvist (SWE) 2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner 1. 4 February 2001 250 series Milan Indoor, Italy Carpet (i)  Julien Boutter (FRA) 6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up 3. 25 February 2001 500 series Rotterdam Open, Netherlands Hard (i)  Nicolas Escudé (FRA) 5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 4. 28 October 2001 250 series Swiss Indoors, Switzerland (2) Carpet (i)  Tim Henman (GBR) 3–6, 4–6, 2–6
  • Choice 7. Two changes, category field and flagathlete.
Outcome No. Date Category Championship Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. 13 February 2000 250 series Marseille Open, France Carpet (i)  Marc Rosset (SUI) 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 2. 29 October 2000 250 series Swiss Indoors, Switzerland Carpet (i)  Thomas Enqvist (SWE) 2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner 1. 4 February 2001 250 series Milan Indoor, Italy Carpet (i)  Julien Boutter (FRA) 6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up 3. 25 February 2001 500 series Rotterdam Open, Netherlands Hard (i)  Nicolas Escudé (FRA) 5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 4. 28 October 2001 250 series Swiss Indoors, Switzerland (2) Carpet (i)  Tim Henman (GBR) 3–6, 4–6, 2–6
  • Choice 8. The chart below incorporates six changes; 1) using flagicon with country code in its own section, 2) using symbols to designate the tournament type (we would insert these symbols into the key), 3) using only the country name after the tournament to conserve space, 4) using colors for surface field and 5) using the championship color only on the championship field.
Outcome No. Date Tournament Surface Country Opponent Score
Winner 1 6 July 2003 †Wimbledon, United Kingdom Grass  AUS Mark Philippoussis 7–6(7–5), 6–2, 7–6(7–3)
Winner 2 1 February 2004 ↕Miami Masters, United States Clay  RUS Marat Safin 7–6(7–3), 6–4, 6–2
Runner-up 1 4 July 2004 ↓Swiss Indoors, Switzerland Carpet (i)  USA Andy Roddick 4–6, 7–5, 7–6(7–3), 6–4
Winner 3 12 September 2004 ↑Rotterdam Open, Netherlands Hard  FRA Nicolas Mahut 6–0, 7–6(7–3), 6–0
  • Choice 9. None of the above or a variation on the above that we haven't thought of. Please be specific so we can best understand what might work better.


I think these are the main issues we are all looking at. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion (on the 9 choices above)

  • Choice 5 - I guess I can go first. I'm flexible on this whole thing but I like the chart we have now. The only major problem is the color for those readers with eye problems. After looking at all the solutions I think it's easier to code and easier for readers to use a separate column for the tournament type. It takes a little more room but getting rid of the city should compensate. I don't care if the tournament color goes all the way across or not, but if it ain't broke why fix it. Same with surface color... we don't need it imho. This is a minimal change approach and if everyone wants the flagathlete it's no real problem for me, I just don't prefer it. I've never felt the country code adds much and one day someone is bound to say we need it on draws as well. I guess we could give two choices in the guidelines of the original and an FL quality chart, but if all we do is this extra column and country only, it shouldn't be that hard to fix as we go along. This will help the colorblind and blind with screen readers, yet not be a big burden to editors in making new charts. We would need to do the same with the ladies chart but they use different designations than 1000, 500 or 250. Those are also very new terms so older charts may not be applicable to this column change. Those are my thoughts at this hour. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Choice 2, 3, 6 or 7 They all sort because I've used "|data-sort-value="Enqvist, T"|" (or any other name)... --TIAYN (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone experiment and do a table with all the changes but with a separate opponents nationality column using the flag template so that one can sort by nationality and have that as choice 8. 92.18.30.191 (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Like Choice 8? (or do you mean like that, just without the country codes?) --TIAYN (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Choice 1 or 5 – I still think the existing format works best and it should be kept that way but I would settle for option 5, purely because of the colour blind issue. I agree with Fyunck(click) on surface colour, it's not required. A suggestion for the new category column: we should probably merge those cells together to reduce redundancy and only link to that category once. I've included a table below to show what I mean. JayJ47 (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Choice 1, 5 or 7 I think our existing setup (choice 1) is pretty good but we should always be open to further improvements. Of the options given my preference is for choice 5 or 7. A) As others I also believe we do not need to add a color to the Surface field. Seems that lately some tables in tennis articles are going overboard on color usage to the detriment of readability. Sometimes less is more. B) I support the use of a separate field to designate the tournament type. It's more intuitive than using symbols to indicate the tournament type (the up and down arrows are particularly confusing) and doesn't take up too much space. We should test it with previous tournament classification schemes to make sure it works for those as well. C) I'm in favor of the suggestion to rename the 'Outcome' field to 'Result' and to make the 'No.' field non-sortable to save a bit of space and make more room for other fields such as 'Championship'. D) Ideally the 'Championship' field should contain tournament name, city and country, as per current guidelines, but that probably takes up too much space and in that case tournament name, country is clearly a better option than city, country. Many tournament names already display the city so if a field needs to be dropped it's logical to drop the city field. E) I'm still struggling a bit with the flagicon issue. It doesn't seem to be an absolute policy requirement to add the country name / code to all flagicons (just first usage of a flagicon). But per MOS:FLAG there are accessibility issues involved with using only flagicons and for that reason, and to avoid endless future discussions on this issue, I'm leaning towards supporting the use of flagathlete instead of flagicon (choice 7). Perhaps this is the right time to make that change. And while on the subject we should also figure out a way to address the MOS:FLAG requirement: Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise. --Wolbo (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    A couple things though. In looking up screen readers they seem to handle "flagicon" just fine. They read out the country code per the flag icon template. We also have a flag template help file that isn't too happy about the country codes either. While USA is known by many often that is not the case as with BDI. Perhaps it would be best to simply have something at the start of a chart that says: Flag icon key: National Flags. There we get the country code, the full country name and flags.. that's more than we get now. We don't have to change every article's coding, just add the key. Unless someone wants to take that same info and turn it into a separate template. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I concurre with Wolbo here. The sortability of the "No." section should be removed since its not needed (it sorts the same way in the date section as in the No. section, therefore two sections which sorts exactly the same way is not needed). I agree with Wolbo. --TIAYN (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Doubles tables
Outcome No. Date Category Championship Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 1. 13 February 2000 250 series Marseille Open, France Carpet (i) Switzerland Marc Rosset 6–2, 3–6, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 2. 29 October 2000 Swiss Indoors, Switzerland Carpet (i) Sweden Thomas Enqvist 2–6, 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–1, 1–6
Winner 1. 4 February 2001 Milan Indoor, Italy Carpet (i) France Julien Boutter 6–4, 6–7(7–9), 6–4
Runner-up 3. 25 February 2001 500 series Rotterdam Open, Netherlands Hard (i) France Nicolas Escudé 5–7, 6–3, 6–7(5–7)
Runner-up 4. 28 October 2001 250 series Swiss Indoors, Switzerland (2) Carpet (i) United Kingdom Tim Henman 3–6, 4–6, 2–6
Choice 5, or any thing with "category", doesn't work for double tables (they become a mess); --TIAYN (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Result No. Date Category Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score
Winner 3 6 May 2007 250 series Bavarian International Tennis Championships, Germany Clay  GER Philipp Kohlschreiber  Jan Hájek (tennis) (CZE)
 Jaroslav Levinský (CZE) 		6–1, 6–4
Runner-up 3 24 February 2008 500 series Rotterdam Open, Netherlands Clay  GER Philipp Kohlschreiber  Tomáš Berdych (CZE)
 Dmitry Tursunov (RUS) 		5–7, 6–3, [7–10]
Winner 5 5 October 2008 500 series Japan Open Tennis Championships, Japan Hard  GER Mischa Zverev  Lukáš Dlouhý (CZE)
 Leander Paes (IND) 		6–3, 6–4

so it's looking like chart 5, which for doubles would work somewhat like this:

Outcome No. Date Category Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score
Winner 3. 6 May 2007 250 series Bavarian International, Germany Clay Germany Philipp Kohlschreiber Czech RepublicJan Hájek
Czech RepublicJaroslav Levinský 		6–1, 6–4
Runner-up 3. 24 February 2008 500 series Rotterdam Open, Netherlands Clay Germany Philipp Kohlschreiber Czech RepublicTomáš Berdych
RussiaDmitry Tursunov 		5–7, 6–3, [7–10]
Winner 5. 5 October 2008 500 series Japan Open, Japan Hard Germany Mischa Zverev Czech RepublicLukáš Dlouhý
IndiaLeander Paes 		6–3, 6–4

I see no problems with this simple solution. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I support the change to option 5. Just a suggestion, I've noticed on the Roger Federer career statistics page that the tables for his grand slam and masters 1000 finals have been removed. I am proposing that we restore them because I think it would be beneficial for readers who just want to look at how many "significant finals" a player has made in their career. It would save readers the trouble of having to count how many major finals a player has reached, one by one in their career finals table and I think that the status of grand slam and masters 1000 tournaments are strong enough to warrant extra tables for them. JayJ47 (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I do somewhat agree. However 1) total majors won could be given above the table 2) the totals are given in the opening infobox table to the right, 3) the tournament sorting does put them all together (though it's sad not to see the different colors for the different majors). Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Even so, I strongly believe that majors and masters should have separate tables, and I am confident that a lot of other editors would agree with me. JayJ47 (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Well there is no rule against it (nor likely to be) so it's an article by article decision. Whatever is decided on the career chart format has no bearing on whether we add extra charts to particular players. That will simply be consensus on the article talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason to duplicate information, secondly, the only thing a user has to do is to press sortability button in the table and the tables get sorted after category; 250, 500, 1000 etc.. Show me a good list which duplicates information... No reason, the tables are sortable (and this is the reason for using sortability in the first place). So if a user wants to find out how many Masters 1000 Federer won he only needs to press the sort button and it gets sorted. --TIAYN (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
As he pointed out though... no one wants to count up how many, and when you have a separate chart you also have a separate total. That separate total is very handy to see. So as I said we could also put the total of Majors won above the chart. Those are more important than everything else in that chart combined. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thats were the lead comes in, Federer has reached 21 Grand Slam finals, won 17 of them, reached $ Masters 1000 finals, ..... You can't duplicate information, and yes, they should have to count. If not, then the tables should be separate (for all of the categories). Secondly, this is why we have this table, isn't it? Or should we just stop using it? --TIAYN (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
One thing you keep saying that I don't believe exists at wikipedia... "You can't duplicate information." That is only your opinion, not fact by any stretch of imagination. If you can produce a policy that says that, then fine. If you can't, then please stop saying it as if it is policy. There are plenty of times the info will be included in multiple charts and paragraphs. Plus in the incorrect chart now sitting at Feds career stats, you have above the chart the words: "Singles: 113 (77 titles, 36 runners-up)." Well guess what... that duplicates what's in the infobox also. Why, because it's pertinent to the chart as is the Major totals we are talking about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't even get you're point here, we can summaries the Roger Federer career statistics, as have been done in the tables below.. But summarising is something entirely different then duplicating. Thirdly, what is so "incorrect" with the current RF table? --TIAYN (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
As they stand now, those charts are against consensus guidelines. We may be attempting to change those guidelines but you are putting the cart before the horse. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Another thing that is becoming a glaring problem. You keep making tweaks to the article (such as result over outcome), when those very premature charts are about to be eliminated and changed into something different. No one agrees with the way they are now so adding tweaks that will be deleted don't help the situation at all. They should NEVER have been left with any of those edits in the first place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, If you remember, we had a discussion (which lasted a week, for or against that table layout)... Few responded, those who did had nothing against it. So no, you're wrong. --TIAYN (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Career finals
Modality Type Won Lost Total WR1
Singles Grand Slam tournaments 17 7 24 0.71
Year-End Championships 6 2 8 0.75
ATP Masters 10002 21 13 34 0.62
Summer Olympics 0 1 1 0.00
ATP Tour 500 12 6 18 0.67
ATP Tour 250 21 7 28 0.75
Total 77 36 113 0.68
Doubles Grand Slam tournaments – – – –
Year-End Championships – – – –
ATP Masters 10002 1 2 3 0.33
Summer Olympics 1 0 1 1.00
ATP Tour 500 3 1 4 0.75
ATP Tour 250 3 2 5 0.60
Total 8 5 13 0.62
Total 85 41 126 0.67
1) WR=winning rate
2) *formerly known as "Super 9" (1996–1999), "Tennis Masters Series" (2000–2003) or "ATP Masters Series" (2004–2008).
Or we can use this one;
Legend
Grand Slam tournaments (13–5)
Year-End Championships (0–1)
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 (26–11)
Olympics (1–0)
ATP World Tour 500 Series (14–3)
ATP World Tour 250 Series (6–4)

--TIAYN (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Or like this; --TIAYN (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Key to Grand Slam–ATP World Tour finals
† Grand Slam event (13–5)
‡ ATP Tour final event (13–5)
↕ ATP World Tour Masters 1000 event (13–5)
↑ ATP World Tour 500 series event (13–5)
↓ ATP World Tour 250 series event (13–5)
§ Summer Olympics event (13–5)
Summary tables

If people want the information to be summarized, I think this is the best solution (borrowed from WP:Soccer, or WP:Football, I don't know the name of the project): Even so, it summarizes player result on a year to year basis. --TIAYN (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Year 250 series 500 series Masters 1000 Tour Finals Grand Slam Olympics Total
Finals Titles Finals Titles Finals Titles Finals Titles Finals Titles Finals Titles Finals Titles
2004 7 1 1 0 1 0 — — — 9 1
2005 17 6 2 1 6 1 — — — 25 8
2006 26 14 2 2 5 1 2 0 1 0 — 36 17
2007 28 10 3 0 9 6 — — — 40 16
2008 31 23 8 6 12 9 — — — 51 38
2009 35 34 3 1 11 8 1 2 1 0 2 2 53 47
2010 33 31 7 7 13 12 2 3 — — 55 53
2011 37 50 7 3 11 14 2 3 1 1 2 2 60 73
2012 32 46 5 4 11 8 2 2 — — 50 60
2013 9 8 0 0 2 4 2 0 — — 13 12
Total 255 223 38 24 81 63 11 10 3 1 4 4 392 325
Having separate tables for the grand slams, masters and tour finals is warranted because they're the biggest tournaments in the sport, so a lot of readers will only be interested in looking at these results. Sure you could write how many major finals a player has been in by placing this in the header but what about the masters and tour finals and what about the score? What if a reader is just interested in seeing the scores in a player's grand slam finals? How on earth would you convey this information in the header or by summarising it into a table? Thats why the majors, masters 1000s and tour finals should have their own tables. Plus, the only person at the moment who seems to have a problem with this is you. Therefore, it looks like the general concencus is that they should be kept. JayJ47 (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The only thing they need to do then is to press the sort button; it get sorted grand slam, tour finals, masters etc....have you ever tried to actual use the sort button? Its like you guys don't listen.... I mean honest to god, why do you think they have table sortability in the first place? --TIAYN (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thats not the point. The point is its just better to have a separate table for the majors, masters and tour finals. They're major tournaments and should have their own tables. Thats how its always been and how it always should be. JayJ47 (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Just because its stayed that way doesn't mean its good, its obviously an extremely bad solutions, Its a reason only WP:TENNIS duplicates table info, in the soccer they don't (and if we do it, they should do it, since its more prestigious tournamentes there than here), baseball doesn't, basketball doesn't, handball doesn't, ice hockey doesn't... This is just extremely bad policy making, and little rational thinking... Per Wikipedia:WikiProject "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." The guidelines sections which exists at this WikiProject should be deleted. Let's move this discussion to the talk page of the Roger Federer career statistics article... This discussion is, well, impossible to understand, really. For instance, when you write a book, you don't duplicate passages, or when you compile statistics, you don't suddenly compile the same statistics .. It doesn't work that way. --TIAYN (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thoughts on implementation

Maybe all these things are issues too difficult to do at once. Let's at least do what we can mostly agree on, and in the coming days/weeks we may agree/get convinced to do others. In the guidelines lets add a sortable "category" using Grand Slam, Tour finals (which will works for both ATP and WCT tour finals), Masters, 500 series, 250 series and Olympics. Using one for each and every line as I'm not fond of the multi-row coverage. I would also agree with "Result" instead of "Outcome" and to unsort the No. field. That's it unless a minor adjustment to the key has to be made to show these changes. Use the exact same formatting we already use but simply add those changes. Nothing else. At least future article creators will see and (hopefully) adhere to a guideline that works for the blind and wikiMOS. Then we can sit here and continue to argue about flagicon, flagicon with a key link, flagathlete, extra charts, top 20 vs top 10, the fact that extra coding adds a lot more size and loading problems for lesser computers, etc. Can we do this? I'd add it this weekend to the men's guidelines but I don't want to rock the boat anymore than I have to. Maybe this is all we wind up doing after arguing for another few weeks, but at least it's something. Wolbo, TIAYN, Jay, Jared, etc...? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --TIAYN (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. JayJ47 (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Fyunck, I had the exact same thought, let's move forward and implement what we largely agree on which is best represented by choice 5. Specifically (1) Outcome > Result, (2) No. unsorted, (3) Add Category field and (4) Tournament name, country to be used in the Championship field. Would be good to test the Category field before implementation; to prevent the field from taking up too much space we probably need to abbreviate some categories such as "Year-End Championships", "International Series Gold" and "ATP Championship Series, Single Week". With those updates out of the way it should be easier to focus on the remaining issues. I'm increasingly convinced we need to address the flagicon issue but think we need further discussion and exploration of alternatives. --Wolbo (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
See User:Trust Is All You Need/Tennis, the new model is there (just fix it as you please guys....) --TIAYN (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I noticed one thing that we took for granted. In our original consensus chart there is No number column at all. For some reason I assumed our queries were whether it should be sortable or not, when the query first should have been "do we need it or not." Since we did not discuss that I did not include it. My thoughts unless convinced otherwise is that we don't need it at all. So here is the sandboxed version of the new chart as it would appear in our guidelines. Outcome>Result, also Championship>Tournament, added a category, added Olympics to key, country name only. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
You are correct that the article guidelines table doesn't have a "No." column but most articles on the better known players do and I'm strongly in favor of following this practice and adding the column to the guidelines table. It is a pertinent piece of information for our readers and I see no downside to having it as it takes up so little space.--Wolbo (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I honestly can't understand why you oppose the "No." fields (which gives the readers a chance on how many tournaments he won - true they can count, but...), but you support duplicating material because its easier... --TIAYN (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Right above the table is the win loss record ---Singles: 113 (77 titles, 36 runners-up)---so it's duplication within the same section. It doesn't seem necessary to know which championship was number 26 and which runner-up was number 14. That seems like overkill to me especially since no one cares what the runner-up number is. But the main thing is it wasn't really discussed, only whether it would be sortable. But for the record I'll say this... I won't be the one holding it up. If Jay or Jarred agree with you two that it should be added to the guidelines (and hence to all career stats tables), I'll stand aside and put the completed table with number column in the guidelines. I'll still think it's a silly column though, but there are lots of things about wikipedia that are silly and I don't agree with. I learn live with it and save my energy for bigger things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you Fyunck(click), remove the "No." column (it just takes extra space). --TIAYN (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
LOL... ok so maybe this one needs to be added to the list of things we need to discuss in more detail, many of which with the right argument may sway someone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm with Wolbo on this one. I vote in favour of keeping the "No." column for the same reasons that Wolbo mentioned. JayJ47 (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Country -- input would be helpful

"US" or " United States"? I used the second format, but have been reverted. Discussion is here, and input there by those close to this would be helpful. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Pre human-rights era notability

I was editing the ATA championships @ 1931 in tennis and came upon a dilemma about WP:TENNIS/N and the segregated class of people of the times. As Notability goes:

  1. Are a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, either in the contributor or player category
  2. Have competed in one of the international team competitions: Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or World Team Cup
  3. Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments:

#:*Men: ATP World Tour tournaments (the ATP World Tour Finals, ATP World Tour Masters 1000, ATP World Tour 500, or ATP World Tour 250)

  2. Have won at least one title in any of the ATP Challenger tournaments
  3. Have won at least one title in any of the 2008–2012 ITF Women's $35,000–$100,000+ tournaments. From 1978–2007 the notability threshold shall be winning a $25,000 tournament based on the lowest payout for a men's challenger tournament in the same year.
  4. Hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA

The criteria in small letters doesn't eligible for the era. Now what the problem is that the US African-American players couldn't enter the US Open nor could they compete in the Davis Cup. The could have travelled to Wimbledon though but the nomination process was through the USTLA, which wouldn't have nominated them at all. Same is true for any tennis event that is being considered notable by our standards. Same goes for e.g. jews for the pre WWII Germany (so it's not only a US-related issue). Only chance for them to become acknowledged by Wikipedia is the International Tennis Hall of Fame. Shouldn't we somewhat fix this biased racial discrimination here in 2013 and set a new bar, which would assure these players are not overlooked? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

To start with a proposal/idea what about extending the guideline to the ATA Championships winners as well? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 13:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It's a good idea however I have some concerns. Wikipedia uses sources so we would need sourcing for these players which might be really hard to get other than a hall of fame. I didn't see a list of former champions on the ATA website. Also, when would we stop it? The ATA is not noteworthy today at all. So would we cover it from 1917 to 1950, after which blacks were allowed to participate and given automatic wild cards into the US Open? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't sound as unreasnonable as it might at first glimpse. I would agree to such an "end-date". The Black Tennis Hall Museum Facebook page has some valuable info though (e.g. former champions like this one). And what about the European jews situation? I was thinking on widening the Hall of Fame criterion to the Internation Jewish Hall of Fame to have something to begin with. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Should photos of grand slam trophy be added in info box of players?

I am wondering if it is possible to add photos of grand slam trophy on the info boxes of grand slam champions in singles like adding a svg photo of Olympics medal when a player wins a medal. The following are the location of the pictures. Ilovew24 (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is absolut unnecessary and unencyclopedic. It would make the infobox more like a badge-collection than an actual information box. Image what would a page like Roger Federer's look like after that. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Lajbi, this would not be an improvement.--Wolbo (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Also agree with Lajbi... no improvement. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Lajbi.Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Gardnar Mulloy

I realize this page is to discuss WikiProject Tennis topics but it's not every day we can welcome a tennis Hall of Fame centenarian. Five-time Grand Slam doubles winner Gardnar Mulloy turns 100 today. Wrote an interesting book on his career titled "As It Was" a few years back. Nice tribute on the ATP site. Congrats!--Wolbo (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Nice indeed. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 13:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

French Pro Championship contradictions

There seems to be some confusion regarding the date and champion of the first French Pro within and outside the article. While it claims it all started in 1930 in the same sentence it dates back to even 1927:

"In 1930 the Association Française des Professeurs de Tennis (AFPT) held its first pro tournament, titled Championnat International de France Professionnel (French Pro Championships) June 18–22, 1930, and is considered as a part of the professional grand slam from 1927 to 1967 till the advent of Open Era."

Furthermore the USTA article and Tennis hall of fame claim that Karel Kozeluh held the title undefeated from 1925 to 1930. Also it claims he was the champ again in 1932 while Wikipedia enlist Robert Ramillon as the winner. This statement is spread through various other pages such as Robert Ramillon, French Pro Championship draws, and Martin Plaa. It looks like we have a long-running mistake here. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 20:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really a mistake. Things are a bit jumbled when it comes to the pros way back in the 20s and 30s. The Roland Garros French Pro started in 1930 just as the article says. However The "Bristol Cup" was at times also called the "Professional Championships of France." There was overlap between these tournaments. Karel Kozeluh won the French Pro once... in 1930. He won the Bristol Cup in 1926, 1928-1932. So depending on what source you use Kozelah won two French Championships in 1930. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right we would need sources to verify this. These articles are highly in lack of references. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Irish Championships

There is a proposal to add the Irish Championships as a separate tournament to the Infobox tennis biography template. This would be in addition to current tournaments such as the Grand Slams and the WHCC/WCCC. Proposal and discussion can be found at Template talk:Infobox tennis biography#Irish Championships.--Wolbo (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Uncollapse tour navboxes

The current navbox at {{2013 WTA Tour}} (similar for {{2013 ATP World Tour}} and other years) uses collapsible groups although 4 of the 6 groups are a single line (3 of 5 for ATP), and the last 2 aren't that big. I'm constantly clicking show when using these navboxes. In articles they start collapsed so you have to click show just to get to the next show links. I suggest replacing the design by {{2013 WTA Tour/sandbox}} which seems quite manageable in size with all events visible. The displayed name of tournament categories is shortened to make the left column more narrow. The two year-end championships are moved to a group with the same yellow background as in 2013 WTA Tour#Schedule (ATP only has one year-end). PrimeHunter (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to do such a major revamp to fix that. Just take out the autocollapse parameter from the wikitable so it won't start as collapsed when you open an article. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 15:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the main template should be collapsed when you open an article. It's the collapsible subgroups I dislike. If they start out uncollapsed as in {{2013 WTA Tour/sandbox2}} then very few readers will probably use any of the hide links once the main template is shown, and the tournament category headings make the template significantly larger than the suggested {{2013 WTA Tour/sandbox}}. Another unfortunate detail is that the "WTA International tournaments" heading with white background looks like a part of the green "WTA Premier tournaments". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Bot updates of ranking navboxes

I have posted a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 58#Tennis ranking navboxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

San Diego sports curse

has been nominated for deletion. Come on over and participate in the discussion....William 15:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Current Men's Doubles Team ATP Rankings

I've nominated this for deletion, please comment here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 13. Other than a bot edit last year, the page has not been used since August 2012. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Radmilo Armenulić

The article Radmilo Armenulić includes the following sentence: He was the coach of the province Niderzahsen. I assume Niedersachsen is meant. But I have never heard of a German state tennis coach. sr:Нидерзахсен is a redlink so I can't deduce anything from there. Any ideas? Agathoclea (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that he is not notable by our standards. Same issue as Oscar Wegner. The article is an obvious self-promotion. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The recent AFD decided otherwise. Agathoclea (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
None of us regular editors here voted. Nominator missed to inform the related Wikiprojects. Only the opening page has it in the new articles section and the wikipedia alerts as closed yesterday (which I don't check on a daily basis). Those who voted for it forget the fact that self-promotions should be deleted by default. If any objective, neutral editor feels to recreate it later nothing will stop him/her from doing so. But back to the problem, if you are unfamiliar with the subject and unsure about its content it's better to leave it as it is. Or label the article with some cleun-up wikitags. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I am familiar enaugh with the case of the the de-sysoped admin who thought that articles of notable subjects have to be deleted to punish the subject for selfpromotion rather than just making the article NPOV. Agathoclea (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Why isn't this on Talk:Radmilo Armenulić? There's hardly anything generic about this question... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
One would have assumed that WP:TENNIS would have the insight in how tennis is organised on state-level and point me in the right direction. Agathoclea (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
He was one of those "funky" keeps at the discussion. I did see it in time but looked at the points raised. Davis Cup players are automatically notable and here we had a coach for 17 years. I made the assumption that as coach he would have been quoted many times in major Yugoslav/Serbian news sources as one poster mentioned. Another also said that 17 years was a record for a Serbian Davis Cup coach. I saw that and thought this guy was probably generally notable outside of our standard tennis project rules so I let it go and said nothing. As far as State run, here in the USA we have the USTA (United States Tennis Association) as our governing body, while Germany uses the DTB (Deutscher Tennis Bund). How Germany breaks it further down into provinces I have no idea, especially during the time of East and West Germany (or soon thereafter) since his playing career was over around 1970. I don't read German but more info may be able to be found at the official DTB website. I hope that helps a little Agathoclea. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea how tennis is run at state-level in Germany, but Lower Saxony (German: Niedersachsen) does have a local tennis federation (German: Niedersächsischer Tennisverband) → http://www.ntv-tennis.de/ but there doesn't appear to be one single coach responsible for players at this level. It wouldn't make sense either, having this sort of (high-)responsibility at such a regional level. Such a statement as about the person in question has obviously been lost in translation. Jared Preston (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Archive_13&oldid=1255527085"