Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Runner-ups vs. runners-up

As you may have noticed Sphilbrick has started an update action to change the widely used spelling of 'runner-ups' to 'runners-up'. We had standardized on the usage of the spelling form 'runner-ups' within the tennis project but Sphilbrick presents a number of credible sources which state that the correct plural form is in fact 'runners-up' (link, link, link). I vaguely recall from memory that there were prior discussions on the proper use of the plural term within the tennis project around 2012–2013 but could only find a a brief discussion from 2008. This is a large scale update action affecting thousands of player articles. --Wolbo (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If anyone has any issues, please bring them to my attention. I am trying to proceed carefully, but with thousands to do, it is almost inevitable I will miss something. Let me know and I will fix it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I endorse the use of "runners-up". It's correct standard English based on the sources shown above, and the covention that the key noun, not the other qualifying terms, are pluralized (i.e., attorneys general, fathers-in-law, runs-batted-in). In this case "runner" in its generic form for "competitor" is the noun, with "up" being a qualifying preposition indicating position. oknazevad (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Runners-up is indeed the only correct spelling. Tvx1 17:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Runners-up, sisters-in-law, attorneys general, passers-by, etc etc! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Although, 'runner-ups' is just about plausible as a synonym for second places eg "Andy Murray has achieved four runner-ups at the Australian Open". However, that's not a very good sentence! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I realized shortly after my previous reply that spelling depends on what you are referring to. If you refer to a group of people all having achieved the runner up position at a certain tournament, you use runner-up. For instance; Federer, Nishikori and Djokovic were the runners-up of the last three US Opens. However, if you refer to one and the same person achieving the position multiple times, you use runner-ups. For instance, Djokovic achieved four tournament wins and three runner-ups during that season. Tvx1 16:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

From what I was taught and what I have read, in hyphenated words such as runner-up, the verb/adverb/preposition is not pluralized... it is always the noun. So Djokovic achieved four tournament wins and three runners-up during the season. The only time a verb is pluralized is when it takes a combination of them to form a noun. Examples: sit-up and push-up, become sit-ups and push-ups. What's funny is in the future, if runner-up ever becomes simply runnerup (as hyphens have a way of disappearing) then it would be runnerups. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And just how is "up" a verb??? Tvx1 22:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

corrected. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The latter sentence should be reworded to avoid the non-standard term. Just say "second-place finishes". "Runner-ups" should be avoided as poor, no standard English. oknazevad (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Second place finish is a term that is rarely used in Tennis, though. If you reword such a sentence that refers to tennis, it's better to write "and he reached another three finals". Tvx1 18:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Or we could just use plain English and call a spade a spade and a second place finish as a second place finish. Whatever reasons the brass at the governing bodies of tennis have for not using the term, we are not beholden to them. oknazevad (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at The plural of runner-up after @Courcelles: made the intriguing suggestion that it depend on whether it is the plural of people, or the plural of events for one person. (I believe that is the same point as made by @Tvx1:.) Arguably it is early, but quite a number of editors have weighed in. There is no support for universal use of “runner-ups” and despite the support of two editors, there is very little support for “runner-ups” even in the limited case of multiple finishes for a single person. There is slightly broader support for the notion that multiple events for a single person should be written differently than multiple second place finishers. Not seeing consensus, I plan to proceed as follows:

• Replace “runner-ups” with “runners-up” (and “Runner-ups” with “Runners-up” and “Runner-Ups” with “Runners-up” and “Runner ups” with “Runners-up”).
• Let this wikiproject consider the best way to characterize the situation where a single person has multiple second place finishes. (I have seen several suggestions, none of which seemed clearly satisfactory.) If a consensus is reached, I will try to help implement it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I actually find this topic quite strange. I have been changing runner-ups to runners-up for years at all tennis related articles. I think many of us have in fact and it's been a done deal for quite some time in my mind. I'm surprised there's all that many articles left (unless they don't get updated very often). Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your response may help resolve one niggling point that bothered me. Someone, I forget who, suggested that the number of affected articles was in the thousands. My research identified 2003, a lot but not quite what i would call "thousand". My current guess ifs that there are thousands of tennis article with something about second place finishes, but most have already been either fixed, or were correct to start with. I note that a search in article space of "tennis yields 69K hits.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

When I and others started correcting them, most were at runner-ups or Runner-ups. I don't search for them anymore, but when I come across one I fix it. Just like correcting World No. 1 to world No. 1, (or no. 1, #1) to No. 1. I fix 'em when I see 'em. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Save that, contrary to the No.1, not all of them need fixing. Stating that Federer achieved 10 "runners-up" at Grand Slam tournaments, which we currently do, is plainly wrong. 22:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well it certainly isn't the first time (nor last), but per Princeton University and the University of Purdue, I am wrong. As I posted at our MoS, when used in tallying the number of second place finishes, runner-ups is preferred. I suppose Wikipedia can choose to use any style of grammar or spelling it wants by consensus, and I haven't heard back from Chicago or AP Manual of Style, but unless I hear otherwise I am forced to change my preference to runner-ups when used as a tallying of (5 titles, 3 runner-ups). Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  And now the staff at the Chicago Manual of Style have also agreed that runner-ups is correct when used in tallying. So my name was mud in thinking otherwise. Sorry. Certainly no more articles should be changed to runners-up as editor Sphilbrick had been doing (and as I did in the past). Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Another non-notable player?

Is player Yuuki Tanaka notable? Everyone always thinks they have the one exception to the rule. Maybe this one is, but I don't really see her as an exceptional player at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

March 22nd 2016

I found some interesting info browsing through Wikidata. I cut & pasted the information as I think there might be 1 or 2 tournaments affected. The pasted info is quotations.

"This is early notice for everyone, and a request to share the news:

The Ops team is planning a major change to the servers, (very) tenatively scheduled for Tuesday, 22 March 2016. One probable result is that when this happens, all wikis will be in read-only mode for a short time, likely less than 15 minutes for all editors. You will be able to read pages, but not edit them. "All wikis" means all of the WMF wikis, including Wikidata, Meta, Commons, the Wikipedias, and all the sister projects. It may affect some related sites, such as mw:Wikimedia Labs (including the Tool Labs). There will also be no non-emergency updates to MediaWiki software around that time.

Many details are still being sorted out. I am asking you to please share the word with your friends and fellow contributors now. This will be mentioned in m:Tech/News (subscribe now! ;-) and through all the other usual channels for Ops, but 99% of contributors don't follow those pages. If you are active in other projects or speak other languages, then please share the news with your fellow contributors at other projects, so that whenever it happens, most people will know that everything should be back online in 10 or 15 minutes.

Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)"

Perfectamundo (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the criteria for splitting off a Player_Name_Career_Statistics article? (Or deleting one which has been created?)

In doing some cleanup, I came across Mona Barthel career statistics which is marked with several issues. I noticed that nearly the entire content of that article is duplicated within Mona Barthel.

• The only unique content in Mona Barthel career statistics is the "Top 10 wins per season"
• Otherwise, the main article tables are more up-to-date.

It seems clear to me that either:

• Mona Barthel career statistics should be updated, and the statistics tables should be removed from Mona Barthel, or
• The Mona Barthel career statistics should be deleted, with the "top 10 wins" content moved to the main article.

But which should it be? Our tennis project guidelines say that player career statistics articles are "created when a player's main article gets too large, per wikipedia standards." The main article doesn't seem too large to me right now. Saskoiler (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You sir are 100% correct. When an article gets too big to comfortably navigate we break off the career stats page. If it's not too big it's better to keep it all in one article so as to better keep track of edits. It will be edited more if it's all together. IMHO, as it stands now, there is no reason at all to keep the stats article and it should be redirected to the main article (with the addition of the top 10 wins). That's how it should be, but often editors disregard protocol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. I have acted on the suggestion by migrating the "top 10 wins" to the main article (Mona Barthel), and making the career statistics article redirect to it. I've also added a note to Talk:Mona Barthel. Saskoiler (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox tennis tournament

I propose to add an "Editions" field to the {{Infobox tennis tournament}} to indicate how many times a certain tournament has been held. Primarily for defunct tournaments such as the Dutch Open (defunct tournaments now use the same template as the current tournaments). It can be used for current tournaments as well if there is the editorial discipline to update if every year (same applies to e.g. the prize money field). Most logical place would be between the "Abolished" and "Location" fields. Any objections to adding this field? --Wolbo (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Added the field per WP:BOLD, see Virginia Slims of Dallas.--Wolbo (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Good addition in my opinion. The only concern is have is if a venue once held a tournament, but it ended after a run of a few years, only for a new tournament to start up in the same place after a break of some years. Those should not be counted as the same tournament. I don't think that's currently a problem, but E seen it in a few places where current tournaments are confused with defunct ones in the same city. oknazevad (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable? Nadejda Vassileva

Nadejda Vassileva appears to fail notability tests. She's never played Fed Cup or in any WTA event. She doesn't appear to have won a title at any level, and only played a handful of matches above $10,000 ITF level.

Revision history for the article gives a hint that it was nominated for deletion in the past, but I honestly can't follow the log, and don't understand why the article wasn't deleted? (Or why it was deleted and then brought back?)

(She also appears to have been confused with a winter olympian, based on "what links here".)

Am I missing something?

Saskoiler (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it got brought back for some reason. She looks like a nobody to me so I prod'd it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Saskoiler (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable? Silvia Albano with 1 WTA main draw match (as a wildcard)

Silvia Albano appears to fail notability tests, except for the fact that she played a single WTA main draw match (2011 Internazionali Femminili di Palermo – Singles), a tournament she entered as a wildcard, and lost 6-1, 6-0.

Is that enough to qualify for an article? Aside from that, she hasn't won any titles, and seems to have played exclusively at the 10K level. No Fed Cup. She hasn't played a match since January 2013, re: http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/wplayer.cgi?p=SilviaAlbano&f=ACareerqq

Saskoiler (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It's what we use as a baseline for notability... a WTA/ATP main draw appearance no matter how they got there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I'll keep that in mind. Saskoiler (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

New tennis stats website?

I'm not sure if this is new or I had just missed it, but The Tennis Base is an interesting site for stats... especially for old players/events of the past. The problem I see is that it lists no sources for any of its records (like Bill Tilden's for example). It uses match numbers from pro tours rather than just tournaments, it has it's own criteria of event worthiness with some obscure A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H rankings, it has column headings that i have no idea what they mean, etc... But it has a lot of interesting numbers (if they are accurate). Does anyone know what this site is all about? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The lack of obvious sources is troubling to me. How do we know that at least some of it isn't just made up. The "worthiness" rankings do indicate that somethings at least are made up, so I don't think it passes muster on the reliability scale. oknazevad (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, we now have an editor erasing Bill Tildens Hall of Fame stats in favor of this website's info at All-time tennis records – men's singles. I asked him to bring it to the article talk page (so I brought it there instead) but he's new and seems to ignore me. I just worry about the numbers especially since some of the results are exhibition-match-play instead of actual tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if we disregard the discussion about the validity of this source, in general many of our statistics articles, including All-time tennis records – men's singles have major sourcing issues. It is too often unclear what the source is for a large amount of the data, particularly relating to the pre-ATP or pre-open era.--Wolbo (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

True. However, as the article says, most results are taken from the ATP website. When we deviate from that we should add the source we got it from, or at least list why the ATP site is wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Stumbled upon the site a week ago. Too soon yet to determine if it is a reliable source. It has an appealing and fairly professional look&feel but that can be misleading. As mentioned the biggest issue is that it is not clear who is behind the website, what kind of expertise they have and, particularly, what sources they use and what type of editorial process is in place to ensure the published information is accurate. Until that is established, or alternatively its authoritativeness can be derived from mentions in other reliable sources, it should not be used as a (single) source.--Wolbo (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Wolbo, that I had a conversation and disagreement with Fyunck and I have sent to the site The Tenins Base(https://www.thetennisbase.com//?enlace=records&id=KGLOMGFAMQ). The Base Tennis certainly has the largest database in one place, which can be viewed from hundreds of angles. Of course, we are all here to this information, we can check and indicate their accuracy. For a long time I follow this site and I can say that it is quite reliable. Must be more reliable than a newspaper article that the way negates the fact to whom and calls Fyunck. I normally do not have the habit of frequently correcting the data here (Wikipedia) except when I see a pronouncedly inconsistency. Greeting Mihailo Dzevrije Mihailo Dzevrije (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Mihailo Dzevrije, had a look at some of the data at thetennisbase.com and must say it looks pretty good. Specifically checked the career stats on Anthony Wilding and compared them with Anthony Wilding career statistics because I'm familiar with the info. It was pretty much on par and of a high level even if it wasn't perfect (they did not catch that 'Hartmann' is a pseudonym for Kurt von Wessely). It appears the website is originally Spanish and the English on their website is a rather substandard but that should not matter if the information is reliable. Seems Vilas and Kodes write blog articles for the website which is impressive and sets it apart from a personal website created by a regular tennis enthusiast. Still your statement that the website "Must be more reliable than a newspaper article" is too absolute. We have to judge sources on a case-by-case basis, sometimes a website (this website) may be the most reliable source, in other cases it may be a book or a newspaper. The best way is to take multiple sources into account and make a judgement based on that. If this website can explain their sources and its editorial process I can certainly see this becoming another reliable source for our tennis articles. --Wolbo (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

  Hello Wolbo,

My statement refers to a certain newspaper article ( http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/714 ) can not possibly be the source of her career (1912 - 1951) Bill Tilden, but only, quote "As an amateur (1912-30)" But this is only half of his career and can not be a fact of All-time tennis records.This is a good news article or the data from it improperly used. All the other suggestions I agree. Renowned members of Wikipedia (as Fyunck) should consider before deleting data from this site and setting data that are not even close to the truth. GreetingMihailo Dzevrije (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Had quick look inside the stats look very impressive but as yet can't find where the sourcing is unless I am missing something the website is owned by a Spanish SL or Ltd or LLC software development company based in Madrid address here: Tennismem SL, Av - Alberto Alcocer 5, 1st Right, 28036 Madrid, Spain the owner/directors are GARCIA LOZANO GABRIE, CARVAJAL BOSQUED FEDERICO and LIGER LOPEZ RAFAEL from this site http://www.infocif.es/ that provides company reports.--Navops47 (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also you need to look at this Italian wikipedia page https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornei_di_tennis_maschili_nel_1877 where they have started to do every pre-open era men's tour seasons year by year from 1877 to 1967 plus the 1968/69 NTL tours etc albeit using tennisarchives.com as its main source.--Navops47 (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I joined the tennisbase and decided to contact them and sent a message extract as follows:

El 2016-03-09 13:11, Dean escribió:

Hi

I have just joined your site and I am very impressed with the statistics you have I have number of questions that I would like to add as I am a regular editior on wikipedia and infact part of the tennis project team on wikipedia with stats being my are of choice.

Q1) When you state category A B C & D tournaments excluding E tourneys what tournaments are in each of the categories or another way of putting it have you dividied them up like Grand Slam Pro Slam Majors etc are Category A. Category B (equivelent to Masters 1000 events today?)

Q2) On each tournament profile does it state what category event they are?

Q3) Most important where are you sourcing alll these statistics from (Primary sources preferbaly) I can't find any references to these statistics.

Also I originally started this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_tennis_records_%E2%80%93_men%27s_singles

Because like your website I wanted to see the full picture of mens tennis in terms of records from 1877 to today.

My wikipedia page address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Navops47

Thanks

Dean

First email reply 3/9/16 at 8:48 PM

Hi Dean,

Thank you very much to contact us and for your interest in the site.

Let me introduce my self; my name is Gabriel García, founder and CEO of thetennisbase.com

I'm going to try to answer your questions properly:

Q1. The main idea was to establish a model that allows to build the player rankings from 1877 with the same model across the history and to evaluate the career of the past players in a correct perspective. Is for that we categorized the tournaments with a system based on participation and tournament prestige and tradition. You can find the rules of TTB rankings here (tournaments category explanation is included)

https://www.thetennisbase.com/?enlace=rankings&accion=faq

Since there not were any system of tournament classification in the past our system is not exact. But what is clear that there were tournaments more important than others. For example, you surely agree if I say that Longwood, Seabright or Newport were very important tourney in their time. In the other side, the introduction of value systems is a common action in every area of the History. Anyway, with all possible imperfections of the model the results are very consistent as you can check if you attend the output rankings.

Q2. The category of every tournament evolves in different way. For example, Kent Ch. in Beckenham was a very important tournament from XIX century to late 20's. But after the tournamet loses relevance and category downs. Is for that, there is not a fixed category in the tournament profile

Q3. The documentation proccess for thetennisbase has taken more of six years and we have researched in many and much different sources. It was impossible to reflect the sources in the base because that would be completely inoperative. For example, regarding pro tours, each match it's reflected in a different journal, depending the site. So, it was crazy to reflect for every match a different source. In the other side, it has been a hard work for us to find the info and we don't want to put easy for possible competitors. But this is not a fixed position... if you need sources for a specific project I'm glad to provide it, or if you prefer, we can to publish it. As usual, it depends of risks and opprtunities laughing

Main sources are as follows: - Britain yearbook Ayres - USA yearbooks Spalding and Wright & Ditson - Tennis magazines, most important of them "World Tennis" and books like McAuley. - And newspaper as the most important source to complete the base. Many newspapers are digitalized and available on the net, from the same site of the newspaper or on specialized plattforms such newspaperarchives.com (USA) or britishnewspaperarchive.com. Among the most useful newspapers for our research we can nominate The New York Times, The Times, Daily Mirror, ABC, El Mundo Deportivo, the Australian public tool TROVE with all relevant newspapers in its base until 1952, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Gallia bibliotheque for french newspapers, paperspast.natlib.govt.nz from New Zealand, Le Monde, Hamburger Abendblatt, L'Express, L'Impartial et Le Temps from Switzerland, El Tiempo de Bogotá, the Delpher plattform from Neederlands, L'Unitá, Ls Stampa, irishtime.com from Ireland, etc, etc.

In some countries like Argentina we have had collaborations from journalists like Eduardo Puppo.. in others like Scandinavian countries we have contracted some guys to collect the data in local newspaper libraries

I think your project for this wikipedia article is a great idea. I'm at your absolute disposal for any support you need. We would be very proud if Wikipedia uses thetennisbase like a source for so mportant article for the tennis history like this one.

I hope hear from you soon

Thank you very much and best regards

Gabriel García

Second email received this morning 3/10/16 at 2:27 Dean,

I've visited your wikipedia article about tennis records. In fact I already knew it. Very good, complete and interesting. Of course, I'm very pleased if you decide to enlarge it with the thetennisbase inputs. I would be very proud of it.

Also we can produce new records based on the info we have. For example, Tomas Berdych will play in the coming Indian Wells his 50th consecutive Master 1000. The Czech has not missed any M1000 since Madrid 2010. So, we can publish records like this or others at your choice.

In the other side, I think that thetennisbase data could help to enlarge the info in the articles of great players, especially in the career stats or season articles. We can provide a lot of relevant data about general performance, vs. top-10, by surface, by class of tournament, by score evolution and others. Even we can provide some key stats. For example, do you know that Federer when he wins at least the 68% of service points (his average is 69%) he wins the 95,83 of his matches (804-35) including a 15-0 versus Djokovic?

https://www.thetennisbase.com

They are only some ideas..

I hope to hear from you very soon.

Best regards

Gabriel

Posting from my email messages as part of the general discussion--Navops47 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I also have been in contact with Tennis Base creator Gabriel, though I would hesitate to show private emails without 100% confirmation. Privacy issues imho. He feels that showing all the sources would be like giving away all his hard work, which is quite true. But to show no sources gives it a reliability problem. I had suggested to him that he at least show that the source came from newsprint, book, ATP, etc.. and that specific tournament info could be presented upon request. He and I agree on many things but there is also disagreement. The A-H event ranking is his own subjective categorization... I don't agree with many of the letter grades. I told him that throwing all the stats together creates big problems for researchers in that Amateur and Pro results are all mingled together. The biggest gripe is that the stats do not designate between actual tournaments and one-on-one pro tours.... a huge mistake in my opinion. I had to go through each item one by one to figure out the Bill Tilden's career tournament match record would be 1083–136. Some of those records also put 4 man events in the tournament category where the later ATP events that were that small are exhibitions. The details on events is quite impressive... I really like it, but the number totals are almost useless as they now stand. We can't use them for tournament record stats in our articles without going through each and every tournament.

Other number problems will be playing surface numbers. Gabriel does not designate a difference between carpet, wood and hard court. He does not designate difference between clay and sand. So those totals we have to be wary of. He seems extremely knowledgeable and passionate about the stats and has accumulated them over 6 years from every source imaginable. It's nice to see these stats laid out in relatively easy to find categories. His conclusions about what numbers we should use and his tournament grades notwithstanding, it's a great effort. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Tn template

Hi, could someone please tell what templates like {{Yuki Bhambri}} {{Tn Yuki Bhambri}} are good for? I tried looking at "what links here" and only say things like Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis but I could not find it there. Qed237 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no such template. I'm confused as to what you are asking. If a red link is clicked on, it will open a page to allowing a user to create the article/template, and there will be a "what links here" link so we can see if another page already includes that link, but that doesn't create the link. In fact, the only link to the template is the one one created in your message. oknazevad (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess you mean {{Tn Yuki Bhambri}}. It looks like a system User:Vencin is working on to make it easier to make table entries with flag icons for tennis players, so you only have to give the name and not nationality, or article name when it's different from the displayed player name. It requires a template for each player. Category:Tennis name templates currently only has 110 players. The system is used at 2015 Novak Djokovic tennis season#Singles matches but I haven't found it in other articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of maintenance headaches for nearly no benefit. Frankly, I don't see the need at all. oknazevad (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Me neither, we have several thousands of player articles and and I don't see it as either practical or necessary to create so many templates which provide little or no benefit to editors. Besides, this really is the kind of change that should be discussed at project level prior to implementation.--Wolbo (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I really think the pain is not worth the gain on this item. Also, some tables use flagicon, some use flagathlete and some use simply flag. This only has use as flagicon it would seem. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the {{Tennis name}} template does include parameters to control what is displayed and the flagathlete option could probably be added. A template could be helpful in case we change a player's name but even then it would only update the instances of the name that use the template and would therefore still require a check of all articles where the name is used. Doesn't change my view that it is simply too much hassle for too little benefit.--Wolbo (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Yes, I meant {{Tn Yuki Bhambri}} sorry. Thanks @PrimeHunter: for your fast response and correcting my mistake. Qed237 (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As no one here can see much use for it, what is the next step? Take them all to TfD? Take them to TfD one-by-one? Take one of them to TfD first to "try it" and then nominate the rest? It would be good to hear from User:Vencin what his thought was with these templates and why they were created. Qed237 (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Left Vencin a note on his talk page with a request to participate in this discussion. Let's wait for a bit before we take any further action. --Wolbo (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Wolbo: Great thanks, there is always a possibility that the creator has a good motivation for keeping the templates or they could actually CSD per author request (if discussion ends in delete) so we dont have to go through TfD. Qed237 (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad, PrimeHunter, Wolbo, and Fyunck(click): After no response from creator, User:Vencin, for over 2 weeks I have now nominated Template:Tn Yuki Bhambri for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 22 with the intention of nmominating the rest if this is deleted. Qed237 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad, PrimeHunter, Wolbo, and Fyunck(click): Now the rest is at TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 4#Tn templates. Qed237 (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

They are all now deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Article guidelines restructuring proposal

On the article guidelines talk page there is a proposal to restructure the article guidelines page. If you are interested, please drop by with feedback at the talk page. Thanks. --- Saskoiler (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Tokyo and Wuhan

I see that in some recent performance timelines WTA Wuhan is noted as the successor of Tokyo. They are written next to each other (Tokyo/Wuhan) and the results from those tournaments are merged together. What is more correct: this variation or the separated form, given that Tokyo is still played but as a Premier tournament while the fresh Wuhan is a Premier 5? Regards.--Orel787 (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be to have some kind of discussion on this as the same exists for the men's side with Hamburg/Madrid/Shanghai. YellowStahh (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

There are up to 30 free one-year Alexander Street Press (ASP) accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP.

Alexander Street Press is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WTA Prize Money Leaders for 2015

Anyone knows where to obtain the WTA Prize Money Leaders document for 2015, it seems WTA does not archive the prize money lists anymore.--Orel787 (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The top-50 is in http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/MediaInfo/mediaguide2016_2015review.pdf. Is that enough? https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.wtatennis.com/prize-money-rankings has no 2015 snapshots after September 23. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Big Performance Key changes

I have no problem with a merging of the two tennis performance keys: "Performance key" & "Performance key (Grand Slams)" but it would have been nice to discuss here or at least a heads up that a merge was likely coming. I have been changing many articles to "Performance key (Grand Slams)" and now it looks to have been waste of time. Maybe it was discussed somewhere and I missed it? Changing the order of olympic medals was a minor tweak, but eliminating one key was a pretty big deal to at least announce here. I see the heads up was given today at "Template talk:Performance key", but not at the page that was merged or here. I was just about to add a few more "Performance key (Grand Slams)" templates when I noticed it was gone.

So Tennis Editors, look at this as the announcement that template "Performance key (Grand Slams)" has been merged into the standard template "Performance key." To get the effect of "Performance key (Grand Slams)" you need only to use "performance key|short=yes" for current players and "performance key|short=yes|active=no" for retired players. There is also now a "performance key|active=no" template for retired players for the full Performance timeline. This is explained at the Template:Performance key article and it's corresponding talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), perhaps a message here would have been in order but the merge has caused no loss in functionality, on the contrary, via the two new parameters 'short' and 'active' the template now has more flexibility than either of the two templates had before. That's why in my view the merge was not particularly bold and didn't require prior discussion. There were in fact only few articles (< 25) that used the {{performance key (Grand Slams)}} (checked via 'What links here') and all of them were migrated to the updated {{performance key}} with the correct settings (short=yes, active=no). Directly after the merge I added a post to the template talk page explaining the move and the new functionality. --Wolbo (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I like the merge better, but as I said, I was about to add even more of the old templates. I didn't have the old template page on watch so there was no way to know. I have now also properly marked the merge on the talk pages. I still think that when a used tennis template is eliminated it might be best to mention it here. Was the template creator @Diegowar: informed of its removal/merge? That would probably be a nice thing to let him/her know on their talk page. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of flags

In running an unrelated bot task that affects tennis articles, I've run into flag icons all over the place. I'm not familiar with tennis tournaments, but is it the case that athletes in this sport are officially representing their nations in events such as the 2007 Rogers Cup – Singles tournament? If not, how is this reconciled with MOS:SPORTFLAGS? ~ Rob^Talk 14:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

They don't have to "officially" represent their nation (i.e. attempting to win a trophy for their country) to be allowed a flag. Moreover MOS:SPORTFLAGS is a guideline, not a policy. It's basically advice. Tvx1

Plus each player is "required" to be represented by a particular nation per the ITF. Hence the "representative nationality". So as with Auto-racing the icons have become intrinsic to each player. It cannot represent citizenship though... only the country they play for. It is also allowed in the infoboxes specifically by consensus and mosflag. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with Tvx1 on the importance of guidelines, but thanks for the information Fyunck. I didn't know that about the ITF, and I definitely agree it makes sense to use flags in that context. Cheers! ~ Rob^Talk 00:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

On the topic of importance of the "national affiliation" in tennis (which does not equate to citizenship), I previously wrote this. In essence, I concur with Fyunck. The presence of flag icons for players helps make Wikipedia consistent with the tennis world, tennis media, etc. Saskoiler (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Season article formatting

Made a few formatting changes to the season article, using 1979 WTA Tour as a test case, with the aim to make these pages a bit tidier and easier on the eyes. Currently most season articles have tables with different widths, see 1978 WTA Tour, which gives an untidy and busy appearance. Changes:

• All month tables have the same width
• Shortened the month column (and abbreviated the months) to make space for slightly wider columns for semi- and quarterfinalists
• Added the standard tennis project colors to column headers 'Champions', 'Finalist', 'Semifinalists', 'Quarterfinalist'
• Shortened the draw links in the tournament box from 'Singles Draw – Doubles Draw' to 'Singles – Doubles' (see May and October).

None of these are major changes but combined they are in my view worthwhile. Would appreciate feedback to determine if this formatting should be applied to all season articles. --Wolbo (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I like all of the formatting changes described above. Definitely a tidier appearance. Saskoiler (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I also like it much better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Made one more change which is to remove the bold typeface for the tournament champions. Bold is widely used within tennis articles but in my view often unnecessary and in contradiction with MOS:BOLD which states "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text.". It can be argued that this is not article text but it is the article body and bold is clearly used here for emphasis (of the champions). In the case of season articles I don't see the need for bold text given that every month table already has distinct column headers for identification. As with the other changes, removing bold is intended to make the article calmer and easier on the eyes to improve readability. For comparison only the first few months have been unbolded. Views? --Wolbo (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Good call. Bolding is not necessary there. Saskoiler (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Minor Guideline updates

Just a note that the performance charts in our guidelines have been tweaked by me and several editors. The women's charts were not quite in sync with the men's. Minor stuff but I thought it needed a mention for the archives. There was also a query as to the Davis Cup chart in our guidelines not being used by most articles; that articles use a completely revamped chart. I guess that should be looked at since we want our guidelines to be the defacto goto in disputes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Correction needed in infobox template

Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics has the infobox {{Infobox tennis tournament year}} on the top right. However, the defending champions are listed as '2015 Champions' on the rendered page, rather than '2012 Champions'. Maybe new defending champion parameters are needed that go back four years instead of one? Also, the 'defchamps' etc. parameters that are used in the 2016 Olympics article are missing from the template documentation (Template:Infobox tennis tournament year/doc). Maybe someone who is familiar with these templates can fix this (especially the first issue)? Thanks a lot, Gap9551 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have coded it to use the existing before_year optional parameter.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix! Gap9551 (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Djokovic controversy

Novak Djokovic has been embroiled in a minor controversy the last several days. Even Andy Murray has gotten involved. I wasn't sure where to put this fact which is supported by countless sources. I tried a single sentence in the Activism section but it was reverted with no comment at all. I tried it again and this time it was commented as irrelevant and was reverted again. It seems far from irrelevant but I only put in a single sentence to keep it small, and I added three sources. It could certainly go somewhere else like buried in his 2016 section, but since I was instantly labeled a Djokovic hater on the Djokovic talk page, I thought it best to let others chime in on it's placement. I believe he has seen fit to apologize for it now. I feel it belongs in the article but where is subject to some debate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this needs to be mentioned. As far as I can see this is a storm in a tea cup and this may well be forgotten in couple of weeks time. We are not one of these news site sources and we don't sensationalize. Tvx1 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Others on the Djokovic talk page disagree, but it's why I asked. Serena has a whole section with 5 detailed paragraphs of controversies, some of which are forgotten these days, so I was worried about editors claiming double standards in wikipedia entries if it at least didn't get mentioned. I have no problem if it gets listed or doesn't get listed based on consensus here but I thought a passing mention was worthy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Other users? I can only see one. Tvx1 21:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Current Top 20 Women's Singles WTA Rankings

So, I seem to be running into some problems, when I edit the above template Template:Current Top 20 Women's Singles WTA Rankings, it doesn't show up on 2016_WTA_Tour#WTA_Rankings. Please help. Sakya23 (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it worked to me. Maybe you have to clear your cache? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Organization of records/statistics articles

Sometimes the articles with records and statistics confuse me a little, given the large amount of information and the size of these articles. Some information is listed in several articles. I don't have a big problem with this duplication as long it is kept up-to-date, but maybe the total amount of information becomes a little more manageable and easier to oversee with less duplication. Very important records, such as total number of Grand Slam titles (all-time or in the Open Era), may more easily justify duplication.

Currently we have Tennis tournament records and statistics which has all-time records (for singles only) for men and women, but we also have All-time tennis records – men's singles and All-time tennis records – women's singles. That means that Tennis tournament records and statistics may be unnecessary. Similarly, we have List of Open Era tennis records (singles information only), but also Open Era tennis records – men's singles and Open Era tennis records – women's singles, which invites duplication.

An example of a duplicated record is the list of most titles at a single tournament for men, which for all-time is given at All-time tennis records – men's singles#All tournaments, subsection Single tournament records (down to 6 titles) and Tennis tournament records and statistics#Most titles at a particular tournament (down to 5 titles). 'Most consecutive titles at a particular tournament' are also listed at both articles (down to 5 titles). For the Open Era, the list of most titles at a single tournament for men is listed at Open Era tennis records – men's singles#All tournaments, subsection Individual tournament totals (down to 6 titles) and List of Open Era tennis records#Most titles at a single tournament (down to 5 titles). There is also overlap e.g. regarding lists of most year-end tournament titles.

It may be worth splitting some articles, too. That may help avoiding overlap, because e.g. articles like List of Open Era tennis records, List of Grand Slam related tennis records, and Open Era tennis records – men's singles will naturally lead to overlap since they all have to list men's Grand Slam counts in the Open Era. Articles with a narrower focus are less likely to overlap. Also, an article like All-time tennis records – men's singles (144 kB) exceeds the rule-of-thumb limit of 100 kB given in WP:SIZERULE (which doesn't require splitting, but it is an additional argument to do so).

Another thing related to reducing redundancy is merging WTA Tour records into Open Era tennis records – women's singles, similar to what has been done recently for the men's tour (see Talk:ATP World Tour records#RFC proposed deletion, redirecting or renaming of the ATP World Tour Records article).

I'd like to continue past efforts to organize tennis records better in a systematic way, and reduce duplication, while keeping information easy to find. The above are just some general observations and ideas, and I'm interested to hear what others think about this.

(This is related to a current discussion on Talk:ATP World Tour records#Prize money.)

Gap9551 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no qualms about merging some items to make for cleaner non-repetitive tennis articles. I hate to split unless its the very last resort. Things don't get edited properly when we do so. Half the players with "career statistics" sub pages, shouldn't have those pages when one will do just fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Sakya23 in the topic below reminds me of the possibility to transclude templates. We could make them for e.g. the top 10 Grand Slam title winners all-time, in the Open Era, ATP/WTA Tour era, etc, and then transclude them in the multiple articles where they are needed. But in a way that is also splitting, and this may make the content more difficult to update for users not familiar with these templates. Gap9551 (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That's always a possibility as long as it isn't too many articles. If there are too many transclusions it either leaves it open for easy vandalism or we have to protect it from IPs and new editors. Otherwise, it would help keep the information in one spot that could be doled out as needed by articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Category section in players finals

I just came across this "category" section in certain players career finals, isn't it redundant? since we already have a color coded system that clearly identifies which category the event is ( ATP 500, 1000, Grand Slam etc)?? --Sakya23 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Shall we add a number column to our current Tennis Guideline #4:Career chart?

The following discussion 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.

---

As it stands now, our current chart at #4:Career, which we point all new editors to, does not have a number column before the date. Some editors add this number column to tally not only the victories, but also the runner-up finishes. They also ignore other items in the guideline chart, such as "result" and "category." This is against our guidelines as they now sit. Shall we add the number column to our guideline chart or enforce our guidelines as they now stand? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The Situation

A couple years ago we had a hard fought scrum in changing this chart so that it met Wikipedia Accessibility guidelines. We couldn't have color as the only means of conveying information. Certain things were agreed upon with all the examples, certain things were not. We changed "Outcome" to "Result." We changed "Championship" to "Tournament." We changed "Opponent in final" and "Score in final" to simply "Opponent" and "Score", respectively. We removed cities from the tournament info. Most importantly we added a column for "Category" so that we could add the type of event (such as 500 series) to the chart so the sight-impaired could use it easily. It had no "No. column" before or after the changes. Certain things we could not agree upon and one of them was that pesky Number Column. It wasn't as contentious as other items because it really wasn't discussed at all except briefly at the end when several of us disagreed. All these items were to be brought up separately at a later time so we could get the new chart corrections up and running with the items we could agree with. This is how it stands today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Our problem

Our editors are ignoring the guideline chart when creating new articles. I try to make these articles consistent with our guidelines and my efforts get deleted or I'm told I'm edit warring. I'm frustrated and others are frustrated with me. I'm saying "why aren't we using our guidelines and backing each other up" and others are saying "since so many are doing things that aren't in the guidelines, we should simply incorporate these changes as the will of our editors with a defacto consensus." Both make some sense to me. But if we follow that "will of the editors" that would mean adding a "No. column", changing "Result" back to "Outcome", and removing the "Category column" from our guidelines since none of those items are being followed at all. I think everything else is being used to some degree. This format makes no sense to me. Do we go with our editors, our guidelines or something in-between? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments and advice on what to do

• I feel the guideline chart we have now works well and should be what we use. It's a little wide (especially for those with handheld devices), but it gets the job done. Widening it more with a trivial No. column just doesn't make sense to me. 99% of our players only have a few victories and runner-ups and can be tallied by eyesight. No reader cares what Nadal's 27th victory was or heaven-forbid his 18th runner-up finish. There are plenty of articles right now that have only one or two numbers in that column, like Egan Adams. That's useless. They don't need numbers just for the sake of numbering. I dislike the column because it's trivial, looks ugly, and is unnecessary. But I really hate totaling the number of runner-ups... that's crazy to me. If a player is a superstar, Novak Djokovic for example, we could put a little notation every twenty wins like (40) after "Winner" to help in tallying large charts. That would keep the runner-ups from being tallied at all, yet allow readers to count more easily. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with most of these arguments. The statement that 'No reader cares' is an assumption that cannot be, and is not, substantiated. In general, statements about what our readers care or do not care about run the risk of merely being projections of one's own opinion on our readership. The No. column has informational value that may be of interest to the 'statistics anoraks' part of our readership and takes up very little space. I'm not sure what it is about this column that makes you say it 'looks ugly', can you elaborate? Appearance is of course a subjective matter but to me the column seems fairly unobtrusive due to its small size. Finally, the table contains not only tournament wins but also runner-ups so what is wrong with tallying those? Tallying only wins but not runner-ups, in a table that contains both, seems odd to me and a case of undue weight. --Wolbo (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Disagreeing is part of wikipedia. I stand by my observations. There are a lot of things that are a matter of opinion... our choice of table colors, the addition court surface, the lack of addition of aces or double faults column, or semifinal (rather than just finals). We made choices on these issues based on value and personal opinion, as I am doing with a No. column. Knowing Nadal's 27th runner-up has little to no value to an encyclopedia that summarizes the most important things. We total the victories and losses in the key above, and keeping a running total is simply trivia imho. Others may disagree, and it's plain that you do. That's why this is under discussion. And running one's eye up and down a column with jumbled numbers bugs me no end. I see a nice clean chart in our guidelines and I don't see the same with the trivial No. column. But ugly/pretty a personal thing as you pointed out. But I did offer a runner-up compromise below so It's not like I'm not trying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

And why is this number column so informative then? What does it add to the table that's not already there. Regardless of whether we have this column, they are listed chronologically anyway. A player's first win is always listed first, a player's 15th win is always listed 15th and a player's latest win is always listed last. The information is always there despite that column. Therefore I have to agree with my colleague that listing a player's 27th runner-up finish explicitly as "27" is utter trivia. Tvx1 16:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• I feel like we should follow the guideline chart. I can't see any justified reason to do so. I don't think there's any point in adding a number column. The wins are listed in chronological order anyway. Tvx1 21:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• In the case of the No. column the career finals table in our guidelines does not really represent any project consensus. It is not the result of any thorough discussion that can deservedly be called a consensus. On the other hand, the No. column has been widely used for many years, see for instance Roger Federer career statistics, and this usage by editors has created a de-facto consensus. If that is the case the 'guidelines' should be changed to reflect the reality of our usage, not the other way round. The column takes up very little space, just 20px, so the width argument has little validity. The table of career finals is in essence just a list in a different format and it is very normal for these kind of lists to be numbered, as is also done by other sports projects. I don't see what is gained by removing it.--Wolbo (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd even be willing to go the extra mile with a compromise. We all know I'm biased against the No. column for reasons given above, and I suggested using a small number in the results column for every 20 wins, but only for wins since I hated tagging the runner-ups with any number. But we work as a team here...What if we did that suggestion for every 10 wins and every 10 runner-ups? That way players with less then 10 would show nothing, and players like Federer, who have bazillions of wins and losses, would count by 10 for all those editors who like running totals. It would also make it easier on historical players if suddenly we find an extra match that needs to be squeezed it, we'd only have a few numbers to change rather than perhaps 20 or more number to change. I did a test case on Caroline Wozniacki's career stats: Current setup or possible setup (though the category is still missing). Sorting doesn't work as nicely so we might need to unsort the result column unless there's a work around. I don't like the tallying, but I'm just trying to find some wiggle room that everyone can live with and is great for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm relatively new here, so I can't offer any comment on what was historically done or what had or what has consensus. However, I can offer comment from a usability perspective. So, from a usability perspective, these table formats are far from ideal. The width of individual cells and the table as a whole absolutely creates readability problems. Some suggestions to improve the usability:
  • Either remove the number column (which would be my personal choice) or merge it into the "Outcome" column.
  • If the number column is retained, consider a compromise where it only appears after a minimum (10?) number of entries. So, for vast numbers of players, it doesn't appear. <cut and moved some remarks to an extra section–Fyunck(click)> Saskoiler (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  Just a note on your observations. Per our guidelines:

  1. There is no number column per our guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Saskoiler, thanks for the feedback. Would suggest to split the general remarks into a different section to avoid the discussion becoming convoluted. As a practical way forward I would not object to the compromise you suggested of only using the no. column for tables with 10 or more entries (finals). That would remove the column for the large majority of player articles, probably around 90%, where it has the least added value.--Wolbo (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think policing that would really be tough and impracticable. Editors look towards Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Williams as to how new player articles should be... they don't tend to look at our guidelines. That would mean they'll automatically start off with each chart being numbered and when corrected they'll whine that we play favorites with the best players. Or when there are several charts in an article and one has 20 entries and two have five entries, they'll all wind up with No. columns. Also, I'm not so sure about it helping 90% of players. Remember we have low-ranked minor players like Martin Kližan, Philipp Petzschner, Michael Berrer, etc with 10-entry Challenger level and ITF level charts, and 617 ranked Susanne Celik is only one entry away. It's very important that the premier player's charts are rock-solid in following our guidelines because editors use them as a framework for new articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pinging two administrator's (@PrimeHunter:, @The Rambling Man: that used to be interested in tennis articles and helped construct the current guidelines. I don't want them for their administrative skills but rather to help us get this correct. Maybe they have some insight and feelings about what is best for editors (and our readers). I have no idea their stances, but they always seemed reasonable when they were admonishing me for being stupid (I'm still not a cricket fan though). Wolbo and I have talked about getting a few more voices over here so try not and yell at me (too much) for canvassing. It's best to get it right regardless of how I feel about the column. I also moved/repeated the general remarks by Saskoiler (and the responses) to a different section below. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Extra suggestions

• I'm relatively new here, so I can't offer any comment on what was historically done or what had or what has consensus. However, I can offer comment from a usability perspective. So, from a usability perspective, these table formats are far from ideal. The width of individual cells and the table as a whole absolutely creates readability problems. Some suggestions to improve the usability:
  • Either remove the number column (which would be my personal choice) or merge it into the "Outcome" column.
  • If the number column is retained, consider a compromise where it only appears after a minimum (10?) number of entries. So, for vast numbers of players, it doesn't appear.
  • Change "Winner" to "Win" and "Runner-up" to "Loss". The shorter labels are perfectly understandable.
  • Remove the city and country from the "Tournament" column. (For example, see how the ATP Masters 1000 finals table looks on Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics -- much cleaner.). The details are not essential.
  • Strip the date column down to just the year. (Again, see the ATP Masters 1000 finals for example.)
  • Consider removing the "sort" arrows from some columns.
  • Remove the "...in final" from both the "Opponent" and "Score" columns. They are entirely redundant.
  • Make the tournament name a wikilink to the specific tournament year rather than link to the generic tournament page. This is far more useful as it provides quickest access to date and draw details.
  • Add a column for "Category" (or "Level") of tournament. Consider using short forms (e.g. "500", "250") to keep the width down. Using only the color is very bad for accessibility compliance.
  • Consider using short forms for surface (both the "Surface" title and the individual entries). The "total" summary above could easily provide the legend. E.g. "S" for "Surface", "H" for "Hard", "C" for "Clay", etc.
    Saskoiler (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  Just a note on your observations. Per our guidelines:

  1. There is no number column per our guidelines

  2. Only the country name is allowed in the tournament, not the city. I happen to prefer it with country added (not a country code)

  3. The sorting really helps on tournament, surface and opponent... not so much on the rest.

  4. "in final" is already not allowed per our guidelines.

  5. The date already links to the yearly tournament so there is no need to repeat that in the tournament link.

  6. The sortable column for "category" is already in our guidelines... editors just refuse to use it.

  Otherwise, I don't like the S for surface... that's worse imho for our readers. Just the year for the date I'd have to think about, though it does look cleaner. Since the date already links to the exact event, having only a year is no big deal. I do think I like Win and Loss better than Winner and Runner-up. Thanks for the input. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Saskoiler, thanks for the feedback. Would suggest to split the general remarks into a different section to avoid the discussion becoming convoluted. As a practical way forward I would not object to the compromise you suggested of only using the no. column for tables with 10 or more entries (finals). That would remove the column for the large majority of player articles, probably around 90%, where it has the least added value.--Wolbo (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2016 (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.

Clarification summary

@BU Rob13:Just so I'm clear on your closing wording. Per your words we are not changing the guidelines. However, per your words, there isn't enough support with this RfC to use the guidelines as an enforcement of no number column? Extrapolating, clearly there also isn't support to add the number column to any article? So that leaves us with a case by case basis as it stands right now? I just want to make sure I have the correct reading on the closing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Yes, basically. There's obviously no consensus to change the guidelines of this project (as, I think, anyone can see). The next bit of the question ("or enforce our guidelines as they now stand?") has to do with whether there's consensus here to go out and change many articles to match the guidelines of this project. I don't believe there is. One editor supports the number column, several support no number column, some support the inclusion of numbers in the results column (with or without numbers for runners up!), and one thinks the whole think is unreadable as-is. None of that is a clear consensus to go change hundreds (thousands?) of articles to match the project's existing guidelines. In other words, there's no consensus to change it, but there's also no clear consensus that it's good as-is.

If I might make a suggestion, what you really need is a template for tennis results rather than wikitables in all articles, so you can easily make formatting changes by consensus to all articles simultaneously. Editors could use it or not use it in specific articles, but it would certainly make things easier than going out and editing many articles when you wish to apply your project's guidelines in the future. Would you like me to mock one up? ~ Rob^Talk 23:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you're thinking more of a module than a template. Tvx1 23:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would work. I create articles with our guideline attributes and correct newly made ones. Some will likely be doing something else. We won't be on the same page to have a standardized module. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

French Open 2016

Hello, the 2016 French Open page is still redirecting to the main French Open page. I suppose that it was set up that way until the 2016 page was ready. It's the fourth day of the tournament, is there something I can do to help it be ready to be opened up? Tombleyboo (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I managed to look at the page, and it looks quite complete. If I knew how to remove the redirect I'd volunteer to do it...can anybody help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombleyboo (talk • contribs) 16:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tombleyboo: 2016 French Open is an article and not a redirect. Try to bypass your cache. If you still get a redirect then please post the url of the page where you get it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @PrimeHunter:, actually it was my own stupidity. I was uising wikiwand, which kept bumping me to French Open. Switching it off gets me to the right place. Sorry for the trouble.Tombleyboo (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Need help organizing Taiwan WTA tournaments

I need some help trying to organize the Taiwan WTA women's tournaments over at Talk:Taiwan_Open#Major_reorganization_Taiwan_Open_and_Taipei_Open. There are 3 (possibly 4) tournaments that are mashed up into 3 articles with not so clear names such as Taiwan Open, Taipei Open, and WTA Taiwan Open. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Feature Article Nomination - Milos Raonic

I have nominated the Milos Raonic article for featured article status. You are invited to contribute to the nomination discussion.

• The discussion is here.
• Guidelines for contributing
• Wikipedia:Featured article criteria

- Saskoiler (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Saskoiler: I fixed a couple minor issues and mentioned each at the discussion page. Not really much for me to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Fyunck. I appreciate all of your assistance, as usual. I hope to reach consensus in the nomination. Saskoiler (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Tier I, II, III, etc started in 1988, not 1990

Only the name "Tier" and the Roman numerals were introduced 1990, prior to that the designations were "Category 1, Category 2,... etc. So in my opinion, unless categories or tournaments were radically differnt between 1988 and 1990, we shouldn't hesitate from adding those "Category" stats on to the "Tier" stat tables. No need to pretend as if grade separation started in 1990 while it actually started in 1988. What matters most is the actual historical record, not the nomenclature. What do you guys think? Loginnigol (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Users disregarding our content policies and guidelines regarding sourcing content.

At Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Qualification, two users have been adding that Jerzy Janowicz has a protected ranking (which he can't have five and a half months after his last match) but utterly refuse to back this with any source. They have engaged in a discussion on my talk page but refuse to acknowledge that they needed to back up their changes with sources. Tvx1 19:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct in wanting sources. I can't find anything that says he has a protected ranking. But the thing is, from what I just read, that's not why he was allowed in. The Olympics take the top 56 players by world ranking, but there is other criteria as well. The host nation would get players regardless of ranking. And the committee also chooses six ITF Places by Qualification, and two Tripartite Commission Invitation Places. Jersey got it by the ITF qualification. Some also got in by special appeal. It's talked about here and here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I know but these users claim that the needed a protected ranking to be able to receive a universality ITF qualification, but refuse to back up their claim with a source. Tvx1 19:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1:Per Olympic Qualifiers.com he appears to be protected.

In the men’s singles seven athletes qualified through protected rankings, usually reserved from athletes returning from long term injury. Athletes which qualified through the injury list include: Argentina’s Juan Monaco and Juan Martin del Potro, Australia’s Jordan Thompson and Thanasi Kokkinakis, Chinese Taipei’s Lu Yen-Hsun, Poland’s Jerzy Janowicz and United States’ Brian Baker.

So there is one source. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), there is something weird with that source. It claims Jordan Thompson (tennis) from Australia qualified, but I cannot find him anywhere in the ITF's entry list. Tvx1 14:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. As of this morning his name has been removed (last night it was in since I simply copied it). Remember that those injured protected entries are provisional... it's provided they compete in July's Davis Cup, are still injury free, or have made and won a direct appeal. Obviously one of those things didn't happen for Thompson. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), that source isn't very usable, though, since it is a blog. The person who wrote it seems to be guessing these PR's just as much as the two users who keep adding it to wikipedia. Tvx1 14:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you're correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Per the ITF he was an ITF Qualifier. Here are there provisions for picking one of those 6 Qualifiers in singles:

Final Qualification Places (ITF places) for singles tennis.
Final Qualification Places (ITF places) will be allocated according to the below (in priority order)
 
1.Host Country Representation –if the Host Country does not have a representative via Direct Acceptance, its best ranked athlete based on the international singles rankings of 6 June 2016 shall qualify

2.Regional Representation –if any of the six (6) ITF Regional Associations do not have a representative via Direct Acceptance, the best ranked athlete from that region will gain a Final Qualification Place, provided they are within the top 300 on the international singles rankings of 6 June 2016.

3.Gold Medallist/Grand Slam Champion (max two (2) quota places) -a player who has not achieved Direct Acceptance but who has previously won a Gold Medal in the Olympic Singles competition or who has won a Grand Slam singles title will qualify, provided his/her ranking is within the top 200 on the international singles rankings of 6 June 2016 and provided the quota per NOC has not already been filled. If more than two (2) athletes are eligible, places will be allocated according to the athlete with the higher number of titles. Should two (2) eligible athletes have the same number of titles, the athlete ranked highest on the 6 June 2016 international singles ranking will qualify.

4.Universality (max two (2) quota places) -if any places remain, these will be allocated to the next best ranked player on the international singles rankings of 6 June 2016 from an NOC that has no representation in that singles event.

5.In the unlikely event that the quota is not complete via the above criteria, the remaining quota places will be allocated to the next best ranked athlete not yet qualified based on the international singles rankings of 6 June 2016, whilst respecting the maximum number of athletes per NOC.

So #1 does not apply to Jersey. #2, he is in the Europe region of the ITF with 49 member states and plenty of representatives, so that's out also. #3, he's never won a gold medal nor won a grand slam tournament so we can eliminate that. So that leaves us with #4 and #5. With #4, Poland is an Olympic National Committee (NOC) participant, so was Jersey the highest ranked player from an NOC as of 6 June that didn't already have a player in the Olympics? Poland doesn't have any other entry in singles, so that might be the reason. I assume that Nikoloz Basilashvili of Georgia got in for the same reason. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There were a South Korean and a Moldavan player ranked above Janowicz, in addition to Basilashvili, and Robin Haase had already been allocated such (#4) a place. So with only two such places available, the two users' argument is that Janowicz could have only received such a place through a PR, refusing to prove that both South Korea and Moldova's NOC's applied for an ITF spot in the first place. The ITF updated the entry list on monday, taking Dusan Lajovic from Serbia out and allocating his direct entry to Robin Haase and reallocating his universality ITF spot to Basilashvili. Tvx1 16:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

W/O

With expeding Match win streaks per event I was for me not clear, how to deal with walkovers in winning streaks. Lenglen has a streak on Wimbledon with a walkover from her side. at the 1924 Wimbledon she forfait her semi final. End her streak with this result or does this this match counts a never played. At my point of view it ends in 1924. What are rules for this? Thanks in advance. Micnl (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

She didn't win that match, did she now. Tvx1 15:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Wheelchair Singles at Wimbledon (Help Needed)

I have noticed that the infobox for the individual events at this year's Wimbledon fails to list the 2016 Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Men's Singles and 2016 Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Women's Singles events. For example;

WikiProject Tennis/Archive 16
2016 Wimbledon Championships
Champions	Anastasia Potapova
Runners-up	Dayana Yastremska
Score	6–4, 6–3

These events were played for the first time at this year's championships but they have yet to be added to the infobox. I was just wondering if anybody would be able to lend a hand in getting the events into the infobox please?

F1lover22 (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... not sure how to fix it for just this years chart onwards. It may need a module/template expert for that. @PC-XT: Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I only know templates. The links are from Module:Tennis events nav by User:Izkala. Without knowing Lua I could guess how to add it for all years but not selected years. Many of the links should only be in some years. For example, 1905 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles has many red links to non-existing events. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Boy and those red links in 1905 look kinda bad... with no chance of it ever going away. If we can't add parameters to remove the red links, we may need to have 4 or 5 modules (Tennis events nav 1,2,3,4,etc) created to encompass the older vs newer events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where to go with the guidelines

I will certainly be following our guidelines for all newer players and articles, and had intended to follow it for players who need overhauls for other reasons, but even those seem to be being reverted. The last RfC said there is no carte blanche to change thousands of articles, nor is there carte blanche to keep going against guidelines where the decision was to keep the guidelines as is. I'm not sure where the compromise lies in whether we should start adding a number column, as I thought I had worked one out with another editor, so I'm open to suggestions as to where to draw lines to make editing a bit easier. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I am still trying to find some sort of compromise. To no avail as of yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Still trying to find common ground, but I will continue to make sure newer articles (2016+) conform to consensus guidelines. I guess some of the older articles are just grandfathered into incorrect parameters (unless those parameters were added after 2016). I wish we could come to some compromise on those older articles, as I have tried. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I've consulted these pages and the talk archives on naming conventions, but couldn't find what I was after. Maybe members of this project could consider my query and chip in. Schwede66 08:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

American Tennis Association

Prior to 1950 there was discrimination against blacks from competing within Tennis. [2]. Via what methods should we discern notability for those players such as those in the American Tennis Association
The archive shows this [3] and a problem was finding out who were the major winners. I have found this link which gives all the winners until 1983 [4] BlackAmerican (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone?? BlackAmerican (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Need technical assistance

Hi anyone I am currently drafting an article Scottish Championships here: User:Navops47/sandbox16 I can't seem to correct a problem with Men's singles winners table where the grey shading has created an extra column to the right and I have been up and down the page numerous of times trying to find the error but can't spot it I would appreciate any help to rectify it thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Just an extra || Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you are a Star :) --Navops47 (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

For future reference try what I tried. To be manageable I deleted half the chart and viewed it in preview... it was now good. Next I deleted half of the bad section... it was still bad. And so on and so on till there's only 4 or 5 years left. Looking at 4 or 5 years I could more readily see the problem. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Noted I am currently abroad and the phone lines where I am are not brilliant causing drop out's in connection so is taking me forever to do some editing hey ho--Navops47 (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the ndash (alt + 0150) should be used for the scores instead of the regular dash.--Wolbo (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Debbie Tisinger-Moore

Hello tennis experts. There doesn't seem to be a WikiProject for racquetball, so I'm hoping someone here will know if this is a notable player. There doesn't seem to be a lot on line, but she's been on the US team and in the hall of fame.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, never mind; I have moved it to mainspace.—Anne Delong (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Doubles titling that could eventually affect some tennis titles

There is a discussion about how tennis titles are being used to refer to Mixed Doubles/Mixed doubles/mixed doubles in regards to Olympic articles. It's at Talk:Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics. I think it's going to be talked about at the main Olympic talk page and there are a couple of subpage versions (my own included) that many here may feel need to be tweaked. Be my guest in tweaking my version... I just wanted to make sure the question was asked correctly when it's posted and don't really have a strong opinion on any of the three versions. I just want to make sure that Tennis Project is aware of what's going on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: A discussion has began on the Olympic talk page and can be found here. Input is much needed and would be very much appreciated.
F1lover22 talk 22:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-consensus timeline charts

These pop up from time to time...an editor attempting to bypass guidelines and add jr performance charts to Guillermo Coria‎. I don't know if more charts will start popping up with this guys edits but I thought I'd make the community aware of the situation in case it does. We only allow them for the biggest of tennis events as stated "Results from the ATP World Tour 500 series, ATP World Tour 250 series, ATP Challenger Tour, ITF Futures tournaments, or junior championships should not be included and/or separated into timelines and instead should be documented within the body of the player's article." So just an fyi in case it keeps happening. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Could use some help keeping Coria, and now Marcelo Ríos and Pat Cashcorrected. It's starting to spread. There were several older articles that had these charts from several years ago... all placed by the same editor. He doesn't do it anymore and they have now all been fixed afaik, but this new editor isn't getting the point I fear. Help please. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

FedCup

Does anyone know more about the FedCup website? They have changed a lot, and it seems that the ITF-id is not anymore the same as the FedCup-ID. Luckily we can store that in WikiData P2642, so all language versions can take advantage of any updates, but a lot of (most!!) items have still the ITF-id in P2642. I guess we need to make a plan to fix it the easiest way possible. Edoderoo (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that just this morning myself. User:Vinkje83 has kindly started adjusting the IDs on Wikidata, but I don't know if there's a (quick) method of finding the new ones out. They appear to be random. The template here as well as the transactions will all need changing. Jared Preston (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

JFYI: User:Pigsonthewing made a change to {{FedCup player}} just a couple of weeks ago to make the ID parameter redundant on en.wp. That could be very helpful indeed! But the problem is that the IDs are all locally set at the moment. Any tips or ideas, Andy? Jared Preston (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking about a Python script to harvest the FedCup-website with a search on player name... but I have to hope they use HTML and not just a bunch of JAVA-script, else it will fail from the start. Edoderoo (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This was also being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Assessment#Davis_Cup_web_addresses so I mentioned this over there. It seems Davis Cup has done the same. I fixed the {{DavisCup player}} and I contacted the ITF to make sure it's a permanent thing and whether the ITF was also going to be changing id #s and their response was as follows:

"The changes to the Davis Cup & Fed Cup URL and ID are permanent. The ITF website will stay the same for now until any point in the future when the site is revamped."

I then asked them tonight if they had a spreadsheet with all the old and new numbers to help us migrate since their web traffic will surely slow down without our bios being accurate. I'll let you know if i get anything back from them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I asked for the same spreadsheet last week, but no response until now. If you get something, let me know, I'm eager to upload this. Edoderoo (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If they would simply give us a list of all names and (new) IDs (if they could also give country, that would be great), then it would be everything we need. Of course, if they could give us old and new IDs, then it would be great, but not necessary. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Right now there are still 940 to convert, 224 have been done.

select ?item ?itemLabel ?fedcupID where {?item wdt:P2642 ?fedcupID . {service wikibase:label {bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en"}} FILTER (strstarts(?fedcupID,"8"))}  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edoderoo (talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC) 

We're about halfway manualy converting the FedCup ID's. I didn't check the Davis Cup ID's yet. So far I know we got some help of the French community and quite a lot of my fellows at the Dutch community. So let's go for the other half to get the job done! Edoderoo (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way... the ITF got back to me. They said they don't have the old vs new numbers in any form. So we're on our own. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to us. Hopefully they will not make such conversions again in the future. Edoderoo (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive Labeling in tournament finals

I figured the color coding system was more then enough to distinguish International from Premier and Premier 5 from Premier Mandatory, why do some players have columns such as Karolina Pliskova stating the tournament level too? isn't it a bit repetitive. Sakya23 (talk)03:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually we have to do it that way. Per Wikipedia:Accessibility issues we can't use just color to distinguish anything. That's because many people are colorblind and can't discern the tournaments that way. That is why we made those columns part of our guidelines. We wanted to make sure that those with disabilities had equal access to the information. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adam Kellerman, Heath Davidson, Upali Rajakaruna

The article Adam Kellerman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails tennis notability. Not a Paralympic medallist nor a GS champion

The article Heath Davidson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails tennis notability. Just because they play in the Paralympics does not make them notable. If he wins a medal then recreate. But as of now no medal and no GS title.

The article Upali Rajakaruna has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability for tennis. Has not won a grand slam or a Paralympic medal 213.205.194.94 (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

We get the picture... you could have just linked the articles instead of posting three pretty much identical proposed deletions here, so i melded them together. Now, you happen to be correct in that you must WIN a paralympic medal in order to be notable. This is per wikipedia's guideline at NSPORT. None of these players should have a tennis banner on their talk page since we tend to follow that same set of rules. However they may meet GNG notability if they have gotten enough widespread press. That I wouldn't know about and you'll have to bring that up on the individual's talk pages to gather the info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Nationalities in the field

A box illustrating the nationalities of the tennis players has been added to the grand slam pages the last few years. Personally I like it and I'm in favor of it for the upcoming French Open as well. I'm here asking what others think of it.

• Keep Johnsmith2116 (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

  Why do you like it? What does it add? For me, it's a table of useless statistics and takes up too much space. Jared Preston (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on this discussion. I personally have no preference but I would like to know in terms of adding it to future slams. To be honest all it really shows is how 80% of top players are from North America and Europe. F1lover22 talk 21:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Jared Preston: on this. It's really useless as all the nationalities are already there in the draws. Plus, even if it were kept it would need to be just names, not flag icons. They really look silly in the one or two articles that still have them. I think the couple we still have in articles were added by a single editor. Just more table bloat. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. @Johnsmith2116: Think it is only fair that you join the discussion seems as though you are the driving force behind the addition. F1lover22 talk 11:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually at one point, I had noticed that another editor has added one (on another page) before I had gotten around to doing it myself. The table give a clear illustration of the nationalities in the tournament. And if it's okay, I'd like to keep on adding it. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 US Open

WikiProject Tennis/Archive 16
2016 US Open

Firstly, there will be no wheelchair competition this year, so articles with ready-to-fill draws should be deleted.

Secondly, may we somehow adjust the infobox to avoid so many red links? It looks so bad... We have also mixed legends listed in infobox but it was only played once I think in the past. It's so silly to have it every year.

But, could we include qualifyings instead? Either on the level "Singles", like: men (Q) women (Q), or by creating a new level in the bottom "Qualifying": men's singles, women's singles. TheLightBlue (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't particularly think legends should be in it at all as it's an exhibition event, nor should qualifying be there. Why is there no wheelchair events this year? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wheelchair tennis at the 2016 Summer Paralympics TheLightBlue (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Tennis/Archive 16
2016 Wimbledon Championships

While we're at it, maybe somebody could actually have a look at the Wimbledon infobox as well. The issue of the WC Singles was brought up but no solution was ever reached. F1lover22 talk 09:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was #Wheelchair Singles at Wimbledon (Help Needed). The problem is still that a Lua coder is needed to edit Module:Tennis events nav. User:Izkala last edited 11 July and may have retired. Maybe the module could have a start and end year for each event. start=0 could mean it was there from the beginning, and end=9999 could mean it hasn't ended. If an event has gone away and come back then it could get a second line in the code for the second period. The module could then just process each line and only make a link when start ≤ year ≤ end. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Lua is the appropriate way to handle this type of need for the template. Lua is great for static templates, but it's pretty obvious that we need something capable of handling multiple scenarios. I would suggest taking away the Module and any {{#invoke|}} and just house it in the main template, which is something that I can do. It will provide defaults, but allow the user to override it as necessary. I'll report back once I have something more. nihlus kryik (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering if this got fixed in some way? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 ATP Challenger Tour

I just wanted to run this by because I am uncertain as of what to do. I was going to finalize the schedule for the 2016 ATP Challenger Tour for October and November and came across the Stockton Challenger which will start next week. It seems to have replaced the Sacramento Challenger from last year. They essentially moved it to a different venue in the same state, but I talked to the USTA play-by-play guy and he said he isn't sure if this will be a full-time replacement. My question is this: should I rename the Sacramento Challenger as the Stockton Challenger and move the page or just create a new article for the tournament? Adamtt9 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I've figured it out. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Adamtt9, your links to the Stockton challenger on your Challenger Tour calendar is actually linking to a similarly named, but clearly different, WTA tournament held during July. To answer the question, no the Sacramento challenger article should not be moved because it's a different tournament. Tvx1 20:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Tvx1, Actually, they are the same tournament but they added a men's edition for this year to replace the Sacramento Challenger. So for this year, the Stockton Challenger will also have a men's edition which will be added to the women's article that is currently there. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You will have to back that claim with reliable sources. It's actually pretty common for the same venues to host independent ATP and WTA tournaments. That is almost always the case when those tournaments happen during different periods of the year.Tvx1 21:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Tvx1 So what do you recommend I do? Should I create a new article for the men's Stockton Challenger? It seems that they are going to call it the Stockton ATP Challenger instead of the Stockton Challenger as it is for the women's tournament. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well we'll have to wait and see how it pans out. It's merely a challenger. If turns out be a one off, like you claim it might, it wouldn't warrant its own article. Tvx1 22:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Most important tennis tournaments in history

A question I have read Karoly Mazaks book http://www.theconcisehistoryoftennis.com/ from back to front twice and was interested in his summary year by year of what he considered the most important major tennis tournaments throughout history and I have put that information into a table it includes all the references to the Men's tournaments from his book year by year by name and have drafted it here: User:Navops47/sandbox19, I am also doing one for the women's I would also be interested to hear from other editors their thoughts after looking at the table particularly when you compare his selection of tournaments with this article Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era.--Navops47 (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please also note in the table that they are in the order that they were played according to the book.--Navops47 (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Have now done the same with the women's here: User:Navops47/sandbox17 interestingly Mazak ranks the Colgate/Toyota Championships which he includes 6 times is on a par with as the WTA tour finals and the 1976 Colgate Inaugural tournament in Palm Springs that launched the Colgate Series was the worlds richest women's tournament that year won by Chris Evert.--Navops47 (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. We don't class tournaments as Majors/Grand Slams based on which ones some writer thinks were important . We list tournaments as Majors/Grand Slams according to how they were officially classed by the governing bodies involved. Tvx1 11:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The inquiry was referenced in relation to the above article and the inclusion of some of the tournaments in the article, secondly how suspicious there is no secret master plan afoot here thirdly I am aware about the governing body's a bit problematic though when you consider the GB & Ireland loose associations sanctioned the Irish Ladies Championships as the worlds first major ladies tournament in 1883 before Wimbledon in 1884 (no reference to that anywhere) thirdly if a reliable source gives an opinion that's used in multiple articles here and if I understand a Doctorate level writer not exactly someone writing for TV Guide not "Just some writer with an opinion" the inquiry is aimed at editors with a serious interest in tennis history and by that I mean before 1970 and who are interested in expanding that coverage in new articles or improving those that we do have clearly your not but thank you anyway for replying.--Navops47 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The book by the way was compiled after Mazak was granted research access to the Kenneth Ritchie Wimbledon Library http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/library_research_enquiries.html.--Navops47 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I wonder how Mazok's list jives withe the ABCDEF rankings given by the expert at thetennisbase.com? I've had some conversations with tennisbase on some of his rankings that we disagreed with. These authors often go by strength of field but that doesn't take into account prestige, which matters a lot. There have been recent 1000 level events with stronger fields than the Majors, whether because of injury or players not allowed to participate, yet the major was still more important. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Playing field does not determine whether something is a Major (with capital M). Such a status is something official and available prize money, and these days ranking points, are determined by that status. Tvx1 20:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes Fyunck the list btw is not just based on field strength its also based on prestige at that moment in time when you look at who the won Irish, Northern, Wim and US early titles and the inclusion of the other selected tournaments certainly the other pro tourneys the grand slams as a group are acknowledged together only from 1925 and pro slams together from 1934 however if I was a reader coming to this subject for the first time (and needed this explaining more clearly) I would wonder though why there is a disconnect of information for the period up from 1877 to 1914 (when the WHCC, WGCC and WCCC are included) that doesn't reference any other important tournaments (depth of field, prestige, No'1 players playing them) other than Wimbledon (sole Major from inception to 1924) you would assume that for 37 years no other significant tournaments existed and we know Majors didn't get that official title together until 1925 when the ILTF agreed to uphold a objection by the USLTA to drop the World title tournaments so what we do you call them before 1925? is Mazak saying the Irish Northern and US were the other 3 important annual tournaments ? the article History of tennis explains the 1925 starting point there is however no explanation as to why you have of a gap of 48 years with no reference to any other pre-1925 tournaments deemed important on that page (seems odd) and no reference on the same page to the ILTF Majors Off topic saw your reply re:Eastbourne.--Navops47 (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The early years will always be a bit murky. And the ILTF named the WHCC, WGCC and WCCC as their big three, but there is absolutely no doubt (even at the time) the the WCCC was the low man on the totem pole. Distances were just so formidable back then. But surely the reason the ILTF relented and all agreed on Australia, France (WHCC), Wimbledon and US Championships is that they were already about the biggest most prestigious events in the world. France was just a simple switch from the WHCC to the French Championships. But yes the USLTA insisted on dropping the World Title from events and also insisted that the language of tennis and it's events would be forever in English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The men's tour grew from 1 tournament in 1877 to 144 tournaments by 1912 annually and he picks only 4 stand out consistent tournaments for that period interesting though.--Navops47 (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And that doesn't even count the fact that Davis Cup dwarfed them all for 50 years or more. Players would skip the Majors if it interfered with Davis Cup. If I recall, it was the reason Emerson wouldn't turn pro... he would no longer be able to play Davis Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

2005 Australian Open – Men's Singles Qualifying

Hello tennis experts. I came across this page and had no idea what sport it was about until I came to the category listings at the bottom of the page. Shouldn't the word "tennis" be somewhere in the title or at least the lead section?—Anne Delong (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Considering that the undisambiguated Australian Open is an article about the tennis tournament, which is a clear case of primary topic (being magnitudes more notable than the other entries on the disambiguation page), then the subsequent daughter articles can follow suit and not require any disambiguation. oknazevad (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It certainly shouldn't be in the title. The question is whether tennis should be mentioned in the lead. Draw articles usually have no mention of the sport, not even in categories. See e.g. 2011 Brasil Open – Singles or 2013 Kremlin Cup – Women's Doubles. You have to click the link to the main article for the tournament to see "tennis". Registered users with Navigation popups or Hovercards enabled may only have to hover over the link but that's a small minority of all readers. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts:

1. These articles do all link to the main tournament in the first sentence. It's not a huge ask for someone to have to click onto the tournament article to find out more if they're unfamiliar with the tournament by name - that is the fundamental principle of the links system in Wikipedia (that is, we use to links to allow people to click through if they need to know more).

2. How are people getting to these articles if not via the parent article, a link on player's page or a very specific web search?

That said, I wonder if a quick and easy solution here would be to somehow get the word tennis, or a symbol of a tennis ball/racket, to appear in Template:Infobox tennis tournament event? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

*Rant alert!* Ugh, I hate when people use "ask" as a noun!oknazevad (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the word 'tennis' should not be in the title in this case but the lead should, as a minimum, make clear in a concise way what the article is about (per WP:LEAD). Unfortunately the large majority of our tennis event/draw articles have leads that are deficient in this regard, see e.g. 2009 Internazionali BNL d'Italia – Men's Singles, and there seems to be little or no improvement (see 2015 edition). Better examples are articles like 2008 Ordina Open – Men's Singles or 2012 Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters – Singles, which have leads that at least identify the sport, give some context and inform the reader about the most important points.--Wolbo (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

↑↑↑What he said.↑↑↑ Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditto on that ditto. My first response was I regard to the title, but there's no reason why we couldn't simply add the words "tennis tournament" to the end of the lead sentence of most of these articles. So, in the case of the 2005 Aussie asked about here, it is easy to make it say "This article displays the qualifying draw for the Men's singles at the 2005 Australian Open tennis tournament." Zero effort, helps readers. Already taking care of this one to start. oknazevad (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. If I come across any more mysterious sports articles I will add "tennis tournament to them...—Anne Delong (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Current Ranking Template Moves

I have proposed moving a series of current ranking templates at Template talk:Current Top 20 Men's Singles ATP Rankings. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

David Graham (tennis)

Hello again, tennis experts. This article has only two sources, databases, so I went looking for some mention of him online didn't find anything. Is this a notable player?—Anne Delong (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Since he played in the 1982 Australian Open, he's notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Fyunck(click).—Anne Delong (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC on tennis player Andy Murray (Scottish/British)

There is an ongoing RfC to determine whether the biography lead states Andy Murray is a Scottish or British tennis player. Please lend a hand at the Andy Murray British tennis player or Scottish tennis player RfC. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - The summary of the issue present here is not quite accurate. We already know the answer to the above question: he's both. The RFC's question is how we should introduce him in the lead sentence of his article. Tvx1 14:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Qualifiers

I came into a problem with another editor in regards to the order of listing the qualifiers in a tournament. For example, on 2017 Bangkok Challenger, he lists the qualifiers in alphabetical order while I list them in qualifier order? Is there a guideline for this or does it really matter? Adamtt9 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Background colors vs category columns

@178.167.171.168: @178.167.179.241: Lately, I've been noticing edits to several articles which are removing tournament category columns with the justifications such as "Category column not needed as background colour tells the category".

For example:

• Kei Nishikori career statistics by 178.167.171.168 "Column unnecessary"
• Vasek Pospisil by 178.167.171.168 "Category column not needed as background colour tells the category"
• Eugenie Bouchard career statistics by 178.167.179.241 (no edit summary)
• Timea Bacsinszky career statistics by 178.167.179.241 "Category column not needed. Background colour tells us the tournament category."
• User talk page by 178.167.171.168 Excerpt from comment: "...That is why different background colours are used to signify each tournament level. ... I feel that it is surplus to requirements..."
• WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines by 178.167.179.241 (no edit summary, but it removed the category column in the guideline example)

The justification given above is wrong. We should (a) revert edits like those above to restore category columns, and (b) insert category columns (or other details) in those articles where background color is currently the only method conveying information.

• WP:COLOR (Manual of Style: Accessibility) states: "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels..."
• So, the category columns are needed (unless someone wants to use footnotes or other means)! We cannot rely on a background color only to indicate this information.

Further, we must ensure that the WikiProject_Tennis guidelines stay consistent with official guidelines and policies. We cannot allow our guidelines or informal, local consensus to develop in a contradictory way.

• WP:Local consensus states: "... participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages ... have no more status than an essay."
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines rightly state: "This advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style."

I pinged the two anonymous IP editors above (or is it one person?), but am not hopeful they'll ever read it. So, I'm bringing it here to raise awareness.

Saskoiler (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed their mischief and I'll keep an eye open for more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

AfD

Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 ITF Women's Junior Circuit and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 ITF Women's Junior Circuit (January–March). Adamtt9 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Comments are welcome at Talk:Chris O'Connell (tennis), where a discussion is taking place regarding a merger between Chris O'Connell (tennis) and Christopher O'Connell. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

ITF tournament colours

The 2017 ITF Women's Circuit saw some changes in prize money in the categories (from previous $10-$25-$50-$75-$100 to $15-$25-$60-$80-$100). I think it is better to use the previous colours, and in player articles I would use something like the following:

Legend
$100,000 tournaments
$75/$80,000 tournaments
$50/$60,000 tournaments
$25,000 tournaments
$10/$15,000 tournaments

This should be solved as it will lead to confusions.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. The actual mandatory categories in the chart should read the actual payout... no need to make it wider than possible. The other thing we could do is change the dollar amount to the new amount since other than a raise in payout the tournaments remain the same I think. They could change again in two years to a higher amount and the legend would get even messier. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Men v Women

Please quit comparing the women's game to the men's. It's a stupid comparison to note that Serena has the "most titles" of a tennis player. She would not win a single one if competing against the men. The male and female games are separate - and so too should the Wiki narrative be. - DLPB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.236.150 (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Margaret Court would have stood no chance in the professionalised sport that we have today, should I remove all references to her record from Wikipedia as well? "It's a stupid comparison to note that Court has the "most titles" of a tennis player. She would not win a single one if competing against the modern players. The open and amateur eras are separate - and so too should the Wiki narrative be." Sellyme^Talk 23:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

AfD

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragoș Dima which you may be interested in participating in. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)