Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

10x WTA 1000 events in 2024

I am pinging @Fyunck(click), ForzaUV, and Krmohan:, the original contributors to the WTA 1000 tables' current design and layout. Not sure Forza will respond as he's been inactive for almost a year. Fyunck helped with the tables design before both stat pages were even created.

With BOTH Dubai (Dubai Open) and Doha (Qatar Open) being added as WTA 1000 events next year, 10 WTA 1000 events are scheduled to take place in 2024 for the first time since 2007. Other notable changes: Wuhan is coming back and will be played AFTER Beijing as the last, 10th, event.

This mainly affects 3 pages: WTA 1000 and its corresponding singles and doubles statistics pages. Both stat pages have "Champions by year" sections listing all the winners 1990-Present in 2 tables: WTA Tier I (1990-2008) and WTA Premier Mandatory/5/1000 (2009-). The first table has 10 tournament columns, because between 2003–2007 San Diego took place, which contributed to there being 10x WTA Tier I events in a year. Whereas the 2nd table has only 9 tournament columns.

My question is: do we create a 3rd table to accommodate for that extra tournament OR expand the current 2nd table to list both Dubai and Doha in separate columns? Or maybe some other solution that someone comes up with.

References

Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I didn't know about all those changes. The WTA 1000 article should be no problem since we create a new table every year. We'll simply have more rows in the 2024 season. I've always hated the city name in the tournament column in those charts. For the records articles it's time to start a new chart with 10 columns just like we did from 1990 to 2008. This is too big a deal to not start something new in 2024. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

if we create a 3rd table, then what would we call that section, since both tables are defined within a certain timeframe (see subsection names)?

Looking at the newly created 2024 WTA Tour article, it seems that they are also dropping the whole Mandatory, non-mandatory sub-categorization. Hopefully, this unify the ranking point system across the board and distribute equal points for all 10 tournaments.

As for the WTA 1000's tournaments column, we can always change the names from city names to full names, such as: China Open, Italian Open, Indian Wells Masters, etc. This would also affect the ATP 1000 article. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click),

1. merged tables or
2. split tables? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

For me, it's a no brainer. This is a drastic change and should require a new table. So split tables. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts on the lead texting? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

ATP Masters 1000 yearly page title naming

WTA 1000 season articles all end with "...tournaments". Only the 2023 ATP Masters 1000 page has "tournaments" at the end of the title. Do we match what the WTA articles have or remove tournaments from the one ATP Masters season article? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Well we have ATP 250 tournaments and ATP 500 tournaments why wouldn't we have ATP Masters 1000 tournaments? The titles are supposed to help readers and simply saying ATP Masters 1000 without saying tournaments seems a little less than adequate. We could be more descriptive and call it "2023 ATP Masters 1000 tennis tournaments." Do you realize in the lead or infobox we don't even let readers know what sport it is? The only mention of tennis in the whole article is in references and external links. That is pretty bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

What you are proposing is we update all leads and do a mass-page move for all yearly Masters articles. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the first "ATP Masters 1000" article is 2019 so that's barely any. Even going back to 2009 would only take a couple minutes. Changing the leads to include the words "tennis tournament" is also pretty darned easy, and is really mandatory. These articles are supposed to stand on their own no matter how a reader gets there. It is pretty much required to name the sport the article is all about. I had to re-write almost every single one of the four majors (mens, womens, singles and doubles) all the way back to 1901 because of reader and administrator complaints. That took me days and days but I finally got them corrected. This is a minor blip compared to that. The title change is only a suggestion of mine... we certainly don't have to do it. But the lead really needs that wording addition. If the group wants them all without the word "tournaments" (as just ATP Masters 1000, ATP 500, etc) the lead fixes can make it very clear they are tennis tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You could have asked for a BRFA and somebody do it for you with a mass-edit using a bot. The same thing I am going to use for the mass-page move to "...tournaments" for the Masters season articles (1990–Present) and the lead update. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That's extremely difficult with a lead update. Every lead is written slightly differently so where the terms "tennis" and "tournament" go will be very fluid. Plus, few of all those leads had the winner and score in the first line. They had the last years winner mentioned first. A lot of re-writing and moving. A title could be done that way but I'm not sure it's worth it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Fyunck, I am talking about these articles: Category:ATP Tour Masters 1000 seasons. There aren't winners or scores listed in the lead in the aforementioned articles. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I just added "tennis" to 2023 ATP Masters 1000 tournaments. Just a simple addition so readers know the sport. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

A title could be done that way but I'm not sure it's worth it. So, you don't want "tournaments" added to end of each yearly article then? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

What I meant was a title could be moved by bot, but the lead not so much. But as long as the prose states tennis and tournaments, the title doesn't absolutely need to be moved. I would change "at least" 2019-2023 to "ATP Masters 1000" for consistency. Really they should all be changed to that nomenclature back to 2009. Sources have always used simply ATP Masters 1000, even way back then. See 2013 event, a 2015 article, a 2012 article, and even a 2010 article. It was common to call them ATP Masters 1000s from the term's inception in 2009. But the article leads need to tell our readers that these are tennis tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

And what nomenclature do you propose for the articles pre-2009? Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. I thought it was one thing at a time? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, to not jump the gun. The atp masters articles are named they were based on the sponsoring name from ATP, i.e. ATP's name, at the time from 2009-Present. Now, you propose unifying them to "<XYZ year> ATP Masters 1000" tournaments" for years since 2009. I am okay with that. I will add tennis to all articles' lead to signify the article is about tennis tournaments. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

When I looked at old newspapers and even the ATP tournament logos from 2010 they only said "ATP Masters 1000"... nothing more. It may have been different in the ATP official paperwork, but even they tended to only use "ATP Masters 1000". Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead

See this change for 2023 page and give me your opinion on it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there really a Masters 1000 season? Perhaps: The 2023 ATP Masters 1000 events are the thirty-fourth edition of the ATP Masters Series tennis tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Article name

1. 1990–2008 TBA
2. 2009–2023 (replace current names with YEAR ATP Masters 1000 tournaments)? Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

   Like I said... I'm cool with leaving the word tournaments off the title, but the WTA events should then be changed to use the same format (as long as tennis and tournaments are somewhere in the lead for our readers). Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

2024 ITF Womens tournaments recategorized

From 2024 ITF recategorized its tournaments the W25 --> W35 the W40 --> W50 the W60 --> W75 and terminate W80 category.

Until now, this has also been the was the ITF tournaments key:

Key

Category

W100 tournaments

W80 tournaments

W60 tournaments

W40 tournaments

W25 tournaments

W15 tournaments

What will be the new color scheme? Sczipo (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Well there will still be W15 = $15k so that will remain the same. The W25 will goto W35 but remain at $25k so that will remain the same. The W40 will goto W50 but still have $40k so no issue there. The W60 will goto W75 but still be $60k so that should remain the same too. W80 is gone so the color is gone. And the W100 will stay the same and still be $100k. So the dollar amount isn't changing for these events and the W80 is disappearing. All we need do is delete the W80 and switch to the new names and all should be good. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thx. Sczipo (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Why are the tiers (prize-money) and the key colours for the season 2024 not displayed as answered above? The ITF circuit finals are marked with wrong prize-money (example among other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonia_Ru%C5%BEi%C4%87 Nonthaburi 50.000 instead of 40.000). This is misleading for the readers and not correct. Sherman1998 (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The W40 category doesn't exist for the 2024 tournaments but the W50 tournaments offer $40,000 in prize money. (W50 Nonthaburi for example) The colour is incorrect on Antonia Ružić and the key should be changed to reflect categories and not prize money. YellowStahh (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I just fixed the article in question. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Very strange order at 2023 United Cup unlike any other tennis event

In all yearly tennis events we describe the most important aspect first. Who won the yearly event, the edition and what it is. WE do that with [[1]], US Open, etc. There were multiple complaints about this by readers throughout the years here. No sport mentioned, no winners at the top, finals brackets buried. Sure in the main article at United Cup where it's not a yearly article it would be different, but this is for our readers. You come to the page and first and foremost you want to know the winner of the 2023 edition, and in the body you want to see the final bracket, just like all other tennis articles here. The only reason anything else would go up top is that this is the very first edition, but then its opening lead would be different than all other editions. It seems like readers heading to 2023 United Cup first and foremost want to know who won that year. Then you tell us the edition, the fact you get ranking points, etc. Just like we do at the 2024 United Cup or 2023 Davis Cup. This has been copied from Talk:2023 United Cup to get more eyes on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this where we start a discussion about if it's the correct way to list by most recent champions (Savannah Challenger) or chronological order (ala any sensible winners lists)? Articles such as WIM, and USO arguably already fail MOS:OPEN as it fails "It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." As it already presumes you have knowledge of professional tennis and would understand what Wimbledon/US Open is rather than play to the "nonspecialist" reader. My knowledge of Wikipedias Manual of Style may be a little out of date from when I used to edit years ago, but despite Football arguably being the most popular sport on earth 2023 Major League Soccer season and 2023 MLS Cup Playoffs at least establish what the tournament is first before delving into any details regarding who did what. YellowStahh (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really set the issue. Makes logical sense to first and formost explain the subject. You need te remember that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia for every kind of reader, not a tennis fansite for tennis fans.Tvx1 16:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the point raised here. I agree that many people will want to just see the data immediately - this is what the infobox is for. It is also worth noting that unlike individual draw pages for most tournaments which are much more result-focused, the fact that it serves double-duty as the article for the entire event as a whole makes explaining what that event was far more important than saying who won it. 2023 United Cup is a much better-written lead than 2024 United Cup as far as I'm concerned. Sellyme^Talk 00:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually the article on the entire event is focused in the article on the United Cup. The 2023 event readers will want to know who won first and foremost, not what edition of the event or who jointly controls it. It could even be tweaked in writing it as:

"The United States defeated Italy in the finals 4–0 to capture the inaugural 2023 United Cup, an international mixed-sex team tennis competition held jointly by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) and the Women's Tennis Association (WTA)."

Something like that should satisfy everyone as a compromise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Your asking for opinions on this, and so far 3 people other than yourself have said to basically follow Wikipdia's MOS and your compromise is to follow through with your approach. If we were to take Novak Djokovic's lead as an example on your compromise. Wikipedia already has a manual of style with side wide consensus on the subject so I'm not even sure what there is to discuss.

"Djokovic has been ranked No. 1 for a record total of 408 weeks in a record 13 different years, and finished as the year-end No. 1 a record eight times. Djokovic has won an all-time record 24 Grand Slam men's singles titles, including a record ten Australian Open titles. Overall, he has won 98 singles titles, including a record 71 Big Titles: 24 majors, a record 40 Masters, and a record seven ATP Finals. Djokovic is the only man in tennis history to be the reigning champion of all four majors at once across three different surfaces. In singles, he is the only man to achieve a triple Career Grand Slam, and the only player to complete a career Golden Masters, a feat he has achieved twice. Novak Djokovic (Serbian: Новак Ђоковић, Novak Đoković, pronounced [nôʋaːk dʑôːkoʋitɕ] ⓘ;[6] born 22 May 1987) is a Serbian professional tennis player who is currently ranked world No. 1 in singles by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP)." It would appear a little something like this, because thats what the readers want to know first. YellowStahh (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

An individual bio has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's a terrible example. Every tennis event we have follows a certain protocol and this one seems out of place. Most of MOS talks about the first paragraph and not the first sentence. And a yearly article is quite a bit different than a a non-yearly article. We have items like Super Bowl XLVIII where the first sentence tells the two teams playing, and the second sentence who won and the score. And my compromise has bits of both... it's a big difference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Why seek other peoples opinions when you have no interest in taking them on board? YellowStahh (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I read each and every one of these responses. I may not agree but I certainly listen. There have been many times when I've been in the majority decision at Wikipedia but still find a way to compromise with the minority as this is a team effort. This isn't US politics where it's one way or the highway. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I only ask because the Superbowl article you point to starts with "Super Bowl XLVIII was an American football game" and doesn't start with the "The Seahawks defeated the Broncos 43–8 at the Superbowl XLVIII.." It mentions the two teams in the first sentence sure and that they are National and American champions, but it leaves the scoreline to the second sentence. While I do always seek to consider editors in good faith, the reason I ask why you are seeking opinions is because you've had 3 people weigh in, technically 4 people as Wolbo (talk · contribs) did revert your edit on the 2023 edition (Though if Wolbo is more than welcome to clear up my presumptiom should he wish to do so), and you are still seeking a compromise where describing the event is secondary where consensus seems against you. YellowStahh (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course I am if I think differently. And you'll notice that the article in question doesn't mention the two finalists in the first sentence. And it doesn't mention the score in the second sentence. It doesn't mention any of those things in the first three sentences. It takes the another paragraph to do so. It mentions ranking points and dates and multiple city locations. You said the superbowl "mentions the two teams in the first sentence sure" but this article doesn't. My compromise does all of that, yet you brush it off and come back with nothing else. I wouldn't have come back with an alternative if I simply blew off the other's opinions. If the article stays the way it is so be it, but that doesn't mean I think it is correct and better for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not meaning to blow you off so I am sorry if it comes across that way. Maybe a closer comparison would be a multi team article like 2022 FIFA World Cup which actually mentions who won in the third paragraph. YellowStahh (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That article is quite bad. I'm in shock that I would go to the 2022 World Cup page and have go down three paragraphs before I could see who won the darned thing in 2022. What's even worse is that the actual knockout bracket is so far down as to be hard to find. That's what readers want to see first and foremost. It's as if the most important aspects of the event don't matter. As if it's an afterthought. Britannica at least says who won in the first paragraph. Most sources of the event put the winners/losers front and center. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yet if we were to look at 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup which is a relatively recent featured article, which I presume the 2022 World Cup is followimg the standard of, its very similar to how its Introed. Wikipedia is not Newspaper, so while I don't want to be dismissive once again I apologize for this as I'm not sure its super relevant how our sources lay out their information. Papers will lead with "USA def. Italy 2–1" in the headline yet our article will be named 2023 United Cup. YellowStahh (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you please stop conflating what you would like to see, whith what all readers want. You don’t speak for the entire ridership here. Tvx1 15:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I apologize on that confusion. We had many many complaints about order through the years on standard tennis tournaments, so it holds true for them. But it was not complained about with the international team events. That was extrapolation on my part and I'll do my best in the future to keep that clear. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The thing is it's quite different with a yearly article. When we have an article on the United Cup, we say what that is in the lead. It's an International team tennis event. But the 2023 United Cup is far different. 2023 United Cup is an international mixed tennis event that was won by the United States over Italy. They are intrinsically linked as the highest level of importance. I feel our readers would want that right off the get-go. I could be wrong but no one has convinced me otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:FIRST - There is clearly defined Manual of Style for the first sentence, so I'm not sure why we would have to convince you as it feels it should be the other way around. YellowStahh (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think MOS:FIRST can clearly be used for my interpretation also. The 2023 event is not just the United Cup. It's the "2023 United Cup", which includes a winner/loser. You will also find that I will always argue for what I believe is the best interest of our readers regardless of an interpretation of MOS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the problem is none of the readers here is agreeing with what you think is best for them. And I really don't see how you can claim MOS:FIRST can be interpreted in your favor, when it clearly states that the lead needs to start explaining what the subject is to the nonspecialist reader, while all your arguments and interpretations are aimed at the specialist tennis fan.Tvx1 19:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The United Cup article states what the United Cup is.... just the general competition itself. The 2023 United Cup encompasses the winner also. It is a more specific definition... not just the United Cup but the 2023 United Cup. In my book that includes who won. I understand that the three of you don't agree with me and of course we go with this tiny majority. Tennis Project is notorious for the small number of editors making consensus and I've benefited and not benefited, but that's the way it goes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Clearly we are just going around in circles, so I am going to remove myself from the conversation as its proving unproductive. YellowStahh (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, your arguments are well documented. Wikipedia Consensus is based on arguments, not on who has the last word.Tvx1 19:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel the need to reiterate that who won an event is far less important than what the event is. Readers do not care who won some random unnamed unexplained event. "John Doe won!" is not meaningful if you don't know whether he won a Grand Slam, a 250 title, a Futures tour event, or just a match against his friends that wouldn't even pass notability guidelines. Explaining what the article is about must be the first thing in an article, because otherwise none of the other information has meaning. Sellyme^Talk 23:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

We totally disagree that readers don't care who who won the 2023 United Cup and what is important in a yearly sub article like this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Moving Yulia Starodubtseva to Yuliia Starodubtseva

Good afternoon, I have put in a move request for Yulia Starodubtseva as she is listed as Yuliia in most sources, there is a move discussion on Talk:Yulia Starodubtseva as well as my opening argument, as its moving slow I am hoping bringing the projects attention to it can move it along. YellowStahh (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello I am currently drafting a 1967 men's tennis season here: User:Navops47/sandbox/Season and I am having a technical issue with the January section of the calendar. I cant seem to align the tournaments showing for week beginning 9 Jan their should be 4 events showing ive put in rowspan 8 but the Tasmanian Championships wont show I've tried correcting it a few times but can't  :( I would appreciate any help from anyone to correct the error im not seeing many thanks. Navops47 (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well shoot, I did a quick look and cant figure it out yet either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking its been perplexing me so I moved on appreciate your help.--Navops47 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Navops47, hey there. I fixed your issue. You used a duplicate reference (<ref="name">) but you closed it with a > tag instead of a \>. See revision difference. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I was just posting a thank you reply at the same time you posted and got an edit conflict topjob my eyesight even with glasses is not brilliant :).--Navops47 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. Sometimes you just need a fresh pair of eyes, a second opinion, if you will.

I also propose you replace any deprecated tags like valign=top, align=center, etc. with their full forms style="vertical-align:...; text-align:..." Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I did notice several disambiguation links (dabs) in your sandbox. You can highlight the dabs to fix them by using the link classifier tool. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

American tennis coaches by state discussion

Please comment Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_14#Category:American_tennis_coaches_by_state regarding this tennis-related discussion.--User:Namiba 18:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

NEW Performance timeline

At tennis guidelines a new performance timeline design was agreed upon.

Performance timeline

Timeline Iga Świątek career statistics#Performance timelines Key W  F  SF QF #R RR Q# P# DNQ A Z# PO G S B NMS NTI N1K P NH YEC (W) winner; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; (RR) round-robin stage; (Q#) qualification round; (P#) preliminary round; (DNQ) did not qualify; (A) absent; (Z#) Davis/Fed Cup Zonal Group (with number indication) or (PO) play-off; (G) gold, (S) silver or (B) bronze Olympic/Paralympic medal; (NMS) not a Masters tournament; (NTI) not a Tier I tournament; (N1K) not 1000 tournament; (P) postponed; (NH) not held; (SR) strike rate (events won / competed); (W–L) win–loss record; (YEC) Year-end championships. To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated at the conclusion of a tournament or when the player's participation has ended. Tournament 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 W–L Win % Grand Slam events Australian Open 2R 4R 4R SF 4R 3R 17–6 74% French Open 4R W QF W W 28–2 93% Wimbledon 1R NH 4R 3R QF 9–4 69% US Open 2R 3R 4R W 4R 16–4 80% Win–loss 5–4 12–2 13–4 21–2 17–3 2–1 70–16 81% YEC WTA Finals DNQ NH RR SF W 9–3 75% Team events Summer Olympics NH 2R NH 1–1 50% Billie Jean King Cup A A Q A 2–0 100% WTA 1000 events Dubai Championships A N1K 3R N1K F 4–2 67% Qatar Open N1K 2R N1K W N1K 6–1 86% Indian Wells Open Q2 NH 4R W SF 12–2 86% Miami Open Q2 NH 3R W A 7–1 88% Madrid Open A NH 3R A F 7–2 78% Italian Open A 1R W W QF 14–2 88% Canadian Open 3R NH A 3R SF 6–3 67% Cincinnati Open 2R 1R 2R 3R SF 5–5 50% China Open A NH W 6–0 100% Wuhan Open A NH 0–0  –  Win–loss 3–2 1–3 12–5 24–2 27–6 0–0 67–18 79% Career statistics 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 W–L Win % Tournaments 11 6 16 17 18 2 Career: 70 Titles 0 1 2 8 6 0 Career: 17 Finals 1 1 2 9 8 0 Career: 21 Hard win–loss 7–7 7–4 20–11 47–7 42–8 7–1 130–38 77% Clay win–loss 7–3 7–1 12–2 18–1 19–2 0–0 63–9 88% Grass win–loss 0–2 – 4–2 2–1 7–1 0–0 13–6 68% Overall win–loss 14–12 14–5 36–15 67–9 68–11 7–1 206–53 80% Win (%) 54% 74% 71% 88% 86% 88% Career: 80% Year-end ranking 61 17 9 1 1 $24,592,763

Now it is taken up here for further discussion and consensus from the wider community. Share us your thoughts on whether the proposed chart befits this project or we should go back to the old format. The chart was changed because it went against MOS:HEADER hence why the row headers were redesigned to meet the guidelines. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Let's make sure it's presented properly. The decade old chart was vetted multiple times with screen readers and MOS and had no issues. One or two here think it goes against MOS header which was designed so that screen readers would work better. Yet it was tested years ago with no issues from folks who used those screen readers. A new chart was designed anyway. It is the best we could come up with though it has not been vetted at all. It is certainly ready to be presented here, though in the discussion it is not universally agreed that we need it at all. We need some with screen readers to take a look, but we would also want those who create new articles on a regular basis to see if they like it better than the long-standing original chart. Note the SR (strike rate) column has been removed. Note also that if there is only one "team event" in that row (it's shown with two items), the height of that row will be much higher than the other rows. Such as:

Tournament		2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	W–L	Win %
Team events	Summer Olympics	NH		2R	NH			1–1	50%

Not sure of a work-around for "team events" that would work. It was already shortened from "National representation" to "Team events." As an alternative chart, it is the best we could do. The comparison of what we have now is this current Iga Swiatek chart. Perhaps many will like the new chart better than what we have now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• I’m sorry, but the linked discussion doesn’t appear to show a new design that is actually agreed upon. It appears to be just your proposal for an alternative design.Tvx1 07:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  But that's sort of why this isn't an RfC. We wanted input from others here at the project. The new rendition is certainly the best three of us could come up with but it needs the vast experience of the full tennis project to weigh in. It does need those who use screen readers to test it out... probably to help others in giving an opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Which is why it was brought here for further review and discussion. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  I agree I don't see any difference with the old design or any improvements. Except that the headers are on the left side instead of above. It seems a lot of work for no reason to go change just the positions of some headers. Sashona (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Anna Kalinskaya infobox dispute

Hi all. User:Marcric and I have a disagreement over how to present the titles for Kalinskaya on her infobox. For doubles, based on my interpretation of Template:Infobox tennis biography, which says Singles and Doubles titles, include only titles won on the WTA (women) or the ATP (men) Tour, not the ITF circuit (the tier below), this should simply state '3' as she has won 3 titles at the WTA tour level, and my understanding is that these supersede her WTA Challenger, ITF and junior titles that she may have won. For example, I note that most GA articles don't bother listing ITF or Challenger titles once the player has reached the highest level: Simona Halep, Belinda Bencic, Sofia Kenin, Dayana Yastremska. In fact, with Halep, we don't even bother with the ITF statistics at Simona Halep career statistics, even though we know that she won many at that level in her early days. Same with Beatriz Haddad Maia and Laura Siegemund, both of whom played on the ITF tour for years but we only need to record their WTA titles.

I also think that her singles infobox should just state '1 WTA Challenger' so that it is in line with Kateryna Baindl, Irina Khromacheva and other players whose highest honour is a WTA Challenger singles title and when she inevitably wins a WTA Tour level event, it should just be changed to '1' to be consistent with every other tennis article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - as soon as 2 days ago, her article was formatted in the correct way, listing only her WTA titles in the infobox, as she is a WTA Tour level player now, not an ITF one. I would like to ask if JamesAndersoon or Fyunck(click) can provide any guidance or link to a previous debate where we've had this before. I can only find this debate from 2009 but I do note that I can't find any example of a GA or FA tennis player article where we list their low level titles alongside the top level ones in the infobox. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi All, I'm just trying to implement a pattern I have used in Ana Bogdan's article. If I'm in the wrong way, just tell me, explain the reasons and point the pattern I shoul use, because at this date, each article uses a different pattern... --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Since Ana Bogdan hasn't got any WTA titles yet, I think it's fine to list her ITF titles there as they are her highest achievement. Once she wins a WTA tour title, we should stop listing them as it becomes superfluous. In the same way, we never list a player's best junior major results in the infobox after they have started playing at the senior level. To comply with Template:Infobox tennis biography properly, we should only be listing Kalinskaya's highest level achievements and not just an exhaustive title listing in the infobox. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

But that is my point. If we have already defined "the correct way", just point me the discussion and the conclusion, because as I have stated "at this date, each article uses a different pattern". Which is the "correct one": items like image size, titles info, date format and references do not follow any pattern. And if a "pattern" changes if the player get a new level title it is not a pattern. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

And make sure to update the career win-loss for singles and doubles to main tour wins-losses only after a player has won their maiden singles/doubles title in the infobox. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The guidance here is sufficient. Stats should be for main tour only once they have won their first main tour title. Please note that this also includes players like Caroline Garcia, Aryna Sabalenka, Ekaterina Alexandrova and others so I would ask you politely not to restore the ITF stats on their boxes. User:Fyunck(click) edited here on Maria Sakkari stating Once a player starts winning WTA titles we stop posting the minor league titles in the infobox which is further evidence of consensus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

As an additional note, please stop changing the European date format to American when the player is European, like with this edit to Ana Bogdan, which was correctly reverted by User:Adamtt9. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it: so the "pattern" varies, according to titles and country of the player. From now on, I will just stop updating player infoboxes. Regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Marcric:Actually that is correct, just like many different types of Wikipedia articles. Per sourcing we use the correct date format depending on nationality. And when a player is only playing in the minor league ITF events, those events are important and their infobox shows that. Once they start winning main tour WTA titles that changes and the minor leagues events (while mentioned in prose) are no longer important enough for the infobox. It's pretty simple and easy to handle so we'd hate to lose an enthusiastic editor. Cheers. One thing of note. When this became the norm, there was no WTA challenger tour so how to handle winning only Challenger and ITF events is new ground. It might be we would include both until such time as a player wind their first WTA main tour title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): No problem, and You will not "lose" this editor. I am very identified with the character Monk, so it is very difficult for me to work without a pattern to follow (I have 45 patterns in text files defined for different subjects in Wikipedia). And since it is clear that a pattern for tennis players will not be defined for the English Wikipedia, and I don't want to force others into my OCD. So, I will simply abandon my project of standardizing those infoboxes. Regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Marcric:I liked watching Monk. But there actually is a pattern here and it should be consistent. Date formatting per nationality. Show minor league ITF record when playing and winning only ITF events. Once winning starts in the major league WTA or ATP main tours, ITF records are removed. That is what is supposed to be followed here. Take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): No problem, as I said, I disagree with what you consider a "pattern" for the English Wikipedia that changes per nationality and per titles earned, so, from now on, I will not change a comma in those infoboxes. Take care. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Records against top 10 players section is being deleted on multiple pages without consensus

Where is the consensus vote on deleting this information mentioned in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 21#Useless, original research chart on many tennis articles. Why?, I don’t see any. We need to create an RFC and bring up a vote before deleting multitude of pages with information collected for years by the contributors based on a singles opinion by user @Qwerty284651:. Sashona (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Per discussions at several talk pages including Iga Swiatek, and finally at this talk page where we removed the trivial charts but kept the wins over top 10 (at the time) charts. Most of the women's charts have been done, but the men still need a lot of removal and fixes. I'm working on it slow but steady. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I moved the above comment, which was posted after the discussion had been archived, from the archive page to the Project's talk page to revive the discussion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the timeline to get the Women’s and Men’s Win AND Loss charts done, right now you are deleting whole head-to-head Win-Loss sections and not replacing it with anything. I only see a Top 10 Wins section. Sashona (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) STOP deleting the section record win/loss in the players profile pages, unless you have a replacement new WP:COMPROMISE chart that combines Wins AND Losses over top-10 players. Sashona (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You have to remember most things are not handled by wikipedia-wide RfCs. They are handled by discussions. We had a recent discussion about whether to include nationality of Russia and Belarus in all of our rankings charts. Three people joined in after a month of discussions. It went a whopping 2-1 (I was the lone vote against). Since no one else joined we went with 2-1 and we moved on. It happens that way sometimes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

How are we supposed to know there was even a discussion on Records against Top-10 players? I don’t see a vote, who were the people for and the people against besides you, can you tag them on here?

We need to vote on this, you are erasing a lot of information collected over the years. If you want to not included it in the newly created profiles that is fine but I don’t agree with deleting information. Sashona (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The whole top 10 record sections are WP:NOR. And they do not reflect the actual ranking of the opponent, who at one point was ranked in top 10 of the rankings, that a player faced off against. Sections that list the top 10 win record against actual top 10 players at the time are fine, the rest I would remove, including past BLPs and current ones. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It is there for every tennis player, but it is “no original research”. I don’t understand, how do you know? We still need an RFC so we can vote to delete or not that section, since it is on all players pages. For the future new players profiles we can omit it if a decision is made to take it out. Sashona (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a form of original research as there don’t appear to be any source who seem to specifically maintain lists of wins against top ten ranked players, thus there is no proof of notability of this concept. Moreover the criterium used to define a “top ten player” is completely original research.Tvx1 07:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

So if Top 10 Wins section is original research, then why are we keeping that section but not the Records against top 10 section. I thought the whole idea of Wikipedia is to create records of things that other sources don’t have. Are you saying we should or not keep the Records against top 10 section? Sashona (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That is 100% dead wrong. Wikipedia creates nothing! We are an encyclopedia. We can post stats that are already published somewhere else we don't really synthesize data into new data WP:OR. In fact we are not supposed to be a repository of stats at all WP:NOTDATABASE. Maybe that's what the problem is in these discussions, that the rules are being broken and editors don't realize that. One of the problems with the old chart, and why we eliminated it, was it was almost impossible to prove it was correct WP:VERIFY. At least a chart that is top 10 "at the time they played" can be linked and seen pretty quickly. The problem occurs when Jimbo Clodhopper starts the year winning three events and makes it to the top 10 and the rest of his 20 years career he's out of the top 200. With the old deprecated non-consensus charts it doesn't matter... he could be ranked 371, play Medvedev, and we have to add Jimbo Clodhopper to Medvedevs top 10 chart. Or the opposite when after 20 years of being ranked 300, Shelly Rackethead wins a depleted Australian Open and gets ranked in the top 10. We would now have to go back and add 20 years of her playing to every single player who ever played her, since she is a top 10 player. It's ridiculous and almost impossible to keep track of for accuracy. Wins over top 10 players at the time they played, is much easier to maintain for accuracy and non-trivial use of stats.

And you could be confusing two very different items. "Top 10 Wins" and "Records against top 10" are apples and oranges. The "top 10 wins" chart is at the time of participation... the player was in the top 10 when they played. Easy to find, maintain, and prove the chart is correct. The non-consensus "Records against top 10" the players could be ranked 999 when they played and still be in the chart. That's crazy and why we removed it. Andy Murrays body has sadly broken down and he's ranked 67 and about to retire. It's no accomplishment to beat him now. Yet if a minor league ITF player crushes him he would get to add Murray to top 10 defeats in the the old non-consensus chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I am confused are you talking about WP:NOR? What is WP:OR? In any case all these data can be verified as we know who the top 10 players are and we know the the head-to-head for each player against those players, so that is what the chart represents. All head-to-heads for a player against players that are currently or were ranked in the top 10 before. ITF level matches are not included in this chart, only the ATP matches.Sashona (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:NOR both redirect to Wikipedia:No original research. Two shortcuts for the same thing.

What Fyunck is trying to say is if a newcomer breaks in the top 10, any previous match with any other opponent would have to be registered in those opponent's career stat pages as a top 10 win/loss which would be nonsensical and not supported by sources. Whereas, records between players who at least 1 was in the top 10 at the time of the match can br easily be tracked and verified with sources (tennis articles).

This is why the record against top 10 players (if it doesn't count a match WHEN that player was NOT in the top 10) has to go and ONLY count wins against top 10 players. Players with long careers (Serena, Djokovic, Federer, Navratilova) all played numerous top 10 players and listing all the losses would be make for a very long and redundant chart — that is why they are being limited to top 10 wins only. See the discussion I posted the link to below for more clarification. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you explained it better than I did. And to Sashona, we do not always know every single player that has ever been in the top ten at some point in their career. That's not always easy to look up. It's easy to look up one specific match (since it should be sourced) to see the rankings of the two players involved. So a top 10 at the time they played doesn't seem too trivial and it's easily verifiable by the link. Otherwise what you want is for us to keep watch on any player that ever breaks into the top 10, even for a week. Then we have to go back to every single match they ever played prior to that, then add the match record to every single player they ever played. And hope we don't miss one (which is likely). It's overly burdensome, overly trivial, and original research. Some might think that even a top 10 wins at the time of the match is a trivial chart, and a data repository against wikipedia policy, but at least it is easily verifiable. We try to strike a balance between trivial data and data needed by most readers. It's always a bit tricky. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If I were right, the very first action on this was started on Talk:Iga Świątek career statistics, and there was a clearly consensus on deleting the WP:OR Records against top 10 players table, and instead feature a new top-10 win-loss table as a WP:COMPROMISE. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The only chart I see is Wins over top 10 players under Taylor Fritz career statistics#Wins over top 10 players, for example. Sashona (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Which needs to be updated to new layout. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The new layout need to include the Wins AND the Losses. Where is that chart? Right now all I see is the Top 10 Win. The section Records with Wins and Losses are being wiped out by @Fyunck(click) from the players pages and not replaced. Sashona (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I said "Which needs to be updated to new layout.". Unnamelessness (talk) 12:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

And under Wins over top 10 players section it says: Taylor Fritz has a 20–34 (37.0%) record against players who were, at the time the match was played, ranked in the top 10. So it gives you the total wins and losses, the total head to head against top-10, but ONLY lists the individual Wins over top 10 players NOT the individual Losses. How do we check for the losses numbers if we don’t list them? Sashona (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sashona, you can find the career record of any player against top 10 players on ATP's website (records started being tracked from 1991 onwards). Taylor Fritz's top 10 win-loss record, for example. Unfortunately, WTA doesn't include those kind of career stats any more for the women. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Great, we should then update the old ATP source link in all pages to point to this NEW link. That also means we should list the Wins AND Losses against top 10 players since we have an additional place to check it, besides using the head-to-head and the match activity. Sashona (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I would still limit the chart to wins ONLY because, as mentioned earlier, players with 15-20 year careers have played against over 300 top 10 players. Listing all of those would add up too much clutter. To avoid that, I propose to limit the top 10 charts to wins only. AND, of course, remove the record against top 10 players section as it goes against WP:NOR. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

We probrably don't need the WTA or the ATP. There are third-party pages, like this one, where you can filter out records against top 10 players of any player by choosing VS top N and type in 10 on the right. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This site, for example, is the place. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Do we know the accuracy of that betting site? Can it be corroborated by another site? It does make it a bit quicker to create a "wins only" chart for all the players. Sadly, you can't directly link to it, but in sourcing a "wins-only" chart it would allow diehard readers to click the source to see the super trivial detailed stats they crave. That is something Wikipedia is good at; showing the encyclopedic highlights but giving the source where more detail can be found for those few who want it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

At the bottom it says "All data from ATP/WTA Live, ATP/WTA/ITF Official Websites and Sofascore." While I do consider all four sites they talk about as a reliable source, I would suggest using these instead of this one. YellowStahh (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you find that chart on the WTA/ATP/ITF websites? I can't. Taking Taylor Fritz, if you goto ATP under "Activity/Win-Loss/versus top 10" he has a record of 20-34. It doesn't say whom. I can buy that if it's 20-34 at ATP, and the betting site says it's 20-34 and also lists the actual matches, that it's probably correct. No idea what sofascore is. But then we run into length and trivia. Fritz is 26 and already a win/loss chart would be 54 rows long where with wins only it would be 20 rows long. Djokovik's win only chart is 257 rows long! Could you imagine if it had losses. The wikipedia rfc data police would run us out of town. Iga Swiatek has Wins/Losses she's 22 and it is already a lengthy 49 rows long. And the issue with an RfC is that it includes all projects and administrators. They may want half the charts on the article gone whereas we are talking about one chart gone and one chart shortened. That's why RfCs are a last resort per wikipedia. If we have to we have to. But it's one thing to include both wins and losses in the current chart, and it's quite another to include the deprecated head-to-head chart that is beyond trivial and original research. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I actually answered this question before, which is to use collapse wikitable to reduce the length, like Zheng Qinwen career statistics. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

What I want to keep is the “head to head” or H2H record against top 10 players, wins and losses. Why do we want to get rid of that research? Sashona (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

And that's a big problem at Wikipedia. We are not allowed to do original research per Policy. That chart takes a heap of effort and research and we have no idea whether it's correct or not. When you look at that chart under "number 5 ranked players", we see three players. How do we know there aren't thirteen players? There is no source for the chart. And under those "number 5 ranked players" you see Kevin Anderson at the top. They played once only... in 2020 and Anderson was ranked 122 in the world... not even in the top 100, not in the top 50, not in the top 20. That is useless trivia that requires lot's of original research to find out that he beat an old low-ranked player. If Anderson was in the top 10 it would be in the consensus chart as a victory for Fritz over a top 10 opponent. Same with number 8 ranked "Marcos Baghdatis." They also played once when Baghdatis was in steady decline and ranked 83. How Fritz does against the 83rd ranked player in the world is beyond trivial plus those looking at it will think it was a top 10 match. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The head-to-head charts have appeared in the career statistics of almost every tennis player for years. Over the years, no one thought to delete them, until suddenly the user Fyunck(click) and only this user thought that these charts were “trivial, trivial, trivial” and must be deleted. And now he thinks he can delete them all, and he's the only one who actually deletes them, with no respect whatsoever for the work of the editors who edited these charts for years.

This is weird. The head-to-head charts are popular, just keep them alive and stop deleting them. BundesBerti (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If they can be sourced, there's no reason not to, but I would cite WP:RANK though there is likely a more suitable outline in general notability guidelines for article content. "Notability is about having published, non-trivial information (i.e., more than a mere mention) in multiple sources independent of the subject, and the article itself not being the first place to provide the information." is the argument I would use against something deemed popular. There are also examples of other WikiProjects getting rid of "Popular content" such as the Pro wrestling project getting rid of the "In wrestling" section, while sometimes sourced really well it was left up to original research. YellowStahh (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

They really can't be sourced without original research. And there is no way to know how "popular" those charts are, so that's made up. My guess is the entire article is not massively popular and a chart that shows how a player did against the number 100 ranked player has got to be way on the bottom and trivial. That's why we have sources listed, so people can go see trivial betting site info if they really want it. And we had consensus on the charts being gone, so that is absolute baloney about both only me and disrespect. I do the dirty work after decisions are made, so I do expect this type of response from some. It goes with the territory of wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@BundesBerti, @Sashona, there was consensus where it was agreed upon to remove the losses and only keep the wins in the top 10 wins chart (I am posting the link to the discussion for the third and, hopefully, the last time). So, stop disrespecting other editors. I, too, think that head-to-head charts versus top 10 have to be deleted. They are original research, backtracking for each new top 10 player win/loss would require extra unnecessary research and you have been told twice this before in this discussion. Some sections need to go, top 10 wins can stay as they can easily be sourced. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The consensus, if there was one, was a WP: COMPROMISE according to user @Unnamelessness on keeping the head-to-head records charts for Men and Women containing “Wins AND Losses against top 10 players” with modified layout, not just deleting an entire Records against top 10 player section with no replacement coming. Sashona (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

And then it came up for discussion again to be wins only. New players could have wins and losses since their charts would be like 10 rows. Once they get to a certain level the chart becomes unwieldy. Like the infobox where we use minor league ITF records until they start winning on the main tour. Then the ITF records are removed and replaced with WTA records. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Where is that discussion? Who agreed and who did not? So far just Qwerty284651 wants to keep ONLY the Top 10 wins. Sashona (talk) 02:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Alex Michelsen is a new player, I only see the top 10 wins NOT the losses in his chart. Sashona (talk) 02:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree we should keep the head-to-head charts, that are in the “Records against top 10 players“ chart. Please vote on it in the section below. Sashona (talk) 02:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Vote section

I propose a vote to settle who is in favor of keeping only top 10 wins or top wins and losses. Vote to replace or not the "Record against top 10 players":

1. Replace with Top 10 wins chart ONLY

2. Replace with Top 10 wins AND losses chart

3. Do NOT replace the "Record against Top 10 players"

• I vote for 1 to keep only the wins charts. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• I vote for 3 to NOT replace the "Record against top players" Sashona (talk) 02:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• No change - in other words, keep current consensus of top 10 wins and no trivial original research charts of records against 183rd ranked players. I guess we do this survey now (there is no voting at wikipedia) every couple of months to watch the ping pong ball. It's going to take some doing to overturn the last discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• I vote for 3 to NOT replace the "Record against top players" BundesBerti (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Please pick option 1,2 or 3 above. No change is not an option. And it was not my idea the voting section, it was Qwerty284651’s idea. Sashona (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Fyunck is basically voting for the current consensus to keep the top 10 wins records only. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This is close to the truth, but I would never refer to it as "replace." It should be worded as "keep the" not "replace the." Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Funck thoughts.

I thought he is working, as stated in comments in the beginning of discussion above, on New charts for Men and Women with "Wins AND Losses against top 10 players", so that is option 2, not option 1 as you stated. He must have changed his mind and now he wants to cut his work in half and wipe out what he think is not necessary any longer.

He needs as a courtesy to everyone pick one of the vote options so we know what his answer is. Sashona (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You know, you are getting a little tiresome with your backhanded snottiness, and I don't appreciate it Sashona. You need to worry about yourself and back off. There is no voting at Wikipedia. Wins only are best for not cluttering up an entire stats page. Wins and losses can be done but absolutely not once you start playing a ton of top 10 matches. And the deprecated chart about everyone who was ever in the top 10 whether they are ranked 475 when they played, was shot down long ago when it was brought up at Swiateks article, and in other discussions as super trivial, original research, and misleading to readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

As I said previously voting was not my idea. Mind your tone, please. Sashona (talk) 07:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

My "tone" is there 100% because of your pointiness towards me. Over and over. Plus you erase my comments that someone else had to put back, and you moved my comments, which I had to ask on your talk page to stop. I sure as heck hope it wasn't you sockpuppeting on several pages too. I've been putting up with these stabs for awhile but it has to stop. I explain the best I can when you ask questions, and I'm sorry if I don't do good job in conveying my point. Others have helped clarify when I'm not clear enough and I thank them for it. But that "mind your tone" stuff is baloney. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sashona, I've put up with you during the Russian/Belarus discussion at Current tennis rankings and defused the situation from escalating. But I am not willing to continue doing that if you continue to act the same.

He must have changed his mind and now he wants to cut his work in half and wipe out what he think is not necessary any longer. He needs as a courtesy to everyone pick one of the vote options so we know what his answer is. Don't assume things. You don't know me. I am not working on any new charts regarding wins against top 10 players. And stop being rude to other editors. Next time I won't be defending you if someone is willing to report you. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Stop changing my and other editor's comments per WP:TPO and WP:INTERPOLATE. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

All you help in reformatting the structure and contributing content to this discussion is highly appreciated. Thank you again. As for putting up with me in previous discussions or sockpuppeting, not sure what that means, and why that is relevant, but I am just here to facilitate this discussion I started and help bring a resolution. I hope we continue to make progress. Sashona (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I say we just close the entire discussion down and agree to remove all information that cannot be sourced through a set of reliable sources. I like to always assume good faith, but the entire thing is littered with backhanded comments and I'm not sure if we can reach a proper consensus under the present circumstances. YellowStahh (talk) 07:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

As I have said, at least both Wins only and Wins-Losses only, can be sourced. The only question on those is where would we draw a line so that the table doesn't overwhelm the article? To be honest, Djokovic's "wins only" table absolutely overwhelms the article, but I can't see a way around it. He's won 64 matches just against the top three, so even that is large. But a 257 row table that continues to grow is really hard to navigate on a phone or laptop. Serena Williams has 178 rows, Nadal 186 rows. If someone ever makes one for Rod Laver it'll be scary too. Jimmy Connors only has No. 1 victories but I would imagine a nasty number of rows for him too... or Margaret Court. But the only thing that would be truly bad would be bringing back the everything table of option 3. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

As this discussion is going on, the whole head-to-head records are being deleted in bulk from the player profiles as we speak, doesn’t matter what anyone opinion is. Don’t see it been replaced by anything since the top-10 wins section is already there. Sashona (talk) 09:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is getting ridiculous. WP:!VOTE. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

If you really take into that !vote, I would say deleting them all per WP:NOTSTAT. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's probably not the correct place but it feels like we're slowly stepping into WP:ARBCOM territory or a similar committee, we need some type of comment outside of this project. I would rather assume good faith, but there have been enough accusations thrown about regarding bad faith edits, so I think it would be wise to disregard a vote, as consensus can be built without one, and we should be seeking opinions outside the Wikiproject. Wikiprojects are great and allow editors to work towards common goals on topics that interest them, but articles aren't just built for wikiprojects, so a wider set of opinions in my view would be best as we're reaching a dead end in the conversation. YellowStahh (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

So to reiterate my above comment, it should probably take place at WP:VILLAGEPUMP. As I previously mentioned the "In wrestling" section on pro wrestling articles seems like a very similar situation, and you are able to read the arguments in support of removing that section Here. Most of the arguments to keep that section because they'd "been maintained for years" fell roughly into WP:ILIKEIT.

I am also going to suggest as Fyunck has brought up the length of wins versus top 10, if the content is notable enough size shouldn't really matter and maybe it should be split into its own article, and it wouldn't be the worst idea if we can provide more comprehensive sourcing. YellowStahh (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of the arguments to keep that section because they'd "been maintained for years" fell roughly into WP:ILIKEIT.

Couldn't agree more on this. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Or the opposite is true too, most of the arguments fell into WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it is trivia, no need

Sashona (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

You know there is MOS:TRIV, right? And most of the argument is on WP:OR and WP:V, right? Unnamelessness (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree we are deadlocked at this point, so sounds reasonable to me. Not familiar with villagepump but I am all for it if someone wants to take the conversation there. Sashona (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That can certainly be done. Be forewarned though... that group and others like it have expressed many times that we have way too many trivial non-encyclopedic charts on our career stats pages (sourced or not). Editors there will look at the entire page and can make recommendations for other charts to be removed, not just the OR/trivial chart we are talking about. All the top 10 charts could get dinged like All these ranking charts, and winning streak charts, and milestone wins, and career seedings. These have all crept in over the years and administrators have mentioned them and we've just ignored it. It's why we usually try to handle things in the tennis and sports house rather than handing things off to the MOS police. So we should all be careful what we wish for and go in with our eyes open to the possibilities that we may get more than we bargained for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Now someone who has never made a constructive edit on Wikipedia is threatening to delete other charts, and of course once again: "trivial", "trivial", "trivial". Indeed, this discussion is getting absolutely ridiculous. BundesBerti (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"someone who has never made a constructive edit on Wikipedia" So lets leave these type of unconstructive comments out of this, and take this to the Village Pump. If they are going to give us a more constructive idea for these statistics then I think its our best bet. YellowStahh (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Well done BundesBerti. There appears to be no low road you won't take with your personal attacks so a warning was given. Back to the matter at hand; I have no issues with going to village pump and opening it up to every wikipedia MOS microscope. Heck I think we have way too many frivolous charts, but I know many are liked by tennis editors so I always hate to go into the open sea where they will get scrutinized. But if you are talking about the original research charts where we show players records ranked 483, then you left off ten more trivia statements. That one has already been buried as a non-wikipedia entry. Top 10 wins or top 10 wins/losses is what is the worthy discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Just as a side note: A player ranked 483 will not be playing matches on the ATP or WTA level because of low ranking. So that argument is not a valid one to be used as a reason to delete the head-to-head records charts.Sashona (talk) 23:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually they would still be in the chart you advocate for. Remember the chart you want isn't what their ranking is when they play a player like Taylor Fritz. That 483 ranking could be the end or beginning of their career. But if they have "ever" been ranked in the top 10 at any time they would appear on Fritz's chart if he played them. That's what you want and what we removed by consensus. Players get wild cards and exemptions to play all the time with low rankings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

They do not get indefinite wildcards and protected ranking for coming back to the ATP or WTA Tour is only for 10 tournaments so we are talking about very minimal number of matches here. Sashona (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

They come through qualifiers and boom they are in an event. Rankings can be all over the place. Sure more are ranked 100 than 483, but those charts have zillions of non-top 10 players in them. Just yesterday the Miami Open announced that Venus Williams and Emma Raducanu will be playing. Williams is ranked 474 and Raducanu is ranked 252. So now anyone who plays them in the event we would have to add Williams and Raducanu to top 10 head to head records in the deprecated chart. Those charts are filled with these players and it's trivial and not worthy of an encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This is really getting out of control now. Voting is not how we do things on Wikipedia and I don't see why we should do that in this case. Moreover, the set of options given to chose from is way to restrictive. They already force a certain course of actions, which is not right. I'm also seriously concerned by the way alternative suggestions are rather aggressively discarded. If you had to ask me, my preference would be "4. Remove all the top 10 wins charts". This information isn't regularly tabulated by independent mainstream sources. Therefore it's not notable. Moreover, we are not a stats repository, or a database and certainly not a tennis fansite.Tvx1 00:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Further comments moved to Village Pump

Tennis statistics, Hopefully I've pinged everyone involved, but I believe it's probably best to leave the discussion here. YellowStahh (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Appreciate trying to resolve this. Sashona (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@YellowStahh:Making sure... you want the topic here not at Village Pump? It was confusing looking what you wrote above and what you wrote at the Pump. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There is so much back and forth with accusations and name calling, I feel we move it over there and open it up to a wider bunch of editors and take out the close-nit nature of this conversation which is becoming unproductive. If we come to a different conclusion or the same one that at least will hopefully resolve the dispute here. YellowStahh (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we then close this discussion? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

We could do, and then encourage any remnants to follow over on village pump, I would recommend everyone I pinged to state their case, and then hopefully we can get a bigger variety of opinion from users not specifically tied to this project. YellowStahh (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I would not close it. Most discussions do not need closing. Plus tennis editors who see a purple closed discussion background pass it by as old... never reading it. It can be discussed over there but eventually it would need to be pasted here or at least synthesized here with a link to the VPs archives. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@YellowStahh I tried to get to the Village Pump, Tennis statistics but I do no see it there any longer. Did you move it? Sashona (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There'd be no point in me moving it. It'd been too long without any additional comments, the bot archived it. YellowStahh (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Any idea where to find it, so we can see the outcome of the conversation? Sashona (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sashona You can find the discussion here Here PrinceofPunjab^TALK 14:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Sashona (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Any idea update on what the outcome of the conversation was? The way The way I read it, Wins/Losses record vs top 10 is acceptable. Sashona (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Update??? It was pretty much, one chart was totally against policy and the other two were borderline original research because the betting sites the info is gotten from is fringe/trivial and not standard sports websites like ESPN or WTA/ATP or Tennis.com. They were also looked at as likely against undue weight wikipedia guideline standards. The longer they get the more undue weight. Djokovic was far and away undue weight and should probably be wins against top 3 only. I'm hoping that "wins only" against actual top 10 doesn't get looked at as overly burdensome for most players, plus the last discussions we had here said top 10 wins only. Others have reverted you on this and it's getting disruptive... you are even adding completely trivial "loss only" tables. Move on and we'll see if the "top 10 wins" only table gets a pass from wikipedia. If a player's "top 10 wins" only starts to get too long we'll have to look at top 5 for some players. I hope not, but the policy discussion seemed to take a dim view of all those tables (some worse than others). The policy discussion didn't even look at "Best Grand Slam results details tables" or "Grand Slam seedings tables" or year-by-year "career earnings tables." We should probably be thankful for that because I doubt they would pass policy original research at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

From what I read, there was little support for ANY of the charts. So we really should ditch them. The reality is that WE are the ones giving this importance, not the sources.Tvx1 10:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The information sources are not ATP or ESPN, the sources are Tennisabstract as well as live-tennis, quite reliable and showing Win/Loss record against top 10, currently being listed on the tennis career statistics pages. Sashona (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

And the policy discussion pretty much heeded them no more than a worm in the mud. They are used for betting and are not mainstream sports sources we were told and one of the reasons the two charts in question were borderline original research, and undue weight candidates. We are an encyclopedia where we take info that can be found everywhere... we are not a sports almanac. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

if I remember correctly, as far as the discussions went, it wasn't a knock on the reliability of TennisAbstract and Live-Tennis, but its the fact they're the only ones maintaining any type of available record for these statistics, so most of it falls into Original research. If it was Tennis.com, ESPN, BBC Sport and whatever other source you would like to throw in there, that also maintained these lists (outside of a few mentions of the win-loss record itself) then we could use that, as Wikipedia isn't then generating its own content. At that stage it's an established notable statistic, and Wikipedia is built on notability standards, it's why Marta Kostyuk gets an article but Mariia Kostiuk doesn't. If we are moving forward with another neverending discussion, lets not act like it's a simple straight forward "can we find a site that maintains the record I want to keep", there are multiple issues with the sourcing What Source, How It's Reported and How Many Reliable Sources are Recording the Information, are all factors to be considered. YellowStahh (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Things we need Village Pump specific help with:

1. Record Against Top 10 players. We had decided by consensus to remove this chart per original research and trivial. A few now feel it's a good chart worthy of inclusion. Note that these players were not necessarily in the top 10 when they actually played each other, just at some point in their careers. Do we bring this chart back?
2. Wins over top 10 players and Wins/Losses over top 10 players. These have been deemed ok by Tennis Project since they show only players in the top 10 when the two met. Each individual match should be sourced but have not been in this example. We are having trouble deciding what is a better choice without too much detail for an encyclopedia. There is some debate about whether "wins only" is consensus here.
3. Looking at an article that has most things, like Novak Djokovic Career Statistics, starting about ATP ranking and downward, is there any advice others can give about what charts could be trivial or original research? We don't want to keep coming back here. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Additional comments not related to subject

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have to remember most things are not handled by wikipedia-wide RfCs. They are handled by discussions. We had a recent discussion about whether to include nationality of Russia and Belarus in all of our rankings charts. Three people joined in after a month of discussions. It went a whopping 2-1 (I was the lone vote against). Since no one else joined we went with 2-1 and we moved on. It happens that way sometimes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) On the Russian flags you had a previous an RFC not just a discussion, and in the later discussion, the vote was 3-2 to delete the flags. Sashona (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) There was no RfC on flags. It was simply a discussion as was the charts. My goodness everything doesn't get up and down votes... This is wikipedia not a state bond proposal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 21#RfC: Shall we remove all Russian/Belarus tennis player nationalities from our ranking templates? Sashona (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC) I thought you meant an RfC to "remove" the flags. The RfC concluded to keep the flags. The discussion resulted in remove the flags. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Which was then put for another discussion and the vote was 2–1 to remove the BLR/RUS flags in all instances after the Russian-Ukrainian war including the rankings. I don't see what's the problem now regarding the flags. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Yes exactly first RFC and then a discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Shall we include flags/nationalities of Russian and Belarus players, from 1 March 2022 onwards, in our rankings charts? , except it was a vote of 3-2 in favor of removing the flags. You and Fyunck were against removing them.Sashona (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Let's not beat a dead horse. This discussion is over. The flags have been removed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC) The point was that there was an RFC to make the change. So we should create one for these above changes as well. We cannot have changes based on one person’s opinion. Sashona (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC) I already count three people on this discussion. I could be a fourth. This is not one person’s opinion. Also, we don’t need to have an RFC for everything. We can easily settle this through a normal consensus discussion.Tvx1 07:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Sounds good, I posted above my vote against deleting the section Records against top 10 players. Sashona (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC) There was a discussion and it was NOT one person's opinion. It was multiple. And it finally had no dissent. Then we discussed it again at the project guidelines page where even the one person who wanted the charts agreed to only the wins chart. We can't help it if you weren't a part of it. Shall we go back and redo every discussion and RfC that you missed? We don't really need another discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Who was for, besides you and Qwerty284651 as you always go in pair in these discussions, and who was against? Sashona (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC) @Sashona, this is the Top 10 wins discussion you are asking about. It was 3–1 to include only wins and remove losses in the "Record against top 10 players" sections. And as for myself and Fyunck always going in pairs in discussions. We don't. Yes, we are involved in discussions here on Tennis project's talk page but not all of them. If I see a discussion that I am interested in and want to share my opinion on or potential point of improvement, I will. Otherwise, I stay out of it. I am only active in tennis-related discussions. Fyunck, on the other hand, is active in various different topics/projects, including non-sports related. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Can you please comment above and state your vote , I do not know who agreed or no with you and Funck previously, that is why we are having this discussion. Sashona (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Kind reminder that Wikipedia discussions are not a vote! Tvx1 08:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)