Talk:ATP Masters 1000 singles records and statistics/Archive 1
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
How to deal with changes in the tournament order
[edit]I added a note (Note: Rome and Hamburg were held in reversed order from 1990–1995. Rome and Madrid were held in reversed order from 2011–ongoing.). This may not be the best solution. Perhaps it would be better to insert a new table row with the tournament names (cities) each time a change occurs, whether this is a change in the order, or a replacement (Stuttgart, Essen etc.) But then this is confusing because right now a row with tournament names indicates the start of a new tour or at least a new tour name. So these rows would have to look different somehow. The present situation is confusing because people can easily think that the current Rome champion is actually the Madrid champion (right now this in fact is the case with Djokovic, but in general this is not true). If the present order is kept, it may be better to switch the Rome and Madrid columns and change the note to Rome and Madrid were held in reversed order from 2009–2010. Compliments to 03md and Navops47 for your hard work! Gap9551 (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't it handled well enough in the following table?...Majors-Masters-Olympic Champions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion the situation in that table isn't great either, but at least there no cumulative total is kept track of in the cells. In the table in this article, it may happen that a player has for example (5/6) behind his name in one cell, and (4/6) in the cell to the right of it, if that tournament was held earlier, which I think looks a bit weird. Gap9551 (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Maybe we should scrap the (5/6) type totals in these tables so as not to have that problem? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, I would prefer to keep those. But anyway, I think I'm the exception in this regard, so let's go with the majority here. If it were up to me, I would prefer adding a 5th column in the main table in List of Grand Slam men's singles champions, only for the Australian Open 1977-1985, and remove these 9 fields in the first column. Same goes for the player's timelines. It would make the order in which the slams were held much clearer, but since I assume most wouldn't like it, I won't even propose it seriously. ;) Gap9551 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Maybe we should scrap the (5/6) type totals in these tables so as not to have that problem? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion the situation in that table isn't great either, but at least there no cumulative total is kept track of in the cells. In the table in this article, it may happen that a player has for example (5/6) behind his name in one cell, and (4/6) in the cell to the right of it, if that tournament was held earlier, which I think looks a bit weird. Gap9551 (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
More than 5 title in doubles
[edit]I think that the rule have to change to 6 or more titles, i have counted all the titles for doubles and there is 49 people that won 5 or more titles, i think that 49 is a lot for that stat, and people that won 6 or more titles are 36 i think that is enough for this. So i will to remove the people that dont have 6 or more titles, if you think that is necessary add that the people so there are the people that were won 5 Laver, John Alexander, Phil Dent, Stefan Edberg, Sergio Casal, Todd Witsken, Rick Leach, Patrick Galbraith, Byron Black, Alex O`Brien, Wayne Black, Kevin Ullyett, Hans Gildemeister, Heinz Gunthardt. Bry17may (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Nadal
[edit]How come Nadal's image is not in this article? And what is lleyton hewitt doing here! This article is a mess. even in the sections it has so many sections which has the titles "MOST" and has all the lower numbers as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.81.206 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Should London be an event listed from 1972 to 1975? Should it not be Canada instead Montreal/Toronto (varied according to year)
[edit]In the Wikipedia site for Wembley it says that the tournament wasn't played between 1972 to 1975. So the tournament winners for London that you have for those years Winners Năstase 1972, Okker 1973, Connors 1974, Dibbs 1975 - were at some other London tournament. Did it have the prestige of Wembley in those years? If you look at another very similar site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_P...ries_1970-1989
They have Canada listed in those years rather than London.
What are you thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmartin prof (talk • contribs) 00:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
More Info
[edit]There are much controversy about the pre and post 1990 events. It would be very usefull to have the main draws of the tournaments before 1990 so the statistics about amount of semi finals, match wins, different titles and differents finals can be merge with the post 1990 tornaments. If anyone has that information would be very so good to share it. Thanks. --Tommy The Wise (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Factual accuracy
[edit]Given the discussions at Grand Prix Super Series, dealing mainly with the naming and composition of the top tier of Grand Prix tennis tournaments below the Grand Slams, this article also needs to be tagged for disputed factual accuracy.--Wolbo (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
What is the point of Fastest To section?
[edit]Either the section is grossly inacurate, or I have completely failed to understand what record it's attempting to show. For example, under "fastest to 5 titles in 1 year", we have entry for Federer from Miami 2005 to Miami 2006, but that's 2 years, not one; in 2005 and 2006 Federrer achieved 4 titles, not 5. Then fastest to 15 titles in 4 years, we have Djokovic listing tournament spanning 5 years, not 4. What is this section actually meant to show? When does the count start and finish? Anyone? Tennispompom (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Goodness this article is bloated with trivia
[edit]I hadn't been to this article in awhile, or perhaps I just didn't keep scrolling down. WOW! Once you get to most tournaments won in a season it's just ridiculous. Successful title defenses? Really? Most different tournaments won, most different tournaments played? triples, hard doubles, clay doubles? North American series, four continents? All countrymen in finals? top 4 seeds in the semifinals? top 8 seeds in the quarterfinals? Cumulative title leaders? Winners of the 3 European series tournaments on clay? Oh my gosh. This article needs pruning so badly to cut out the bogus meaningful events. I'd do it, but I'm sure it would be reverted on the spot. We really need an RfC on what stays and what goes to make this article informative to readers but not a pile of fan-cruft and trivial details.. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Legitimacy of 'Championship Series'
[edit]The 'championship series' from 1970-1989 didn't exist. I haven't found any existence of it elsewhere and it's even been exposed for not existing on the Grand Prix Super Series page in the talk section. To list a bunch of tournaments purely for the continuity of Masters Series events before 1990 is spreading false information. The Grand Prix Super Series is the closest thing to Masters Series events but the structure of that category of events is different from the top 9 tournaments outside of the slams that forms the ATP Masters Series. Removing this category of events from this period seems logical before more people look on here and believe the tournament category to be legit.
With that, what is the point of this page?. It is essentially the same as the ATP Tour Masters 1000 page. All the extra trivia on this article needs to be on there. --Xc4TNS (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Have again removed the pre-1990 part of the table. You are correct, there was no such thing as a Grand Prix Championship Series. The Grand Prix Super Series covered part of the 1970-1989 period but those years had widely different number of tournaments in the Super Series tier. Retrospectively selecting 9 Super Series tournaments just to match the number from the post-1990 period is misleading and violates WP:NOR.--Wolbo (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Winners by year
[edit]The user ForzaUV removed the chronological order of the winners, stating that "most recent years should stay at the top as they have the information that most readers are looking for"... I am sorry but this is a very weak argument and it does not justify the change.
All sorts of events, and in particular sports events are ALWAYS listed in chronological order, from the first or less recent to the last or most recent. This is a matter of common sense and logical approach, and it allows the readers to appreciate and understand the evolution of the tournaments.
So the chronological order of the winners of the Masters 1000 should be restored.--Oluclen (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Done You are correct. All charts at tennis project are done chronologically if possible. I couldn't undo just that part so ForzaUV will need to fix any of his other edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Are you guys sure about this? I know that chronological order makes sense but I feel going from most recent to oldest in such cases make even more sense. The most relevant info should be at the top and more accessible to the readers if you get what I mean. Most people are interested in the players of their time so top of such lists should be dynamic. To have it fixed until the end of times - unless it’s necessary (wars events or something) - is not a good practice imho. Even ATP and ITF do it this way
- ATP: https://i.imgur.com/028uk26.png
- ITF: https://i.imgur.com/bazljhY.jpg --ForzaUV (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- 100% sure. Tennis project consensus for years. All our charts are done chronologically. Also, many times we put a notation of wins in a chart such as at List of Grand Slam men's singles champions. Those numbers would be backwards if it wasn't chronological. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- I see. I wish I could change such guideline but it is what it is, I guess. As for the notation of wins being backwards, I don’t see a problem. For example, Federer (20/20) as his most recent and current personal record and if you want to see his first, second or tenth win, you should go a bit back in time. It makes sense, I feel. At least, I hope you understand where I’m coming from. Thanks! ForzaUV (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- 100% sure. Tennis project consensus for years. All our charts are done chronologically. Also, many times we put a notation of wins in a chart such as at List of Grand Slam men's singles champions. Those numbers would be backwards if it wasn't chronological. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
15 of Top-16 seeds in R16
[edit]I believe the section 15 of Top-16 seeds in R16 is unnecessary. The other similar lists in its section are:
- Top 2 seeds in final
- Top 4 seeds in semifinals
- Top 8 seeds in quarterfinals
A section for R16 would be warranted in the events that ALL OF THE TOP 16 SEEDS make it to the R16. These would be special occasions worthy of a section to list them, similar to the lists preceding it for finals, semifinals and quarterfinals respectively.
In this case, "15 of the top 16 seeds" making it to R16 is nothing special, doesn't follow the format of the sections preceding it and bloats the article with unnecessary, unimportant trivia.
In the spirit of WP:BRD, I will go ahead and remove the section.
If you believe this is an important section to have in this article, please discuss it here and let us reach consensus and not get into an edit war. I'm open to hearing valid counter-arguments.
Kvwiki1234 (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- To be honest, the only one that isn't ridiculously trivial is top two seeds in the final. The rest is just chewing gum and unsourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- The section is about seeds stats and the subsection you removed is about a notable seeds stat, the page is also about records and the subsection you removed is about a record (most seeds in R16). I would understand if they were 8,9, or 10 seeds but that's 15. 15 out of 16 is almost perfect and subsection worthy. Self-revert your edit please and change it to "Most seeds in R16" or keep it as it is, both fine with me. --ForzaUV (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I feel it would only be subsection worthy if all of the top 16 seeds make it to R16. That follows in the format of top 2 (finals), top 4 (SF) and top 8 (QF) in the preceding subsections. We don't have subsections for "7 seeds in QF" or "3 seeds in SF", etc for the same reason.
- Therefore, for now the section isn't notable enough to be included in this article.
- Kvwiki1234 (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with ForzaUV that it is, in fact, a near-perfect line-up of the top 16 seeds and, therefore, should be included in the list, in its subcategory. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Request to keep notes in No sets dropped subsection
[edit]I am proposing a consensus to keep the notes contained in this subsection, which can be found in an earlier version of the article. I am for these notes. I suggest they be merged into a table, grouped footnotes or other forms of references. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing it this way. My problem is not with expanding the stats but with sets/games stats in specific, tennis is about match wins, titles or even rivalries, that's why I had no problem with 'Most finals contested between two players' you've added recently. We also agreed before about the 15 Top 16 seeds section. It's just that If we start to go in details on sets/games stats, next there will be total sets won, consecutive sets per tournaments, games win %, a mess and trivia that doesn't even matter. They really should be kept to a minimum and I think we have it perfect as it is now. If others disagree, we might keep the first and second notes, those are fine I guess. Two more things, 1. QFs stats are not included because top seeds usually need to win only two matches to make the QFs so it kinda made the stat not worthy of inclusion but I won't stop you if you find such info interesting even though I don't. 2. I noticed you changed {{Legend}} to {{color box}}, I understand why you did it but the legend boxes had the same sizes, the color boxes look a bit weird now so if you can find a way to fix that, it would be great. Thanks! ForzaUV (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, the more I look at the added footnotes below the no sets dropped sections, the more they seem obsolete to me. As for the color box templates. Their size is dependant on the letters' dimensions. Trying to unify the templates, so, they're all the same size will require additional tinkering with the parameters thereof, which is frankly tedious. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing it this way. My problem is not with expanding the stats but with sets/games stats in specific, tennis is about match wins, titles or even rivalries, that's why I had no problem with 'Most finals contested between two players' you've added recently. We also agreed before about the 15 Top 16 seeds section. It's just that If we start to go in details on sets/games stats, next there will be total sets won, consecutive sets per tournaments, games win %, a mess and trivia that doesn't even matter. They really should be kept to a minimum and I think we have it perfect as it is now. If others disagree, we might keep the first and second notes, those are fine I guess. Two more things, 1. QFs stats are not included because top seeds usually need to win only two matches to make the QFs so it kinda made the stat not worthy of inclusion but I won't stop you if you find such info interesting even though I don't. 2. I noticed you changed {{Legend}} to {{color box}}, I understand why you did it but the legend boxes had the same sizes, the color boxes look a bit weird now so if you can find a way to fix that, it would be great. Thanks! ForzaUV (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Proposal to merge Masters Doubles page and this one into one
[edit]Hey, there. I am proposing a merger between Tennis Masters records and statistics page and List of Tennis Masters Series doubles champions tennis page, whose creator is @ForzaUV: There used to be a single tennis page listing Masters-related records and statistics for both singles and doubles. Then the doubles sections got removed and the page refurbished aka 'overhauled' as stated then in the history revision. So, I was thinking, since a doubles masters stats page exists separately. Why not unite them as one, because they both represent the same thing just in different categories/disciplines? Tell me what you think of the idea. Looking forward to hearing from the fellow editors on this page and the doubles one. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree the pages should be merged. I was confused why the 'overhaul' happened in the first place. I support this.
- Kvwiki1234 (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- The article would be too long and harder to navigate, especially if someone decides to add doubles records. We have two articles for singles and doubles No.1s and two articles for Grand Slam winners, no reason to merge any of them imho. ForzaUV (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I meant combining the Masters singles and doubles records tennis pages. Not the grand slams and no.1's pages. Those I am fine with staying on separate page articles. I hope you understand what I was trying to convey here, @ForzaUV:. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Date series commenced
[edit]For reasons off clarity the date this series commenced should be in the introductory comments section. Antipodenz (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Italic notes and footnotes dilemma
[edit]ForzaUV What do you think about the italic alignment of the notes and footnotes strewn about in the entire article? I was thinking to:
1. make them all EITHER italic OR normal.
2. Keep the notes, which are usually accompanying the subsections for further explanations, normal, and footnotes beneath the various tables italic.
Any ideas? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sure making them all italic is not an option per WP:MOS so let's keep them normal. ForzaUV (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Done Made all italic notes and footnotes non-italic, normal again. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Merger proposal
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was not to merge. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click) and ForzaUV: I am proposing to merge List of Tennis Masters Series doubles champions (A) into Tennis Masters Series records and statistics (B). I think the content in the doubles page (A) complements the context in the singles page (A), and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems on this page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm against it because as I've said it before the article would be too long and harder to navigate, especially if someone decides to add the doubles records. It's better to keep them separated articles. ForzaUV (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Man, you caught me with the merger in the crossfire. Noone was against it. So, I went through with the merger. Will revert......Oh, well. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I saw the proposal yesterday and wanted to comment but I got sidetracked and forgot about it until now lol. Fyunck saw it for sure but probably didn't care. ForzaUV (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I did the merger and all the procedures with tags and blanking the doubles page and then I saw your archive revert and comment and I was, like, 1 vote against is all it takes to undo the merger, so, I went through with reversing it. P.S. I know you got sidetracked, you can't keep up with everything. I waited for a full week, for just in case...but, hey...at the end of the day, it is what it is. You live and you learn. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)}}}}
- Sorry about that, I saw the proposal yesterday and wanted to comment but I got sidetracked and forgot about it until now lol. Fyunck saw it for sure but probably didn't care. ForzaUV (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Man, you caught me with the merger in the crossfire. Noone was against it. So, I went through with the merger. Will revert......Oh, well. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 16 March 2022
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- No consensus was reached to move nor rename this article. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Tennis Masters Series records and statistics → ATP Tour Masters 1000 records and statistics – Current name: this series of tournaments (ATP Tour Masters 1000) hasn't been known as the "ATP Masters Series" or "Tennis Masters Series" since 2008 according ATP Tour Masters 1000#Historic names. The "ATP Masters Series" article doesn't covers the post-2009 tournament, so it is incongruent to have this article include the results from since then. Wolbo attempted this move in 2018 but was reverted without reason, so I thought a full discussion would be in order. Letcord (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Suggestion: the article accommodates the series from the very beginning and in the past the winners weren't awarded a 1000 points. Something like ATP Masters series records and statistics with "series" in lowercase should be good enough I think. ForzaUV (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree to a point with ForzaUV since it encompasses several name iterations. Except shouldn't it be "Tennis ATP Masters Series records and statistics"? If we don't capitalize Series then why would we capitalize Masters? Masters is only part of the name. Another issue could be that it's nice to see the actual sport in the title. Maybe it could be "Tennis ATP Masters level records and statistics." Since 500 and 250 are not Masters level events it could also work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need "tennis" in the title when the article for the tournament series itself, ATP Tour Masters 1000 (or ATP Masters Series), doesn't have it in it. I've just had a second idea however - despite "ATP Masters Series" only being the name for the series from 2004 to 2008, that article contains all the 1990–2008 results, whereas ATP Tour Masters 1000 only has the results since the series was last renamed in 2009. Would it be better to merge those two articles so that all the results since 1990 are in the one article, which would also eliminate the problem this article currently has of its title being subordinate to an article that doesn't cover the full span of the series' history? (We could still rename to the current name if that was preferred). Letcord (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Letcord...appreciate your move. Yes, the articles' names are not only justifying their period but also content sometimes. I agree to change the name of this article (also merger with ATP Tour Masters 1000). As the idea is to keep the title simple, shouldn't be "ATP MASTERS records and statistics" or like ATP Super 9, it can be "ATP Masters 9 records and statistics"....Krmohan (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need "tennis" in the title when the article for the tournament series itself, ATP Tour Masters 1000 (or ATP Masters Series), doesn't have it in it. I've just had a second idea however - despite "ATP Masters Series" only being the name for the series from 2004 to 2008, that article contains all the 1990–2008 results, whereas ATP Tour Masters 1000 only has the results since the series was last renamed in 2009. Would it be better to merge those two articles so that all the results since 1990 are in the one article, which would also eliminate the problem this article currently has of its title being subordinate to an article that doesn't cover the full span of the series' history? (We could still rename to the current name if that was preferred). Letcord (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree to a point with ForzaUV since it encompasses several name iterations. Except shouldn't it be "Tennis ATP Masters Series records and statistics"? If we don't capitalize Series then why would we capitalize Masters? Masters is only part of the name. Another issue could be that it's nice to see the actual sport in the title. Maybe it could be "Tennis ATP Masters level records and statistics." Since 500 and 250 are not Masters level events it could also work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree with the name change, since this encompasses all Masters since 1990, ATP Tour's inception, and not before. This article's predecessor included all Masters from ATP's inception back in 1733, (Note: ATP not to be confused with ATP Tour.), however because of lack of reliable sources was overhauled and truncated into the current version today. Besides the ATP seasons 1973-1989 contained Grand Prix and Masters series, which contained way more than 9 Masters in a series, sometimes even 16. So, to avoid clutter and confusion, the then article with singles AND doubles stats, albeit unsourced, were removed and shortened to fit the article's scope. That is my take on the page rename proposal. And, besides,...WHY fix if it ain't broken? Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I thought since "series" in not part of the official name anymore then it'd be better to not capitalize it but I don't mind it if it's left capitalized. Tennis in the title might be unnecessary but I understand why you like to have it, makes it easier for the readers and casual fans to figure out what the article is about just from reading the title. ForzaUV (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have to agree with @Letcord: here. Per WP:SIZERULE, the readable prose size for ATP Masters Series and ATP Tour Masters 1000 being 2252 B and 5722 B, respectively, equating to roughly 8kB, which justifies Letcord's proposal and we should, in fact, go through with the merger by finding a common name, that includes both tennis, ATP Tour and possibly even merge both pages' edit histories if needed be. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Since "Tennis Masters Series" was from 2000-03 only and no more "series" after "1000", both articles may be merged with "ATP Tour Masters records and statistics".. Krmohan (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Krmohan: I would keep Yearly masters articles separate or merged, but would not combine it, the "List of ATP Masters 1000 tournament champions", when we come up with a name, that is, with this page, with the purpose to have the stats and list of champions by year (1990-Present) be 2 individual articles, instead of all 3 in 1. The newly fused page would surpass the 50kB readable prose limit per WP:SIZERULE, thereby needing separating again, which is what we don't want. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Qwerty, It is fully agreed. Krmohan (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what I was thinking, too - have the prose from ATP Masters Series and ATP Tour Masters 1000 be one article, along with perhaps this year's result table, and have all the the 1990–present result tables be in a separate article called "List of ATP Masters Series results" or similar (if ATP Masters Series is chosen as the generic name). Letcord (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Letcord So, you are suggesting we rearrange the two articles, not merge them or am I missing something here? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Krmohan: I would keep Yearly masters articles separate or merged, but would not combine it, the "List of ATP Masters 1000 tournament champions", when we come up with a name, that is, with this page, with the purpose to have the stats and list of champions by year (1990-Present) be 2 individual articles, instead of all 3 in 1. The newly fused page would surpass the 50kB readable prose limit per WP:SIZERULE, thereby needing separating again, which is what we don't want. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Since "Tennis Masters Series" was from 2000-03 only and no more "series" after "1000", both articles may be merged with "ATP Tour Masters records and statistics".. Krmohan (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have to agree with @Letcord: here. Per WP:SIZERULE, the readable prose size for ATP Masters Series and ATP Tour Masters 1000 being 2252 B and 5722 B, respectively, equating to roughly 8kB, which justifies Letcord's proposal and we should, in fact, go through with the merger by finding a common name, that includes both tennis, ATP Tour and possibly even merge both pages' edit histories if needed be. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Now that those articles have been merged, I am Neutral on this move. It is still a viable option (with different benefits and drawbacks to the current title), so I will not withdraw the discussion in case others support the move. If there are no further comments in a week or so, feel free someone to close the discussion as "No consensus". Letcord (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Will do. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
USA Hard Triple and Different Master tournaments
[edit]Three– and two–title verified combinations were retained, the rest were removed. No other changes were made to the article, despite the discussion branching out into 2 separate topics. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
15:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)~~ Hi.. It is seen that you undid my addition in the "Triples" considering that they IW-MI-CI are not back-to-back master tournaments. The triple is named "USA Hard Triple" ....They are back to back tournaments held in one specific country (USA). There is no other triple parallel to this. ....Federer is the only player to achieve this triple back-to-back (after skipping Canada masters in 2005, but even participating Canada Masters does not matter like for Hard X Clay X Indoors triple, the tournaments mentioned are not exactly back-to-back but specifically back-to-back with the kind of achievement in the triples). USA Hard Triple is also in line with this. ....The fact that this triple is very hard (Indian wells of draw size 92, Miami of draw size 92 and Cincinnati of draw size 56 is a triple very hard to achieve in one specific country back to back).. This would be a unique achievement held by only one person in the history so far, so is also worth mentioning record if any other player achieves this in future.Hope you agree on this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.178.62.5 (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
New comments[edit]
@ForzaUV @Qwerty284651, Calendar Masters combinations indicated and Masters strike rate are not fine. They are not confirming to its title. IW-MI-CANADA are not back-to-back titles. So it should be removed. Word Masters Slot Strike Rate is must to remove confusion to the readers/editors. If u want to keep back-to-back by any specific reason, then all surface triples. Not agreed to leave the stuff as it is. Pl change to one of the CMCs at the earliest.... Krmohan (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@ ForzaUV, @Qwerty284651 - Hope you have gone through the sources and data. As far as "back-to-back" tournaments are considered, following calendar masters combinations are only meeting the criteria.
As far as other combinations are concerned in the hardcourt triples before US open, which are not back-to-back are as follows.
Now, we have following options
Strictly speaking, we need to go by option (1) only as per the title, but if other combinations stats and records to be captured, need to go for option (3). Request either of the options, as current CMCs are not exactly matching the criteria/structure of the page. Hope this is in order..Krmohan (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
New comments 2[edit]Hi...Last week, I have closely looked at the "Doubles" combos. The data is verified as per a) Back-to-back tournament titles and b) Currently active combinations in bold. The following stats / records data is not verifiable from "Doubles" combos. Need revision accordingly.
Hope this is in order to do the necessary edits. Krmohan (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
|