Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Tennis (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Template merge[edit]

Tennis events[edit]

This section relates to this TfD. —PC-XT+ 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm merging templates into {{Tennis events}}, and would like to make sure it is ok before it goes live. You can see example testcases here. Please ignore #3 merge test, as I stopped the merge due to a new TfD. I do note, however, that it uses different colors from the others. In case I do merge it, should the colors be changed to match the others, or do they mean something different in this context? —PC-XT+ 08:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure which version is which, but the live version of the "2008 WTA Tour Championships" is terrible in the foreground background colors. Same thing with "2000 Tennis Masters Cup." Almost unreadable. The white lettering is much better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
You can ignore the live version. It will be replaced by the sandbox version. I plan to replace all variations, except possibly {{Tennis events 3}}, with the sandbox version. I tried to make the sandbox version close to each variation, except for the addition of the footer. I plan to convert {{Tennis events 4}} by hand, and redirect it, since it is only used by two articles. I'll wrap the others, so you can continue using the old names as usual, if you prefer. If this does not work well for one of the variations, the wrap can then be reverted to restore the current functionality until the problem is fixed. —PC-XT+ 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The new {{Tennis events}} is now live. I'll update the doc page in a bit. I tested in many articles, but if you find something wrong, please let me know. I replaced and redirected {{Tennis events 4}}, but none of the other templates have been changed, yet. I want to further test each wrapper before I apply it. —PC-XT+ 09:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I've applied the wrapper for the Grand Slam infobox in this edit. If you see an infobox problem on one of these pages, please give me a link to the page, and describe the problem. If it's bad, feel free to revert my wrapper edit. Thanks. —PC-XT+ 09:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@PC-XT: quick question, does the line |type=grand slam in {{Tennis events}} have any additional functionality beyond adding the boys, girls, legends, WC singles and WC doubles events to the infobox? If not, then we can leave that line out for the older Grand Slam editions which did not have these events. To illustrate, see difference between 1938 U.S. National Championships – Men's Singles and 1939 U.S. National Championships – Men's Singles.--Wolbo (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If the type is omitted, it should display singles and doubles for men and women, and for Miami Masters, boys and girls, as well. |type=grand slam doesn't have any other purpose than to display the extra events. I think it should work to omit the type for old grand slams without those events. I'll try to do that in those I'm replacing, from now on. —PC-XT+ 21:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Without |type=grand slam, mixed doubles won't appear, but I could probably add that feature, if needed. —PC-XT+ 21:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The Grand Slam editions do need the mixed doubles event to be visible in the infobox (at least from 1887 U.S. Championships onward) but it doesn't make sense to have the mixed doubles event appear for regular tournaments (with the exception of the Hopman Cup and perhaps some exhibitions). I would still like to have an option to be able to leave out the 'Other events' infobox section for older Grand Slam editions. Any ideas?--Wolbo (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Wolbo, the sandbox now supports mixed doubles if |type=grand slam is omitted. You can check Template:Tennis events/testcases, and if everything looks ok, I'll move it to the template. It shouldn't show if a page for that event doesn't exist. I'm thinking of adding a check for grand slams right in the template, so that type would only be needed if an override is necessary. I'd make it check the tournament name and the year. Do you know the years the events other than men/women singles, men/women doubles and mixed doubles were introduced into each Grand Slam? —PC-XT+ 22:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know when the Legends events were introduced but we have list for the other events (wheelchair, boys' singles, girl's singles, boys' doubles, girl's doubles).--Wolbo (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Per current grand slam calendar order AO-FO-W-USO. mens singles 1905, 1925, 1877, 1881. womens singles 1922, 1925, 1884, 1887. mens doubles 1905, 1925, 1884, 1881. womens doubles 1922, 1925, 1913, 1889. mixed doubles 1922, 1925, 1913, 1887. Boys singles 1922, 1947, 1947, 1973. Boys doubles 1981, 1981, 1982, 1982. girls singles 1930, 1953, 1948, 1974. girls doubles 1981, 1981, 1982, 1982. wheelchair mens singles AO 2002, FO 2007, USO 1991, no wimbledon. wheelchair womens singles AO 2002, FO 2007, USO 1991, no wimbledon. wheelchair mens doubles AO 2007, FO 2007, W 2006, USO 2006. Wheelchair womens doubles AO 2004, FO 2007, W 2009, USO 2005. No mixed. I think that's all of the disiplines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have most of those years in the template. I currently have it always display men/women singles/doubles, but I'm thinking of adding year switches to those, as well. The events that I don't have years for are handled as follows, for now: WC quads basically just follow the other WC events, and Legend links display if articles exist. The "Other events" section doesn't display if it would be empty, unless |type=grand slam is set. To force that section to disappear, but still display all above events, you can use |type=old grand slam.

Also, I have another change: The year links at the bottom were linking to the edition articles for the Grand Slams, before, but most of the uses were overriding it to link to events, so I changed the sandbox to link to events by default, as long as the page title contains the event name. It can still be overridden, if necessary. If nobody sees any problems with this year link change, I'll make it live, soon. —PC-XT+ 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I will try to have a look at it over the weekend.--Wolbo (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Template merge part 2[edit]

This section relates to this other TfD on the same page. —PC-XT+ 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering, we also use Template:Infobox tennis tournament. I assume no changes there? Why are all these being merged by the way? I assume to give us one template that when we plug in the info (or not) that everything appears (or not). Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Infobox tennis tournament}} will be kept but a number of variations on it, including the version for defunct tournaments {{Infobox defunct tennis tournament}} and the joint tournament version {{Infobox joint Tennis Tournament}} have been or are being merged into it. These mergers are a follow up to the TfD discussion from April last year. As the nominator mentioned at the time all these different template versions are 'A clear case of redundancy, and an unnecessary need to duplicate work when making updates.'. Before the mergers can be completed and the redundant versions deleted their specific functionality must first be added to the remaining 'master' versions and that is what PC-XT is working on (great job by the way!).--Wolbo (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I vaguely recall the TfD. I wish it was mentioned and linked to at the beginning of this discussion. It's always best to have one template do it all (if possible)... redundancy is not what we want. I do want defunct things like Wembley Championships to look the same. I know this is a tough undertaking so that all the variations still work as they always did, and it may take some trial and error to get it perfect. So long that, in the end, everything pretty much looks pretty the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I should have provided a direct link. I am specifically working on the Tennis events TfD on that page, at the moment. I haven't looked at the other merge, yet, but I may tackle that after this one is done. —PC-XT+ 09:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 09:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of Lua modules?[edit]

I'm starting to think it might be good to do some migrating to Lua modules. Lua would do the same thing more efficiently and less repetitively. I might start one to include parts common to tennis templates in general, such as the footer. Let me know if you have an opinion on which parts/how much of the merging templates to keep in wiki code, or which parts/how much to convert to Lua, or if you think other tennis templates may or may not benefit from such a conversion. —PC-XT+ 13:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Lua would allow data structures like Module:Tennis events/data, instead of building them into template code. —PC-XT+ 08:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Someone managed to do one for a tennis tournament (e.g showing the draws), I think it's on the talk of this Module:RoundN if not it's on footballs talk. It is so much easier to use and is a step that the project should go into and does not need a load of different templates. (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this (link) is the discussion you mention? It uses 2014 US Open – Men's Singles as an example, but that page currently uses Module:TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis, instead. I didn't think Module:RoundN handled seeds, but that conversation has examples with seeds, so I might give it a try. I also asked at Module talk:TeamBracket about using it for tennis, which might be another possibility, if it doesn't need much of a hack. —PC-XT+ 23:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I received an answer from SocietyBox. The discussion at Template talk:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3#Convert to lua version shows there may be some resistance to using modules, or which to use, so I would like to wait in case we can find more input. If I eventually try a conversion, I would start with a template having few transclusions, like Template:4TeamBracket-Compact, so I could preview all transclusions relatively easily before saving my edit. I'm pinging User:Fyunck(click) and User:Nullzero from the linked discussion, as well as User: (I think IPs can be pinged?) —PC-XT+ 20:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Original Lua discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 14#Proposing deployment of Module:TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis. The main objections were already addressed. I just couldn't be bothered campaigning for the module at the time. I don't think you'll have any trouble deploying the Lua module across all the Compact templates but there are subtle variations in some of them, if I remember correctly. I could also make a non-Compact version of the module if you like. --SocietyBox (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Tennis events 5[edit]

This is a bit off-topic, but I noticed {{Tennis events 5}} is actually a very close variant of {{Tennis event}}, and nominated them for merge at TfD. Comments there are welcome. —PC-XT+ 11:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Slims of Akron and Virginia Slims of Fort Lauderdale tournaments[edit]

It's been suggested in this TfD that one article per tournament would be sufficient for these, since there are only 4 years. Summaries wouldn't be needed, since details would be presented directly. This would be an exception to the usual. Would it be possible to present all of that information in one article without confusing readers? Assessment of whether we should have 3 articles per year, as in other tournaments, (one for the tournament, and one for each event,) or merge some of these together, or other comments at the TfD would be welcome. I haven't yet looked into this enough to form an opinion, myself. —PC-XT+ 19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The templates were userfied to User:Wolbo/Virginia Slims of Akron tournaments and User:Wolbo/Virginia Slims of Fort Lauderdale tournaments. —PC-XT+ 12:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

1977 ATP Ranking[edit]

During these days the ATP would to recalculate his 1977 year-end ranking and to assign to Vilas ([1], [2]) the first place of this one. I wanna ask you, where source did you use to fill this table? In the ATP website there isn't any year-end table as well as in ITF website. Thanks.--Matlab1985 (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is: John Barrett, ed. (1978). World of Tennis 1978 : a BP yearbook. London: Macdonald and Janes. p. 265 --Wolbo (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI, in the same book the World Rankings by Lance Tingay lists (1) Borg, (2) Vilas and (3) Connors while Rino Tommasi's World Rankings showed (1) Borg: .936, (2) Connors: .915 and (3) Vilas: .912. I don't think the debate on who was the true no.1 that year will ever end.--Wolbo (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
See also Why Guillermo Vilas still tops Rafael Nadal on clay - and may finally become World No. 1.--Wolbo (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

1975 U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships[edit]

If we see this table we can read in 1975 row: Jimmy Connors defeated Vitas Gerulaitis 5–7, 7–5, 6–1, 3–6, 6–0. Reading the ATP page about the Memphis tournmament [3] in the section "Past Results" there's written: 1975 S|D Harold Solomon Dick Stockton / Erik Van Dillen: is there a mistake in our wiki page? If we see the completed table at this url we can see the Solomon's victor and not the Connors one.--Matlab1985 (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Two different events in the strange world of tennis. The U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships, which has been around since 1898, occasionally switched venues. You'll not from 1964 to 1975 it was held in Salisbury... the event Connors won in 1975. In 1975 the U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships moved to Memphis and was held there till 2014. However prior to 1976 there was a different Memphis Open event. That is the event that Stockton won. If you see the new event's webpage of past champions, it starts in 1976.... not even acknowledging that the prior Memphis Open existed. Tennis history is littered with these weird things and it's kind of tough to make accurate articles because of it. Anyway that's the story. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, but if you write an article about the 1975 U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships you have to consider the Solomon victory and not the Connors one. Connors won the title of Salisbury when the U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships was just moved to Memphis at Mid-South Coliseum (in 1976 at Racquet Club of Memphis) that is the tournament reported in our wiki page. If you create an article called 1975 U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships and talk about Connors Salisbury victory there's a wrong. The 1975 Salisbury tournament is another one and not ad edition of the most famous U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships.--Matlab1985 (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, per sources and news accounts, the US National Indoor didn't move to Memphis until this article has a different error. We have Connors winning in 1975 (also listed here), and Nastase winning in 1976. Those events won by Solomon and Amritraj were simply the Memphis Open. There is a 1976 Illinois paper that calls the event the "World Championship of Tennis' $60,000 Memphis Racquet Club Classic.". Also another 1976 paper here and Sports Illustrated here. So what needs correcting is the 1976 row that has Amritraj winning... that was a different event and needs to be removed in favor of Nastase winning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Good catch, @Fyunck:. Your deductions are correct, thanks, but there's another problem the ATP website: why does it talk about the 1975 and 1976 tournaments and not begin from 1977, and why do we call this tournament U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships from this year (1977)? If you could find an article about the 1977 Memphis tournament called 1977 U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships we could solve the enigma.--Matlab1985 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I found two quickly. Borgs win at the National Indoors in 1977 by a Bakersfield paper and an interesting 2003 Memphis paper that says 1977 was it first year hosting the US National Indoor after two events were held there in 1975 and 1976. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Had a look at the World of Tennis annuals from these years. The 1975 (Solomon) and 1976 (Amritraj) Memphis tournaments were WCT events while the 1975 (Connors) and 1976 (Năstase) US Indoor tournaments were not Grand Prix events but part of the USTA Indoor Circuit organized by Riordan. As of 1977 the US Indoor Championship was played at Memphis and was first part of the Grand Prix circuit and later the ATP Tour. It is odd that the Memphis tournament website starts in 1976 instead of 1975. No idea why that is. --Wolbo (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Bjorn Borg reverts on his statistics[edit]

Hi I reverted an edit on the article here plus another one and stated that rounding up the statistic's or rounding down is incorrect at official sources shown here: I mentioned that changing his figures also affects all tennis record and statistic articles here: meaning he could move up or down record tables. A second editor The Rambling Man reverted the figures again and in the edit summary said "not a science article, if you wish to continue edit warring, please find yourself blocked, better still let's discuss this at the talk page or at the project". A point I take exception too I was not edit warring and threatening me with a block is not helpful either, had he read and digested my comments on my talk page I suggested that the first editor take it talk if he objection to my revert. I am merely following this point here: Accuracy_of_sourcing. Also stating that readers of tennis articles are probably not interested in statistics maybe true if your not interested in tennis much but maybe interesting to tennis readers however if a stat is for example 89.91% rounding it up to 90% or down to 89% is wrong thoughts anyone else? thank you.--Navops47 (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A further comment left on my talk page "I've removed the ridiculous "accuracy". It's now down to you to discuss it". Do we state source data on tennis articles accurately or not, thoughts anyone?. --Navops47 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... I never really thought about it. I guess if it were me, I'd retain the decimals in charts like articles on Open Era records, but round off in prose. Just like we don't have scores written in prose I'm not sure we need percentages out to the hundredths spot. In that one section that says "Borg won 41% of the Grand Slam singles tournaments he entered (11 of 27) and 90% (141–16) of the Grand Slam singles matches he played"... I'd probably not even have the (11 of 27) and (141-16) parts listed in prose. We are supposed to summarize though I realize that doesn't happen much on Serena Williams or Novak Djokovic articles these days. One thing though... it was sitting at those hundredths place settings for awhile. If someone changed them and you changed them back, THEY are the ones who should stop and bring it to talk, not you. On a quick glance I have no idea why anyone would warn you for edit warring... it looks like one set of changes to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It was one individual revert each see your point about prose as for bringing it to talk before reverting again that's my understanding and left a comment on my talk page for the first editor about it which rambling man reverted it again and instructed me to bring here. And yes its been sitting there as it was for about the last two years.--Navops47 (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

When you're reading prose, a stastic with two decimal places of accuracy is clunky and ridiculous. Which of these entirely fictional statements reads better?

Recent research shows that 45.72% of American high school teachers have read Middlemarch and 79.34% have read The Jungle Book.
Recent research shows that 46% of American high school teachers have read Middlemarch and 79% have read The Jungle Book.

The loss of accuracy is negligible and irrelevant and more than compensated for by improved flow. Keep that level of accuracy for statistical records sections if you must, but help the reader read and comprehend prose. Besides, why stop at two decimal places? Your argument could equally apply to twelve. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The argument was to use the same accuracy as ATP. But I agree with others that an integer percentage is better in prose, and simple rounding is allowed by WP:CALC. One or two decimals is OK in tabulated statistics. More than 1000 matches is very rare so one decimal is nearly always enough to ensure that a different number of wins will give a different winning percentage, but if official sources use two decimals then that is also OK. More than two would be silly. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Martina Navratilova infobox says: "Career record 1,442–219 (86.8%)". A win less would have been "Career record 1,441–220 (86.8%)". Not a big deal but I wouldn't mind two decimals there, like in Chris Evert. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Before my intervention, the second paragraph of the Lead in Bjorn Borg read as follows:

During his relatively brief pro career, Borg won 41% of the Grand Slam singles tournaments he entered (11 of 27) and 89.81% (141–16) of the Grand Slam singles matches he played. His winning rate across all surfaces (carpet, clay, hard, and grass) was 82.74% (609–127), and his winning percentage at Wimbledon was 92.73% (51–4); all are records.

I repeat, I have no problem with decimal places in stats sections. --Dweller (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

For prose, rounding is fine to improve readability, as others have said. I agree with PrimeHunter regarding parts of articles where accuracy is more important. —PC-XT+ 14:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In all the statistical page about a tennis player or tennis records is used 2 decimals approximation just like in our pages: Overall tennis records – Women's Singles and Overall tennis records – Men's Singles.--Matlab1985 (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Strike rate[edit]

How do you get the total strike rate, like here. Where do you get the 105 for hardcourt? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 08:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The strike rate is the number of tournaments won divided by the number of tournaments played. In the case of Sharapova she won 19 hardcourt tournaments and competed in 105. The source is not specifically indicated but undoubtedly the stats are derived from her WTA profile page.--Wolbo (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Unidentified players[edit]

Hi, Does anybody know who are these players — women and man, within tournament at the 2015 Sydney? Thank you.--Misbeliever 02:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know for 100%, to be honest, but having looked at the hundreds (or thousands?) of files you've uploaded to Commons, I can only ask, pretty please, if you could at least categorise the other tennis players (which were already titled), on behalf of this project, otherwise they (the files) are going to be useless hanging around there if nobody can locate them. I'm sure someone else can help identify the players in question, but in the meantime, you could be categorising some, if not all of the files you've uploaded. It would have been easier had you done this in the first place with the "Flickr2Commons" tool... Jared Preston (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, my apologies, @Misbeliever:. This message was obviously meant for the original uploader at Commons, @Puramyun31:. Jared Preston (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, yes, as you can see on Commons, I create categories for all my uploads as well as on another uncategorized images. I will ask him.--Misbeliever 06:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

World Series Free Week ?[edit]


I'm a member of the french Wikipedia, particularly of the Tennis project on the french Wikipedia.

I've asked on the French version the following question, but at the moment nobody can answer me. That's why I'm coming there, to get a larger "specialised" audience.

If we look at the ITF website, (There or on this link), there is the tournament category "World Series Free Week". This appellation is also present on the english article 1990 Volvo San Francisco. However, does someone can explain me what is more precisely this category ?

Thank you. A.Gust14 (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found a definition but based on examining some of the tournaments with the designation at, I guess it's a term used on the 1990 ATP Tour, 1991 ATP Tour and 1992 ATP Tour for World Series tournaments in weeks without any larger ATP tournament. The ATP World Series became the ATP International Series in 2000, and the ATP World Tour 250 series in 2009. You can check more results at "World Series Free Week" if you want to see how well it matches my theory. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Given your observations, you are surely right. Maybe a sentence to precise it on the article ATP World Series/ATP International Series would be wise, isn't it ? A.Gust14 (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It was just a guess based on limited observations. It would need a reliable source but more checks shows it fails. Hongkong 1990 has "Free Week" the same week as the larger Monte Carlo. There are probably other fails but I'm not examining all cases. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Scope of ATP World Tour records article[edit]

A proposal to change the scope of the ATP World Tour records article can be found on its talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

My comments have been added will other project members and non members please look at Wolbo's proposal.--Navops47 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Turan Akalın = Turan Akalin?[edit]

Hello, I'm working at wheelchair tennis players on wikidata at the moment. Now I'm not sure if I'm right. I came to the wikidata item of Turan Akalın where I've seen that the exact date of bith was missing. I wanted to type in the date from the ITF-Profile when I noticed that the ITF-Profile has 23 May 1980 as the date of birth and in the english wiki-article is only the year 1984 given. Do you have any idea which date is the correct one or could it be that this are two different people? --Korrektor123 (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure. He's not notable as a tennis player... I guess curling is his notable sport. Per the ITF website, their Turan Akalin hasn't won a single event, so this may be a different person. (Or the info is incorrect). I don't read Turkish to check the sources but this could be an entry that should be deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

New changes in templates[edit]

Just curious to know what people here in Tennis project think about changes like this, it made a mess in this page for example 2015 Australian Open – Men's Doubles. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What mess? The only thing I see is the flags and names not lining up by I suspect that is because of another bit of coding and nothing to do with module. (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The World of Tennis only began in 1990 there were no high category tour events syndrome[edit]

Will people please please please stop with this mindset as for constantly justifying the removal of of players achievement prior to this date as with Talk:WTA_Tier_I_tournaments#1988-89_Tournaments_Removal my reply "That does not mean a super category did not exist prior to 1990 it pisses me off constantly with people believing the world of tennis only began in 1990 in order to justify and inflate players achievements after this period: (case in point Steffi Graf's notable 8 Major, 2 Tour Finals, 3 Category 6/5 Tier One equivalents and 1 Olympic titles won 1988-1990 just because the internet was not around for immediate sourcing does not mean notable players achievements should be simply ignored and completely whitewashed by this ridiculous mind set how convenient). Whether they were called Category 6 or 5 is irrelevant they were equivalent to Tier 1/Premier. Had the articles been properly thought out and planned correctly from the beginning by someone with knowledge of the game before 1990 and access to sources we wouldn't have issues like me getting upset by this 1990 ongoing Obsessive mind set, women's tennis had already been around 106 years before 1990 there have always been high category tour tournaments whether for points when they came into force or prize money or just generally accepted prestige known by both players and tennis journalists. The internet launched really in only the last 20 years of and of course makes it sometimes easier to find sources certainly from 2000 onwards and the reason you can't find extensive sources is no one perceived the internet was going to happen during the 1970's and 1980's when I was university it was not around which meant any historical research information you needed involved traveling to sitting in libraries for hours on end scrolling through micfrofilm scanners and reading books to obtain sources if I had the time to restore the respect for players records and achievements before 1990 through research on here I would do so if not just to stop the constant The world of tennis only began in 1990 Syndrome".--Navops47 (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I have the utmost respect for those editors who have updated the tour articles before 1990 when I viewed Wikipedia in 2010 they did not exist which was a travesty to the history of tennis a former editor User:Wales63 started a lot of those Grand Prix tour yearly articles clearly they felt the same as myself why are they not there.--Navops47 (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Fed Cup Rankings[edit]

Could someone add ranking tables for 2014 Fed Cup like in 2013 Fed Cup? Also, where can I obtain the book Fed Cup Nations Ranking History? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)