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:Tennis performance timeline[edit]

The first time I saw a performance timeline table, I thought, wow, a lot of work must have been put into decorating the table and making updates to the table easy. Then, I looked at the source code for the table, only to find out that the whole table is hardcoded, and updating the table is painstaking like this, where many cells need to be changed. Even worse, when the next year arrives, the whole table needs to be revisited so that a new column is added, like this. But most of the cells in these updates can be computed from other cells. What if we can update the table by adding a line or two, and let those computable cells update themselves?

For the past week, I have been coding up a template that does exactly that. Let's look at an example of how a performance timeline table can now be written:

Wikitext Output
{{tennis performance timeline
|country=SUI

|year|2012
|GS Australian Open|SF|4|1
|Davis Cup|1R|2|1
|1000 Indian Wells|W|6|0
|1000 Miami|3R|1|1
|1000 Madrid|W|5|0
|1000 Rome|SF|3|1
|GS Roland Garros|SF|5|1
|GS Wimbledon|W|7|0
|Summer Olympics|F-S|5|1
|1000 Cincinnati|W|5|0
|GS US Open|QF|3|1
|1000 Shanghai|SF|3|1
|World Tour Finals|F|3|2
|outdoor|hard|8|30|4|3|0
|outdoor|clay|3|15|2|1|0
|outdoor|grass|3|15|2|1|2
|indoor|hard|3|11|3|1|2
|indoor|clay|0|0|1|0|0
|rank|2

|year|2013
|GS Australian Open|SF|5|1
|1000 Indian Wells|QF|3|1
|1000 Madrid|3R|1|1
|1000 Rome|F|4|1
|GS Roland Garros|QF|4|1
|GS Wimbledon|2R|1|1
|1000 Cincinnati|QF|2|1
|GS US Open|4R|3|1
|1000 Shanghai|3R|1|1
|1000 Paris|SF|3|1
|World Tour Finals|SF|2|2
|outdoor|hard|6|17|6|0|0
|outdoor|clay|5|12|5|0|1
|outdoor|grass|2|5|1|1|0
|indoor|hard|4|11|5|0|1
|rank|6
}}
Template:Tennis performance timeline

We only need to specify the "principal" input to the table, like |outdoor|hard|8|30|4|3|0, which means, out of 8 tournaments that use outdoor hard courts, this player has won 30 times, lost 4 times, won 3 titles, and was a runner-up 0 times. Then, after the conclusion of the next outdoor hard-court tournament, only this line needs to be updated, and the rest of the table takes care of updating itself.

For tournaments that matter like a Grand Slam, we need another cell to display the outcome, so we need another line, but only one more, like |GS Australian Open|SF|4|1, which means, in this Australian Open, the player reaches the semifinal, and won 4 matches and lost one match. These numbers are then tallied and displayed elsewhere in the table, and this line doesn't need to be touched again.

I hope I am convincing that it is much easier to code performance timeline tables this way. I have worked up a few examples here. So far, the template works only with male players, with some coverage of older seasons before the ATP, but should be able to represent stats in the last ten years. The "data" part for this template, like definitions of various tournaments, still needs some work, but the machinery for generating the table is there.

Now, you might notice slight differences in the table layout from the guideline. Most notably, the series heading (e.g., Grand Slam) is no longer a row, but rather the leftmost column. This is to comply with accessibility requirements. There are other changes which might be worth a discussion. For example, the overall win percentage is shown only once instead of twice, which might have confused readers. If you have concerns about them, feel free to bring them up.

More details about the template usage can be found in its documentation, but I would like to keep this initial post short for now. I hope this template can be put into good use. Questions, comments, and suggestions welcome. Cheers, Chinissai (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to think on this a spell. One minor thing would be to change instances of "Roland Garros" to "French Open." Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
GS Roland Garros is how a French Open tournament is coded up in wikitext. I chose that because the ATP uses that term. It's still displayed as "French Open" in the table. Chinissai (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It just looks strange because in English and wikipedia we refer to it as the French Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
As I said, that's only used in coding, so it won't "look" strange to readers. Chinissai (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
It looks strange if I have to create it, so it should also work with "French Open" to go with those who work on the articles and prefer to use that term. I see you also made it Rome as opposed to Italian. I'm not sure it flows as nicely as our current rendition and a lot of the accessibility issue is old news (I was told current screen readers work well with our tables). It would also have to have a counterpart to our simplified Grand Slam only tables, so they look the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Did you spend some time reading the template documentation? There is a way to code this table once and pass an option to show only part of it. As for accessibility, the current tables as shown in the guideline have the same setup as the bad example in the accessibility guide. The "Grand Slam" row is a column header, because it applies to the four rows that follows: screen readers should read one of these four rows as, "Tournament, Grand Slam, Australian Open, 2012, semifinal, ..." Even if you might have tricked screen readers by not making the "Grand Slam" row a column header, I don't think this is the right way to represent data. If you believe accessibility issues are old news, please raise them at the MOS page; I am in no position to call that. Chinissai (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
There are other issues at stake. These tables as they stand now, can get quite wide (as with Roger Federer). You have now made an extra column which is fairly wide. That is also tough with small screens and so might hinder our many readers. You'll note that the tables in the bad/good examples are not continually growing wider. They have a set number of columns where we don't. The year Federer's career stats table comes up twice to make it easier to look from top to bottom without losing track of the year. So that might have to get added to the bottom of your rendition. Another thing I see with the "good example" is they have to finagle the width of the table and then make each of the columns a certain width... otherwise the two tables wouldn't line up properly. We have found that different browsers handle widths differently. One may try to wrap a line, while others leave extra white space. I like the idea of not having to hardcode each and every table. All I'm saying is there's lots to consider. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand the desire to keep everything lined up nicely in columns; otherwise I would have split the table as in the "good example" on the MOS page. Is a table too wide a real issue? These tables won't fit a mobile screen anyway, so trying to minimize the number of columns or reduce the font size wouldn't fully solve the problem. I do agree with you, however, that when the table gets too long, one can lose track of the year in the career summary, so a compromise should be made without sacrificing accessibility. I think it is possible to repeat the header row as the last row of the table, after year-end rankings, without confusing screen readers. But we have to check with accessibility people to see if that would actually work. Chinissai (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it can certainly be tweaked to assess your concerns. Regarding your request for a separate Grand Slam only version. It appears already to provide for that. If you code the propose table to only display GS tournaments you get:

This table includes results through the conclusion of the 2017 Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters.

Grand Slam 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 W–L Win % SR
Australian Open A A Q1 1R 3R 2–2 50.0% 0 / 2
French Open A A Q2 3R 2–1 66.7% 0 / 1
Wimbledon A A 2R 3R 3–2 60.0% 0 / 2
US Open A Q2 1R 2R 1–2 33.3% 0 / 2
Win–Loss 1–2 5–4 2–1 8–7 53.3% 0 / 7
  • 3R
    Out in third round
  • 2R
    Out in second round
  • 1R
    Out in first round
  • Q2
    Out in second-round qualifying
  • Q1
    Out in first-round qualifying
  • A
    Absent
It looks nearly identical to the one we have currently. It would tweak it in two ways though. I would make the bottom row use header cell like in the existing tables and I would ditch the tooltips. The legend these tables are accompanied with are sufficient to explain the codes and colors if you ask me.Tvx1 12:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for trying out the template! To comment on your suggestions:
  • To comply with accessibility MOS, we can't make a cell a header unless it actually is a header, or screen readers would be confused on how to read a regular cell. I think the boldface is already enough as a visual cue to readers.
  • The idea of including tooltips in the table is to again provide accessibility (as claimed in {{abbr}}). Without tooltips, screen readers wouldn't be able to interpret the meaning of "A" or "4R". An unintended consequence of including tooltips in the table is that we don't need to include {{performance key}}, as all abbreviations used in the table are accompanied with their meanings. Chinissai (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree the tool tips is not a good thing over and over and over. They can be included in the key so that we don't have to be annoyed by it in the chart. "Grand Slam" should say "Tournamant, and should be the same size as the year fonts... otherwise it looks comical. The win/loss row should be grey. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm sorry, but I don't understand why having a bunch of tooltips is a bad thing. They don't seem to be an annoyance, at least to me. Not having them, on the other hand, makes the table inaccessible. I also don't understand why the win-loss row needs to be gray. Font size is consistent throughout the table, nothing comical here; not sure why you see different sizes. The top-left cell says "Grand Slam" because this particular table talks only about Grand Slam tournaments, so we can be specific here. Chinissai (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Many things don't have to be done a certain way, but by consensus we arrived at the best way we could. So the best thing is to try under your system to make the tables look as close to the originals as possible. The bottom was grey so it should remain grey. Tool tips are annoying to many (me included). If they are few and far between they are fine, but if they are covering a table they become intrusive. Even the dots below the abbreviations make a table look busier. The term Grand Slam looks bolder and bigger than the years in the same row. That should not be. And Tournament is preferable. Actually it does not need to be linked at all nor do the years. Our guidelines do not show linkage in these terms. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The small table should look like the following:
Key
W  F  SF QF #R RR Q# A NH
(W) Won; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; (RR) round-robin stage; (Q#) qualification round; (A) absent; (NH) not held.
To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated either at the conclusion of a tournament, or when the player's participation in the tournament has ended.
Tournament 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 SR W–L Win %
Australian Open A 3R A A A A A A A 0 / 1 1–1 50.00
French Open 4R W W QF A W W W W 6 / 8 49–2 96.08
Wimbledon QF 3R QF W W W W W F 5 / 9 51–4 92.73
US Open 4R 2R SF F 4R F QF F F 0 / 9 40–9 81.63
Win–Loss 10–3 11–3 16–2 17–2 10–1 20–1 18–1 20–1 19–2 11 / 27 141–16 89.81
If that can be done in an easy to fill in manner, great! The spacing on yours looks way too cramped for some reason. And the events should not be grey. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. So far, all I have heard is, something should be done this way, another thing should not be done that way, but I am not given a reason why they need to be the way they are. Have I tried looking for these reasons? Yes, but I couldn't find any discussion anywhere about consensus, so I would appreciate pointers to those discussions. I hope you have noticed that I tried to mimic the current tables as much as possible, and, yes, I have looked at a bunch of existing performance timeline tables and how they are presented, so I am aware of them; no need to reproduce them here. I was trying not to sound too intrusive, hoping my awareness was clear from the get-go, but I guess it wasn't. Where I see change would bring improvements, I incorporated them into the new implementation, and I have explained here why I did them the way I did them. I hope you can convince me why previous consensus gave the current layout, so I can ponder whether it is appropriate to challenge the consensus. I hope I am being clear that I am looking for something other than, "that's the way it's been done," or, "it wouldn't be consistent with what we already have," because we can always keep things consistent by either using this template, or not. Let's be constructive, shall we?
The timeline table in the guideline has links for years. So, do we actually have a consensus on this? I continue to wonder.
On the spacing issue, I was experimenting with padding reduction to see if it helps narrow the table. It seems you (one person!) don't like it; fine, I just removed that (that's a huge favor!). Simple. Chinissai (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, consensus does need to be achieved before we can implement something new. I am not sure that complaining about people having their doubts on this new template will lead to anything productive. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree with you. Believe me, there are many other, more productive things for me to do than venting. I felt the discussion got stuck because one person (so far) did not want change, and we seemed to be focusing on minor formatting things rather than how to make the template handle a majority of players. But it seems from below the discussion might be heading in that direction. Fingers crossed. Chinissai (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Look, the links for years is there for the men, not for the ladies. We are flexible in certain aspects. It would probably be best to give us a table that is not hardcoded but pretty much exactly as our guidelines have it. And how will this work with all the tournament changes and name changes through the years? We have to take those items into consideration also. They were not always Masters 1000 events. We have a lot of flexibility in hardcoding and we need to maintain that flexibility in a template. You say it would be great to have a template for this, and I agree. You say we need to change certain looks, and we disagree. That's what this discussion is about. The template needs to be very flexible because tennis is very flexible. As long as we have lots of possible parameters it might work. This is certainly not going to be something we add to the guidelines overnight. It might take months and months of wrangling and fine tuning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, it has become clear that you were not aware of several examples that demonstrate how flexible the template is, so far. I invite you to take a look at them. Of course, how data are represented in these examples are subject to discussion, but they are represented that way because I couldn't find a consistent way they are currently being represented. I hope these examples are convincing enough that links on years, etc., will not be a setback. Chinissai (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
On that note, I am looking to code more tables for male players to expand coverage, so a list of players to look at will be helpful to me. Let's do the men's side for now and move to the women's side when I feel we are ready. Appreciate it! Chinissai (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
On "easy to fill in," I'm not sure if my following demonstration will address that, but let me try anyway. It will take a lot of space, so I will keep them collapsed; feel free to expand.

Let's see how to include Federer's performance tables in two places, the main article, and the career stats article. The idea is to code the table once, so I did that in Template:Tennis performance timeline/Roger Federer. Then, to use this table, we transclude it on appropriate pages. For the career stats page, we just invoke the template without passing any option:

For the main article, we pass an option to display only the Grand Slam tournaments:

So, code the table once, use it everywhere. Chinissai (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
So would we be able to change the preference of the font size for larger tables? Right now your example of Jimmy Connors is unusable. On his actual article we have it at 85% to make it work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
To call my example "unusable" is downright offensive; it represents the same data as the current table, so it can be used. It might have gone off your screen because your screen is too small for that table, but it fits on mine. This brings us back to the fundamental question of whether a table too wide is a real issue, because these tables won't fit a mobile screen anyway. Chinissai (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Is it stands now, no reasonable person would leave that Connors chart the way you show it. It is unusable in this encyclopedia without changes. I'm asking, how do we change the fonts (and therefore table size) easily on these tables if they are coded into a template as you suggest? We need to be able to do that. So my question still stands... how do we do it using your template? We need to have that flexibility to change it to 85%. I'm glad you are attempting this as a template that does all the figuring is a good thing. But it has to be the right template. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, now you are being more offensive to me by calling me an unreasonable person. Great. And I'm still left with wonder why my table is "unusable." You need to give me specifics on why it is non-encyclopedic. Without reasons, I don't see the need to do what you asked, to reduce the font size. I need to truly understand the problem you are having before I can fix it. So, until I do, I am not going to answer your question. I hope this is fair. On the flip side, my earlier question to you still stands. Over. Chinissai (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Let's put it another way. You have to convince many many editors here at Tennis Project the we need this change to our charts. The coding as it's done today is understood well by many article creators. they are comfortable with it and change isn't easy. If a better new template was created and the charts remained identical to how they are today (just more easily added to articles), with the same abilities as before, it would probably be an easy sell. I'd be in line to buy. However, if the charts are different or look worse and are inflexible in what we can do with them, that is a difficult sell. If we can't easily change the font size, like we do today, that is a deal breaker for myself. I adjust those things all the time. 100% size is what we tend to use for 1-10 year veterans. After that tweaks sometimes have to be done. If those tools tips remain I will be extremely hesitant to agree also. The extra column doesn't look as good as the charts today but if the sight challenged have no way of reading it then we have to look at that.
This is also being done in LUA isn't it? Most here have problems understanding that coding as opposed to standard templates, so every time we would want a change we have to call in a an expert to change it. It also needs to be flexible on multiple tournament names throughout history since it will need to work for 150 years of tennis. You started out of the gate with me not being able to write French Open when I add data. You said I would have to use Roland Garros. That is an inflexible chart since French Open is the preferred name in English. They should both work if typed in as opposed to getting an error. So no, you don't have to do anything different to the chart, but then good luck getting it accepted. These are my own opinions so its mileage may vary with others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand Fyunck though. You're not really up for season. So far you have not been willing to consider any of the proposed tweaks. You keep seeing them as criticism instead of the constructive suggestions they are. I'm getting the impression that you didn't came here to make your template into a visually identical but easier to edit and maintain way of our timelines but merely to seek approval to enroll your template as is. We should really start working together to improve your basis instead of criticizing each other. For instance, I guess the font size can be set like this:Tvx1 10:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
This table includes results through the conclusion of the 2017 Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters.
Tournament 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 W–L Win % SR
Grand Slam Australian Open A Q1 3R 3R 4R 4R W SF W W SF F W SF SF SF SF 3R SF W 87–13 87.0% 5 / 18
French Open A 1R 4R QF 1R 1R 3R SF F F F W QF F SF QF 4R QF A 65–16 80.2% 1 / 17
Wimbledon A 1R 1R QF 1R W W W W W F W QF QF W 2R F F SF 84–11 88.4% 7 / 18
US Open A Q2 3R 4R 4R 4R W W W W W F SF SF QF 4R SF F A 78–11 87.6% 5 / 16
Win–Loss 0–2 7–4 13–4 6–4 13–3 22–1 24–2 27–1 26–1 24–3 26–2 20–3 20–4 19–3 13–4 19–4 18–4 10–2 7–0 314–51 86.0% 18 / 69
Year-end championships ATP World Tour Finals[a] Did not qualify SF W W F W W RR SF W W F SF F F DNQ 52–12 81.2% 6 / 14
Win–Loss 3–1 5–0 5–0 4–1 5–0 4–1 1–2 2–2 5–0 5–0 3–2 2–2 4–0 4–1 52–12 81.2% 6 / 14
Masters 1000[d] Indian Wells Masters A A Q1 1R 3R 2R W W W 2R SF SF 3R SF W QF F F A W 57–11 83.8% 5 / 16
Miami Open A 1R 2R QF F QF 3R W W 4R QF SF 4R SF 3R A QF A A W 50–13 79.4% 3 / 16
Monte Carlo Masters A 1R 1R QF 2R A A QF F F F 3R A QF A A F 3R QF A 30–13 69.8% 0 / 13
Madrid Open[b] A A 1R 1R W 3R W W A W F W F SF W 3R A 2R A 47–8 85.5% 6 / 14
Italian Open A A 1R 3R 1R F 2R A F 3R QF SF 2R 3R SF F 2R F 3R 32–16 66.7% 0 / 16
Canadian Open A A 1R A 1R SF W A W F 2R QF F 3R A A F A A 31–9 77.5% 2 / 11
Cincinnati Masters A A 1R A 1R 2R 1R W 2R W 3R W W QF W QF W W A 42–8 84.0% 7 / 15
Shanghai Masters[c] A A 2R 2R QF SF A A W F SF A F A SF 3R W 2R A 31–10 75.6% 2 / 12
Paris Masters A A 1R 2R QF QF A A A 3R QF 2R SF W A SF QF 3R A 21–10 67.7% 1 / 12
Win–Loss 0–2 2–8 8–7 18–8 21–8 20–3 27–1 34–3 26–7 22–8 24–6 22–7 22–7 23–3 14–6 28–6 16–6 3–2 11–0 341–98 77.7% 26 / 125
National representation Summer Olympics Not held 4th Not held 2R Not held QF Not held F-S Not held A NH 13–5 72.2% 0 / 4
Davis Cup A QF 1R QF 1R SF QF PO PO PO PO PO A PO 1R A W PO A 40–8 83.3% 1 / 8
Win–Loss 1–3 6–3 3–1 4–0 5–1 5–1 1–0 2–0 2–0 4–1 2–0 3–0 7–2 6–1 2–0 53–13 80.3% 1 / 12
Career Hard Win–Loss 2–2 7–6 24–17 21–10 32–12 48–12 46–4 50–1 59–2 44–6 34–10 36–10 47–7 46–7 41–7 28–11 56–7 39–6 8–2 19–1 687–140 83.1% 63 / 199
Clay Win–Loss 0–1 0–5 3–7 9–5 12–4 15–4 16–2 15–2 16–3 16–3 21–4 18–2 10–4 12–4 15–3 12–5 8–4 13–4 3–2 214–68 75.9% 11 / 75
Grass Win–Loss 0–2 2–3 9–3 5–3 12–0 12–0 12–0 12–0 6–0 11–1 7–0 8–2 6–1 15–2 5–1 9–1 11–1 10–3 152–23 86.9% 15 / 38
Carpet Win–Loss 6–4 7–3 10–3 9–3 3–1 4–1 5–0 2–0 Discontinued 46–15 75.4% 2 / 14
Outdoor Win–Loss 0–1 1–10 15–20 28–13 34–15 55–13 63–5 66–3 75–5 52–6 54–12 55–8 48–12 48–12 60–8 34–12 56–10 51–9 21–7 19–1 835–182 82.1% 69 / 248
Indoor Win–Loss 2–2 12–7 21–10 21–8 24–7 23–4 11–1 15–1 17–0 16–3 12–3 6–4 17–1 16–0 11–4 11–5 17–2 12–2 264–64 80.5% 22 / 78
Overall Win–Loss 2–3 13–17 36–30 49–21 58–22 78–17 74–6 81–4 92–5 68–9 66–15 61–12 65–13 64–12 71–12 45–17 73–12 63–11 21–7 19–1 1099–246 81.7% 91 / 326
Win % 40.0% 43.3% 54.5% 70.0% 72.5% 82.1% 92.5% 95.3% 94.8% 88.3% 81.5% 83.6% 83.3% 84.2% 85.5% 72.6% 85.9% 85.1% 75.0% 95.0%
Tournaments played 3 14 28 21 25 23 17 15 17 16 19 15 18 16 17 17 17 17 7 4 326 total 27.9%
Finals reached 0 0 2 3 5 9 11 12 16 12 8 7 9 6 10 3 11 11 1 3 139 total 65.5%
Titles 0 0 0 1 3 7 11 11 12 8 4 4 5 4 6 1 5 6 0 3 91 total
Year-end ranking 301 64 29 13 6 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 6 2 3 16
  • W
    Won tournament
  • F
    Reached final
  • SF
    Reached semifinal
  • QF
    Reached quarterfinal
  • 4R
    Out in fourth round
  • 3R
    Out in third round
  • 2R
    Out in second round
  • 1R
    Out in first round
  • Q2
    Out in second-round qualifying
  • Q1
    Out in first-round qualifying
  • RR
    Competed at a round-robin stage
  • F-S
    Won a silver Olympic medal
  • 4th
    Fourth place
  • PO
    Played in World Group play-offs
  • A
    Absent
  • DNQ
    Did not qualify
  • NH
    Not held
  1. ^ Held as ATP Tour World Championships until 1999, Tennis Masters Cup from 2000 to 2008, and ATP World Tour Finals from 2009
  2. ^ Held as Hamburg Masters until 2008 and Madrid Open from 2009
  3. ^ Held as Stuttgart Masters until 2001, Madrid Open from 2002 to 2008, and Shanghai Masters from 2009
  4. ^ Held as ATP Super 9 until 1999, ATP Masters Series from 2000 to 2008, and ATP Masters 1000 from 2009
</nowiki>}}
Thanks for that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
To be fair though, I did consider your two suggestions, and I explained above why they wouldn't make the table accessible. And I still don't quite understand the font size issue and what's the fundamental need to reduce the font size. Is it because tables are going off screen? If so, how do you deal with smaller screens like a cellphone screen? Understanding the fundamental need will allow me to consider the best way forward, and if that really means reducing the font size, so be it, but I need to be able to weigh in also that there is no other better way. Chinissai (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

edit break[edit]

I also asked administrator Graham how his screen reader worked on the current Roger Federer Career stats chart and he said it seems to work fine. So we might be trying to create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. So my question is, can we create a template chart that emulates our current manually created charts? That would be without the new column, exactly as they are now. I'd like to see how that would work. We'd need some flexibility in tournament names. I guess to think a template will work 100% of the time is an unreal expectation, so we could always hard-code those exceptions. Perhaps @Frietjes: and you could knock heads to come up with a working example? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
AH... I knew this conversation had come up before. Check the bottom of this conversation from 2 years ago. Those examples given for bad header examples are very specific. BAD Headers. That would be using the "!" to create a bad header in the middle of a table. Our guidelines do not do that, which is why screen readers have no problems with our charts. They work as they should. So I'm going through all this again for nothing. I knew I had sent out emails before to these companies to ask this same question and they all worked fine. They're going to think I'm a idiot for emailing them again. My own fault for having a crummy memory. So we don't have to change our charts at all since they work and look great as they are. The only question is can we make them easier to fill in with a template? That I can't do but it would be nice if we could. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers! Continues below. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Tooltips[edit]

While not having too much of an opinion on the final format, I would just like to throw out a reminder that tool tips don't work on mobile, and that they shouldn't be the sole way used to explain the meaning of an abbreviation. A link might be a better choice. (Of course, I still think that it's annoying that draws in tournament infoboxes always use abbreviations without explaining them, so my opinion may be shaded by that.) oknazevad (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This is helpful. It looks like we need a legend section to list these abbreviations, but we still need tooltips inside the table to make it accessible. Chinissai (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
No, if we have a legend we certainly don't need tooltips inside the table. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Let me repeat what I have said. Without a tooltip accompanying each cell, screen readers have no idea how to interpret and read the meaning of the abbreviation in that cell. Chinissai (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Why not? If you have a legend that says 1R means out in the first round, SF means semifinalist, F means finalist, etc., then how are the tooltips necessary? Readers just look at the chart for the abbreviation, and if they don't know what it means, look at the legend. It can't be that confusing. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about screen readers for visually impaired users. See WP:DTT. Chinissai (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
So you are saying that screen readers are only capable of interpreting tool tips but can't interpret a legend or a key. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I would think that. Legends are not associated with each instance of abbreviations that appears in the table, so screen readers can't link the two. Our eyes and brains can do that, god blessed! Chinissai (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
No they don't but I don't think it's necessary either. If the screen reader simply reads to full list of different codes before it reads the tables that surely enough. I think virtually anyone will remember that SF means semifinal and F final.Tvx1 18:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Goodness, you'd have to require a tooltip for every instance of an abbreviation at Wikipedia. That is not what our guidelines tell us. I have also contacted several major screen-reading companies to find out if the charts we have now truly still are any concern... including JAWS. I thought I did this before but maybe not. They may not get back to me over the weekend but we'll know if it's an issue. If it's not I would suggest that we keep the charts exactly as they are now and find someone who will make a template based on that. But the tooltips in a template have to go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting those companies. One thing to keep in mind: Wikipedia's Manual of Styles supersedes WikiProject guidelines. I think this is a good time to have accessibility experts weigh in on this issue. Chinissai (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
However guidelines are guidelines... they are not policy nor absolute. There are projects whose nuances don't fit well with wiki guidelines so they must adjust to cover their own foibles. If those major companies have no problems with screen readers, then those guidelines would be outdated and wrong. Tennis uses a flagicon in the infobox because it fits the world of tennis better than the standard wikipedia guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
As a screen reader user myself, I primarily use JAWS but also have a bit of experience with NVDA; those two screen readers are the most commonly used on Windows. Neither of them process abbr tooltips by default – they have to be told to do so by the user – and neither of them give any indication that a particular piece of text has an associated tooltip. Therefore, there's no need to have them if they cause great inconvenience for sighted users. Graham87 11:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. Looks like tooltips do more harm than good, so I'll consider removing them. There is a way for tooltips to appear without cluttering visually, so I'll try that. Chinissai (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Update 1[edit]

Since my original post, the template has been tweaked to reflect recent discussions. I also added several enhancements. All transclusions of the template should already illustrate these changes. Notable changes are as follows:

  • Added support for pre-Open-Era headers. (See Template:Tennis performance timeline/Rod Laver.) This feature is not yet documented in the template documentation, but the idea is to indicate that the player started in an amateur career, and transitioned to a professional career in a certain year. Then, 1968 came the Open Era.
  • Added a hatnote reflecting "current as of" information, as specified by |last= tournament.
  • Removed <abbr> tags from cells to eliminate dotted underline beneath each result. Tooltips still appear at the cell level.
  • Added legend chart at the bottom of the table. Only abbreviations used in the table are listed.
  • Added support for sortability on win/loss, win %, and strike rates. Try sorting in the examples above.

There were still lingering discussions, addressed itemwise below. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Header issues[edit]

I'm not a fan of abusing HTML syntax to fulfill aesthetic desire. The colspan fake-header row is still a header row that happens not to be coded as such. I would be able to tolerate this abuse in a very short term, but my goal is to do away with incorrect coding to ensure template quality, so I would like to revisit this issue in a near future, if not now.

Another issue with the colspan header rows is that they make the table unsortable. I think sortability adds some benefits to the representation of data, so avoiding colspan (fake-or-not)-header rows not only eliminates accessibility issues, but also represents data better. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The header issue is not an issue. It should absolutely remain as the tables are today as opposed to the wider change suggested. It is much cleaner and easier to read and creates no issues with accessibility. And change to that structure is not needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It is, technically. Different HTML tags have different meanings. We have a row such as Grand Slam that is not a data cell (the td tag or the wiki's bar (|) cell). Technically, any cell that is not a data cell is a header cell (the th tag or the wiki's bang (!) cell). (See an explanation.) We should use the right kinds of tags for the right kinds of contents. Obviously, Grand Slam is not data, but it is related to other cells that represent results from the Grand Slam. So, it needs to be designated as a header cell.
At any rate, I think I might have a way to restore the header row, making that a true header, while maintaining accessibility. I will need to try this, but will also need time. Of course, we will lose the sortability that the current setup has now, as mentioned originally above, but this doesn't seem important to the tennis community (one editor so far) at the moment. Chinissai (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
We seem to have zero issues with the structure of the performance table as it stands today. None at all. It looks good and works well. The only thing that would be nice and convenient would be if we didn't have to keep writing the code for the table structure, and only had to concern ourselves with entering the data on the player's page. Hence a template that you have the ability to create. That would be great for the project! Other changes not so much. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Cell coloring[edit]

Cell background colors, except for those associated with tournament results, are default of appropriate HTML tags. Header cells are grayer than regular cells. As Bgwhite mentioned in the previous discussion on headers, coloring a regular cell with the header color can confuse readers and editors as to which is which. So, unless we have non-aesthetic reasons for coloring cells otherwise, I would suggest refraining from doing so. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Tournament names[edit]

Aliasing of tournament names is supported, but I would like to refrain from adding unnecessary aliases for now. A short-term goal of this template is to support a variety of tournaments, so aliases are secondary. I think, in a long run, additions of aliasing should follow the usual consensus protocol, as having multiple names for one tournament can confuse editors and increase overhead for template maintenance. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Template coverage[edit]

A primary goal of this template is to minimize the maintenance overhead of these tables. Therefore, the template is most useful for active players, whose tables are constantly updated. The template does work, however, with retired players, as shown in examples above, but the coverage can be hit-or-miss. Historical coverage is primarily need-based, but I believe the template can and will eventually handle every table we need.

That said, I think there will need to be a transition period where tables are rewritten to use the template, starting from active players and then going back in time. If we need to maintain consistency between hardcoded and template layouts, an interim version of the template that mocks the hardcoded version can be used on a temporary basis. In a long run, however, I suggest that we use correct HTML coding, so I would like to keep issues I raised above on the table. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Which is exactly what we need permanently... a template that mocks the hard-coded version. Nothing more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Consensus and guidelines can change. Nothing is permanent. Chinissai (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
This is true. But changing to something that is wider and looks clunkier will not get my vote. If it ain't broke and it's been used for over a decade, we don't fix it. Others are free to feel as they wish. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
But you digress, again... Chinissai (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
No... it is directly answering your HTML coding paragraph above. You say transitional, I say permanent. The HTML is fine and should be left as is. It's how we enter the data that's important and why a template would be a good thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Update 2[edit]

Notable changes since last update:

Some of these changes warrant a documentation, but I haven't had time to get to that yet. Chinissai (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

How do we do the font change again, since the Federer chart is too wide and too small. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you be more specific of where this occurs? And can you give a specification of what you need? Chinissai (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
For the entire table. The font is often to large or too small, and the table width can often be too wide. What is the best way to add flexibility to this. This was brought up before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and what I would like to hear is the exact specification on how to make it happen. Desired widths? Desired font sizes? Never heard those back. I hope I'm being clear that these customizations should be made by the template itself, not by editors. Otherwise we are never going to have any consistency on how these tables look. Chinissai (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see what the point of the template is. You could easily have the table set up on the article where any editor would just update tournament results after each tournament ended without any problems. What does this template do that wasn't covered before? And we can't just create hundreds of these templates for every single Grand Slam participant. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
If you have edited these tables, you would know how many cells you have to edit to get the right results, all those total win-loss, etc. I am not going to repeat myself here; please visit the very beginning of this big section, where I have laid out the rationales. You might also be interested in the source codes of these per-player templates; they are not hardcoded tables. Chinissai (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
But I saw you created hundreds of templates which were nominated for deletion recently. What are you going to do, create hundreds more of them? Adamtt9 (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a separate issue. I don't plan on doing too many more of these new templates. I feel I need to provide adequate examples to show that the main template works, to at least have a chance of something new being accepted from the tennis community. And yet it doesn't appear they are enough. Exactly how we use the main template to code these tables for real is of course up for discussions, but for now I believe I have shown that we can use the main template for a vast majority of players. Chinissai (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Adamtt9 here. We don't need thousands of these templates. We can easily invoke the module within the articles. It would still leave us with much less work than we have right now because it automatically calculates totals and averages. I have even noticed it takes into account that tournaments have had different number of rounds though the years. And testing should not be done with live templates but with sandboxes and user pages.Tvx1 00:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Having a bunch of templates is not something I prefer either. My rationale for creating these example templates where they are is that they are subpages of the template being proposed and implemented, namely, Template:Tennis performance timeline, so I thought they are the right place to do so. These subtemplates are not live per se, because they are not used in articles, and therefore I see no harm for them being in the template namespace. (As an aside, I am not sure how the template takes different number of rounds into account. I am guessing you meant, when we write "SF", it figures out there are this many wins and that many losses. That is in fact part of the input to the template, where you specify the round reached, and the number of wins and losses along the way. Please correct me if I misunderstood. I would like to make sure I read correctly.) Chinissai (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Table width and font size[edit]

Since this seems to be a big deal for some editors (one so far, at my last count), I am dedicating this section to flush out any issues regarding the width of the table and its font size. Otherwise I suspect we will keep arguing on this forever to no avail.

The argument for desiring the ability to shrink the table seems to be as follows: the table is too wide to fit a screen. I have raised this before, but whose screen are we talking about? If it's just one person's screen, it's not our problem to fix; that person simply needs a bigger screen. We cannot speak for other readers that the table is too wide for them; we need to hear from them directly. If several editors have a consensus here that we need to deal with table widths, then I am open to discussion. Otherwise, the problem is isolated and does not warrant attention from the entire tennis community. Chinissai (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

There is aesthetics also. The last change made to Federer looked bad when compared to the original in the identical size window. I also look at major changes differently than you. Before making them you need the support of the body. You just don't blow off concerns just because you happen to disagree. The charts are long-standing and work fine the way they are right now. Can they be better... I'm sure they can. It would be great to require less effort to make them and less effort to maintain them. But if the cost is to require the charts to be inflexible to multiple browsers, or look poorly in comparison to what we have, then that cost might be too high. You have already tried to force us to change the charts based on faulty information so excuse me if I'm now extra careful in making sure things work just right before giving you a thumbs up from my end. We've been working on other types of charts for literately years before rolling them out. This may be the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what faulty information are you talking about? I would prefer that we keep conversations on distinct topics separate, so we can hash them out one at a time. If that faulty thing has nothing to do with table width and font size, please start a new subsection so we can dedicate it to that. Chinissai (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
By the way, your example Federer chart has nothing to do with this template. Again, please try not to digress! Chinissai (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
You tried to force a change to adding extra columns because of screen reader issues.... issues that never existed. That was the faulty information. The chart styling we have is perfectly fine. So all we need is a template that keeps it the same (or nearly the same) while making it easier to add data to each player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I have addressed the header issues above. I believe other accessibility issues have been resolved from prior discussions. If you still have issues with headers, please comment in that section. Thanks. Chinissai (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
And I absolutely do have issues with any change to the header structure as I have said from day one. I have commented above. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-guideline Sharapova season article up for deletion[edit]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Maria Sharapova tennis season

Longwood Cup and Longwood Bowl[edit]

Can anyone help with identifying which of these two tournaments 'The Longwood Cup' and The 'Longwood Bowl' did William Larned win a record 11 times. I assume it was held here Longwood Cricket Club. I have sources for his eleven wins but is says 'Longwood Tournament' appreciate any help thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I always thought the "Longwood Cup" was the ladies event. From sources, I know when Larned won the "Longwood Bowl" in 1898 it was his third victory in the event (1894, 1897, 1898), and because of that the bowl became his. That is per Wright & Ditson. I believe he also won it in 1903, 1904 and 1905 but I think it only says Longwood and nothing else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Per Wright & Ditson 1910, Bill Larned won in 1909 for his 12th title at the Longwood Bowl. But in 1910 it was won by his younger brother Edward when William defaulted in the final. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Very much appreciated Fyunck you are a star :).--Navops47 (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi have just downloaded the 27 March 1912 guide and it has 12 wins for Larned listed on page 38 as the 'Longwood Challenge Cup. is this a different event?--Navops47 (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about article creation[edit]

Hi I have found a tournament with individual sources (NP & Books) for (Shreveport) 1968, (WCT Event) 1975, (Grand Prix event) 1978, (Non-tour exhibition event) do you create three separate pages or can they be listed as one page but make clear the differences. --Navops47 (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

As no one has responded I will go ahead and draft this article.--Navops47 (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

YoungDylan[edit]

This user is making major changes to several articles, e.g. Kim Clijsters career statistics, Sabine Lisicki career statistics. He does not appear to want Grand Slam titles/finals to be included in the same table as the other career final statistics, as he says they're organised by the ITF (which is technically correct). Problem is his changes will affect so many articles (basically anyone who has reached any kind of Grand Slam final) so I told him to create a discussion about this to reach a consensus first. He doesn't appear to want to do this though as his response is to now stubbornly claim there is "no argument" about this. 86.17.57.21 (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The distinction of which organisation runs a tournament is pretty clearly not within the scope of a statistics article, and not one that needs to be made in the first place when the ITF-run Slams are still part of the "WTA Tour" anyway. The claim of "no argument" is nonsense. SellymeTalk 13:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I think I got them all reverted. It was harder because 50 other changes were done other than the non-consensus charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like he's continuing to do it and he's now removing country names from infoboxes. Keep a close watch here folks. I've let him know that it's not correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
He is also removing the term "professional" from all tennis players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's time to request administrator assistance now. It's clear this user is not here to help to build an encylopedia.Tvx1 22:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm having a long conversation with him on his talk page. A bit combative, but he has stopped as of this moment. I told him if he has issues or questions, to bring it to this talk page. Fingers crossed because I was pretty much done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
And then after leaving a message on his talk page he went and removed "professional" once again. Sigh. I reverted once but he brought it right back. I mean we have amateur players, and jrs and college players... and professional players. Federer's article says "Swiss professional tennis player." Nadal's says "Spanish professional tennis player". Why does he keep removing things? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I have let an administrator know about this situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
And he is still removing the word "professional" from all tennis player articles and I've reverted it my share of times. I guess my question is, do we want to remove the word "professional" from the lead of all articles? If so I'll let him continue to do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

WTA performance timeline query[edit]

I was asked about this recently so I thought I'd bring it up to see what editors thought. The question was basically why can't the WTA players' performance timeline combine the Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 entries into one section? It was mentioned that the two are pretty identical, there would be 9 of them just like the men have, and more importantly they would be chronological amongst the 9 so we could more easily see yearly progression. I forgot to get back to the questioner and i just remembered it so I'm posting it now. I don't care one way or the other, but it certainly is not a horrible idea. What are the pros and cons for tweaking the guideline or allowing flexibility on this particular issue? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

World Professional Tennis League[edit]

Hi can someone shed light on the World Professional Tennis League I keep finding it mentioned in sources here and here and here I was under the impression there was no organisation set up to administer professional tennis prior to 1968 and from other sources In have found it administered the World Pro tours and its not mentioned in the History of Tennis article nor in the Professional tours section.--Navops47 (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Also no mention an even earlier World Union of Tennis Professionals formed in 1931 here.--Navops47 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It was just one of those failed adventures that tried to get the few pros there were, contracted to play together as a league. It came into being in March of 1947 and had the main purpose of establishing a national open tournament for both amateurs and pros similar to that which existed in golf. A Pro-Am event. Vinnie Richards was named commish of the new league. He got Pauline Betz and Sarah Palfrey signed, but that's about it. They failed to sign up any noteworthy pros so it folded on Dec 22 1947. I'm not sure if his commissioner title was really anything more than that of a promoter like Cash and Carry Pyle, Jack Harris or Bobby Riggs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Fyunck should we not at least include a mention of both in the pro section whether failed or not also in the 1950's Jack Kramer's World Tennis Inc here keeps coming up in newspaper sources was that a forerunner before the NTL & WCT?--Navops47 (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
As long as we source it. I know nothing about "World Union of Tennis Professionals." I saw your link but it's all I've ever heard of it, so we might need a bit more to really say anything about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay will keep digging about also found this one the International Professional Tennis Players Association late 1950's early 1960's here.--Navops47 (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Move request for Ana Ivanovic[edit]

There is a request to move tennis icon Ana Ivanovic to Ana Ivanović. Join in if interested. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Merger of Torneo Godó/Open SEAT Godó articles[edit]

Just wondering if anybody from the project could take a look at the following pairs of articles, which are clearly duplicates of each other and therefore should be completely uncontroversial mergers, and perform the necessary merge/redirect process... if you can't, let me know and I'll do the merging, but I'll need to know which article name should be used (or possibly "20xx Barcelona Open"...)

Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject[edit]

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Tennis

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 19:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Professional, junior, amateur, college?[edit]

Just wondering what the vibe is around here about using the word "professional" in the opening blurb about players. It would come up as "Jose Netcord (born 8 October 1945) is an Antarctic professional tennis player and former world No. 1." Some articles say junior or amateur instead of professional, and some say nothing at all. My question is, do we care? Do we leave it as the author wrote it, whether it's with or without the term? Do we usually add it or remove it? Obviously the vast majority of players at wikipedia are professional, but there are plenty of new and old players who are not. I ask because a new editor is removing all the words to leave it as "an Antarctic tennis player" and I'm not sure what to do about it. I've reverted a bunch of his eliminations but maybe editors here would rather see it as simply "tennis player." Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

We should correct confer their status. This means that the word professional should always be used for those players who are in order to distinguish them from those who aren't (e.g. amateur players).Tvx1 20:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
So players from the 1920s should say amateur and players from today should say professional? If they are a junior who happens to meet our guidelines we say junior? What about Roy Emerson? He played mostly as an amateur but in 1968 became a professional. Do we use the highest standard they attained and use professional? And I assume that once a junior player starts playing professionally we change the title to professional? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think "amateur tennis player" should ever be used, since that's basically the same thing as "tennis player". Keep the intro simple, and explain why they still notable despite not being professional in the following prose. "junior" I'm 50/50 on, I'd say that one doesn't really a strict rule and can just be left however it's written so as to keep the lead sounding natural. For players who were both amateur and professional (or junior and professional), definitely use "professional" but then note in the first paragraph or two that they played before the professional era (especially for players like Roy Emerson where their amateur play should be mentioned in the same sentence). None of these opinions are really based on any pre-existing guidelines, though, they're just what I think would be the most sensible way of handling it. SellymeTalk 10:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Kazakh tennis players[edit]

I feel like this keeps happening frequently, but someone keeps creating articles for junior Kazakh tennis players that are nowhere near notable. Now we have Diana Nogombayeva and Diana Zhantemirova, and the creator keeps removing PROD tags. Is there any way we can get all of these Kazakh articles to stop? I remember we had to deal this earlier in the year here but this keeps happening. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Those earlier ones were deleted because it was a sockpuppet of banned user JulianLeeberher09. Perhaps he is back? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)