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.
 


Nationalities in the field[edit]

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

  • Keep Johnsmith2116 (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
    Why do you like it? What does it add? For me, it's a table of useless statistics and takes up too much space. Jared Preston (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

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

I agree with @Jared Preston: on this. It's really useless as all the nationalities are already there in the draws. Plus, even if it were kept it would need to be just names, not flag icons. They really look silly in the one or two articles that still have them. I think the couple we still have in articles were added by a single editor. Just more table bloat. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah you're right. @Johnsmith2116: Think it is only fair that you join the discussion seems as though you are the driving force behind the addition. F1lover22 talk 11:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually at one point, I had noticed that another editor has added one (on another page) before I had gotten around to doing it myself. The table give a clear illustration of the nationalities in the tournament. And if it's okay, I'd like to keep on adding it. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Debbie Tisinger-Moore[edit]

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

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

Text formatting on tournament and draw pages[edit]

I have noticed a rather worrisome "convention" among editors of tennis "tournament" and "draw" articles that relies on a (somewhat obscure) feature of MediaWiki by which italics or bold formatting that is opened in a list item or a table cell is automatically closed at the end of that item or cell. This means that lines like this:

# {{flagicon|RUS}} [[Olesya Pervushina]] ''(Semifinals)
(indicating a seeded player who lost in the semifinals — in this case, of the 2016 Wimbledon Girls' Singles)

or this:

|RD1-score1-1='''6
(a score for a player winning a set, in this case inside a {{8TeamBracket-Tennis3}} template call)

don't technically require "closing" tags for the italics or bold, like this:

# {{flagicon|RUS}} [[Olesya Pervushina]] ''(Semifinals)''
|RD1-score1-1='''6'''

While the first 2 snippets of code "work", they go against the standard notion that opened text-formatting tags should always be closed, as indicated (at least, implicitly) in every wiki formatting guideline I've ever seen around here (e.g., Help:Wiki markup#Format, MOS:TEXT, etc.). The second pair of code snippets match the "expected" formatting that editors are (or should be) used to.

The problem is, this convention (seen in the first 2 lines of code) has become so entrenched in Wikipedia's tennis articles (presumably by later editors emulating what others have done before) that at least one user sees it as the accepted norm, and the "correct" formatting (second 2 lines of code) as incorrect! I am almost certain that the larger Wikipedia community (say, at the Village Pump, or in an RFC) would say otherwise (i.e., that open tags should always be closed). But I'm bringing it up here first, since all of the affected articles that I know of are of interest to this WikiProject.

BTW, the same kind of "not closing tags" philosophy has extended even to superscripts, but that particular problem has been getting fixed by a bot.

So, can I get some opinions on this? I grant that WikiProjects have great latitude in the structure and content of the articles they cover, but I'm not sure that latitude should extend to nonstandard wiki formatting "tricks" (as it were). I see the convention of not closing opened tags as a bad precedent that leads to sloppy wikicode, if not outright confusion on the part of new editors, and so should be actively discouraged (i.e., by fixing the relevant articles, which I have started to do, slowly but surely [of course, using a bot would be better, if possible]). - dcljr (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that many editors take advantage of this coding loophole. However you are wrong if you or anyone thinks it is condoned in any way by Tennis Project. It is not! I fix it if I notice, and put notices on editors pages if I see them do it. It really happens a lot on tournament draw articles. It's not in our guidelines to do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I condone using a bot to make these corrections. We have over 100 years worth of tennis tournament articles. It's just too much to do manually. As for the user who is edit warring against the correct markup, report them to the administrators if they persist. Tvx1 10:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. BTW, lest anyone reading this think that it's not really a problem because "it doesn't matter either way", I should point out that not closing tags messes up the syntax highlighting provided by Remember the dot's Syntax highlighter gadget. Another point in favor of always closing open tags… - dcljr (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there a bot that can fix the open-ended coding? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe. - dcljr (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
You can always request one. Tvx1 22:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Before I make such a request, I'd like to try to work out some specific regexes that accomplish what I want. I have one of them working (the "|RD#-score" change alluded to above); now I just need two more… I will post on this talk page when I've worked them out, so I can get final "approval" and/or objections before I make the actual bot request. - dcljr (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Dcljr and Fyunck(click), there are actually two issues we need to solve here. One is fixing the markup in all the articles on past tournaments, the second one is getting users to use the correct markup in the articles of ongoing and upcoming articles straight away. While editing the articles on the ongoing Olympic tennis event I noticed the incorrect still being used. That is very worrisome. I don't even understand why one would want to go through all the effort to have unclosed markup tags in the first place. For instance, to create bold text that way one would have to click the bold button above the edit window, which creates both tags, only to deliberately remove the closing tag again. That's just strange. Tvx1 23:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Not everyone edits that way. It is very easy to create unbalanced tags if you're typing in the wikicode "manually", or using a homemade script. As for "getting users to use the correct markup", I'd say after repeated warnings to do it the right way have been ignored, such edits can rightly be considered disruptive editing, and we should be able to start implementing blocks of increasing length. (The warnings have already been happening, but I would wait till after the articles have all been fixed to begin any blocking.) - dcljr (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems likely that unclosed markup tags are the result of either manual editing or copy and pasting from similar articles. I support the effort to get properly closed markup tags on all our articles and if the cleanup can be done by a (tested) bot that would certainly be helpful. If it still happens on new articles it would be best to inform the editors and request them to properly format the tags, if needed by pointing them to this discussion. Threatening with blocks should really be a last option and hopefully something that can be entirely avoided.--Wolbo (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed here. I would rather give many many nudges than start warning about blocks for this. If someone goes around and starts removing the end closing that would be a different situation. And most of the time I happen to do the coding manually, so I could make an error and leave off the end tags, but then I'm just as likely to leave off the beginning too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, "warning" and "nudging" and using blocks as a "last option" is exactly what I'm saying. - dcljr (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, Dcljr, in that case a lot of warning needs to be done. A quick inspection of the olympic tennis articles have allowed me to find Secretaria, Yimingbao, Ytfc23, Rubyaxles, Evolution2k8, Njr65984, SergiuNik and AdiMind all using the incorrect (or rather incomplete) markup. And I'm sure there are plenty more.Tvx1 02:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Noted. I only did it because I assumed it was the correct way to do it. Rubyaxles (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Same here. Secretaria (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Noted, same as above. Didn't realise it was against convention. Ytfc23 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I feel I should point out that these editors who are chiming in here are not who I was referring to with my talk about blocking. I was alluding to editors who have been directly asked to change their editing habits in the past and have either not responded or flatly refused to do so (and continue to make these kinds of edits). - dcljr (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, Real Life has prevented me from spending a lot of time on this lately. I've found (not surprisingly) that there are a huge number of variations on the types of lines that I would like changed, so I've only been able to address a handful of common cases. Basically, no matter how good the bot (or user-script, if that's the way we go) is, humans will have to check every individual article, anyway, to fix any lingering mistakes. I hope to post here soon the regex substitutions I've come up with and the kinds of cases they fix (and some that they don't). Please Stand By. - dcljr (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Still seems to be an issue.--Wolbo (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-consensus timeline charts[edit]

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

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

Need technical assistance[edit]

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

Yes check.svg Done. Just an extra || Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks you are a Star :) --Navops47 (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
For future reference try what I tried. To be manageable I deleted half the chart and viewed it in preview... it was now good. Next I deleted half of the bad section... it was still bad. And so on and so on till there's only 4 or 5 years left. Looking at 4 or 5 years I could more readily see the problem. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Noted I am currently abroad and the phone lines where I am are not brilliant causing drop out's in connection so is taking me forever to do some editing hey ho--Navops47 (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the ndash (alt + 0150) should be used for the scores instead of the regular dash.--Wolbo (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

FedCup[edit]

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

I noticed that just this morning myself. User:Vinkje83 has kindly started adjusting the IDs on Wikidata, but I don't know if there's a (quick) method of finding the new ones out. They appear to be random. The template here as well as the transactions will all need changing. Jared Preston (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
JFYI: User:Pigsonthewing made a change to {{FedCup player}} just a couple of weeks ago to make the ID parameter redundant on en.wp. That could be very helpful indeed! But the problem is that the IDs are all locally set at the moment. Any tips or ideas, Andy? Jared Preston (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking about a Python script to harvest the FedCup-website with a search on player name... but I have to hope they use HTML and not just a bunch of JAVA-script, else it will fail from the start. Edoderoo (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

I asked for the same spreadsheet last week, but no response until now. If you get something, let me know, I'm eager to upload this. Edoderoo (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
If they would simply give us a list of all names and (new) IDs (if they could also give country, that would be great), then it would be everything we need. Of course, if they could give us old and new IDs, then it would be great, but not necessary. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Right now there are still 940 to convert, 224 have been done.
select ?item ?itemLabel ?fedcupID where {?item wdt:P2642 ?fedcupID . {service wikibase:label {bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en"}} FILTER (strstarts(?fedcupID,"8"))}  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edoderoo (talkcontribs) 22:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC) 
We're about halfway manualy converting the FedCup ID's. I didn't check the Davis Cup ID's yet. So far I know we got some help of the French community and quite a lot of my fellows at the Dutch community. So let's go for the other half to get the job done! Edoderoo (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
By the way... the ITF got back to me. They said they don't have the old vs new numbers in any form. So we're on our own. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to us. Hopefully they will not make such conversions again in the future. Edoderoo (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Doubles titling that could eventually affect some tennis titles[edit]

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

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

2016 US Open[edit]

WikiProject Tennis
2016 US Open
Events
Singles men women boys girls
Doubles men women mixed boys girls
Legends men women mixed
WC Singles men women quad
WC Doubles men women quad
← 2015 · US Open · 2017 →

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

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

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

I don't particularly think legends should be in it at all as it's an exhibition event, nor should qualifying be there. Why is there no wheelchair events this year? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Wheelchair tennis at the 2016 Summer Paralympics TheLightBlue (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Tennis
2016 Wimbledon Championships
Events
Singles men women boys girls
Doubles men women mixed boys girls
Legends men women seniors
WC Doubles men women
← 2015 · Wimbledon Championships · 2017 →
While we're at it, maybe somebody could actually have a look at the Wimbledon infobox as well. The issue of the WC Singles was brought up but no solution was ever reached. F1lover22 talk 09:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion was #Wheelchair Singles at Wimbledon (Help Needed). The problem is still that a Lua coder is needed to edit Module:Tennis events nav. User:Izkala last edited 11 July and may have retired. Maybe the module could have a start and end year for each event. start=0 could mean it was there from the beginning, and end=9999 could mean it hasn't ended. If an event has gone away and come back then it could get a second line in the code for the second period. The module could then just process each line and only make a link when start ≤ year ≤ end. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Lua is the appropriate way to handle this type of need for the template. Lua is great for static templates, but it's pretty obvious that we need something capable of handling multiple scenarios. I would suggest taking away the Module and any {{#invoke|}} and just house it in the main template, which is something that I can do. It will provide defaults, but allow the user to override it as necessary. I'll report back once I have something more. nihlus kryik (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Just wondering if this got fixed in some way? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive Labeling in tournament finals[edit]

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

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

Proposed deletion of Adam Kellerman, Heath Davidson, Upali Rajakaruna[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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

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

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

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

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

Fails notability for tennis. Has not won a grand slam or a Paralympic medal 213.205.194.94 (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
We get the picture... you could have just linked the articles instead of posting three pretty much identical proposed deletions here, so i melded them together. Now, you happen to be correct in that you must WIN a paralympic medal in order to be notable. This is per wikipedia's guideline at NSPORT. None of these players should have a tennis banner on their talk page since we tend to follow that same set of rules. However they may meet GNG notability if they have gotten enough widespread press. That I wouldn't know about and you'll have to bring that up on the individual's talk pages to gather the info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No. column in career finals tables – let's try and solve this together[edit]

Our recent RfC above clarified but also has caused a rift between myself and Wolbo. I want it fixed as I'm tired of this back and forth. The RfC kept our longstanding current Project Guidelines in place (by majority) for career tennis charts. However it was by a slim margin so there was no consensus to go around changing 100s of older articles. I started to conform some older articles when I was changing other things on them, but was slapped down hard by Wolbo. I then concentrated on only fixing the newer article to conform to RfC Guidelines (2016-present). There are other editors helping in this as well. This was a truce of sorts but it seems to be being broken as we speak by Wolbo. This can't go on.

I really don't think we want two sets of variables for new and old articles. I have put forth multiple options to Wolbo but all have been instantly rejected. I have tried these compromises because I wanted to find any type of common ground. Wolbo seems to be bent on a "my way or the highway approach." If I'm wrong on that i haven't seen a single compromise coming from him... it's all me and a few others doing the compromising.

Here is another attempt at getting a chart done that all can live with. I made the charts purposefully smaller and I incorporated a couple of user Saskoiler's suggestions. I will tag all the last RfC people in this after posting. @Tvx1:, @Wolbo:, @Saskoiler:

Current RfC approved chart from last RfC

Result Date Category Tournament Surface Opponent Score
Winner August 10, 2008 International Series Los Angeles Open, United States Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 6–1, 7–6(7–2)
Runner-up October 5, 2008 International Series Gold Japan Open, Japan Hard Czech Republic Berdych, TomášTomáš Berdych 1–6, 4–6
Winner January 17, 2009 250 Series Auckland Open, New Zealand Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Winner August 9, 2009 500 Series Washington Open, United States (2) Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
Runner-up August 16, 2009 Masters 1000 Canadian Open, Canada Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
Winner September 14, 2009 Grand Slam US Open, United States Hard Switzerland Federer, RogerRoger Federer 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
Runner-up November 29, 2009 Tour Finals ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom Hard (i) Russia Davydenko, NikolayNikolay Davydenko 3–6, 4–6

Non-approved grandfathered chart wanted by Wolbo

Result No. Date Category Tournament Surface Opponent Score
Winner 1. August 10, 2008 International Series Los Angeles Open, United States Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 6–1, 7–6(7–2)
Runner-up 1. October 5, 2008 International Series Gold Japan Open, Japan Hard Czech Republic Berdych, TomášTomáš Berdych 1–6, 4–6
Winner 2. January 17, 2009 250 Series Auckland Open, New Zealand Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Winner 3. August 9, 2009 500 Series Washington Open, United States (2) Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
Runner-up 2. August 16, 2009 Masters 1000 Canadian Open, Canada Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
Winner 4. September 14, 2009 Grand Slam US Open, United States Hard Switzerland Federer, RogerRoger Federer 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
Runner-up 3. November 29, 2009 Tour Finals ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom Hard (i) Russia Davydenko, NikolayNikolay Davydenko 3–6, 4–6

Option 1

Result Date Category Tournament Surface Opponent Score
Win August 10, 2008 International Los Angeles Open, United States Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 6–1, 7–6(7–2)
Loss October 5, 2008 International Japan Open, Japan Hard Czech Republic Berdych, TomášTomáš Berdych 1–6, 4–6
Win January 17, 2009 250 Series Auckland Open, New Zealand Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Win August 9, 2009 500 Series Washington Open, United States (2) Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
Loss August 16, 2009 Masters 1000 Canadian Open, Canada Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
Win September 14, 2009 Grand Slam US Open, United States Hard Switzerland Federer, RogerRoger Federer 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
Loss November 29, 2009 Tour Finals ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom Hard (i) Russia Davydenko, NikolayNikolay Davydenko 3–6, 4–6
Win (5) January 17, 2010 250 Series Auckland Open, New Zealand Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Win January 17, 2011 250 Series Auckland Open, New Zealand Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Loss August 16, 2011 Masters 1000 Canadian Open, Canada Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
Win January 17, 2012 250 Series Auckland Open, New Zealand Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Win January 17, 2013 250 Series Auckland Open, New Zealand Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Loss (5) August 16, 2013 Masters 1000 Canadian Open, Canada Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
Win January 17, 2014 250 Series Auckland Open, New Zealand Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Win (10) January 17, 2015 250 Series Auckland Open, New Zealand Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Win January 17, 2016 250 Series Auckland Open, New Zealand Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4

Option 2

No. Result Date Category Tournament Surface Opponent Score
1 Win 3 March 2013 International Malaysian Open, Malaysia Hard United States Bethanie Mattek-Sands 1–6, 7–5, 6–3
2 Loss 2 February 2014 International Thailand Open, Thailand Hard Russia Ekaterina Makarova 3–6, 6–7(7–9)
3 Loss 24 May 2014 International Nuremberg Cup, Germany Clay Canada Eugenie Bouchard 2–6, 6–4, 3–6
4 Loss 14 September 2014 International Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong Hard Germany Sabine Lisicki 5–7, 3–6
5 Win 21 September 2014 International Korea Open, South Korea Hard United States Varvara Lepchenko 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–2
6 Win 12 October 2014 International Linz Open, Austria Hard (i) Italy Camila Giorgi 6–7(4–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–4)
7 Loss 15 January 2015 Premier Sydney International, Australia Hard Czech Republic Petra Kvitová 6–7(5–7), 6–7(6–8)
8 Loss 21 February 2015 Premier 5 Dubai Championship, UAE Hard Romania Simona Halep 4–6, 6–7(4–7)
10 Win 2 May 2015 International Prague Open, Czech Republic Clay Czech Republic Lucie Hradecká 4–6, 7–5, 6–3
11 Loss 21 June 2015 Premier Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom Grass Germany Angelique Kerber 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 6–7(4–7)
12 Loss 9 August 2015 Premier Stanford Classic, United States Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 7–5, 4–6
13 Loss 8 November 2015 Elite WTA Elite Trophy, China Hard (i) United States Venus Williams 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
14 Win 12 June 2016 International Nottingham Open, UK Grass United States Alison Riske 7–6(10–8), 7–5
15 Loss 25 June 2016 Premier Eastbourne International, UK Grass Slovakia Dominika Cibulková 5–7, 3–6
16 Win 21 August 2016 Premier 5 Cincinnati Open, United States Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 6–3, 6–1

Option 3

No. Result Date Category Tournament Surface Opponent Score
1 Win 3 March 2013 International Malaysian Open, Malaysia Hard United States Bethanie Mattek-Sands 1–6, 7–5, 6–3
2 Loss 2 February 2014 International Thailand Open, Thailand Hard Russia Ekaterina Makarova 3–6, 6–7(7–9)
3 Loss 24 May 2014 International Nuremberg Cup, Germany Clay Canada Eugenie Bouchard 2–6, 6–4, 3–6
4 Loss 14 September 2014 International Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong Hard Germany Sabine Lisicki 5–7, 3–6
5 Win 21 September 2014 International Korea Open, South Korea Hard United States Varvara Lepchenko 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–2
6 Win 12 October 2014 International Linz Open, Austria Hard (i) Italy Camila Giorgi 6–7(4–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–4)
7 Loss 15 January 2015 Premier Sydney International, Australia Hard Czech Republic Petra Kvitová 6–7(5–7), 6–7(6–8)
8 Loss 21 February 2015 Premier 5 Dubai Championship, UAE Hard Romania Simona Halep 4–6, 6–7(4–7)
10 Win 2 May 2015 International Prague Open, Czech Republic Clay Czech Republic Lucie Hradecká 4–6, 7–5, 6–3
11 Loss 21 June 2015 Premier Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom Grass Germany Angelique Kerber 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 6–7(4–7)
12 Loss 9 August 2015 Premier Stanford Classic, United States Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 7–5, 4–6
13 Loss 8 November 2015 Elite WTA Elite Trophy, China Hard (i) United States Venus Williams 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
14 Win 12 June 2016 International Nottingham Open, UK Grass United States Alison Riske 7–6(10–8), 7–5
15 Loss 25 June 2016 Premier Eastbourne International, UK Grass Slovakia Dominika Cibulková 5–7, 3–6
16 Win 21 August 2016 Premier 5 Cincinnati Open, United States Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 6–3, 6–1

Option 4

No. Result Date Category Tournament Surface Opponent Score
1 Win 3 March 2013 International Malaysian Open, Malaysia Hard United States Bethanie Mattek-Sands 1–6, 7–5, 6–3
2 Loss 2 February 2014 International Thailand Open, Thailand Hard Russia Ekaterina Makarova 3–6, 6–7(7–9)
3 Loss 24 May 2014 International Nuremberg Cup, Germany Clay Canada Eugenie Bouchard 2–6, 6–4, 3–6
4 Loss 14 September 2014 International Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong Hard Germany Sabine Lisicki 5–7, 3–6
5 Win 21 September 2014 International Korea Open, South Korea Hard United States Varvara Lepchenko 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–2
6 Win 12 October 2014 International Linz Open, Austria Hard (i) Italy Camila Giorgi 6–7(4–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–4)
7 Loss 15 January 2015 Premier Sydney International, Australia Hard Czech Republic Petra Kvitová 6–7(5–7), 6–7(6–8)
8 Loss 21 February 2015 Premier 5 Dubai Championship, UAE Hard Romania Simona Halep 4–6, 6–7(4–7)
10 Win 2 May 2015 International Prague Open, Czech Republic Clay Czech Republic Lucie Hradecká 4–6, 7–5, 6–3
11 Loss 21 June 2015 Premier Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom Grass Germany Angelique Kerber 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 6–7(4–7)
12 Loss 9 August 2015 Premier Stanford Classic, United States Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 7–5, 4–6
13 Loss 8 November 2015 Elite WTA Elite Trophy, China Hard (i) United States Venus Williams 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
14 Win 12 June 2016 International Nottingham Open, UK Grass United States Alison Riske 7–6(10–8), 7–5
15 Loss 25 June 2016 Premier Eastbourne International, UK Grass Slovakia Dominika Cibulková 5–7, 3–6
16 Win 21 August 2016 Premier 5 Cincinnati Open, United States Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 6–3, 6–1

Option 5

No. Result Date Category Tournament Surface Opponent Score
1 Win 3 March 2013 International Malaysian Open, Malaysia Hard United States Bethanie Mattek-Sands 1–6, 7–5, 6–3
2 Loss 2 February 2014 International Thailand Open, Thailand Hard Russia Ekaterina Makarova 3–6, 6–7(7–9)
3 Loss 24 May 2014 International Nuremberg Cup, Germany Clay Canada Eugenie Bouchard 2–6, 6–4, 3–6
4 Loss 14 September 2014 International Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong Hard Germany Sabine Lisicki 5–7, 3–6
5 Win 21 September 2014 International Korea Open, South Korea Hard United States Varvara Lepchenko 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–2
6 Win 12 October 2014 International Linz Open, Austria Hard (i) Italy Camila Giorgi 6–7(4–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–4)
7 Loss 15 January 2015 Premier Sydney International, Australia Hard Czech Republic Petra Kvitová 6–7(5–7), 6–7(6–8)
8 Loss 21 February 2015 Premier 5 Dubai Championship, UAE Hard Romania Simona Halep 4–6, 6–7(4–7)
10 Win 2 May 2015 International Prague Open, Czech Republic Clay Czech Republic Lucie Hradecká 4–6, 7–5, 6–3
11 Loss 21 June 2015 Premier Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom Grass Germany Angelique Kerber 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 6–7(4–7)
12 Loss 9 August 2015 Premier Stanford Classic, United States Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 7–5, 4–6
13 Loss 8 November 2015 Elite WTA Elite Trophy, China Hard (i) United States Venus Williams 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
14 Win 12 June 2016 International Nottingham Open, UK Grass United States Alison Riske 7–6(10–8), 7–5
15 Loss 25 June 2016 Premier Eastbourne International, UK Grass Slovakia Dominika Cibulková 5–7, 3–6
16 Win 21 August 2016 Premier 5 Cincinnati Open, United States Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 6–3, 6–1

or we could make it just a year (or month and year) instead of the whole date. We would link the date with the actual draw. Option 6

No. Result Date Category Tournament Surface Opponent Score
1 Win 2013 International Malaysian Open, Malaysia Hard United States Bethanie Mattek-Sands 1–6, 7–5, 6–3
2 Loss 2014 International Thailand Open, Thailand Hard Russia Ekaterina Makarova 3–6, 6–7(7–9)
3 Loss 2014 International Nuremberg Cup, Germany Clay Canada Eugenie Bouchard 2–6, 6–4, 3–6
4 Loss 2014 International Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong Hard Germany Sabine Lisicki 5–7, 3–6
5 Win 2014 International Korea Open, South Korea Hard United States Varvara Lepchenko 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–2
6 Win 2014 International Linz Open, Austria Hard (i) Italy Camila Giorgi 6–7(4–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–4)
7 Loss 2015 Premier Sydney International, Australia Hard Czech Republic Petra Kvitová 6–7(5–7), 6–7(6–8)
8 Loss 2015 Premier 5 Dubai Championship, UAE Hard Romania Simona Halep 4–6, 6–7(4–7)
10 Win 2015 International Prague Open, Czech Republic Clay Czech Republic Lucie Hradecká 4–6, 7–5, 6–3
11 Loss 2015 Premier Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom Grass Germany Angelique Kerber 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 6–7(4–7)
12 Loss 2015 Premier Stanford Classic, United States Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 7–5, 4–6
13 Loss 2015 Elite WTA Elite Trophy, China Hard (i) United States Venus Williams 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
14 Win 2016 International Nottingham Open, UK Grass United States Alison Riske 7–6(10–8), 7–5
15 Loss 2016 Premier Eastbourne International, UK Grass Slovakia Dominika Cibulková 5–7, 3–6
16 Win 2016 Premier 5 Cincinnati Open, United States Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 6–3, 6–1

Of course, other than approved chart 1, I really dislike the rest. Numbering wins and ridiculous numbering of losses is bloat we don't need. i would keep that column dumped. However Wolbo and a few others feel just as strongly the other way, that the No. column is vital to the chart and to our readers. Actually I think Wolbo was the only one in the recent Rfc who wanted to add a number column.

If we throw out the current and grandfathered charts, I'm willing to bite my tongue and support any of options 1–6 if it will get us off this logjam. Is there any of these options that our editors could live with? You'll note that I changed the winner/runner-up to win/loss as suggested by some other editors. Less room if we include any type of number. Also option 3 requires extra coding in the No. column to keep it near the same color. There is no column coding parameter to make all cells light grey. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── These are my proposals for a compromise on this issue.--Wolbo (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the current situation for the the vast majority of the player articles (with the exception of the Category field which still needs to be added to most articles).

Result No. Date Category Tournament Surface Opponent Score
Winner 1. August 10, 2008 International Series Los Angeles Open, United States Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 6–1, 7–6(7–2)
Runner-up 1. October 5, 2008 International Series Gold Japan Open, Japan Hard Czech Republic Berdych, TomášTomáš Berdych 1–6, 4–6
Winner 2. January 17, 2009 250 Series Auckland Open, New Zealand Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Winner 3. August 9, 2009 500 Series Washington Open, United States (2) Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
Runner-up 2. August 16, 2009 Masters 1000 Canadian Open, Canada Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
Winner 4. September 14, 2009 Grand Slam US Open, United States Hard Switzerland Federer, RogerRoger Federer 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
Runner-up 3. November 29, 2009 Tour Finals ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom Hard (i) Russia Davydenko, NikolayNikolay Davydenko 3–6, 4–6

Proposal 1 – Switch tournament and category columns

Result No. Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
Winner 1. August 10, 2008 Los Angeles Open, United States International Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 6–1, 7–6(7–2)
Runner-up 1. October 5, 2008 Japan Open, Japan International Series Gold Hard Czech Republic Berdych, TomášTomáš Berdych 1–6, 4–6
Winner 2. January 17, 2009 Auckland Open, New Zealand 250 Series Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Winner 3. August 9, 2009 Washington Open, United States (2) 500 Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
Runner-up 2. August 16, 2009 Canadian Open, Canada Masters 1000 Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
Winner 4. September 14, 2009 US Open, United States Grand Slam Hard Switzerland Federer, RogerRoger Federer 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
Runner-up 3. November 29, 2009 ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom Tour Finals Hard (i) Russia Davydenko, NikolayNikolay Davydenko 3–6, 4–6

Proposal 2 – Switch Result column options to win / loss (instead of winner / runner-up)

Result No. Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
Win 1. August 10, 2008 Los Angeles Open, United States International Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 6–1, 7–6(7–2)
Loss 1. October 5, 2008 Japan Open, Japan International Series Gold Hard Czech Republic Berdych, TomášTomáš Berdych 1–6, 4–6
Win 2. January 17, 2009 Auckland Open, New Zealand 250 Series Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Win 3. August 9, 2009 Washington Open, United States (2) 500 Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
Loss 2. August 16, 2009 Canadian Open, Canada Masters 1000 Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
Win 4. September 14, 2009 US Open, United States Grand Slam Hard Switzerland Federer, RogerRoger Federer 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
Loss 3. November 29, 2009 ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom Tour Finals Hard (i) Russia Davydenko, NikolayNikolay Davydenko 3–6, 4–6

Alternative 1 – Use win/loss colors for the No. column to create more visual distinction between the win and loss counters.

Result No. Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
Win 1. August 10, 2008 Los Angeles Open, United States International Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 6–1, 7–6(7–2)
Loss 1. October 5, 2008 Japan Open, Japan International Series Gold Hard Czech Republic Berdych, TomášTomáš Berdych 1–6, 4–6
Win 2. January 17, 2009 Auckland Open, New Zealand 250 Series Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Win 3. August 9, 2009 Washington Open, United States (2) 500 Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
Loss 2. August 16, 2009 Canadian Open, Canada Masters 1000 Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
Win 4. September 14, 2009 US Open, United States Grand Slam Hard Switzerland Federer, RogerRoger Federer 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
Loss 3. November 29, 2009 ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom Tour Finals Hard (i) Russia Davydenko, NikolayNikolay Davydenko 3–6, 4–6

Alternative 2 – Switch Result and No. columns

No. Result Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
1. Win August 10, 2008 Los Angeles Open, United States International Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 6–1, 7–6(7–2)
1. Loss October 5, 2008 Japan Open, Japan International Series Gold Hard Czech Republic Berdych, TomášTomáš Berdych 1–6, 4–6
2. Win January 17, 2009 Auckland Open, New Zealand 250 Series Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
3. Win August 9, 2009 Washington Open, United States (2) 500 Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
2. Loss August 16, 2009 Canadian Open, Canada Masters 1000 Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
4. Win September 14, 2009 US Open, United States Grand Slam Hard Switzerland Federer, RogerRoger Federer 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
3. Loss November 29, 2009 ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom Tour Finals Hard (i) Russia Davydenko, NikolayNikolay Davydenko 3–6, 4–6

Alternative 3 – Combination of Alternative 1 and 2

No. Result Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
1. Win August 10, 2008 Los Angeles Open, United States International Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 6–1, 7–6(7–2)
1. Loss October 5, 2008 Japan Open, Japan International Series Gold Hard Czech Republic Berdych, TomášTomáš Berdych 1–6, 4–6
2. Win January 17, 2009 Auckland Open, New Zealand 250 Series Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
3. Win August 9, 2009 Washington Open, United States (2) 500 Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
2. Loss August 16, 2009 Canadian Open, Canada Masters 1000 Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
4. Win September 14, 2009 US Open, United States Grand Slam Hard Switzerland Federer, RogerRoger Federer 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
3. Loss November 29, 2009 ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom Tour Finals Hard (i) Russia Davydenko, NikolayNikolay Davydenko 3–6, 4–6

Alternative 4 – To avoid two numbering sequences in one column switch the No. column to a W–L column,

Result W–L Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
Win 1–0 August 10, 2008 Los Angeles Open, United States International Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 6–1, 7–6(7–2)
Loss 1–1 October 5, 2008 Japan Open, Japan International Series Gold Hard Czech Republic Berdych, TomášTomáš Berdych 1–6, 4–6
Win 2–1 January 17, 2009 Auckland Open, New Zealand 250 Series Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Win 3–1 August 9, 2009 Washington Open, United States (2) 500 Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
Loss 3–2 August 16, 2009 Canadian Open, Canada Masters 1000 Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
Win 4–2 September 14, 2009 US Open, United States Grand Slam Hard Switzerland Federer, RogerRoger Federer 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
Loss 4–3 November 29, 2009 ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom Tour Finals Hard (i) Russia Davydenko, NikolayNikolay Davydenko 3–6, 4–6

Alternative 5 – Remove the No. column and add the W–L info to the Results column

Result Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
Win (1–0) August 10, 2008 Los Angeles Open, United States International Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 6–1, 7–6(7–2)
Loss (1–1) October 5, 2008 Japan Open, Japan International Series Gold Hard Czech Republic Berdych, TomášTomáš Berdych 1–6, 4–6
Win (2–1) January 17, 2009 Auckland Open, New Zealand 250 Series Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Win (3–1) August 9, 2009 Washington Open, United States (2) 500 Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
Loss (3–2) August 16, 2009 Canadian Open, Canada Masters 1000 Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
Win (4–2) September 14, 2009 US Open, United States Grand Slam Hard Switzerland Federer, RogerRoger Federer 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
Loss (4–3) November 29, 2009 ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom Tour Finals Hard (i) Russia Davydenko, NikolayNikolay Davydenko 3–6, 4–6

Alternative 6 – Same as Alternative 5 but W–L in superscript

Result Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
Win (1–0) August 10, 2008 Los Angeles Open, United States International Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 6–1, 7–6(7–2)
Loss (1–1) October 5, 2008 Japan Open, Japan International Series Gold Hard Czech Republic Berdych, TomášTomáš Berdych 1–6, 4–6
Win (2–1) January 17, 2009 Auckland Open, New Zealand 250 Series Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
Win (3–1) August 9, 2009 Washington Open, United States (2) 500 Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
Loss (3–2) August 16, 2009 Canadian Open, Canada Masters 1000 Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
Win (4–2) September 14, 2009 US Open, United States Grand Slam Hard Switzerland Federer, RogerRoger Federer 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
Loss (4–3) November 29, 2009 ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom Tour Finals Hard (i) Russia Davydenko, NikolayNikolay Davydenko 3–6, 4–6

Alternative 7 – As Alternative 6 but with No. column for finals

No. Result Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
1. Win (1–0) August 10, 2008 Los Angeles Open, United States International Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 6–1, 7–6(7–2)
2. Loss (1–1) October 5, 2008 Japan Open, Japan International Series Gold Hard Czech Republic Berdych, TomášTomáš Berdych 1–6, 4–6
3. Win (2–1) January 17, 2009 Auckland Open, New Zealand 250 Series Hard United States Querrey, SamSam Querrey 6–4, 6–4
4. Win (3–1) August 9, 2009 Washington Open, United States (2) 500 Series Hard United States Roddick, AndyAndy Roddick 3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
5. Loss (3–2) August 16, 2009 Canadian Open, Canada Masters 1000 Hard United Kingdom Murray, AndyAndy Murray 7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
6. Win (4–2) September 14, 2009 US Open, United States Grand Slam Hard Switzerland Federer, RogerRoger Federer 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
7. Loss (4–3) November 29, 2009 ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom Tour Finals Hard (i) Russia Davydenko, NikolayNikolay Davydenko 3–6, 4–6


Notes: Proposal 1 was added as it seems more logical to list the Tournament field first, followed by the Category field given that the Category field says something about the tournament. Also it appears, to me at least, more 'natural' to have the Tournament and Date fields next to each other. Proposal 2 follows the suggestion made by Fyunck(click) to shorten winner / runner-up to win / loss as it saves a bit of space without losing any info and is arguable a bit easier to read / scan. The Alternatives listed take Proposal 2 as the starting point. Note that Result column in Alternative 5 and 6 is not sortable.--Wolbo (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions[edit]

Since I started this discussion, like I have all the compromises and topics on the subject... I want to come out say I'm not in this to win. In fact I'd rather not since then we have disgruntled parties. I want to come to some compromise. So I will come out right out and say we should use option #1 even though I feel it goes the furthest towards Wolbo's point of view. It retains counting winners and runners-up, it shortens to wins/loss, it only counts by 5's in color coded numbers. Otherwise I kinda like Option #4 that counts all events in a running total on the left. Some of our oldest articles were done this way. No separating wins and losses by totals... that's done above all these charts anyways. The tournament color is only on the category and tournament. A somewhat cleaner look. Maybe there are some options I hadn't thought of but if we move off the guidelines and grandfather charts I hope we can find some common ground to work with. This was purposely not done as an RfC because I want unanimous agreement on something that will work for everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

But you'd think that while this is discussed here that Wolbo would stop his addition/reversion crusade... but no. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't make these false claims Fyunck(click), you are the only one who is on a crusade by changing all these articles against a widely held and longstanding editing consensus in this project that dates back to the previous decade. In all these instances you are the initiator and I only react to your edits. You can try to spin it all you like but the editing history of these articles tell the real story.--Wolbo (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
BTW, hiding removal of the No. column under edit summaries like "[proper colors per guidelines]" probably does not help your case.--Wolbo (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually that was probably an error since I wouldn't have left and entire chart on the same page with the No. column intact. You hawever often write "formatting". Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I have done everything I can to not make a fight of this and you have been a one-man wrecking ball initiating revert after revert. No compromise at all from you... zero...nada. I do not understand the hostility on this issue, and frankly now I don't care. Everyone can see I have been the one trying and you have been the one reverting reverting reverting with no compromise in sight. As if hoping by sheer willpower that everyone will come to their senses and go against the RfC. It hasn't happened except for your crusade to ignore the RfC. Why did we even have it? Why do we even have guidelines if they are to be ignored? What do i tell new editors? "Ignore our guidelines because they mean absolutely nothing." That color scheme for tables... ignore it. Notability... ignore it and create an article about a tennis playing 5th grader. It's why we went through the Rfc to begin with. To lock down the guidelines that you 100% ignore... and now even for new articles. So here we are, mad at each other, and exactly what I wanted to avoid by compromise. You would not let it happen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
You are again making claims that are demonstrably false. The way in which you started and phrased this whole discussion is also far from the neutral and constructive tone that is common around here (and required for any RfC). Whatever happened to "playing the ball, not the man"? Regarding the article guidelines; of course they are important to improve the quality and consistency of our articles, which is why I have made numerous contributions to them as well as a great number of edits to get our articles to comply. But any guideline needs to have been discussed properly and supported to a certain minimum level to have any weight and authority as a 'project consensus' and that has simply not been the case for the No. column (as you yourself have admitted). There was never a consensus not to add the No. column and, as mentioned previously, the column has been widely used by many editors in thousands of articles over a long period of time, making it the real de facto 'project consensus'. Our guidelines should be updated to reflect that editing consensus.--Wolbo (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
We really do see things differently here. My claims are absolutely true. This discussion was brought about by you suddenly reverting more articles created this year... three or four today. I'm very unhappy about it and with your attitude about it. There is no consensus to add the number column at all. There is an RfC backing it's inclusion in our guidelines, which you choose not to follow. I feel very good on the high road here with all the suggestions made to reach out to multiple editors. The item above that you said doesn't help my case was probably an error (Ithought this was referring to something eles). I've reached out on your talk page, I've reached out on this talk page... both places multiple times. I got Zip from you except "the issue has to be forced one way or another" if we can't see eye to eye. I've tried and you have not, that is a fact! Show me where I'm wrong where you have made some compromise proposals to meet someone halfway. If I take this the An/i or dispute resolution they're going to see that I tried. And we are now certainly heading that way since you have reverted a bunch more articles today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
At this stage you are just responding to my posts with new falsehoods and that leads this discussion nowhere. On a personal note, we have after all been cooperating here for quite a few years, I have never seen you display such an antagonistic behaviour before and am a bit baffled by it. I will not respond to all your claims, that will just deflect from the issue at hand, but I do take offense at you repeatedly stating that I am neither willing to compromise nor have offered any compromise. That is 100% incorrect. On this very page during the earlier discussion I posted "As a practical way forward I would not object to the compromise you suggested of only using the no. column for tables with 10 or more entries (finals). That would remove the column for the large majority of player articles, probably around 90%, where it has the least added value.".--Wolbo (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Then the bafflement is 100% mutual with the exact same reasoning. I don't recall making that offer of 10 or more, but it's been awhile. I'm not so sure about that 90%. So many nothing players also have ITF charts that have 10 tournaments. Look at Katarzyna Kawa who's highest rank was 254. I think it's more like 10% would not have 10 finals. But you are correct that you did offer that compromise, so I apologize. However was that during the RfC which confirmed the current chart? Me and others have offered several compromise charts since then. have you, because I hadn't seen any. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As for the new choices Wolbo posted. I had started this conversation with trying to find common ground in a compromise, so I excluded the current guideline chart with no number column and no counting of wins/losses. To include only moving of columns around would have been no compromise, so a waste of time. New proposals 1&2 (with alternatives 1,2,3) are no compromise at all. It's just moving around or different shading, so not worthy of discussion. I could have made the same charts with our current approved guideline chart, but it would get us nowhere. Now, proposals 4,5 & 6 are compromises worthy of considering. Where the category column is placed I don't care one way or the other. And the dates, while they might work better shortened to a year or a month and a year, is no big deal either. I do like my chart options 1,2,3,4 much better because they look cleaner to me. But I guess that is to be expected. Alternative 5, I don't like with the big numbering. Alternative 6 (with the superscript), while I don't like it as much as option 1, might be the best of the lot. It's not a confusing column of odd numbers though I might have used "small" instead of "superscript." And i wonder what the superscript would look like in a softer color rather than the same black as the win and loss. Alternative 4 I'm still looking at. I might have to see it merged with Option 4, with the W-L in place of the No. on the far left side and no coloring in the number column. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Because I wanted to see it, Alt 4 merged with Option 4 would look something like the following:

W–L Result Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
1–0 Win March 2013 Malaysian Open, Malaysia International Hard United States Bethanie Mattek-Sands 1–6, 7–5, 6–3
1–1 Loss February 2014 Thailand Open, Thailand International Hard Russia Ekaterina Makarova 3–6, 6–7(7–9)
1–2 Loss May 2014 Nuremberg Cup, Germany International Clay Canada Eugenie Bouchard 2–6, 6–4, 3–6
1–3 Loss September 2014 Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong International Hard Germany Sabine Lisicki 5–7, 3–6
2–3 Win September 2014 Korea Open, South Korea International Hard United States Varvara Lepchenko 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–2
3–3 Win October 2014 Linz Open, Austria International Hard (i) Italy Camila Giorgi 6–7(4–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–4)
3–4 Loss January 2015 Sydney International, Australia Premier Hard Czech Republic Petra Kvitová 6–7(5–7), 6–7(6–8)
3–5 Loss February 2015 Dubai Championship, UAE Premier 5 Hard Romania Simona Halep 4–6, 6–7(4–7)
4–5 Win May 2015 Prague Open, Czech Republic International Clay Czech Republic Lucie Hradecká 4–6, 7–5, 6–3
4–6 Loss June 2015 Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom Premier Grass Germany Angelique Kerber 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 6–7(4–7)
4–7 Loss August 2015 Stanford Classic, United States Premier Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 7–5, 4–6
4–8 Loss November 2015 WTA Elite Trophy, China Elite Hard (i) United States Venus Williams 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
5–8 Win June 2016 Nottingham Open, UK International Grass United States Alison Riske 7–6(10–8), 7–5
5–9 Loss June 2016 Eastbourne International, UK Premier Grass Slovakia Dominika Cibulková 5–7, 3–6
6–9 Win August 2016 Cincinnati Open, United States Premier 5 Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 6–3, 6–1

Date is only month and year because I was also looking at that, but it isn't part of the discussion. This also has Wolbo's wish of the category after the tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we are getting somewhere.--Wolbo (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that dispute resolution might be the better venue to find a solution. Tvx1 00:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Column issue continued[edit]

I think we have some choices forming here, none of which are my favs, but I can accept them if everyone wants a particular chart. These are compromises from our current Guidelines and grandfathered career finals charts. We are trying to have one chart for all career finals instead of new charts and old charts. It would be great to get a unanimous thumbs up on one of these because we all have to back each other up on guideline usage with new editors. And remember, this chart would slowly replace every ITF/Challenger/ATP/WTA career chart that we currently have. Obviously not the Grand Slam or Masters only charts. Our guidelines probably only cover 20% of any given article... most is left to discussion/consensus on that particular article. But most of our charts are uniform in color and columns.

Notes 1. These choices are for deciding on our columns only for career finals. Full or partial color across rows is for another discussion, as is whether a w/l or No. column goes before or after the results, or the category goes before or after the tournament, or the date uses days/months/years. I just wanted to make these uniform so we can better judge what is best for our readers.

Notes 2. It has been pointed out that having any kind of counting method is trivial overkill since there is always a Key above each chart showing us the wins and losses of a player. And we don't use any counting for individual Grand Slam or Masters charts. However, others would like some sort of counting method for career finals because it's far easier to confirm that the Key's W–L record is correct if the actual events are tallied in some way. Not everyone is Roger Federer with 136 career finals to count, but even 50 career finals can be tough to keep track of. These charts are an attempted compromise to cover the situation.


1) Separate W–L column counting of all finals

W–L Result Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
1–0 Win March 2013 Malaysian Open, Malaysia International Hard United States Bethanie Mattek-Sands 1–6, 7–5, 6–3
1–1 Loss February 2014 Thailand Open, Thailand International Hard Russia Ekaterina Makarova 3–6, 6–7(7–9)
1–2 Loss May 2014 Nuremberg Cup, Germany International Clay Canada Eugenie Bouchard 2–6, 6–4, 3–6
1–3 Loss September 2014 Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong International Hard Germany Sabine Lisicki 5–7, 3–6
2–3 Win September 2014 Korea Open, South Korea International Hard United States Varvara Lepchenko 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–2
3–3 Win October 2014 Linz Open, Austria International Hard (i) Italy Camila Giorgi 6–7(4–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–4)
3–4 Loss January 2015 Sydney International, Australia Premier Hard Czech Republic Petra Kvitová 6–7(5–7), 6–7(6–8)
3–5 Loss February 2015 Dubai Championship, UAE Premier 5 Hard Romania Simona Halep 4–6, 6–7(4–7)
4–5 Win May 2015 Prague Open, Czech Republic International Clay Czech Republic Lucie Hradecká 4–6, 7–5, 6–3
4–6 Loss June 2015 Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom Premier Grass Germany Angelique Kerber 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 6–7(4–7)
4–7 Loss August 2015 Stanford Classic, United States Premier Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 7–5, 4–6
4–8 Loss November 2015 WTA Elite Trophy, China Elite Hard (i) United States Venus Williams 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
5–8 Win June 2016 Nottingham Open, UK International Grass United States Alison Riske 7–6(10–8), 7–5
5–9 Loss June 2016 Eastbourne International, UK Premier Grass Slovakia Dominika Cibulková 5–7, 3–6
5–10 Loss August 2016 Cincinnati Open, United States Premier 5 Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 1–6


2) Separate No. column counting of all finals

No. Result Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
1 Win March 2013 Malaysian Open, Malaysia International Hard United States Bethanie Mattek-Sands 1–6, 7–5, 6–3
2 Loss February 2014 Thailand Open, Thailand International Hard Russia Ekaterina Makarova 3–6, 6–7(7–9)
3 Loss May 2014 Nuremberg Cup, Germany International Clay Canada Eugenie Bouchard 2–6, 6–4, 3–6
4 Loss September 2014 Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong International Hard Germany Sabine Lisicki 5–7, 3–6
5 Win September 2014 Korea Open, South Korea International Hard United States Varvara Lepchenko 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–2
6 Win October 2014 Linz Open, Austria International Hard (i) Italy Camila Giorgi 6–7(4–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–4)
7 Loss January 2015 Sydney International, Australia Premier Hard Czech Republic Petra Kvitová 6–7(5–7), 6–7(6–8)
8 Loss February 2015 Dubai Championship, UAE Premier 5 Hard Romania Simona Halep 4–6, 6–7(4–7)
9 Win May 2015 Prague Open, Czech Republic International Clay Czech Republic Lucie Hradecká 4–6, 7–5, 6–3
10 Loss June 2015 Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom Premier Grass Germany Angelique Kerber 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 6–7(4–7)
11 Loss August 2015 Stanford Classic, United States Premier Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 7–5, 4–6
12 Loss November 2015 WTA Elite Trophy, China Elite Hard (i) United States Venus Williams 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
13 Win June 2016 Nottingham Open, UK International Grass United States Alison Riske 7–6(10–8), 7–5
14 Loss June 2016 Eastbourne International, UK Premier Grass Slovakia Dominika Cibulková 5–7, 3–6
15 Loss August 2016 Cincinnati Open, United States Premier 5 Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 1–6


3) small/colored, every 5th, W or L number in the result column

Result Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
Win March 2013 Malaysian Open, Malaysia International Hard United States Bethanie Mattek-Sands 1–6, 7–5, 6–3
Loss February 2014 Thailand Open, Thailand International Hard Russia Ekaterina Makarova 3–6, 6–7(7–9)
Loss May 2014 Nuremberg Cup, Germany International Clay Canada Eugenie Bouchard 2–6, 6–4, 3–6
Loss September 2014 Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong International Hard Germany Sabine Lisicki 5–7, 3–6
Win September 2014 Korea Open, South Korea International Hard United States Varvara Lepchenko 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–2
Win October 2014 Linz Open, Austria International Hard (i) Italy Camila Giorgi 6–7(4–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–4)
Loss January 2015 Sydney International, Australia Premier Hard Czech Republic Petra Kvitová 6–7(5–7), 6–7(6–8)
Loss (5) February 2015 Dubai Championship, UAE Premier 5 Hard Romania Simona Halep 4–6, 6–7(4–7)
Win May 2015 Prague Open, Czech Republic International Clay Czech Republic Lucie Hradecká 4–6, 7–5, 6–3
Loss June 2015 Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom Premier Grass Germany Angelique Kerber 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 6–7(4–7)
Loss August 2015 Stanford Classic, United States Premier Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 7–5, 4–6
Loss November 2015 WTA Elite Trophy, China Elite Hard (i) United States Venus Williams 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
Win (5) June 2016 Nottingham Open, UK International Grass United States Alison Riske 7–6(10–8), 7–5
Loss June 2016 Eastbourne International, UK Premier Grass Slovakia Dominika Cibulková 5–7, 3–6
Loss (10) August 2016 Cincinnati Open, United States Premier 5 Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 1–6


4) superscripted/small WL record in the result column

Result Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
Win (1–0) March 2013 Malaysian Open, Malaysia International Hard United States Bethanie Mattek-Sands 1–6, 7–5, 6–3
Loss (1–1) February 2014 Thailand Open, Thailand International Hard Russia Ekaterina Makarova 3–6, 6–7(7–9)
Loss (1–2) May 2014 Nuremberg Cup, Germany International Clay Canada Eugenie Bouchard 2–6, 6–4, 3–6
Loss (1–3) September 2014 Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong International Hard Germany Sabine Lisicki 5–7, 3–6
Win (2–3) September 2014 Korea Open, South Korea International Hard United States Varvara Lepchenko 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–2
Win (3–3) October 2014 Linz Open, Austria International Hard (i) Italy Camila Giorgi 6–7(4–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–4)
Loss (3–4) January 2015 Sydney International, Australia Premier Hard Czech Republic Petra Kvitová 6–7(5–7), 6–7(6–8)
Loss (3–5) February 2015 Dubai Championship, UAE Premier 5 Hard Romania Simona Halep 4–6, 6–7(4–7)
Win (4–5) May 2015 Prague Open, Czech Republic International Clay Czech Republic Lucie Hradecká 4–6, 7–5, 6–3
Loss (4–6) June 2015 Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom Premier Grass Germany Angelique Kerber 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 6–7(4–7)
Loss (4–7) August 2015 Stanford Classic, United States Premier Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 7–5, 4–6
Loss (4–8) November 2015 WTA Elite Trophy, China Elite Hard (i) United States Venus Williams 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
Win (5–8) June 2016 Nottingham Open, UK International Grass United States Alison Riske 7–6(10–8), 7–5
Loss (5–9) June 2016 Eastbourne International, UK Premier Grass Slovakia Dominika Cibulková 5–7, 3–6
Loss (5–10) August 2016 Cincinnati Open, United States Premier 5 Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 1–6

Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Although I don't have a strong preference either way, I would like to inject a few ideas and reiterate some of my earlier thoughts:
  • Why does it have to be a single table format applied to thousands of articles? Why not allow for a little flexibility? In general, Wikipedians don't like rigid rules ("there is one way, and only one way"). They do better when presented with guidelines or best practices (which are derived from sound principles), which they can apply along with a dose of local knowledge to the articles which they are editing. Why not make this number column optional? Where it makes sense (e.g. Federer), Wikipedians can use it. Where it doesn't make sense, Wikipedians can skip it.
    • For example... There are certain items which should be mandatory columns in these tables -- Result ("Win" or "Loss"), Tournament (linked to draw for highest usability), Category, Opponent (linked to their article), and Score (in standard format). A Year (year only) or Date (full date or month/year) must also be added. Columns such as Reference, Surface, Number, W/L, City, or Country may be added if desired. If they are, then these columns should follow standard formats, colors, etc... (or something like that)
  • My personal preference is to cut down the amount of information in these tables to improve usability. With all these wide columns and "no break" symbols, I've seen many tennis article tables that won't display on either my tablet or my vertical desktop monitor. That's a problem. If Wikipedia isn't usable, readers will go elsewhere for their information.
  • All in all, I think we would collectively produce a better set of tennis articles for readers if we'd stop edit-warring and arguing about things like number columns on final appearance tables. Instead, let's focus on more substantial quality issues, like ensuring that articles have complete citations to reliable sources (including final appearance tables), or striving to have more tennis articles meet the good article criteria (or featured article or featured list).

-- Saskoiler (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Of course we could completely remove the table from our guidelines and leave it up to the creation editor. There's no iron-clad reason to have any of our guidelines except for a bare-minimum cohesiveness between articles. Readers going from player to player would tend to expect to find the same things so that comparisons can be made. We want to give our readers vital information without bogging down the articles with trivial or over-saturated data. The problem is that one persons trivia is another persons meat-and-potatoes, and edit wars do and will continue to fester this particular situation. It just seems that it would be better if we had something uniform on this front instead of one grandfathered chart and one guideline chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Some interesting options provided by Fyunck(click). Option 1 would be fine with me and I would also not object to option 4, although it is a bit more difficult to read. Only see value in option 2) if it is combined with a W/L column and would not consider option 3 at all. To be complete I added two more options below. Option 1 is somehow visually appealing but given the context the column order of option 6) seems more logical. --Wolbo (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

5) superscripted / small W and L record in the result column

Result Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
Win (1) March 2013 Malaysian Open, Malaysia International Hard United States Bethanie Mattek-Sands 1–6, 7–5, 6–3
Loss (1) February 2014 Thailand Open, Thailand International Hard Russia Ekaterina Makarova 3–6, 6–7(7–9)
Loss (2) May 2014 Nuremberg Cup, Germany International Clay Canada Eugenie Bouchard 2–6, 6–4, 3–6
Loss (3) September 2014 Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong International Hard Germany Sabine Lisicki 5–7, 3–6
Win (2) September 2014 Korea Open, South Korea International Hard United States Varvara Lepchenko 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–2
Win (3) October 2014 Linz Open, Austria International Hard (i) Italy Camila Giorgi 6–7(4–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–4)
Loss (4) January 2015 Sydney International, Australia Premier Hard Czech Republic Petra Kvitová 6–7(5–7), 6–7(6–8)
Loss (5) February 2015 Dubai Championship, UAE Premier 5 Hard Romania Simona Halep 4–6, 6–7(4–7)
Win (4) May 2015 Prague Open, Czech Republic International Clay Czech Republic Lucie Hradecká 4–6, 7–5, 6–3
Loss (6) June 2015 Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom Premier Grass Germany Angelique Kerber 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 6–7(4–7)
Loss (7) August 2015 Stanford Classic, United States Premier Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 7–5, 4–6
Loss (8) November 2015 WTA Elite Trophy, China Elite Hard (i) United States Venus Williams 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
Win (5) June 2016 Nottingham Open, UK International Grass United States Alison Riske 7–6(10–8), 7–5
Loss (9) June 2016 Eastbourne International, UK Premier Grass Slovakia Dominika Cibulková 5–7, 3–6
Loss (10) August 2016 Cincinnati Open, United States Premier 5 Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 1–6

6) as option 1) but with the first two columns in a different order

Result W–L Date Tournament Category Surface Opponent Score
Win 1–0 March 2013 Malaysian Open, Malaysia International Hard United States Bethanie Mattek-Sands 1–6, 7–5, 6–3
Loss 1–1 February 2014 Thailand Open, Thailand International Hard Russia Ekaterina Makarova 3–6, 6–7(7–9)
Loss 1–2 May 2014 Nuremberg Cup, Germany International Clay Canada Eugenie Bouchard 2–6, 6–4, 3–6
Loss 1–3 September 2014 Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong International Hard Germany Sabine Lisicki 5–7, 3–6
Win 2–3 September 2014 Korea Open, South Korea International Hard United States Varvara Lepchenko 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–2
Win 3–3 October 2014 Linz Open, Austria International Hard (i) Italy Camila Giorgi 6–7(4–7), 6–3, 7–6(7–4)
Loss 3–4 January 2015 Sydney International, Australia Premier Hard Czech Republic Petra Kvitová 6–7(5–7), 6–7(6–8)
Loss 3–5 February 2015 Dubai Championship, UAE Premier 5 Hard Romania Simona Halep 4–6, 6–7(4–7)
Win 4–5 May 2015 Prague Open, Czech Republic International Clay Czech Republic Lucie Hradecká 4–6, 7–5, 6–3
Loss 4–6 June 2015 Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom Premier Grass Germany Angelique Kerber 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 6–7(4–7)
Loss 4–7 August 2015 Stanford Classic, United States Premier Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 7–5, 4–6
Loss 4–8 November 2015 WTA Elite Trophy, China Elite Hard (i) United States Venus Williams 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
Win 5–8 June 2016 Nottingham Open, UK International Grass United States Alison Riske 7–6(10–8), 7–5
Loss 5–9 June 2016 Eastbourne International, UK Premier Grass Slovakia Dominika Cibulková 5–7, 3–6
Loss 5–10 August 2016 Cincinnati Open, United States Premier 5 Hard Germany Angelique Kerber 3–6, 1–6

I can imagine that some editors might have been turned away from participating in this discussion by the length of it as well as the somewhat combative tone early on so perhaps the best way forward would be to see this as a precursor to a formal RfC where preferably one proposal would be put forward. If no single proposal can be agreed upon then two or three options could be given. --Wolbo (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't going as far as judging where the columns were placed... we haven't even decided if we are moving the category column or changing the color placement in the row. This was just for which columns to have and which not to have and that was mentioned in the paragraph preceding the charts. As for which is best, if EVERYONE wanted a particular chart of the four compromise charts put up, I would go along grudgingly... just to get a single chart for all and some cohesiveness. had I ranked them by personal choice it would have been 3,2,1,4. Your chart 6 is the same as chart 1... just the placement is different. Chart 5 is terrible... it might even be worse than the grandfathered chart. I was trying to do it without an RfC since our last one kept the chart as is which you didn't like. I am trying to get everyone to bend a significant distance away from no column and no numbers at all on one side, and a column that totals single digit wins and losses on the other side. I guess it'll be a success if everyone dislikes a chart but votes for it anyway. Or if 10 other people picked the chart and you and I only implemented it into our articles. We'll have to see what happens here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this went nowhere. :-( Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a pity there isn't more participation in this discussion but it still has the potential to result in meaningful improvements to our career finals tables. We just need to figure out a constructive way forward.--Wolbo (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 ATP Challenger Tour[edit]

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

Never mind. I've figured it out. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Adamtt9, your links to the Stockton challenger on your Challenger Tour calendar is actually linking to a similarly named, but clearly different, WTA tournament held during July. To answer the question, no the Sacramento challenger article should not be moved because it's a different tournament. Tvx1 20:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Tvx1, Actually, they are the same tournament but they added a men's edition for this year to replace the Sacramento Challenger. So for this year, the Stockton Challenger will also have a men's edition which will be added to the women's article that is currently there. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
You will have to back that claim with reliable sources. It's actually pretty common for the same venues to host independent ATP and WTA tournaments. That is almost always the case when those tournaments happen during different periods of the year.Tvx1 21:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Tvx1 So what do you recommend I do? Should I create a new article for the men's Stockton Challenger? It seems that they are going to call it the Stockton ATP Challenger instead of the Stockton Challenger as it is for the women's tournament. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Well we'll have to wait and see how it pans out. It's merely a challenger. If turns out be a one off, like you claim it might, it wouldn't warrant its own article. Tvx1 22:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Most important tennis tournaments in history[edit]

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

Please also note in the table that they are in the order that they were played according to the book.--Navops47 (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Have now done the same with the women's here: User:Navops47/sandbox17 interestingly Mazak ranks the Colgate/Toyota Championships which he includes 6 times is on a par with as the WTA tour finals and the 1976 Colgate Inaugural tournament in Palm Springs that launched the Colgate Series was the worlds richest women's tournament that year won by Chris Evert.--Navops47 (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. We don't class tournaments as Majors/Grand Slams based on which ones some writer thinks were important . We list tournaments as Majors/Grand Slams according to how they were officially classed by the governing bodies involved. Tvx1 11:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The inquiry was referenced in relation to the above article and the inclusion of some of the tournaments in the article, secondly how suspicious there is no secret master plan afoot here thirdly I am aware about the governing body's a bit problematic though when you consider the GB & Ireland loose associations sanctioned the Irish Ladies Championships as the worlds first major ladies tournament in 1883 before Wimbledon in 1884 (no reference to that anywhere) thirdly if a reliable source gives an opinion that's used in multiple articles here and if I understand a Doctorate level writer not exactly someone writing for TV Guide not "Just some writer with an opinion" the inquiry is aimed at editors with a serious interest in tennis history and by that I mean before 1970 and who are interested in expanding that coverage in new articles or improving those that we do have clearly your not but thank you anyway for replying.--Navops47 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The book by the way was compiled after Mazak was granted research access to the Kenneth Ritchie Wimbledon Library http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/library_research_enquiries.html.--Navops47 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I wonder how Mazok's list jives withe the ABCDEF rankings given by the expert at thetennisbase.com? I've had some conversations with tennisbase on some of his rankings that we disagreed with. These authors often go by strength of field but that doesn't take into account prestige, which matters a lot. There have been recent 1000 level events with stronger fields than the Majors, whether because of injury or players not allowed to participate, yet the major was still more important. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Playing field does not determine whether something is a Major (with capital M). Such a status is something official and available prize money, and these days ranking points, are determined by that status. Tvx1 20:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes Fyunck the list btw is not just based on field strength its also based on prestige at that moment in time when you look at who the won Irish, Northern, Wim and US early titles and the inclusion of the other selected tournaments certainly the other pro tourneys the grand slams as a group are acknowledged together only from 1925 and pro slams together from 1934 however if I was a reader coming to this subject for the first time (and needed this explaining more clearly) I would wonder though why there is a disconnect of information for the period up from 1877 to 1914 (when the WHCC, WGCC and WCCC are included) that doesn't reference any other important tournaments (depth of field, prestige, No'1 players playing them) other than Wimbledon (sole Major from inception to 1924) you would assume that for 37 years no other significant tournaments existed and we know Majors didn't get that official title together until 1925 when the ILTF agreed to uphold a objection by the USLTA to drop the World title tournaments so what we do you call them before 1925? is Mazak saying the Irish Northern and US were the other 3 important annual tournaments ? the article History of tennis explains the 1925 starting point there is however no explanation as to why you have of a gap of 48 years with no reference to any other pre-1925 tournaments deemed important on that page (seems odd) and no reference on the same page to the ILTF Majors Off topic saw your reply re:Eastbourne.--Navops47 (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The early years will always be a bit murky. And the ILTF named the WHCC, WGCC and WCCC as their big three, but there is absolutely no doubt (even at the time) the the WCCC was the low man on the totem pole. Distances were just so formidable back then. But surely the reason the ILTF relented and all agreed on Australia, France (WHCC), Wimbledon and US Championships is that they were already about the biggest most prestigious events in the world. France was just a simple switch from the WHCC to the French Championships. But yes the USLTA insisted on dropping the World Title from events and also insisted that the language of tennis and it's events would be forever in English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The men's tour grew from 1 tournament in 1877 to 144 tournaments by 1912 annually and he picks only 4 stand out consistent tournaments for that period interesting though.--Navops47 (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
And that doesn't even count the fact that Davis Cup dwarfed them all for 50 years or more. Players would skip the Majors if it interfered with Davis Cup. If I recall, it was the reason Emerson wouldn't turn pro... he would no longer be able to play Davis Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

2005 Australian Open – Men's Singles Qualifying[edit]

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

Considering that the undisambiguated Australian Open is an article about the tennis tournament, which is a clear case of primary topic (being magnitudes more notable than the other entries on the disambiguation page), then the subsequent daughter articles can follow suit and not require any disambiguation. oknazevad (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
It certainly shouldn't be in the title. The question is whether tennis should be mentioned in the lead. Draw articles usually have no mention of the sport, not even in categories. See e.g. 2011 Brasil Open – Singles or 2013 Kremlin Cup – Women's Doubles. You have to click the link to the main article for the tournament to see "tennis". Registered users with Navigation popups or Hovercards enabled may only have to hover over the link but that's a small minority of all readers. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts:
1. These articles do all link to the main tournament in the first sentence. It's not a huge ask for someone to have to click onto the tournament article to find out more if they're unfamiliar with the tournament by name - that is the fundamental principle of the links system in Wikipedia (that is, we use to links to allow people to click through if they need to know more).
2. How are people getting to these articles if not via the parent article, a link on player's page or a very specific web search?
That said, I wonder if a quick and easy solution here would be to somehow get the word tennis, or a symbol of a tennis ball/racket, to appear in Template:Infobox tennis tournament event? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
*Rant alert!* Ugh, I hate when people use "ask" as a noun!oknazevad (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

↑↑↑What he said.↑↑↑ Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Ditto on that ditto. My first response was I regard to the title, but there's no reason why we couldn't simply add the words "tennis tournament" to the end of the lead sentence of most of these articles. So, in the case of the 2005 Aussie asked about here, it is easy to make it say "This article displays the qualifying draw for the Men's singles at the 2005 Australian Open tennis tournament." Zero effort, helps readers. Already taking care of this one to start. oknazevad (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. If I come across any more mysterious sports articles I will add "tennis tournament to them...—Anne Delong (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

David Graham (tennis)[edit]

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

Since he played in the 1982 Australian Open, he's notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Fyunck(click).—Anne Delong (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Current Ranking Template Moves[edit]

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

RFC on tennis player Andy Murray (Scottish/British)[edit]

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

Comment - The summary of the issue present here is not quite accurate. We already know the answer to the above question: he's both. The RFC's question is how we should introduce him in the lead sentence of his article. Tvx1 14:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Corrected. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Qualifiers[edit]

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

Background colors vs category columns[edit]

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD[edit]

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

Merge proposal[edit]

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

ITF tournament colours[edit]

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

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

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

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

Men v Women[edit]

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

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

Proposal: Extra columns for counts of W, F, SF, QF in Grand Slam performance timelines for Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, etc.[edit]

Hi folks, for several years, I've thought that in the articles about Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (and other greats with numerous top Grand Slam results), it would be very useful to include a summary table showing how many times they had reached the finals, semis, and quarters at each of the Grand Slams. Yesterday I decided to try to implement my idea on the Federer page, by adding 4 extra columns to the right side of the "Grand Slam tournament performance timeline" table. Once I started testing, I spent well over 1 hour of my time on it, figuring out how to add those columns in the best possible way, testing several different variations on the Federer page before saving the edit, and then replicating it on the Nadal and Djokovic pages since the result looked good on the Federer page.

However, a couple hours later, User:Fyunck(click) reverted my additions on all 3 pages, stating that it was an "against consensus addition per Tennis Project Guidelines". So I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines and saw nothing there which states that additional columns may not be added to those separate Grand Slam-only performance timelines. But anyway, after discussing it with Fyunck(click) on his talk page, it seems best to raise the issue here. It appears that these particular columns may have never been discussed here before, and so there is no specific prior consensus against them.

I'll post a comparison showing what the extra columns look like on each of the 3 pages where I added it, and then afterward address the concerns / questions raised by Fyunck(click).

Grand Slam tournament performance timeline[edit]

Key
W  F  SF QF #R RR Q# A NH
(W) Won tournament; reached (F) final, (SF) semifinal, (QF) quarterfinal; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; competed at a (RR) round-robin stage; reached a (Q#) qualification round; (A) absent; or (NH) tournament 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.

Old version (Federer)[edit]

(Note that the Federer table was already set to use "font-size:90%" before my edit, but not so for the Nadal and Djokovic tables.)

Tournament 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SR W–L Win %
Australian Open Q1 3R 3R 4R 4R W SF W W SF F W SF SF SF SF 3R SF W 5 / 18 87–13 87.00
French Open 1R 4R QF 1R 1R 3R SF F F F W QF F SF QF 4R QF A 1 / 17 65–16 80.25
Wimbledon 1R 1R QF 1R W W W W W F W QF QF W 2R F F SF 7 / 18 84–11 88.42
US Open Q2 3R 4R 4R 4R W W W W W F SF SF QF 4R SF F A 5 / 16 78–11 87.64
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 18 / 69 314–51 86.03

New version (Federer)[edit]

diff

Tournament 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SR W–L Win % W  F  SF QF
Australian Open Q1 3R 3R 4R 4R W SF W W SF F W SF SF SF SF 3R SF W 5 / 18 87–13 87.0 5 6 13 13
French Open 1R 4R QF 1R 1R 3R SF F F F W QF F SF QF 4R QF A 1 / 17 65–16 80.2 1 5 7 11
Wimbledon 1R 1R QF 1R W W W W W F W QF QF W 2R F F SF 7 / 18 84–11 88.4 7 10 11 14
US Open Q2 3R 4R 4R 4R W W W W W F SF SF QF 4R SF F A 5 / 16 78–11 87.6 5 7 10 11
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 18 / 69 314–51 86.0 18 28 41 49

Old version (Nadal)[edit]

Tournament 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SR W–L Win %
Australian Open A 3R 4R A QF SF W QF QF F A F QF 1R F 1 / 12 51–11 82.3
French Open A A W W W W 4R W W W W W QF 3R 9 / 12 72–2 97.3
Wimbledon 3R A 2R F F W A W F 2R 1R 4R 2R A 2 / 11 40–9 81.6
US Open 2R 2R 3R QF 4R SF SF W F A W A 3R 4R 2 / 12 46–10 82.1
Win–Loss 3–2 3–2 13–3 17–2 20–3 24–2 15–2 25–1 23–3 14–2 14–1 16–2 11–4 6–2 6–1 14 / 47 210–32 86.78

New version (Nadal)[edit]

diff

Tournament 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SR W–L Win % W  F  SF QF
Australian Open A 3R 4R A QF SF W QF QF F A F QF 1R F 1 / 12 51–11 82.3 1 4 5 9
French Open A A W W W W 4R W W W W W QF 3R 9 / 12 72–2 97.3 9 9 9 10
Wimbledon 3R A 2R F F W A W F 2R 1R 4R 2R A 2 / 11 40–9 81.6 2 5 5 5
US Open 2R 2R 3R QF 4R SF SF W F A W A 3R 4R 2 / 12 46–10 82.1 2 3 5 6
Win–Loss 3–2 3–2 13–3 17–2 20–3 24–2 15–2 25–1 23–3 14–2 14–1 16–2 11–4 6–2 6–1 14 / 47 210–32 86.8 14 21 24 30

Old version (Djokovic)[edit]

Tournament 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SR W–L Win %
Australian Open 1R 1R 4R W QF QF W W W QF W W 2R 6 / 13 58–7 89.23
French Open 2R QF SF SF 3R QF SF F SF F F W 1 / 12 55–11 83.33
Wimbledon 3R 4R SF 2R QF SF W SF F W W 3R 3 / 12 54–9 85.71
US Open 3R 3R F SF SF F W F F SF W F 2 / 12 62–10 86.11
Win–Loss 5–4 9–4 19–4 18–3 15–4 19–4 25–1 24–3 24–3 22–3 27–1 21–2 1–1 12 / 49 229–37 86.09

New version (Djokovic)[edit]

diff

Tournament 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SR W–L Win % W  F  SF QF
Australian Open 1R 1R 4R W QF QF W W W QF W W 2R 6 / 13 58–7 89.2 6 6 6 9
French Open 2R QF SF SF 3R QF SF F SF F F W 1 / 12 55–11 83.3 1 4 8 10
Wimbledon 3R 4R SF 2R QF SF W SF F W W 3R 3 / 12 54–9 85.7 3 4 7 8
US Open 3R 3R F SF SF F W F F SF W F 2 / 12 62–10 86.1 2 7 10 10
Win–Loss 5–4 9–4 19–4 18–3 15–4 19–4 25–1 24–3 24–3 22–3 27–1 21–2 1–1 12 / 49 229–37 86.1 12 21 31 37

Purpose and advantages of the extra columns[edit]

  • For players like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (and other players with large numbers of Grand Slam W, F, SF, QF), the additional columns provide very useful info in a compact format.
  • At a quick glance, it's easy to see exactly how many times the player was a quarterfinalist / semifinalist / finalist at each Grand Slam, without having to tediously add up the results in the yearly part of the table.
  • This complete info is not found anywhere else in the article, or even on the extended stats pages like Roger Federer career statistics, etc.
  • Because those extended stats pages combine the Grand Slam table with Masters and surfaces and all that in a single table, it would not even be possible to add the extra columns there.
  • But for players like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic who have separate Grand Slam-only performance timelines on their main article, it is possible to add the columns, and it is a very useful addition.
  • While adding the new columns, I also tried to streamline the existing parts of the tables, reducing unnecessarily wide columns in the Federer and especially Djokovic tables (Nadal table had no such extra width in it), and also reduced the percentages to show only 1 decimal place (2 decimal places is just excessive).

Responses to concerns / questions raised by Fyunck(click) at User talk:Fyunck(click)[edit]

  • Those charts shown in the guidelines are pretty firm. We do not add extra columns, tournaments, stats, etc... We use a short form on the main article and a longer form on the career stats articles. This keeps them fairly uniform with each other and makes it easy for readers to go from chart to chart with no surprises.
Uniformity is great, but for players with numerous top Grand Slam results, the extra columns are a very useful addition. If any readers are actually surprised to see them, I think it would only be a pleasant surprise.
  • There is nothing against adding that info in prose to those articles, but not in those charts.
Unfortunately adding all that info to the prose is impossible -- there are 20 separate numbers in those 4 columns, which only make logical sense in a table, where the columns can be summed too.
  • Your additions are simply tallies of what's already there in plain sight
Yes, obviously they are, but adding up those results from the table at a glance is not easy. Without the tallies, there's no easy way to quickly see from the table that, e.g., Federer is a 14-time Wimbledon quarterfinalist. Or even to see really interesting things, like the fact that all 5 times Nadal made the Wimbledon QF, he also made it all the way to the finals -- now obvious from the extra columns, but not at all obvious at a glance from the old table.
  • there are other considerations for uniformity. Do we use colors at the top as you did? Do we bold the wins as you did?
Those are not my arbitrary choices at all -- those colors and bolding are copied exactly from the colors and bolding already used in Template:Performance key and the existing columns of the table (although all the column headings ended up bold anyway). Using the exact same colors gives the reader an immediate idea of what those 4 extra columns mean, with help from the Tooltips if needed.
  • Do we use it for every player (where many would simply have a mess of zeros)? Do we make exceptions for certain players and if so what is the cutoff so we don't have editors adding it to every single player?
Obviously there's no point in doing this for every player, the whole point is that those 4 columns are useful for players with numerous Slam W, F, SF, QF only. Editors could be free to add them for any player where it made sense (where it is an actual improvement and useful to see), but if necessary the guidelines could suggest an arbitrary cutoff like at least 10 Slam QF or 20 or something.
  • Add it to Federer's stats page and it'll be off the page unless we shrink the fonts.
The extra width of those 4 columns could be a problem. But as the tables above show, other columns in those tables are currently set far too wide, so adding the extra 4 columns while reducing a few of the too-wide columns allows the addition with almost no extra width, or even an overall width reduction as for the Djokovic table. Note that the Federer table was already set to use "font-size:90%" before my edit, but not so for the Nadal and Djokovic tables. And currently, the column widths used in this table differ wildly on various players' pages, with no uniformity or consistency at all.
If extra width really is a huge concern, then this information could be moved to a separate table just below the current table, like this:
Tournament W  F  SF QF
Australian Open 5 6 13 13
French Open 1 5 7 11
Wimbledon 7 10 11 14
US Open 5 7 10 11
Totals 18 28 41 49
But I think it's much better implemented as an extra 4 columns on the right of the current table.
However, I do think that this separate table would be a useful addition to the extended stats pages like Roger Federer career statistics, where it is not possible to add the extra Grand Slam columns to the all-in-one giant table. And where despite the plethora of other stats, the summary in this little table is not available at all. Adding it maybe in the "Grand Slam tournaments" section, just below the paragraph where it already states that "Federer has won the most grand slam titles (18). He has reached the most finals (28), semifinals (41) and quarterfinals (49)." The version on that page could even be extended to show all the rounds:
Tournament W  F  SF QF 4R 3R 2R 1R
Australian Open 5 6 13 13 15 18 18 18
French Open 1 5 7 11 13 14 14 17
Wimbledon 7 10 11 14 14 14 15 18
US Open 5 7 10 11 15 16 16 16
Totals 18 28 41 49 57 62 63 69
If it's a separate table anyway, then it makes sense to go ahead and include earlier rounds for the sake of completeness.
  • My biggest concern with the addition was that it was something that could affect our standard charts in hundreds of articles (thousands without a cutoff). With that kind of affect, even if I loved it, it needed to be discussed and vetted properly.
Hopefully the discussion here will address that.

Summary[edit]

I feel strongly that this would be a positive addition overall, and that the extra columns in the Grand Slam performance timelines would be an improvement to those tables and those articles. I also think that the separate Grand Slam table would be a useful addition to the extended stats pages like Roger Federer career statistics, either the smaller W-F-SF-QF version or (preferably) the full version including earlier rounds.

Thanks for considering this proposal. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I'll have to muse more on this later. I would be against adding even more columns to the main page graph of any player and I'm not sure making the fonts smaller and smaller helps things either. Maybe I'm in the minority on this. I don't think those particular columns have ever been discussed so this is certainly a valid proposal, though it could affect thousands and thousands of articles. Where do we cut off? Do we allow it for doubles and mixed doubles tables? If we make a cutoff will editors follow it or will we have to constantly revert them? By the way aesthetically I really don't like the "W" being extra bolded up on top and I'm not sure about the "Qf" column being needed at all.
  • Now, what about this on the career stats article of these players? I again think these charts are already awfully wide (especially for the best players), so I would be against it unless convinced otherwise. What minimum amount would we set to allow the columns? We could have players with all zeros in the first 3 columns, or even all the columns. Do we allow it if a player has reached 1 QF in their career? As for a separate chart, that has much more merit. We don't allow any extra performance charts other than our guidelines, but as a standalone I'm not sure it qualifies as a performance chart (as long as it's not under the performance chart header). I don't care one way or the other on a separate chart, though the extra rounds seem really trivial and unneeded. And again we'd need some player cutoff spelled out specifically in the guidelines. Also the extra rounds could cause problems for earlier players since not all majors had 7 rounds. If it was only 6 rounds does it go under 4th round or QF? Anyways those are some preliminary thoughts on this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    • To add even more to the confusion. Some majors did have seven rounds with a number of the top seeds getting a bye in the first round.Tvx1 23:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)