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.
 


Djokovic controversy[edit]

Novak Djokovic has been embroiled in a minor controversy the last several days. Even Andy Murray has gotten involved. I wasn't sure where to put this fact which is supported by countless sources. I tried a single sentence in the Activism section but it was reverted with no comment at all. I tried it again and this time it was commented as irrelevant and was reverted again. It seems far from irrelevant but I only put in a single sentence to keep it small, and I added three sources. It could certainly go somewhere else like buried in his 2016 section, but since I was instantly labeled a Djokovic hater on the Djokovic talk page, I thought it best to let others chime in on it's placement. I believe he has seen fit to apologize for it now. I feel it belongs in the article but where is subject to some debate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this needs to be mentioned. As far as I can see this is a storm in a tea cup and this may well be forgotten in couple of weeks time. We are not one of these news site sources and we don't sensationalize. Tvx1 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Others on the Djokovic talk page disagree, but it's why I asked. Serena has a whole section with 5 detailed paragraphs of controversies, some of which are forgotten these days, so I was worried about editors claiming double standards in wikipedia entries if it at least didn't get mentioned. I have no problem if it gets listed or doesn't get listed based on consensus here but I thought a passing mention was worthy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Other users? I can only see one. Tvx1 21:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

There are up to 30 free one-year Alexander Street Press (ASP) accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP.

Alexander Street Press is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WTA Prize Money Leaders for 2015[edit]

Anyone knows where to obtain the WTA Prize Money Leaders document for 2015, it seems WTA does not archive the prize money lists anymore.--Orel787 (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The top-50 is in http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/MediaInfo/mediaguide2016_2015review.pdf. Is that enough? https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.wtatennis.com/prize-money-rankings has no 2015 snapshots after September 23. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of flags[edit]

In running an unrelated bot task that affects tennis articles, I've run into flag icons all over the place. I'm not familiar with tennis tournaments, but is it the case that athletes in this sport are officially representing their nations in events such as the 2007 Rogers Cup – Singles tournament? If not, how is this reconciled with MOS:SPORTFLAGS? ~ RobTalk 14:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

They don't have to "officially" represent their nation (i.e. attempting to win a trophy for their country) to be allowed a flag. Moreover MOS:SPORTFLAGS is a guideline, not a policy. It's basically advice. Tvx1
Plus each player is "required" to be represented by a particular nation per the ITF. Hence the "representative nationality". So as with Auto-racing the icons have become intrinsic to each player. It cannot represent citizenship though... only the country they play for. It is also allowed in the infoboxes specifically by consensus and mosflag. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with Tvx1 on the importance of guidelines, but thanks for the information Fyunck. I didn't know that about the ITF, and I definitely agree it makes sense to use flags in that context. Cheers! ~ RobTalk 00:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
On the topic of importance of the "national affiliation" in tennis (which does not equate to citizenship), I previously wrote this. In essence, I concur with Fyunck. The presence of flag icons for players helps make Wikipedia consistent with the tennis world, tennis media, etc. Saskoiler (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Season article formatting[edit]

Made a few formatting changes to the season article, using 1979 WTA Tour as a test case, with the aim to make these pages a bit tidier and easier on the eyes. Currently most season articles have tables with different widths, see 1978 WTA Tour, which gives an untidy and busy appearance. Changes:

  • All month tables have the same width
  • Shortened the month column (and abbreviated the months) to make space for slightly wider columns for semi- and quarterfinalists
  • Added the standard tennis project colors to column headers 'Champions', 'Finalist', 'Semifinalists', 'Quarterfinalist'
  • Shortened the draw links in the tournament box from 'Singles Draw – Doubles Draw' to 'Singles – Doubles' (see May and October).

None of these are major changes but combined they are in my view worthwhile. Would appreciate feedback to determine if this formatting should be applied to all season articles. --Wolbo (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I like all of the formatting changes described above. Definitely a tidier appearance. Saskoiler (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I also like it much better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Made one more change which is to remove the bold typeface for the tournament champions. Bold is widely used within tennis articles but in my view often unnecessary and in contradiction with MOS:BOLD which states "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text.". It can be argued that this is not article text but it is the article body and bold is clearly used here for emphasis (of the champions). In the case of season articles I don't see the need for bold text given that every month table already has distinct column headers for identification. As with the other changes, removing bold is intended to make the article calmer and easier on the eyes to improve readability. For comparison only the first few months have been unbolded. Views? --Wolbo (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Good call. Bolding is not necessary there. Saskoiler (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Big Performance Key changes[edit]

I have no problem with a merging of the two tennis performance keys: "Performance key" & "Performance key (Grand Slams)" but it would have been nice to discuss here or at least a heads up that a merge was likely coming. I have been changing many articles to "Performance key (Grand Slams)" and now it looks to have been waste of time. Maybe it was discussed somewhere and I missed it? Changing the order of olympic medals was a minor tweak, but eliminating one key was a pretty big deal to at least announce here. I see the heads up was given today at "Template talk:Performance key", but not at the page that was merged or here. I was just about to add a few more "Performance key (Grand Slams)" templates when I noticed it was gone.

So Tennis Editors, look at this as the announcement that template "Performance key (Grand Slams)" has been merged into the standard template "Performance key." To get the effect of "Performance key (Grand Slams)" you need only to use "performance key|short=yes" for current players and "performance key|short=yes|active=no" for retired players. There is also now a "performance key|active=no" template for retired players for the full Performance timeline. This is explained at the Template:Performance key article and it's corresponding talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), perhaps a message here would have been in order but the merge has caused no loss in functionality, on the contrary, via the two new parameters 'short' and 'active' the template now has more flexibility than either of the two templates had before. That's why in my view the merge was not particularly bold and didn't require prior discussion. There were in fact only few articles (< 25) that used the {{performance key (Grand Slams)}} (checked via 'What links here') and all of them were migrated to the updated {{performance key}} with the correct settings (short=yes, active=no). Directly after the merge I added a post to the template talk page explaining the move and the new functionality. --Wolbo (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I like the merge better, but as I said, I was about to add even more of the old templates. I didn't have the old template page on watch so there was no way to know. I have now also properly marked the merge on the talk pages. I still think that when a used tennis template is eliminated it might be best to mention it here. Was the template creator @Diegowar: informed of its removal/merge? That would probably be a nice thing to let him/her know on their talk page. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Minor Guideline updates[edit]

Just a note that the performance charts in our guidelines have been tweaked by me and several editors. The women's charts were not quite in sync with the men's. Minor stuff but I thought it needed a mention for the archives. There was also a query as to the Davis Cup chart in our guidelines not being used by most articles; that articles use a completely revamped chart. I guess that should be looked at since we want our guidelines to be the defacto goto in disputes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Correction needed in infobox template[edit]

Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics has the infobox {{Infobox tennis tournament year}} on the top right. However, the defending champions are listed as '2015 Champions' on the rendered page, rather than '2012 Champions'. Maybe new defending champion parameters are needed that go back four years instead of one? Also, the 'defchamps' etc. parameters that are used in the 2016 Olympics article are missing from the template documentation (Template:Infobox tennis tournament year/doc). Maybe someone who is familiar with these templates can fix this (especially the first issue)? Thanks a lot, Gap9551 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have coded it to use the existing before_year optional parameter.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix! Gap9551 (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Shall we add a number column to our current Tennis Guideline #4:Career chart?[edit]

Closing as per request at WP:ANRFC. I see no clear consensus on style with sufficient support to enforce in the mainspace. Please keep in mind that a small local consensus shouldn't necessarily be widely applied. As far as whether the project's guidelines should be updated, there's no consensus to change them. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 22:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As it stands now, our current chart at #4:Career, which we point all new editors to, does not have a number column before the date. Some editors add this number column to tally not only the victories, but also the runner-up finishes. They also ignore other items in the guideline chart, such as "result" and "category." This is against our guidelines as they now sit. Shall we add the number column to our guideline chart or enforce our guidelines as they now stand? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The Situation[edit]

A couple years ago we had a hard fought scrum in changing this chart so that it met Wikipedia Accessibility guidelines. We couldn't have color as the only means of conveying information. Certain things were agreed upon with all the examples, certain things were not. We changed "Outcome" to "Result." We changed "Championship" to "Tournament." We changed "Opponent in final" and "Score in final" to simply "Opponent" and "Score", respectively. We removed cities from the tournament info. Most importantly we added a column for "Category" so that we could add the type of event (such as 500 series) to the chart so the sight-impaired could use it easily. It had no "No. column" before or after the changes. Certain things we could not agree upon and one of them was that pesky Number Column. It wasn't as contentious as other items because it really wasn't discussed at all except briefly at the end when several of us disagreed. All these items were to be brought up separately at a later time so we could get the new chart corrections up and running with the items we could agree with. This is how it stands today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Our problem[edit]

Our editors are ignoring the guideline chart when creating new articles. I try to make these articles consistent with our guidelines and my efforts get deleted or I'm told I'm edit warring. I'm frustrated and others are frustrated with me. I'm saying "why aren't we using our guidelines and backing each other up" and others are saying "since so many are doing things that aren't in the guidelines, we should simply incorporate these changes as the will of our editors with a defacto consensus." Both make some sense to me. But if we follow that "will of the editors" that would mean adding a "No. column", changing "Result" back to "Outcome", and removing the "Category column" from our guidelines since none of those items are being followed at all. I think everything else is being used to some degree. This format makes no sense to me. Do we go with our editors, our guidelines or something in-between? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments and advice on what to do[edit]

  • I feel the guideline chart we have now works well and should be what we use. It's a little wide (especially for those with handheld devices), but it gets the job done. Widening it more with a trivial No. column just doesn't make sense to me. 99% of our players only have a few victories and runner-ups and can be tallied by eyesight. No reader cares what Nadal's 27th victory was or heaven-forbid his 18th runner-up finish. There are plenty of articles right now that have only one or two numbers in that column, like Egan Adams. That's useless. They don't need numbers just for the sake of numbering. I dislike the column because it's trivial, looks ugly, and is unnecessary. But I really hate totaling the number of runner-ups... that's crazy to me. If a player is a superstar, Novak Djokovic for example, we could put a little notation every twenty wins like (40) after "Winner" to help in tallying large charts. That would keep the runner-ups from being tallied at all, yet allow readers to count more easily. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with most of these arguments. The statement that 'No reader cares' is an assumption that cannot be, and is not, substantiated. In general, statements about what our readers care or do not care about run the risk of merely being projections of one's own opinion on our readership. The No. column has informational value that may be of interest to the 'statistics anoraks' part of our readership and takes up very little space. I'm not sure what it is about this column that makes you say it 'looks ugly', can you elaborate? Appearance is of course a subjective matter but to me the column seems fairly unobtrusive due to its small size. Finally, the table contains not only tournament wins but also runner-ups so what is wrong with tallying those? Tallying only wins but not runner-ups, in a table that contains both, seems odd to me and a case of undue weight. --Wolbo (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Disagreeing is part of wikipedia. I stand by my observations. There are a lot of things that are a matter of opinion... our choice of table colors, the addition court surface, the lack of addition of aces or double faults column, or semifinal (rather than just finals). We made choices on these issues based on value and personal opinion, as I am doing with a No. column. Knowing Nadal's 27th runner-up has little to no value to an encyclopedia that summarizes the most important things. We total the victories and losses in the key above, and keeping a running total is simply trivia imho. Others may disagree, and it's plain that you do. That's why this is under discussion. And running one's eye up and down a column with jumbled numbers bugs me no end. I see a nice clean chart in our guidelines and I don't see the same with the trivial No. column. But ugly/pretty a personal thing as you pointed out. But I did offer a runner-up compromise below so It's not like I'm not trying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
And why is this number column so informative then? What does it add to the table that's not already there. Regardless of whether we have this column, they are listed chronologically anyway. A player's first win is always listed first, a player's 15th win is always listed 15th and a player's latest win is always listed last. The information is always there despite that column. Therefore I have to agree with my colleague that listing a player's 27th runner-up finish explicitly as "27" is utter trivia. Tvx1 16:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I feel like we should follow the guideline chart. I can't see any justified reason to do so. I don't think there's any point in adding a number column. The wins are listed in chronological order anyway. Tvx1 21:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • In the case of the No. column the career finals table in our guidelines does not really represent any project consensus. It is not the result of any thorough discussion that can deservedly be called a consensus. On the other hand, the No. column has been widely used for many years, see for instance Roger Federer career statistics, and this usage by editors has created a de-facto consensus. If that is the case the 'guidelines' should be changed to reflect the reality of our usage, not the other way round. The column takes up very little space, just 20px, so the width argument has little validity. The table of career finals is in essence just a list in a different format and it is very normal for these kind of lists to be numbered, as is also done by other sports projects. I don't see what is gained by removing it.--Wolbo (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd even be willing to go the extra mile with a compromise. We all know I'm biased against the No. column for reasons given above, and I suggested using a small number in the results column for every 20 wins, but only for wins since I hated tagging the runner-ups with any number. But we work as a team here...What if we did that suggestion for every 10 wins and every 10 runner-ups? That way players with less then 10 would show nothing, and players like Federer, who have bazillions of wins and losses, would count by 10 for all those editors who like running totals. It would also make it easier on historical players if suddenly we find an extra match that needs to be squeezed it, we'd only have a few numbers to change rather than perhaps 20 or more number to change. I did a test case on Caroline Wozniacki's career stats: Current setup or possible setup (though the category is still missing). Sorting doesn't work as nicely so we might need to unsort the result column unless there's a work around. I don't like the tallying, but I'm just trying to find some wiggle room that everyone can live with and is great for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm relatively new here, so I can't offer any comment on what was historically done or what had or what has consensus. However, I can offer comment from a usability perspective. So, from a usability perspective, these table formats are far from ideal. The width of individual cells and the table as a whole absolutely creates readability problems. Some suggestions to improve the usability:
    • Either remove the number column (which would be my personal choice) or merge it into the "Outcome" column.
    • If the number column is retained, consider a compromise where it only appears after a minimum (10?) number of entries. So, for vast numbers of players, it doesn't appear. <cut and moved some remarks to an extra section–Fyunck(click)> Saskoiler (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    Just a note on your observations. Per our guidelines:
    1. There is no number column per our guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Saskoiler, thanks for the feedback. Would suggest to split the general remarks into a different section to avoid the discussion becoming convoluted. 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) 14:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure but I think policing that would really be tough and impracticable. Editors look towards Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Williams as to how new player articles should be... they don't tend to look at our guidelines. That would mean they'll automatically start off with each chart being numbered and when corrected they'll whine that we play favorites with the best players. Or when there are several charts in an article and one has 20 entries and two have five entries, they'll all wind up with No. columns. Also, I'm not so sure about it helping 90% of players. Remember we have low-ranked minor players like Martin Kližan, Philipp Petzschner, Michael Berrer, etc with 10-entry Challenger level and ITF level charts, and 617 ranked Susanne Celik is only one entry away. It's very important that the premier player's charts are rock-solid in following our guidelines because editors use them as a framework for new articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm pinging two administrator's (@PrimeHunter:, @The Rambling Man: that used to be interested in tennis articles and helped construct the current guidelines. I don't want them for their administrative skills but rather to help us get this correct. Maybe they have some insight and feelings about what is best for editors (and our readers). I have no idea their stances, but they always seemed reasonable when they were admonishing me for being stupid (I'm still not a cricket fan though). Wolbo and I have talked about getting a few more voices over here so try not and yell at me (too much) for canvassing. It's best to get it right regardless of how I feel about the column. I also moved/repeated the general remarks by Saskoiler (and the responses) to a different section below. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Extra suggestions[edit]

  • I'm relatively new here, so I can't offer any comment on what was historically done or what had or what has consensus. However, I can offer comment from a usability perspective. So, from a usability perspective, these table formats are far from ideal. The width of individual cells and the table as a whole absolutely creates readability problems. Some suggestions to improve the usability:
    • Either remove the number column (which would be my personal choice) or merge it into the "Outcome" column.
    • If the number column is retained, consider a compromise where it only appears after a minimum (10?) number of entries. So, for vast numbers of players, it doesn't appear.
    • Change "Winner" to "Win" and "Runner-up" to "Loss". The shorter labels are perfectly understandable.
    • Remove the city and country from the "Tournament" column. (For example, see how the ATP Masters 1000 finals table looks on Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics -- much cleaner.). The details are not essential.
    • Strip the date column down to just the year. (Again, see the ATP Masters 1000 finals for example.)
    • Consider removing the "sort" arrows from some columns.
    • Remove the "...in final" from both the "Opponent" and "Score" columns. They are entirely redundant.
    • Make the tournament name a wikilink to the specific tournament year rather than link to the generic tournament page. This is far more useful as it provides quickest access to date and draw details.
    • Add a column for "Category" (or "Level") of tournament. Consider using short forms (e.g. "500", "250") to keep the width down. Using only the color is very bad for accessibility compliance.
    • Consider using short forms for surface (both the "Surface" title and the individual entries). The "total" summary above could easily provide the legend. E.g. "S" for "Surface", "H" for "Hard", "C" for "Clay", etc.
      Saskoiler (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    Just a note on your observations. Per our guidelines:
    1. There is no number column per our guidelines
    2. Only the country name is allowed in the tournament, not the city. I happen to prefer it with country added (not a country code)
    3. The sorting really helps on tournament, surface and opponent... not so much on the rest.
    4. "in final" is already not allowed per our guidelines.
    5. The date already links to the yearly tournament so there is no need to repeat that in the tournament link.
    6. The sortable column for "category" is already in our guidelines... editors just refuse to use it.
    Otherwise, I don't like the S for surface... that's worse imho for our readers. Just the year for the date I'd have to think about, though it does look cleaner. Since the date already links to the exact event, having only a year is no big deal. I do think I like Win and Loss better than Winner and Runner-up. Thanks for the input. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Saskoiler, thanks for the feedback. Would suggest to split the general remarks into a different section to avoid the discussion becoming convoluted. 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) 14:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification summary[edit]

@BU Rob13:Just so I'm clear on your closing wording. Per your words we are not changing the guidelines. However, per your words, there isn't enough support with this RfC to use the guidelines as an enforcement of no number column? Extrapolating, clearly there also isn't support to add the number column to any article? So that leaves us with a case by case basis as it stands right now? I just want to make sure I have the correct reading on the closing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Yes, basically. There's obviously no consensus to change the guidelines of this project (as, I think, anyone can see). The next bit of the question ("or enforce our guidelines as they now stand?") has to do with whether there's consensus here to go out and change many articles to match the guidelines of this project. I don't believe there is. One editor supports the number column, several support no number column, some support the inclusion of numbers in the results column (with or without numbers for runners up!), and one thinks the whole think is unreadable as-is. None of that is a clear consensus to go change hundreds (thousands?) of articles to match the project's existing guidelines. In other words, there's no consensus to change it, but there's also no clear consensus that it's good as-is.
If I might make a suggestion, what you really need is a template for tennis results rather than wikitables in all articles, so you can easily make formatting changes by consensus to all articles simultaneously. Editors could use it or not use it in specific articles, but it would certainly make things easier than going out and editing many articles when you wish to apply your project's guidelines in the future. Would you like me to mock one up? ~ RobTalk 23:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you're thinking more of a module than a template. Tvx1 23:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure it would work. I create articles with our guideline attributes and correct newly made ones. Some will likely be doing something else. We won't be on the same page to have a standardized module. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Organization of records/statistics articles[edit]

Sometimes the articles with records and statistics confuse me a little, given the large amount of information and the size of these articles. Some information is listed in several articles. I don't have a big problem with this duplication as long it is kept up-to-date, but maybe the total amount of information becomes a little more manageable and easier to oversee with less duplication. Very important records, such as total number of Grand Slam titles (all-time or in the Open Era), may more easily justify duplication.

Currently we have Tennis tournament records and statistics which has all-time records (for singles only) for men and women, but we also have All-time tennis records – men's singles and All-time tennis records – women's singles. That means that Tennis tournament records and statistics may be unnecessary. Similarly, we have List of Open Era tennis records (singles information only), but also Open Era tennis records – men's singles and Open Era tennis records – women's singles, which invites duplication.

An example of a duplicated record is the list of most titles at a single tournament for men, which for all-time is given at All-time tennis records – men's singles#All tournaments, subsection Single tournament records (down to 6 titles) and Tennis tournament records and statistics#Most titles at a particular tournament (down to 5 titles). 'Most consecutive titles at a particular tournament' are also listed at both articles (down to 5 titles). For the Open Era, the list of most titles at a single tournament for men is listed at Open Era tennis records – men's singles#All tournaments, subsection Individual tournament totals (down to 6 titles) and List of Open Era tennis records#Most titles at a single tournament (down to 5 titles). There is also overlap e.g. regarding lists of most year-end tournament titles.

It may be worth splitting some articles, too. That may help avoiding overlap, because e.g. articles like List of Open Era tennis records, List of Grand Slam related tennis records, and Open Era tennis records – men's singles will naturally lead to overlap since they all have to list men's Grand Slam counts in the Open Era. Articles with a narrower focus are less likely to overlap. Also, an article like All-time tennis records – men's singles (144 kB) exceeds the rule-of-thumb limit of 100 kB given in WP:SIZERULE (which doesn't require splitting, but it is an additional argument to do so).

Another thing related to reducing redundancy is merging WTA Tour records into Open Era tennis records – women's singles, similar to what has been done recently for the men's tour (see Talk:ATP World Tour records#RFC proposed deletion, redirecting or renaming of the ATP World Tour Records article).

I'd like to continue past efforts to organize tennis records better in a systematic way, and reduce duplication, while keeping information easy to find. The above are just some general observations and ideas, and I'm interested to hear what others think about this.

(This is related to a current discussion on Talk:ATP World Tour records#Prize money.)

Gap9551 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no qualms about merging some items to make for cleaner non-repetitive tennis articles. I hate to split unless its the very last resort. Things don't get edited properly when we do so. Half the players with "career statistics" sub pages, shouldn't have those pages when one will do just fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Sakya23 in the topic below reminds me of the possibility to transclude templates. We could make them for e.g. the top 10 Grand Slam title winners all-time, in the Open Era, ATP/WTA Tour era, etc, and then transclude them in the multiple articles where they are needed. But in a way that is also splitting, and this may make the content more difficult to update for users not familiar with these templates. Gap9551 (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
That's always a possibility as long as it isn't too many articles. If there are too many transclusions it either leaves it open for easy vandalism or we have to protect it from IPs and new editors. Otherwise, it would help keep the information in one spot that could be doled out as needed by articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Current Top 20 Women's Singles WTA Rankings[edit]

So, I seem to be running into some problems, when I edit the above template Template:Current Top 20 Women's Singles WTA Rankings, it doesn't show up on 2016_WTA_Tour#WTA_Rankings. Please help. Sakya23 (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it worked to me. Maybe you have to clear your cache? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

Category section in players finals[edit]

I just came across this "category" section in certain players career finals, isn't it redundant? since we already have a color coded system that clearly identifies which category the event is ( ATP 500, 1000, Grand Slam etc)?? --Sakya23 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

French Open 2016[edit]

Hello, the 2016 French Open page is still redirecting to the main French Open page. I suppose that it was set up that way until the 2016 page was ready. It's the fourth day of the tournament, is there something I can do to help it be ready to be opened up? Tombleyboo (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I managed to look at the page, and it looks quite complete. If I knew how to remove the redirect I'd volunteer to do it...can anybody help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombleyboo (talkcontribs) 16:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tombleyboo: 2016 French Open is an article and not a redirect. Try to bypass your cache. If you still get a redirect then please post the url of the page where you get it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @PrimeHunter:, actually it was my own stupidity. I was uising wikiwand, which kept bumping me to French Open. Switching it off gets me to the right place. Sorry for the trouble.Tombleyboo (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Need help organizing Taiwan WTA tournaments[edit]

I need some help trying to organize the Taiwan WTA women's tournaments over at Talk:Taiwan_Open#Major_reorganization_Taiwan_Open_and_Taipei_Open. There are 3 (possibly 4) tournaments that are mashed up into 3 articles with not so clear names such as Taiwan Open, Taipei Open, and WTA Taiwan Open. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Feature Article Nomination - Milos Raonic[edit]

I have nominated the Milos Raonic article for featured article status. You are invited to contribute to the nomination discussion.

- Saskoiler (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Saskoiler: I fixed a couple minor issues and mentioned each at the discussion page. Not really much for me to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Fyunck. I appreciate all of your assistance, as usual. I hope to reach consensus in the nomination. Saskoiler (talk) 04:49, 15 June 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)

Tier I, II, III, etc started in 1988, not 1990[edit]

Only the name "Tier" and the Roman numerals were introduced 1990, prior to that the designations were "Category 1, Category 2,... etc. So in my opinion, unless categories or tournaments were radically differnt between 1988 and 1990, we shouldn't hesitate from adding those "Category" stats on to the "Tier" stat tables. No need to pretend as if grade separation started in 1990 while it actually started in 1988. What matters most is the actual historical record, not the nomenclature. What do you guys think? Loginnigol (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where to go with the guidelines[edit]

I will certainly be following our guidelines for all newer players and articles, and had intended to follow it for players who need overhauls for other reasons, but even those seem to be being reverted. The last RfC said there is no carte blanche to change thousands of articles, nor is there carte blanche to keep going against guidelines where the decision was to keep the guidelines as is. I'm not sure where the compromise lies in whether we should start adding a number column, as I thought I had worked one out with another editor, so I'm open to suggestions as to where to draw lines to make editing a bit easier. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I am still trying to find some sort of compromise. To no avail as of yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Still trying to find common ground, but I will continue to make sure newer articles (2016+) conform to consensus guidelines. I guess some of the older articles are just grandfathered into incorrect parameters (unless those parameters were added after 2016). I wish we could come to some compromise on those older articles, as I have tried. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Users disregarding our content policies and guidelines regarding sourcing content.[edit]

At Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Qualification, two users have been adding that Jerzy Janowicz has a protected ranking (which he can't have five and a half months after his last match) but utterly refuse to back this with any source. They have engaged in a discussion on my talk page but refuse to acknowledge that they needed to back up their changes with sources. Tvx1 19:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct in wanting sources. I can't find anything that says he has a protected ranking. But the thing is, from what I just read, that's not why he was allowed in. The Olympics take the top 56 players by world ranking, but there is other criteria as well. The host nation would get players regardless of ranking. And the committee also chooses six ITF Places by Qualification, and two Tripartite Commission Invitation Places. Jersey got it by the ITF qualification. Some also got in by special appeal. It's talked about here and here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I know but these users claim that the needed a protected ranking to be able to receive a universality ITF qualification, but refuse to back up their claim with a source. Tvx1 19:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tvx1:Per Olympic Qualifiers.com he appears to be protected.
In the men’s singles seven athletes qualified through protected rankings, usually reserved from athletes returning from long term injury. Athletes which qualified through the injury list include: Argentina’s Juan Monaco and Juan Martin del Potro, Australia’s Jordan Thompson and Thanasi Kokkinakis, Chinese Taipei’s Lu Yen-Hsun, Poland’s Jerzy Janowicz and United States’ Brian Baker.
So there is one source. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), there is something weird with that source. It claims Jordan Thompson (tennis) from Australia qualified, but I cannot find him anywhere in the ITF's entry list. Tvx1 14:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. As of this morning his name has been removed (last night it was in since I simply copied it). Remember that those injured protected entries are provisional... it's provided they compete in July's Davis Cup, are still injury free, or have made and won a direct appeal. Obviously one of those things didn't happen for Thompson. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), that source isn't very usable, though, since it is a blog. The person who wrote it seems to be guessing these PR's just as much as the two users who keep adding it to wikipedia. Tvx1 14:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, you're correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Per the ITF he was an ITF Qualifier. Here are there provisions for picking one of those 6 Qualifiers in singles:
Final Qualification Places (ITF places) for singles tennis.
Final Qualification Places (ITF places) will be allocated according to the below (in priority order)
 
1.Host Country Representation –if the Host Country does not have a representative via Direct Acceptance, its best ranked athlete based on the international singles rankings of 6 June 2016 shall qualify

2.Regional Representation –if any of the six (6) ITF Regional Associations do not have a representative via Direct Acceptance, the best ranked athlete from that region will gain a Final Qualification Place, provided they are within the top 300 on the international singles rankings of 6 June 2016.

3.Gold Medallist/Grand Slam Champion (max two (2) quota places) -a player who has not achieved Direct Acceptance but who has previously won a Gold Medal in the Olympic Singles competition or who has won a Grand Slam singles title will qualify, provided his/her ranking is within the top 200 on the international singles rankings of 6 June 2016 and provided the quota per NOC has not already been filled. If more than two (2) athletes are eligible, places will be allocated according to the athlete with the higher number of titles. Should two (2) eligible athletes have the same number of titles, the athlete ranked highest on the 6 June 2016 international singles ranking will qualify.

4.Universality (max two (2) quota places) -if any places remain, these will be allocated to the next best ranked player on the international singles rankings of 6 June 2016 from an NOC that has no representation in that singles event.

5.In the unlikely event that the quota is not complete via the above criteria, the remaining quota places will be allocated to the next best ranked athlete not yet qualified based on the international singles rankings of 6 June 2016, whilst respecting the maximum number of athletes per NOC.
So #1 does not apply to Jersey. #2, he is in the Europe region of the ITF with 49 member states and plenty of representatives, so that's out also. #3, he's never won a gold medal nor won a grand slam tournament so we can eliminate that. So that leaves us with #4 and #5. With #4, Poland is an Olympic National Committee (NOC) participant, so was Jersey the highest ranked player from an NOC as of 6 June that didn't already have a player in the Olympics? Poland doesn't have any other entry in singles, so that might be the reason. I assume that Nikoloz Basilashvili of Georgia got in for the same reason. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
There were a South Korean and a Moldavan player ranked above Janowicz, in addition to Basilashvili, and Robin Haase had already been allocated such (#4) a place. So with only two such places available, the two users' argument is that Janowicz could have only received such a place through a PR, refusing to prove that both South Korea and Moldova's NOC's applied for an ITF spot in the first place. The ITF updated the entry list on monday, taking Dusan Lajovic from Serbia out and allocating his direct entry to Robin Haase and reallocating his universality ITF spot to Basilashvili. Tvx1 16:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

W/O[edit]

With expeding Match win streaks per event I was for me not clear, how to deal with walkovers in winning streaks. Lenglen has a streak on Wimbledon with a walkover from her side. at the 1924 Wimbledon she forfait her semi final. End her streak with this result or does this this match counts a never played. At my point of view it ends in 1924. What are rules for this? Thanks in advance. Micnl (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

She didn't win that match, did she now. Tvx1 15:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Wheelchair Singles at Wimbledon (Help Needed)[edit]

I have noticed that the infobox for the individual events at this year's Wimbledon fails to list the 2016 Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Men's Singles and 2016 Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Women's Singles events. For example;

WikiProject Tennis
2016 Wimbledon Championships
Champions Russia Anastasia Potapova
Runners-up Ukraine Dayana Yastremska
Final score 6–4, 6–3
Events
Singles men women boys girls
Doubles men women mixed boys girls
Legends men women seniors
WC Doubles men women

These events were played for the first time at this year's championships but they have yet to be added to the infobox. I was just wondering if anybody would be able to lend a hand in getting the events into the infobox please?

F1lover22 (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... not sure how to fix it for just this years chart onwards. It may need a module/template expert for that. @PC-XT: Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I only know templates. The links are from Module:Tennis events nav by User:Izkala. Without knowing Lua I could guess how to add it for all years but not selected years. Many of the links should only be in some years. For example, 1905 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles has many red links to non-existing events. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Boy and those red links in 1905 look kinda bad... with no chance of it ever going away. If we can't add parameters to remove the red links, we may need to have 4 or 5 modules (Tennis events nav 1,2,3,4,etc) created to encompass the older vs newer events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 15 July 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)

American Tennis Association[edit]

Prior to 1950 there was discrimination against blacks from competing within Tennis. [2]. Via what methods should we discern notability for those players such as those in the American Tennis Association
The archive shows this [3] and a problem was finding out who were the major winners. I have found this link which gives all the winners until 1983 [4] BlackAmerican (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone?? BlackAmerican (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Naming conventions[edit]

I've consulted these pages and the talk archives on naming conventions, but couldn't find what I was after. Maybe members of this project could consider my query and chip in. Schwede66 08:31, 9 August 2016 (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

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
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)

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)