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.
 


Contents

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)??

Ranking templates[edit]

Although nothing new, I just wanted to re-ignite the discussion about the ranking templates, such as those at Category:WTA Tour navigational boxes. I like them a lot and they are useful as navboxes, but I'm getting sick at the thought of having to update them nigh-on every Monday. There are other things to do here. I feel I'm wasting my time, and am happy that a few colleagues help out every now and then and do a few, but it really isn't enough. I don't really know what to suggest, since getting rid of them all seems a bit drastic. We could, however, choose to delete some. Let me make an example of {{Top African female tennis players}}, the first one on the list. It hasn't been updated in over four months, and before that nearly five. What purpose does it serve? Another, {{Top Portuguese female tennis players}}, I have updated regularly since it was created last year, but there are (as of today) only five players with a world ranking, two of which aren't even notable. This really should be another candidate for deletion. Jared Preston (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A bot would be great but I once made a request with no takers at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 58#Tennis ranking navboxes. Maybe it sounded too hard and a request with simpler wishes would have a better chance. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there some place where ATP rankings are downloadable in some reasonable format (text file or spreadsheet; ideally including movement from the last edition of ranking so that it has all information needed in this template). I think it would not be very difficult to create a few scripts using grep and sed or some similar programs to format the template. Some disadvantages: There would be redlinks. (I do not really know how to check whether there is a Wikipedia article on some player.) We would have to compile manually some list of players where simply using the name would lead to disambiguation page; for example Sergei Bubka (tennis). I don't think that sed is good at handling Unicode. And after creating them, it would still be necessary to put the templates on Wikipedia manually and check them. Probably somebody who is better in programming than me would be able to improve this reasonably or even make a bot; this is the best I could - hopefully - able to do. --Kompik (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I wonder about any of them, as they are all maintenance nightmares, and some are just of questionable value as being entirely too narrowly defined. The national ones definitely should go. It's a trivial intersection of loosely related things. The top 10 lists, maybe they can say, but I still don't relish the idea of updating them. oknazevad (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I think many templates can still serve their purpose (i.e. give a general idea of the best players in a country) even if they are updated only once every 2 months or so. In that case the order can be a bit off but the template should still list most of the relevant players. For those templates that are consistently updated too infrequently, we could either delete them or decide that they are important. In the latter case more editors should become involved in updating them. I would certainly get rid of the green, red, and blue symbols indicating change in the templates that are updated too rarely. That makes the updates quicker, but also the change relative to the previous week doesn't have much meaning if updates happen only once every few weeks or months. Gap9551 (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Johanna Konta[edit]

Hi. There's loads of great stats at her article, but I was expecting to see a chart showing her annual progression in world rankings, but couldn't see one. I'm used to seeing them on snooker player bios. Does the Tennis WikiProject normally do such charts for tennis players? --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dweller, most of the higher-ranked players have separate career statistics articles which show the player's year-end ranking at the bottom of the performance timeline table (e.g. Federer, Murray, Halep). The performance timelines in the player's article are usually limited to showing the results at the Grand Slam tournaments, as is the case with Johanna Konta. However, it raises a good point, and a case can be made that the year-end ranking should always be added to the performance timeline in the player's article. That would be fairly easy to do.--Wolbo (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. You can see an example that works exactly like that in the second row of the chart at Stuart_Bingham#Performance_and_rankings_timeline --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Those snooker timelines and career finals sure do look familiar (who borrowed from whom?). One point to consider is that the performance timeline usually starts in the year a player first participated in a Grand Slam (or tried to qualify) while the ranking starts when they turn pro. In Konta's case, she turned pro in 2008 but the performance timeline only starts in 2012. So either the timeline needs to be expanded or, alternatively, the year-end rankings are added to the career statistics section as a separate table.--Wolbo (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Lol. On the main issue, I see your point. Because the players are beginning to earn ranking points before they participate in world ranking events, I guess. I'd just add it to the performance timeline, without expanding the timeline back in time. Another table would make the proliferation of tables even worse. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess we could also just put in a link under external links that says Johanna Konta Rankings History. The work's been done for us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
There's also a big difference in the way Snooker and Tennis rankings work. The Snooker rankings are not changed as frequently as the Tennis rankings. Up to 2010 they were only changed once per season. Nowadays it has actually been changed to a prize money list. Tennis rankings are actually updated every week and this means sometimes during the middle of a tournament. This would mean we would have to update the timeline of every player article every week if we include this information. Tvx1 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Tvx1, not really, in the context of the tennis articles we are talking about year-end ranking, as is shown in the many career statistics articles. As a test case the year-end rankings have been added to Konta's performance timeline. Seems a straightforward solution. Thoughts? --Wolbo (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

<- The addition of the year-end rankings is a good idea and adds usefully to Konta's article. Thanks. If you don't mind an observation from an outsider, there do seem to be a huge number of tables in the article of someone who until very recently indeed was a pretty obscure tennis player... --Dweller (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

So what are we going to do with the 2016 rank in her timeline then? Leave it blank all the way to the end of this year? That's not really quality editing. Tvx1 00:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why that would be an issue. The row label clearly states it is a year-end ranking and the setup is exactly the same as we already use for a considerable time on the career statistics pages (e.g. Federer, Murray, Halep). As the event, the 2016 year-end, has not yet happened the field is empty, just as it (currently) is for the 2016 French, Wimbledon and US Open.--Wolbo (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
"there do seem to be a huge number of tables in the article of someone who until very recently indeed was a pretty obscure tennis player" - what we need is her to make a WTA level final (tomorrow??). Then all the ITF final info can be junked, or maybe hidden. That will make it seem less cluttered.Janik17B (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've got a question on round name styling. Wolbo came in and swapped all references to QF in the Konta article to read 'quarterfinal' (thanks, btw, consistency is the most important thing here), but at the moment SF is rendered as both 'semifinal' and 'semi-final', and these were left unchanged. Which is the form we should be using? Janik17B (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Janik17B, we have standardized within the tennis project on the non-hyphenated spelling, so it should be semifinal(s) and quarterfinal(s).--Wolbo (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Runner-ups vs. runners-up[edit]

As you may have noticed Sphilbrick has started an update action to change the widely used spelling of 'runner-ups' to 'runners-up'. We had standardized on the usage of the spelling form 'runner-ups' within the tennis project but Sphilbrick presents a number of credible sources which state that the correct plural form is in fact 'runners-up' (link, link, link). I vaguely recall from memory that there were prior discussions on the proper use of the plural term within the tennis project around 2012–2013 but could only find a a brief discussion from 2008. This is a large scale update action affecting thousands of player articles. --Wolbo (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If anyone has any issues, please bring them to my attention. I am trying to proceed carefully, but with thousands to do, it is almost inevitable I will miss something. Let me know and I will fix it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I endorse the use of "runners-up". It's correct standard English based on the sources shown above, and the covention that the key noun, not the other qualifying terms, are pluralized (i.e., attorneys general, fathers-in-law, runs-batted-in). In this case "runner" in its generic form for "competitor" is the noun, with "up" being a qualifying preposition indicating position. oknazevad (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Runners-up is indeed the only correct spelling. Tvx1 17:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Runners-up, sisters-in-law, attorneys general, passers-by, etc etc! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Although, 'runner-ups' is just about plausible as a synonym for second places eg "Andy Murray has achieved four runner-ups at the Australian Open". However, that's not a very good sentence! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I realized shortly after my previous reply that spelling depends on what you are referring to. If you refer to a group of people all having achieved the runner up position at a certain tournament, you use runner-up. For instance; Federer, Nishikori and Djokovic were the runners-up of the last three US Opens. However, if you refer to one and the same person achieving the position multiple times, you use runner-ups. For instance, Djokovic achieved four tournament wins and three runner-ups during that season. Tvx1 16:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
From what I was taught and what I have read, in hyphenated words such as runner-up, the verb/adverb/preposition is not pluralized... it is always the noun. So Djokovic achieved four tournament wins and three runners-up during the season. The only time a verb is pluralized is when it takes a combination of them to form a noun. Examples: sit-up and push-up, become sit-ups and push-ups. What's funny is in the future, if runner-up ever becomes simply runnerup (as hyphens have a way of disappearing) then it would be runnerups. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
And just how is "up" a verb??? Tvx1 22:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
corrected. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The latter sentence should be reworded to avoid the non-standard term. Just say "second-place finishes". "Runner-ups" should be avoided as poor, no standard English. oknazevad (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Second place finish is a term that is rarely used in Tennis, though. If you reword such a sentence that refers to tennis, it's better to write "and he reached another three finals". Tvx1 18:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Or we could just use plain English and call a spade a spade and a second place finish as a second place finish. Whatever reasons the brass at the governing bodies of tennis have for not using the term, we are not beholden to them. oknazevad (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I opened a discussion at The plural of runner-up after @Courcelles: made the intriguing suggestion that it depend on whether it is the plural of people, or the plural of events for one person. (I believe that is the same point as made by @Tvx1:.) Arguably it is early, but quite a number of editors have weighed in. There is no support for universal use of “runner-ups” and despite the support of two editors, there is very little support for “runner-ups” even in the limited case of multiple finishes for a single person. There is slightly broader support for the notion that multiple events for a single person should be written differently than multiple second place finishers. Not seeing consensus, I plan to proceed as follows:

  • Replace “runner-ups” with “runners-up” (and “Runner-ups” with “Runners-up” and “Runner-Ups” with “Runners-up” and “Runner ups” with “Runners-up”).
  • Let this wikiproject consider the best way to characterize the situation where a single person has multiple second place finishes. (I have seen several suggestions, none of which seemed clearly satisfactory.) If a consensus is reached, I will try to help implement it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Comment: I actually find this topic quite strange. I have been changing runner-ups to runners-up for years at all tennis related articles. I think many of us have in fact and it's been a done deal for quite some time in my mind. I'm surprised there's all that many articles left (unless they don't get updated very often). Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your response may help resolve one niggling point that bothered me. Someone, I forget who, suggested that the number of affected articles was in the thousands. My research identified 2003, a lot but not quite what i would call "thousand". My current guess ifs that there are thousands of tennis article with something about second place finishes, but most have already been either fixed, or were correct to start with. I note that a search in article space of "tennis yields 69K hits.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
When I and others started correcting them, most were at runner-ups or Runner-ups. I don't search for them anymore, but when I come across one I fix it. Just like correcting World No. 1 to world No. 1, (or no. 1, #1) to No. 1. I fix 'em when I see 'em. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Save that, contrary to the No.1, not all of them need fixing. Stating that Federer achieved 10 "runners-up" at Grand Slam tournaments, which we currently do, is plainly wrong. 22:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Well it certainly isn't the first time (nor last), but per Princeton University and the University of Purdue, I am wrong. As I posted at our MoS, when used in tallying the number of second place finishes, runner-ups is preferred. I suppose Wikipedia can choose to use any style of grammar or spelling it wants by consensus, and I haven't heard back from Chicago or AP Manual of Style, but unless I hear otherwise I am forced to change my preference to runner-ups when used as a tallying of (5 titles, 3 runner-ups). Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    And now the staff at the Chicago Manual of Style have also agreed that runner-ups is correct when used in tallying. So my name was mud in thinking otherwise. Sorry. Certainly no more articles should be changed to runners-up as editor Sphilbrick had been doing (and as I did in the past). Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Pressure Situations section ATP World Tour Records article[edit]

Hi I updated this sectionATP_World_Tour_records#Pressure_situations the deciding set table according to this table http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/performance-zone/win-loss-index/career/finalset/all/ Kei Nishikori tops this table with 78% (85-24). This editor 82.137.9.233 keeps reverting it I have reverted it twice so cant revert again 3RR. Their reason is its 100 wins minimum which is not applied by the ATP I mentioned this in my edit summaries the data at the official site http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/performance-zone is used mainly to update ATP records for this article setting an arbitrary 100 win match limit completely removes the Japanese player from the table altogether which is ridiculous can some please investigate and change this back. --Navops47 (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC proposed deletion/redirecting or renaming of the ATP World Tour Records article[edit]

I have posted a formal RFC request at Talk:ATP_World_Tour_records#RFC_proposed_deletion.2Fredirecting_or_renaming_of_the_ATP_World_Tour_Records_article per previous discussions on this subject this is an important discussion and would appreciate if project members and other editors share their thoughts on the subject.--Navops47 (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Tn template[edit]

Hi, could someone please tell what templates like {{Yuki Bhambri}} {{Tn Yuki Bhambri}} are good for? I tried looking at "what links here" and only say things like Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis but I could not find it there. Qed237 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no such template. I'm confused as to what you are asking. If a red link is clicked on, it will open a page to allowing a user to create the article/template, and there will be a "what links here" link so we can see if another page already includes that link, but that doesn't create the link. In fact, the only link to the template is the one one created in your message. oknazevad (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I guess you mean {{Tn Yuki Bhambri}}. It looks like a system User:Vencin is working on to make it easier to make table entries with flag icons for tennis players, so you only have to give the name and not nationality, or article name when it's different from the displayed player name. It requires a template for each player. Category:Tennis name templates currently only has 110 players. The system is used at 2015 Novak Djokovic tennis season#Singles matches but I haven't found it in other articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lot of maintenance headaches for nearly no benefit. Frankly, I don't see the need at all. oknazevad (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Me neither, we have several thousands of player articles and and I don't see it as either practical or necessary to create so many templates which provide little or no benefit to editors. Besides, this really is the kind of change that should be discussed at project level prior to implementation.--Wolbo (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I really think the pain is not worth the gain on this item. Also, some tables use flagicon, some use flagathlete and some use simply flag. This only has use as flagicon it would seem. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the {{Tennis name}} template does include parameters to control what is displayed and the flagathlete option could probably be added. A template could be helpful in case we change a player's name but even then it would only update the instances of the name that use the template and would therefore still require a check of all articles where the name is used. Doesn't change my view that it is simply too much hassle for too little benefit.--Wolbo (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: Yes, I meant {{Tn Yuki Bhambri}} sorry. Thanks @PrimeHunter: for your fast response and correcting my mistake. Qed237 (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As no one here can see much use for it, what is the next step? Take them all to TfD? Take them to TfD one-by-one? Take one of them to TfD first to "try it" and then nominate the rest? It would be good to hear from User:Vencin what his thought was with these templates and why they were created. Qed237 (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Left Vencin a note on his talk page with a request to participate in this discussion. Let's wait for a bit before we take any further action. --Wolbo (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Wolbo: Great thanks, there is always a possibility that the creator has a good motivation for keeping the templates or they could actually CSD per author request (if discussion ends in delete) so we dont have to go through TfD. Qed237 (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad, PrimeHunter, Wolbo, and Fyunck(click): After no response from creator, User:Vencin, for over 2 weeks I have now nominated Template:Tn Yuki Bhambri for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 22 with the intention of nmominating the rest if this is deleted. Qed237 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad, PrimeHunter, Wolbo, and Fyunck(click): Now the rest is at TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 4#Tn templates. Qed237 (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

They are all now deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Another non-notable player?[edit]

Is player Yuuki Tanaka notable? Everyone always thinks they have the one exception to the rule. Maybe this one is, but I don't really see her as an exceptional player at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox tennis tournament[edit]

I propose to add an "Editions" field to the {{Infobox tennis tournament}} to indicate how many times a certain tournament has been held. Primarily for defunct tournaments such as the Dutch Open (defunct tournaments now use the same template as the current tournaments). It can be used for current tournaments as well if there is the editorial discipline to update if every year (same applies to e.g. the prize money field). Most logical place would be between the "Abolished" and "Location" fields. Any objections to adding this field? --Wolbo (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Added the field per WP:BOLD, see Virginia Slims of Dallas.--Wolbo (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Good addition in my opinion. The only concern is have is if a venue once held a tournament, but it ended after a run of a few years, only for a new tournament to start up in the same place after a break of some years. Those should not be counted as the same tournament. I don't think that's currently a problem, but E seen it in a few places where current tournaments are confused with defunct ones in the same city. oknazevad (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

March 22nd 2016[edit]

I found some interesting info browsing through Wikidata. I cut & pasted the information as I think there might be 1 or 2 tournaments affected. The pasted info is quotations.

"This is early notice for everyone, and a request to share the news:

The Ops team is planning a major change to the servers, (very) tenatively scheduled for Tuesday, 22 March 2016. One probable result is that when this happens, all wikis will be in read-only mode for a short time, likely less than 15 minutes for all editors. You will be able to read pages, but not edit them. "All wikis" means all of the WMF wikis, including Wikidata, Meta, Commons, the Wikipedias, and all the sister projects. It may affect some related sites, such as mw:Wikimedia Labs (including the Tool Labs). There will also be no non-emergency updates to MediaWiki software around that time.

Many details are still being sorted out. I am asking you to please share the word with your friends and fellow contributors now. This will be mentioned in m:Tech/News (subscribe now! ;-) and through all the other usual channels for Ops, but 99% of contributors don't follow those pages. If you are active in other projects or speak other languages, then please share the news with your fellow contributors at other projects, so that whenever it happens, most people will know that everything should be back online in 10 or 15 minutes.

Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)"

Perfectamundo (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the criteria for splitting off a Player_Name_Career_Statistics article? (Or deleting one which has been created?)[edit]

In doing some cleanup, I came across Mona Barthel career statistics which is marked with several issues. I noticed that nearly the entire content of that article is duplicated within Mona Barthel.

It seems clear to me that either:

But which should it be? Our tennis project guidelines say that player career statistics articles are "created when a player's main article gets too large, per wikipedia standards." The main article doesn't seem too large to me right now. Saskoiler (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You sir are 100% correct. When an article gets too big to comfortably navigate we break off the career stats page. If it's not too big it's better to keep it all in one article so as to better keep track of edits. It will be edited more if it's all together. IMHO, as it stands now, there is no reason at all to keep the stats article and it should be redirected to the main article (with the addition of the top 10 wins). That's how it should be, but often editors disregard protocol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. I have acted on the suggestion by migrating the "top 10 wins" to the main article (Mona Barthel), and making the career statistics article redirect to it. I've also added a note to Talk:Mona Barthel. Saskoiler (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable? Nadejda Vassileva[edit]

Nadejda Vassileva appears to fail notability tests. She's never played Fed Cup or in any WTA event. She doesn't appear to have won a title at any level, and only played a handful of matches above $10,000 ITF level.

Revision history for the article gives a hint that it was nominated for deletion in the past, but I honestly can't follow the log, and don't understand why the article wasn't deleted? (Or why it was deleted and then brought back?)

(She also appears to have been confused with a winter olympian, based on "what links here".)

Am I missing something?

Saskoiler (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it got brought back for some reason. She looks like a nobody to me so I prod'd it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Saskoiler (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable? Silvia Albano with 1 WTA main draw match (as a wildcard)[edit]

Silvia Albano appears to fail notability tests, except for the fact that she played a single WTA main draw match (2011 Internazionali Femminili di Palermo – Singles), a tournament she entered as a wildcard, and lost 6-1, 6-0.

Is that enough to qualify for an article? Aside from that, she hasn't won any titles, and seems to have played exclusively at the 10K level. No Fed Cup. She hasn't played a match since January 2013, re: http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/wplayer.cgi?p=SilviaAlbano&f=ACareerqq

Saskoiler (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It's what we use as a baseline for notability... a WTA/ATP main draw appearance no matter how they got there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright. I'll keep that in mind. Saskoiler (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

New tennis stats website?[edit]

I'm not sure if this is new or I had just missed it, but The Tennis Base is an interesting site for stats... especially for old players/events of the past. The problem I see is that it lists no sources for any of its records (like Bill Tilden's for example). It uses match numbers from pro tours rather than just tournaments, it has it's own criteria of event worthiness with some obscure A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H rankings, it has column headings that i have no idea what they mean, etc... But it has a lot of interesting numbers (if they are accurate). Does anyone know what this site is all about? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The lack of obvious sources is troubling to me. How do we know that at least some of it isn't just made up. The "worthiness" rankings do indicate that somethings at least are made up, so I don't think it passes muster on the reliability scale. oknazevad (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, we now have an editor erasing Bill Tildens Hall of Fame stats in favor of this website's info at All-time tennis records – men's singles. I asked him to bring it to the article talk page (so I brought it there instead) but he's new and seems to ignore me. I just worry about the numbers especially since some of the results are exhibition-match-play instead of actual tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Even if we disregard the discussion about the validity of this source, in general many of our statistics articles, including All-time tennis records – men's singles have major sourcing issues. It is too often unclear what the source is for a large amount of the data, particularly relating to the pre-ATP or pre-open era.--Wolbo (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
True. However, as the article says, most results are taken from the ATP website. When we deviate from that we should add the source we got it from, or at least list why the ATP site is wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Stumbled upon the site a week ago. Too soon yet to determine if it is a reliable source. It has an appealing and fairly professional look&feel but that can be misleading. As mentioned the biggest issue is that it is not clear who is behind the website, what kind of expertise they have and, particularly, what sources they use and what type of editorial process is in place to ensure the published information is accurate. Until that is established, or alternatively its authoritativeness can be derived from mentions in other reliable sources, it should not be used as a (single) source.--Wolbo (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wolbo, that I had a conversation and disagreement with Fyunck and I have sent to the site The Tenins Base(https://www.thetennisbase.com//?enlace=records&id=KGLOMGFAMQ). The Base Tennis certainly has the largest database in one place, which can be viewed from hundreds of angles. Of course, we are all here to this information, we can check and indicate their accuracy. For a long time I follow this site and I can say that it is quite reliable. Must be more reliable than a newspaper article that the way negates the fact to whom and calls Fyunck. I normally do not have the habit of frequently correcting the data here (Wikipedia) except when I see a pronouncedly inconsistency. Greeting Mihailo Dzevrije Mihailo Dzevrije (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Mihailo Dzevrije, had a look at some of the data at thetennisbase.com and must say it looks pretty good. Specifically checked the career stats on Anthony Wilding and compared them with Anthony Wilding career statistics because I'm familiar with the info. It was pretty much on par and of a high level even if it wasn't perfect (they did not catch that 'Hartmann' is a pseudonym for Kurt von Wessely). It appears the website is originally Spanish and the English on their website is a rather substandard but that should not matter if the information is reliable. Seems Vilas and Kodes write blog articles for the website which is impressive and sets it apart from a personal website created by a regular tennis enthusiast. Still your statement that the website "Must be more reliable than a newspaper article" is too absolute. We have to judge sources on a case-by-case basis, sometimes a website (this website) may be the most reliable source, in other cases it may be a book or a newspaper. The best way is to take multiple sources into account and make a judgement based on that. If this website can explain their sources and its editorial process I can certainly see this becoming another reliable source for our tennis articles. --Wolbo (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  Hello Wolbo,

My statement refers to a certain newspaper article ( http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/714 ) can not possibly be the source of her career (1912 - 1951) Bill Tilden, but only, quote "As an amateur (1912-30)" But this is only half of his career and can not be a fact of All-time tennis records.This is a good news article or the data from it improperly used. All the other suggestions I agree. Renowned members of Wikipedia (as Fyunck) should consider before deleting data from this site and setting data that are not even close to the truth. GreetingMihailo Dzevrije (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Had quick look inside the stats look very impressive but as yet can't find where the sourcing is unless I am missing something the website is owned by a Spanish SL or Ltd or LLC software development company based in Madrid address here: Tennismem SL, Av - Alberto Alcocer 5, 1st Right, 28036 Madrid, Spain the owner/directors are GARCIA LOZANO GABRIE, CARVAJAL BOSQUED FEDERICO and LIGER LOPEZ RAFAEL from this site http://www.infocif.es/ that provides company reports.--Navops47 (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Also you need to look at this Italian wikipedia page https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornei_di_tennis_maschili_nel_1877 where they have started to do every pre-open era men's tour seasons year by year from 1877 to 1967 plus the 1968/69 NTL tours etc albeit using tennisarchives.com as its main source.--Navops47 (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I joined the tennisbase and decided to contact them and sent a message extract as follows:

El 2016-03-09 13:11, Dean escribió:

Hi

I have just joined your site and I am very impressed with the statistics you have I have number of questions that I would like to add as I am a regular editior on wikipedia and infact part of the tennis project team on wikipedia with stats being my are of choice.

Q1) When you state category A B C & D tournaments excluding E tourneys what tournaments are in each of the categories or another way of putting it have you dividied them up like Grand Slam Pro Slam Majors etc are Category A. Category B (equivelent to Masters 1000 events today?)

Q2) On each tournament profile does it state what category event they are?

Q3) Most important where are you sourcing alll these statistics from (Primary sources preferbaly) I can't find any references to these statistics.

Also I originally started this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_tennis_records_%E2%80%93_men%27s_singles

Because like your website I wanted to see the full picture of mens tennis in terms of records from 1877 to today.

My wikipedia page address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Navops47

Thanks

Dean

First email reply 3/9/16 at 8:48 PM

Hi Dean,

Thank you very much to contact us and for your interest in the site.

Let me introduce my self; my name is Gabriel García, founder and CEO of thetennisbase.com

I'm going to try to answer your questions properly:

Q1. The main idea was to establish a model that allows to build the player rankings from 1877 with the same model across the history and to evaluate the career of the past players in a correct perspective. Is for that we categorized the tournaments with a system based on participation and tournament prestige and tradition. You can find the rules of TTB rankings here (tournaments category explanation is included)

https://www.thetennisbase.com/?enlace=rankings&accion=faq

Since there not were any system of tournament classification in the past our system is not exact. But what is clear that there were tournaments more important than others. For example, you surely agree if I say that Longwood, Seabright or Newport were very important tourney in their time. In the other side, the introduction of value systems is a common action in every area of the History. Anyway, with all possible imperfections of the model the results are very consistent as you can check if you attend the output rankings.

Q2. The category of every tournament evolves in different way. For example, Kent Ch. in Beckenham was a very important tournament from XIX century to late 20's. But after the tournamet loses relevance and category downs. Is for that, there is not a fixed category in the tournament profile

Q3. The documentation proccess for thetennisbase has taken more of six years and we have researched in many and much different sources. It was impossible to reflect the sources in the base because that would be completely inoperative. For example, regarding pro tours, each match it's reflected in a different journal, depending the site. So, it was crazy to reflect for every match a different source. In the other side, it has been a hard work for us to find the info and we don't want to put easy for possible competitors. But this is not a fixed position... if you need sources for a specific project I'm glad to provide it, or if you prefer, we can to publish it. As usual, it depends of risks and opprtunities laughing

Main sources are as follows: - Britain yearbook Ayres - USA yearbooks Spalding and Wright & Ditson - Tennis magazines, most important of them "World Tennis" and books like McAuley. - And newspaper as the most important source to complete the base. Many newspapers are digitalized and available on the net, from the same site of the newspaper or on specialized plattforms such newspaperarchives.com (USA) or britishnewspaperarchive.com. Among the most useful newspapers for our research we can nominate The New York Times, The Times, Daily Mirror, ABC, El Mundo Deportivo, the Australian public tool TROVE with all relevant newspapers in its base until 1952, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Gallia bibliotheque for french newspapers, paperspast.natlib.govt.nz from New Zealand, Le Monde, Hamburger Abendblatt, L'Express, L'Impartial et Le Temps from Switzerland, El Tiempo de Bogotá, the Delpher plattform from Neederlands, L'Unitá, Ls Stampa, irishtime.com from Ireland, etc, etc.

In some countries like Argentina we have had collaborations from journalists like Eduardo Puppo.. in others like Scandinavian countries we have contracted some guys to collect the data in local newspaper libraries

I think your project for this wikipedia article is a great idea. I'm at your absolute disposal for any support you need. We would be very proud if Wikipedia uses thetennisbase like a source for so mportant article for the tennis history like this one.

I hope hear from you soon

Thank you very much and best regards

Gabriel García

Second email received this morning 3/10/16 at 2:27 Dean,

I've visited your wikipedia article about tennis records. In fact I already knew it. Very good, complete and interesting. Of course, I'm very pleased if you decide to enlarge it with the thetennisbase inputs. I would be very proud of it.

Also we can produce new records based on the info we have. For example, Tomas Berdych will play in the coming Indian Wells his 50th consecutive Master 1000. The Czech has not missed any M1000 since Madrid 2010. So, we can publish records like this or others at your choice.

In the other side, I think that thetennisbase data could help to enlarge the info in the articles of great players, especially in the career stats or season articles. We can provide a lot of relevant data about general performance, vs. top-10, by surface, by class of tournament, by score evolution and others. Even we can provide some key stats. For example, do you know that Federer when he wins at least the 68% of service points (his average is 69%) he wins the 95,83 of his matches (804-35) including a 15-0 versus Djokovic?

https://www.thetennisbase.com

They are only some ideas..

I hope to hear from you very soon.

Best regards

Gabriel

Posting from my email messages as part of the general discussion--Navops47 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I also have been in contact with Tennis Base creator Gabriel, though I would hesitate to show private emails without 100% confirmation. Privacy issues imho. He feels that showing all the sources would be like giving away all his hard work, which is quite true. But to show no sources gives it a reliability problem. I had suggested to him that he at least show that the source came from newsprint, book, ATP, etc.. and that specific tournament info could be presented upon request. He and I agree on many things but there is also disagreement. The A-H event ranking is his own subjective categorization... I don't agree with many of the letter grades. I told him that throwing all the stats together creates big problems for researchers in that Amateur and Pro results are all mingled together. The biggest gripe is that the stats do not designate between actual tournaments and one-on-one pro tours.... a huge mistake in my opinion. I had to go through each item one by one to figure out the Bill Tilden's career tournament match record would be 1083–136. Some of those records also put 4 man events in the tournament category where the later ATP events that were that small are exhibitions. The details on events is quite impressive... I really like it, but the number totals are almost useless as they now stand. We can't use them for tournament record stats in our articles without going through each and every tournament.
Other number problems will be playing surface numbers. Gabriel does not designate a difference between carpet, wood and hard court. He does not designate difference between clay and sand. So those totals we have to be wary of. He seems extremely knowledgeable and passionate about the stats and has accumulated them over 6 years from every source imaginable. It's nice to see these stats laid out in relatively easy to find categories. His conclusions about what numbers we should use and his tournament grades notwithstanding, it's a great effort. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Tokyo and Wuhan[edit]

I see that in some recent performance timelines WTA Wuhan is noted as the successor of Tokyo. They are written next to each other (Tokyo/Wuhan) and the results from those tournaments are merged together. What is more correct: this variation or the separated form, given that Tokyo is still played but as a Premier tournament while the fresh Wuhan is a Premier 5? Regards.--Orel787 (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be to have some kind of discussion on this as the same exists for the men's side with Hamburg/Madrid/Shanghai. YellowStahh (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Article guidelines restructuring proposal[edit]

On the article guidelines talk page there is a proposal to restructure the article guidelines page. If you are interested, please drop by with feedback at the talk page. Thanks. --- Saskoiler (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)