This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Hi all, I am relatively new to editing Tennis on Wiki so I may have a lot of random questions. Will try to condense them into one thread but for now had one question. Is it really necessary to list when someone has won 0 WTA or ATP events? Like when I see in an infobox: 0 WTA, 2 ITF? Seems like it should just say 2 ITF, why list 0?
Or I have seen articles where someone has won no events and it says 0. Shouldn't be just leave it blank? Michfan2123 ( talk) 9:09, 2 February 2020
Don't you think it's confusing when yesterday you have "0WTA 2ITF" and today "1"? As long as the infobox does not clarify which titles it talks about, it wouldn't be correct to remove anything. "Career titles" should be clearer or include all titles. Just a bare number that we currently have is the worst, factually incorrect. "WTA" in the end is better, even if you want to remove ITF titles. Pelmeen10 ( talk) 10:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me some things.
I have so many doubts about "rules" on this tennis-related pages, but don't know who should I contact, cuz I don't see them anywhere? p.s Only user that saying something is Fyunck(click) but I really want to hear someone else, cuz he/she is very contradicitonal about some statements, and never has proof where he "learned" this. I'm guessing he may make up these things how he/she like it? It will be really nice if someone respond this, cuz I really want to edit pages corectly but this users always stop me with that. Thanks - JamesAndersoon ( talk) 11:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
User:
in front to make a user link like
User:Fyunck(click). You haven't mentioned any edits by them so I'm not commenting on your disagreement. Do not make
personal attacks like
[1].
PrimeHunter (
talk)
14:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Per our guidelines, there is no background color in the performance chart if you lose in qualifying. Our performance template shows it clear as we have at Novak Djokovic career statistics. However, many articles do have a color attached to losing in Q1, Q2, Q3.... and it does vary by article. I have seen both ecf2ff, as in Jan-Lennard Struff and f0f8ff, as in Juan Martín del Potro, used for the background color, but there may be more in use. Today I noticed an editor changes the template and several articles to ecf2ff. I looked and didn't see a mention of this here or the guideline talk page as to why. To me, leaving it clear is fine as it separates it from the actual event, but with widespread use of some color maybe others here want it something other than clear? One thing though. Davis Cup uses ecf2ff so I would highly advise against the same color scheme. f0f8ff would be a better choice if we made any changes. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 20:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 00:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Does w/l from Fed Cup/Olympic Games/Hopman Cup count in performance timeline table in "overall win-loss"? If it does, does it also mean that these tournaments are count as tournaments played? - JamesAndersoon ( talk) 17:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Portal:Tennis had not been updated with new content for quite some time, so I have expanded it. A detailed summary of updates that were performed exists at Portal talk:Tennis § Portal updates. Feel free to post comments about the portal there, if desired. North America 1000 09:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I have recently had citations removed for not being reliable, specifically the Tennis Archives website. Now, I understand that there are some issues with the classifications on that site, sometimes the labels for tournaments are not easily identified. However, that is not unusual in tennis sources, often we have had to correct McCauley's results, not just for the classification of tournaments and tours, but also for scores and interpretation of newspaper reports. So I do not see how Tennis Archives is substantially below the standard. And there are many results available which can lead to other sources. Further, I notice that Tennis Archives is the principal source for at least two Wikipedia tennis articles, the U.S. Pro Tennis Championships Draws, 1946-1967 in particular. Do we now wipe out that entire article? We need some consistent direction on this issue. What is the policy? Tennisedu ( talk) 18:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I have a great deal of respect for Joe McCauley and his book (in its day it was a hugely influential book and I still recall the joy of first reading it 16 years ago), but I have spent a lot of time correcting mistakes in his book and so have other researchers. I would say McCauley is an acceptable source unless proved wrong with evidence (ie newspapers). I respect rules that are fairly applied, though sometimes the wikipedia rules for sourcing do not allow some very accurate sources to be used. Fortunately newspapers are an acceptable source and match reports can be used to prove whether McCauley is correct or not. There are many websites containing newspapers online. I have a large archive of newspaper match reports not available online and I know other researchers who also have an archive of newspaper match reports not available online. Tennishistory1877 ( talk) 20:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
HI all. Just wanted to let everyone know that Roger Federer is up for GA reassessment. See the discussion here. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 13:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking for some guidance on "format" topics.
Answers will allow me to update the project guidelines with more/better specifics. Mjquinn_id ( talk) 00:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
the stub template is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear after all article content. Leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it.-- Ym2X ( talk) 17:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I was reading the article, it's accessed to C rating, surely it's more a B? Govvy ( talk) 16:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I have looking occasionally looking at the 2020 US Open article the last few days with all the affects the pandemic is having on it. I noticed that it includes a list of withdrawn players (with replacements even), with line of explanation above that claiming that these players had entered the tournament, and subsequently withdrew. However, from what I can make up from the sources (most importantly the US Open's site), these players had never entered the tournament. They simply decided not to enter in the first place. They haven't announced a player field at all. Any thoughts? T v x1 20:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
This article really needs some oversight. There are constant additions of unsourced speculative information. T v x1 19:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The Milex Open hasn't gone by that name since 2017 and was the Santo Domingo Open in 2018 and 2019, so I moved the main article to Santo Domingo Open (tennis). If this needs to be moved again, let me know. Also the 2018 and 2019 tournament pages should be updated to reflect this, unless I'm missing something? Raymie ( t • c) 06:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not some earth shattering discussion.... just looking at some minor limitations on table inclusions at a particular article and how to stop some bloat. If this type of thing interests anyone here at the project, please feel free to jump in. At the time of my posting this we don't see any dissension but maybe someone has some different ideas and we don't want you left out if you do. It's at Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players for those interested. Cheers. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Big Three (tennis) is up for deletion. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
While watching the US Open I looked at the articles of some of the participating players. Doing so I stumbled on the article of Květa Peschke. I noticed that though she's a true veteran of the sport who is still very active at the age of 45 (recently won Cincinatti Open and reached quarterfinal of US Open in doubles), her doubles performance timeline had not been updated since Wimbledon 2017 for the Grand Slam tournaments and not since 2013(!) for the WTA Tour events. I updated it over the last few days, but it would be helpful if someone could double-check the figures. Especially the Succes Ratios and Win-Loss stats. T v x1 20:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Anyone? It would be greatly appreciated if someone would double-check those numbers. T v x1 16:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
See a relevant discussion at Talk:Naomi_Osaka#Accessibility where users are removing accessibility features, making the site hostile to the blind. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I've recently gone through and added draw links where missing to the ATP and WTA season templates, e.g. Template:1997 WTA Tour. They were already used for every season starting from 2009 [2], but for the most part weren't added to earlier years, probably due to it being a bit tedious (I made a template to solve this). However, my additions were reverted once by another editor, so it is worth bringing here for discussion. My view is that they make navigation much easier, e.g. if I'm looking at 2019 Monte-Carlo Masters – Singles, and want to see how a player fared in the other Masters tournaments that year, I can navigate directly to the respective draws rather than having to go through the main tournament pages first. The links also serve another purpose: showing editors which draws still need to be added, for example compare the 1984 WTA Tour template without [3] and with [4] the links—editors seeing the former would get the false impression that our coverage of the season is complete. For these reasons I think we should stick with the long-standing consensus from recent years' templates and keep the links. Any thoughts? These are some of our most visible templates, so it's worth getting it right. -- Somnifuguist ( talk) 16:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
With the help of Mad melone, I've published a tool that generates the draw sections of tennis tournament articles from their respective ITF printable URLs (e.g. go to a tournament [5] -> select singles/doubles, main draw/qualifying -> click print [6]). In tandem with an article template like Adamtt9's here, it should allow us to rapidly add all the missing draws articles from the open era, thereby filling in the red links in the above-mentioned season templates like this one. -- Somnifuguist ( talk) 08:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The tool has now been used to create ~400 articles on the German wiki, which shows its potential should someone choose to use it here. Somnifuguist ( talk) 03:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I have proposed that Big Four career statistics be merged into Big Three (tennis), or alternatively re-named and adjusted as appropriate. Input to the discussion here is welcomed, thanks. Crowsus ( talk) 19:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
In relation to the proposal above, user:Fyunck(click) and I are in disagreement over the intended content of the article. Broadly speaking, they feel the vast majority of content originally in Big Four (tennis) should be included, and I do not - more at the current discussion here. Although not explicitly stated as such, my interpretation of the merger discussion in October/November was that it was a more popular opinion to embrace the Big Three concept more fully and mention the Big Four concept more in passing, in the same way that a Big Five had been mentioned on the older article. Fyunck(click) thinks Big Four details should be included more fully from the merged article. I think there will need to be some tidying up either way, but as a middling observer of tennis I think this is an important and enduring topic that deserves a good quality article with consistent information - at present it's half Big 3, half Big 4 and readers might be confused. Notwithstanding Fyunck(click)'s status as a longstanding member of the project while I'm an interloper, some input from the other members on what should be included in the Big Three article would be appreciated; we can then move forward with changes to the related Statistics article as appropriate. Thanks very much. Crowsus ( talk) 21:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
A request for comment is open regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguation in relation to articles on sports stadia here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC Naming convention for sports stadia. Input is welcome. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 20:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Letting Tennis Project know that a move discussion at talk:Wimbledon, London has spilled over to include moving The Championships, Wimbledon to simply "Wimbledon". They at first moved it unilaterally but I complained that neither Tennis Project nor The Championships, Wimbledon talk pages were informed prior to the move. It was reopened. I'm actually not sure how I feel one way or the other, but I wanted our editors who do care to have the chance to express their opinions on that particular aspect of the discussion... especially since it's the most important tournament in tennis history. Again it's at talk:Wimbledon, London. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 07:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I would like to propose a change to current wikipedia policy on which sources are and are not allowed on wikipedia tennis pages. Currently the rule on self-published sources seems to be being administered unfairly by one editor who discriminates against Amazon published books. More and more good books are self-published these days. Particularly for the pre-open era pro tour, nearly all the sources are self-published. Currently some are allowed and some are not allowed, with Amazon-published works not being allowed by him. Perhaps the editor in question fears the opening of the floodgates if we allow all Amazon published works as sources, so let me set his mind at rest by proposing the following solution.
Amazon published works should be allowed as wikipedia sources under the following rules for minimum standards of entry:
Publication has an Amazon Sales Rank in five different countries.
Publication reviewed or recommended by a magazine or an established expert.
Publication accepted into the Kenneth Ritchie library at Wimbledon.
Author may not cite own work. Tennishistory1877 ( talk) 10:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a very easy way to check. Just email the Wimbledon library and the librarian will tell you if a book is in their library or not. They are very good at responding. I have posted this proposal on the page suggested by onecamera and have received support from Karoly Mazak and krosero. Tennishistory1877 ( talk) 14:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Currently this policy you constantly quote is being administered by you, Wolbo. I think you are skating on ice if you think your own very prejudicial judgement should be allowed to decide which sources qualify under this rule or not. I have already considered the issue of "plugging" my own book which is the reason why I stated authors could not cite their own work. My proposal isnt about any one book. This is about all books meeting minimum standards including the verification by experts. I prefer the verification of experts to the prejudicial judgement of one wikipedia editor.
Let me quote again the remarks you made in a talk page on this subject Wolbo. "No offence to anyone who has taken the effort to publish something but any idiot can self-publish (and it seems a lot of them have). Fyunck's view that "something is better than nothing" is simply wrong if it doesn't meet the requirements set out in WP:V, WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUB (which are not static but evolve with community consensus). It is a minimum standard that cannot be compromised. If we allow Mazak's "book" (and I use the term loosely) we might as well determine the rankings ourselves and that is aside from the question about the encyclopedic merit of judging in 2010 that Gore was the No. 1 ranked player in 1877.--"
In writing the paragraph above, Wolbo, you lost all respect in my eyes. It was full of spite, jealousy and bias and the last sentence was utter nonsense. You allow Ray Bowers to determine 1930s rankings in 2005 but you do not allow Karoly Mazak to do so in 2010. Tennishistory1877 ( talk) 23:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I have followed procedure on this and gone through RFC on sources. Without pre-judging the final result, it looks as if my proposal on establishing set rules for tennis sources will not carry. Editors from other subjects like the existing rule as it is. The problem is this leaves us with a major issue on these tennis pages and I do not know what the answer to it is. I would like a proper debate on this.
One editor, Wolbo, has taken it upon himself to be the sole arbitre of what sources are allowed and what sources are not. His judgement has been shown to be very prejudicial. If we debate books on a case by case basis then me trying to get my own book accepted as a source will be seen as me having a vested interest.
I find Wolbo's remarks on Karoly Mazak's book offensive for a number of reasons. Firstly, if we look at the page World number one ranked male tennis players we find rare sources for the early years and who did the research to find these sources? Karoly Mazak! This is the same person that Wolbo mocks and calls his book a "book" in inverted commas and says he might as well decide the rankings himself if we allow it as a source. Well where is your book Wolbo? Where is your research?
This is what the late Alan Little, former honorary librarian of Kenneth Ritchie Wimbledon library said about Karoly's book: "This is a tremendous effort and undoubtedly a fine document for future reference. The summary of each year and the ranking list attached will serve many researcher in the future. We will be pleased to put a copy on our shelves."
The problem is, the tennis history community is very small. The same person that writes a book edits on wikipedia. Someone who has a prejudice against amazon published books also edits on wikipedia. Who else regularly edits?, its mainly you fyunck, you may be the only one without a bias on this issue. I am not prepared to accept that Wolbo allows some self-published sources such as Ray Bowers, Robet Geist and tennisbase, while disallowing others. McCauley with all his many errors is allowed but my book with much more data and far fewer errors is not. Ray Bowers' retrospective rankings are accepted but not Karoly Mazak's. There is no justification that I can see, both Bowers and Mazak are the same.
I have always respected your expertise with technical issues (page formatting, etc.), Wolbo. You have more knowledge on how to format an infobox or a ref tag correctly than I do and I will be the first to admit that. You do have some knowledge of tennis history, but you are not someone I would class as an expert. And even leaving myself out of the conversation I have known experts. For example some of the data in my book comes from someone who adds data to the ATP website. I know how he researches (I have similar methods myself) and he is someone I have a high regard for as an expert, gathering data (some quite obscure) from libraries all over the world. Wikipedia editor Krosero is a researcher and someone who I have high regard for. And Karoly Mazak, who I have already mentioned.
A lot of people laugh at wikipedia tennis pages, mocking their lack of accuracy. My attitude is different. Wikipedia pages show up high on google searches. Do we want the pages to be as accurate as possible or do we want them to be rubbish? I say we should make them as accurate as we can, because a lot of people read them and it is important they receive the best information. I have spent some time (over the past year in particular) making them a lot more accurate. And whilst I do acknowledge the large number of tennis pages you have edited over many years Wolbo, improving the formatting, correcting spelling and grammar etc. and in some cases the content also, it is about time you showed myself and other tennis historians some respect for what we have done. I do not bow to any self-appointed authority you think you have in deciding sources on wikipedia. I would like suggestions of how to resolve this. Tennishistory1877 ( talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma ( https://internazionaliparma.com/) and Internazionali di Tennis Emilia Romagna ( https://internazionaliemiliaromagna.it) are two very different tournaments but at the moment they are in the same page. The former is a Challenger 80 ($52.080) held indoor in Parma city at the PalaRaschi (the main sport arena in Parma) on hard surface. The other one is a Challenger 125 ($156.240) held outdoor in Montechiarugolo, a suburb of Parma, on red clay. The only thing they have in common is the same organizer (MEF Tennis Events). Therefore a new page would be necessary for Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma, as Italian ( it:Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma) and German ( de:ATP Challenger Parma-2) wikipedia have. Carlo58s ( talk) 13:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Djokovic–Federer rivalry for WP:GAN. Kindly edit and help improve the article.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 09:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Knockout brackets in sports events has a suggestion against adding a flag to the next round in draws before a match between players from the same country. PrimeHunter ( talk) 01:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Category:2020 ATP Tour currently includes:
Doubles is sorted before Singles because D is before S alphabetically. Most tournament articles are sorted like that. I think it should be opposite:
The number 1 comes before 2, singles gets far more attention than doubles, and singles is mentioned before doubles in nearly every context (if doubles is even mentioned). Small bonus: "Singles" is narrower than "Doubles" in proportional fonts so it looks better visually, and readers can more easily connect articles about the same event. All articles already have sortkeys to remove the year. I suggest sorting the word "Singles" as "1", e.g. 2020 Astana Open – Singles as "Astana Open – 1" (or optionally "Astana Open - 1" with hyphen instead of ndash). This places it between 2020 Astana Open and 2020 Astana Open – Doubles without having to change their current sortkeys. If somebody also sorts 2020 Astana Open – Doubles as "Astana Open – 2" then it's OK but not necessary. The same principle works in categories like Category:2019 Miami Open where 2019 Miami Open – Men's Singles can sort as "2019 Miami Open – Men's 1", and 2019 Miami Open – Women's Singles as "Miami Open – Women's 1". PrimeHunter ( talk) 15:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Can someone familiar with professional tennis look at the recent changes to Abu Dhabi Open? A pair of new editors suggest the event has a new name or new organization.
If they are correct, the information that they removed may need to go on a new page and the current page renamed.
If they are trying to hijack the article, then of course it needs to be reverted.
Here's the diff from January 13 to 22 February: [8]
Also, it looks like something changed in or before December 2020, when the page was moved. Here's the diff from December 19, 2020 to February 22, 2021: [9] davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 14:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
New to wiki's editing interface, so I apologize if this isn't the place to put this. I noticed an error in the tournament brackets of the 1983 Australian Open Men's Singles Tournament (link: /info/en/?search=1983_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles). The edit seems fairly straight forward to fix, but I'm unfamiliar with the coding for the brackets on that page and couldn't make heads or tails of what to change.
The Error: In Section 3, the scores are flipped in the second round match between M Davis and R Meyer. Currently, it shows that R Meyer won this match and went on to the Round of 16; however, in reality M Davis won this match. This is verified by the external links (ATP) and sources cited for the page, so appears to be a clerical error. It can be confirmed here ( https://www.atptour.com/en/scores/archive/australian-open/580/1983/draws?matchtype=singles) that M Davis did win that match. The scores and outcomes in the third and fourth rounds are correct, but they show R Meyer where M Davis should be.
Again, I hope this is the right place to put this, if not please let me know and I'll do what I can to move it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadPlayer91 ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I see that the "Template:Tennis hall of fame Australia" was just created and put on the bottom of the appropriate articles such as Rod Laver. Just how many bottom templates do we need? Couldn't this just be a listed category? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 10:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Category:Fed Cup and sub-cats have been nominated for speedy renaming according to Billie Jean King Cup. Please comment at WP:CFDS within the next 48 hours if there is a good reason not to proceed. – Fayenatic London 11:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia( talk) 01:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Cbl62 ( talk) 19:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
(in italian) nel 1925 due sorelle irlandesi di famiglia altolocata vinsero il titolo italiano di doppio femminile, si chiamavano Maud e Margery Maquay: credo che siano enciclopediche, di loro si possono trovare poche tracce nelle biblioteche ma da voi in Irlanda dovrebbe esserci molto di più.. -- 2.226.12.134 ( talk) 15:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
in 1925 two Irish sisters from a high-ranking family won the Italian title of female double, they were called Maud and Margery Maquay: I think they are encyclopedic, few traces of them can be found in libraries but in Ireland there should be a lot of more..
Diane Evers to Dianne Evers. I put it up for RM because there was minor controversy twice before, but with even her facebook page spelling it Dianne I think it's time for a move. Either way join in please. Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
A RFC is underway which might have a considerable effect on the usage of flags in the articles in this WikiProject. Any input is welcome and you can join the RFC here. T v x1 00:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
It has been raised at a recent AfD that playing in the Junior Fed Cup (and I suppose by extension we ought to include Junior Davis Cup in this) provides a presumption of notability under WP:NTENNIS. I can't see any mention of this on the current version. Was this previously the case? Should there be a presumption of notability for maybe playing in the final or semi-final of such a junior event? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion about the addition of detailed ranking tables to GS event pages has been started here. Any input would be appreciated. -- Somnifuguist ( talk) 13:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey, there. I was going through the day-by-day summaries of the previous editions of the French Open and it basically does not say what it clearly is for someone, who is reading the main page of a given year for the first time. My point is, the article is about the order of play for tennis matches being played on the main threes stadiums: Court Philippe Chatrier, Court Suzanne Lenglen, Court Simonne Mathieu. So, why not change the name to 'Order of play summaries' or 'Daily match summaries', which clearly says what the article is about, rather than having to guess what it is about. I would like for the other editors to weigh on the matter and help reach a consensus. Do I change the articles' name, or not? Best, Qwerty284651 ( talk) 02:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Sky News are reporting that a Russian tennis player has been arrested at the 2021 Roland Garros (why no article?, I'd have thought one would exist). Mjroots ( talk) 11:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that at Template talk:Infobox tennis tournament event an editor put in a request to change a template without a discussion here first. Since it affects hundreds of articles that didn't seem right. It came about because of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes and affects the order of the events in the infobox at articles such as 2021 French Open. When listing champions, what should be the best order? I don't think anyone has any issues with mens singles/womens singles/mens doubles/mixed doubles be listed first. It the order after that seems strange. When looking at the wheelchair events, to me it should be mens singles/womens singles/mens doubles/womens doubles/quad singles/quad doubles. The mens and womens singles and doubles have the same requirements, whereas the two quad events have higher restrictions. They should come last imho. Another editor has suggested it be mens singles/womens singles/quad singles/quad doubles/mens doubles/womens doubles.
The second issue I noticed... why the heck do the wheelchair events come after jrs? Wheelchair tennis is professional just like mens and womens singles, doubles, and mixed. It seems to me the boys and girls jr disciplines should be at the very bottom. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes that could affect 100s of articles. I'm not sure why it's over there rather than here or at Template talk:Infobox tennis tournament but that's the way things are. Two items: where to place the newer wheelchair quad events, and also the order of senior, wheelchair, junior, and legends in the infobox. Since it will be the order on all the Grand Slam tournament articles (such as the current 2021 French Open infobox) I feel everyone should know what's being discussed. Cheers. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 03:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
A discussion about whether to split Grand Slam (tennis) has been started here. This is quite an important topic to this project, so any input would be appreciated. — Somnifuguist ( talk) 07:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey everyone. Newish editor here. I was looking through the Category:Tennis matches page and I do think we need to have a discussion about the notability of maybe 1 or 2, if not more of the matches. Based on the WikiProject guidelines, the match needs to have more coverage "compared to other tennis matches at a similar level." Based on this, I want to ask why we've created/stuck with certain articles, going from what I consider to be the worst offenders to borderline cases.
Obvious cases
2018 Australian Open - Women's singles final: I fail to see any sort of reason why this is a more notable event than other major wins. Yes, it was a long final, but that's not necessarily out of the ordinary. Yes, Wozniacki won her first grand slam, but that's notable for her, not tennis. No real records were broken... if that was the only criteria, Hingis-Capriati in 2002 should have its own article (which I'm not opposed to). Finally, just by googling, I can't find any sort of coverage that isn't just your standard coverage of the event. This definitely should be nominated for deletion.
2015 Wimbledon Championships - Men's singles final: The article lists it as being a significant part of the Federer-Djokovic rivalry, but again, press coverage doesn't exactly highlight this match. It's certainly not more notable than the 2015 U.S Open final, which I don't think anyone is arguing to deserve its own article. It deserves mention in the Federer-Djokovic article, and nothing more.
Borderline
2014 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final: As a tennis fan, this was a pretty good final that I remember watching. I don't see the necessary press coverage to back it up though. It's considered to be one of the best matches of the 2010s though and is reflected as such on many lists. It also signaled the rise of Djokovic on grass. So more borderline.
2009 Australian Open – Men's singles final: Kind of the same thing as above... a significant part of the rivalry between two players, a great match considered to be one of the best of its generation, and more importantly this article does have the press coverage to suggest that it really did shape public opinion of Nadal and Federer. However, still has to do only with normal coverage. Borderline.
2012 French Open – Men's singles final: Yes, Nadal broke Borg's record here. That is pretty significant. However, we don't have an article for Federer breaking the Sampras/Renshaw record, and I personally don't think there's enough outside press coverage for that article either. Borderline.
I think that's about it. Please tell me what you guys think... I post this here just in the interest of fostering discussion. Thank you! Jonaththejonath ( talk) 21:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I’m not very familiar with tennis wikipedia pages. So help would be appreciated. Thanks. Sahaib3005 ( talk) 20:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Greetings from WP:WikiProject Women in Red! Starting 1 July, we’re going to have a three-month focus (July, August and September) on the women of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Your participants are warmly welcomed to join us for the event, documenting as many women as possible; additionally if you have relevant lists of red links that we should encourage participants to take up, we’d love to know. Thanks very much!-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Something was brought up at our Tennis Guideline talk page asking to include a chart documenting how the project handles walkovers and retirements in a our draw charts. There appears to be some inconsistencies in our articles. I'm posting it here in case others disagree with the chart being proposed or has advice as to where we should place it. Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I am proposing that the Event section, in this case, on the 2021 Wimbledon championships page, and in other yearly grand slam articles henceforth be categorized into subsections, such as:
for better aesthetics and easier navigation, for example. There used to be one jumbled up mess, where all of player's entry info and ranking tables on the main XYZ grand slam page of any given year, but then a consensus was reached and the excess info was moved into its corresponding draws, however, the editor who made the change, forgot to divide the draws in the Event section into subsections, which would consequently make it easier for readers to skim through, when looking for the right draw to click on.
There was an attempt to change the appearance by adding the aforementioned subsections, but was quickly removed, since no consensus was reached because of lack of interest. So, here I am starting this discussion again this time on the Tennis Wikiproject so, that other editors will weigh in on the matter in hopes of reaching a consensus this time around. Qwerty284651 ( talk) 11:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Tripped over a category of errors: Category:Pages using infobox tennis tournament year footer with an unknown event - Turns out, most are failing when adding a "sub-nav" portion to the main InfoBox. So, at least "after_name" does NOT work when populated with SAME name as current article. (TemplateFix#1 - on the Template's Talk Page)... Question #2 (for THIS page); Is adding this secondary 'infobox nav' part of a standard? (I am not seeing it, but it exists on roughly 50% of the "Tournament by Year" articles? See: 1884 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Singles as recently "fixed" article (adding "sub-nav"), and 1895 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Singles as article with pre-existing "sub-nav" ... - Mjquinn_id ( talk) 20:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, this is probably petty, but the early Wimbledon Championship event pages seem to need an "s", as in "Championships" for the Infobox Event Nav to work. This would require changing the names from 1881 Wimbledon Championship - Singles to 1881 Wimbledon Championships - Singles - EVEN THOUGH these were technically "single" event, which I figure is why they are named just "championship" (singular)?
You need to goto 'Edit' then change type=no to type=mens; then show preview (see the singles link looking for the 's'?
I am still trying to get "men" to ONLY show singles and "mens" to include the doubles... Mjquinn_id ( talk) 21:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
{{Infobox tennis tournament event|1881|Wimbledon Championships
to {{Infobox tennis tournament event|1881|Wimbledon Championship
, along with |type=mens
achieve what your looking for? —
Somnifuguist (
talk)
21:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
type=singles
. Alternatively, you can put type=no
to hide that section altogether. The ladies' doubles red links are a still an issue, but I don't think it's worth adding another option for just those years. —
Somnifuguist (
talk)
08:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
We're starting to see a couple of articles ( Emily Arbuthnott and Naho Sato) appear for players where their main claim to notability is getting a medal in a Summer Universiade. Where does this stand in terms of WP:NTENNIS and WP:SPORTCRIT? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I noticed regarding the Russian opponents of the 2020 Summer Olympics in certain player's article (such as Alexander Zverev) were using the flag of Russia, but really? Russia were banned from World Championships so as the Olympics. Russian athletes would have to use ROC instead. Just because the ATP/WTA tours using the flag of Russia does not inherit them the same in the Olympics. Accordingly, I believe should be used instead.
e.g. Karen Khachanov rather than Karen Khachanov in Zverev's article. Unnamelessness ( talk) 04:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I have proposed a new userbox. This is really just a clean-up with documentation. I also have to bump my template edits to get Template Editor rights... I have placed a new version (with documentation) at Template:User WikiProject Tennis/sandbox, that I would love your comments at Template talk:User WikiProject Tennis on before it gets published. Mjquinn_id ( talk) 15:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. First of all great job everyone on creating such wonderful information about tennis players. However I was wondering why on the Tour Records page Change and Becker are missing from the youngest winners. I expect there are a couple of others younger than 18 as well. If there is a date cut-off e.g. 1990 then this should be clearly stated. Even better would be a true "All-time youngest winners" where Chang and Becker and others can be seen. At the moment it is simply misleading. Regards. ConanTheCribber See /info/en/?search=ATP_Tour_records
I have founded several illogical performance timeline tables following the cancellations of China Open and Wuhan Open. This is an example that I copied from Aryna Sabalenka career statistics.
Tournament | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | SR | W–L | Win % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grand Slam tournaments | |||||||||
Australian Open | A | Q2 | 1R | 3R | 1R | 4R | 0 / 4 | 5–4 | 56% |
French Open | A | Q1 | 1R | 2R | 3R | 3R | 0 / 4 | 5–4 | 56% |
Wimbledon | A | 2R | 1R | 1R | NH | SF | 0 / 4 | 6–4 | 60% |
US Open | Q2 | Q1 | 4R | 2R | 2R | 0 / 3 | 5–3 | 63% | |
Win–Loss | 0–0 | 1–1 | 3–4 | 4–4 | 1–2 | 10–3 | 0 / 15 | 21–15 | 58% |
Year-end championships | |||||||||
WTA Finals | Did not qualify | NH | 0 / 0 | 0–0 | – | ||||
WTA Elite Trophy | DNQ | RR | W | NH | 1 / 2 | 5–1 | 83% | ||
National representation | |||||||||
Summer Olympics | A | Not Held | 2R | 0 / 1 | 1–1 | 50% | |||
Billie Jean King Cup | PO | F | 1R | SF | Finals | 0 / 3 | 10–6 | 63% | |
WTA 1000 | |||||||||
Dubai / Qatar Open | A | 1R | A | 3R | W | QF | 1 / 4 | 8–3 | 73% |
Indian Wells Open | A | A | 3R | 4R | NH | 0 / 2 | 4–2 | 67% | |
Miami Open | A | A | 2R | 2R | QF | 0 / 3 | 4–3 | 57% | |
Madrid Open | A | A | 1R | 1R | W | 1 / 3 | 6–2 | 75% | |
Italian Open | A | A | 1R | 1R | A | 3R | 0 / 3 | 1–3 | 25% |
Canadian Open | A | A | 3R | 1R | NH | 0 / 2 | 2–2 | 50% | |
Cincinnati Open | A | Q2 | SF | 3R | 3R | 0 / 3 | 7–3 | 70% | |
Wuhan Open | A | A | W | W | NH | 2 / 2 | 12–0 | 100% | |
China Open | A | Q1 | QF | 2R | 0 / 2 | 3–2 | 60% | ||
Career statistics | |||||||||
2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | Career | |||
Tournaments | 0 | 5 | 23 | 24 | 12 | 14 | Career total: 78 | ||
Titles | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | Career total: 10 | ||
Finals | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | Career total: 15 | ||
Hard Win–Loss | 0–0 | 11–7 | 35–13 | 32–13 | 23–7 | 15–6 | 9 / 50 | 116–46 | 72% |
Clay Win–Loss | 0–0 | 0–0 | 4–5 | 5–5 | 6–3 | 13–3 | 1 / 16 | 28–16 | 64% |
Grass Win–Loss | 0–0 | 1–1 | 7–4 | 2–4 | 0–0 | 7–3 | 0 / 12 | 17–12 | 59% |
Overall Win–Loss | 0–0 | 12–8 | 46–22 | 39–22 | 29–10 | 35–12 | 10 / 78 | 161–74 | 69% |
Win (%) | – | 60% | 68% | 64% | 74% | 74% | Career total: 69% | ||
Year-end ranking | 159 | 78 | 11 | 11 | 10 | $8,019,347 |
I just cannot figure out why the NHs are merged across different tournaments? Just because they are listed coincidentally together? I don't see they have the same to the columns of A(bsent)s. Instead of such illogical designs, it should be like:
Tournament | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | SR | W–L | Win % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grand Slam tournaments | |||||||||
Australian Open | A | Q2 | 1R | 3R | 1R | 4R | 0 / 4 | 5–4 | 56% |
French Open | A | Q1 | 1R | 2R | 3R | 3R | 0 / 4 | 5–4 | 56% |
Wimbledon | A | 2R | 1R | 1R | NH | SF | 0 / 4 | 6–4 | 60% |
US Open | Q2 | Q1 | 4R | 2R | 2R | 0 / 3 | 5–3 | 63% | |
Win–Loss | 0–0 | 1–1 | 3–4 | 4–4 | 1–2 | 10–3 | 0 / 15 | 21–15 | 58% |
Year-end championships | |||||||||
WTA Finals | Did not qualify | NH | 0 / 0 | 0–0 | – | ||||
WTA Elite Trophy | DNQ | RR | W | NH | 1 / 2 | 5–1 | 83% | ||
National representation | |||||||||
Summer Olympics | A | Not Held | 2R | 0 / 1 | 1–1 | 50% | |||
Billie Jean King Cup | PO | F | 1R | SF | Finals | 0 / 3 | 10–6 | 63% | |
WTA 1000 | |||||||||
Dubai / Qatar Open | A | 1R | A | 3R | W | QF | 1 / 4 | 8–3 | 73% |
Indian Wells Open | A | A | 3R | 4R | NH | 0 / 2 | 4–2 | 67% | |
Miami Open | A | A | 2R | 2R | NH | QF | 0 / 3 | 4–3 | 57% |
Madrid Open | A | A | 1R | 1R | NH | W | 1 / 3 | 6–2 | 75% |
Italian Open | A | A | 1R | 1R | A | 3R | 0 / 3 | 1–3 | 25% |
Canadian Open | A | A | 3R | 1R | NH | 0 / 2 | 2–2 | 50% | |
Cincinnati Open | A | Q2 | SF | 3R | 3R | 0 / 3 | 7–3 | 70% | |
Wuhan Open | A | A | W | W | NH | 2 / 2 | 12–0 | 100% | |
China Open | A | Q1 | QF | 2R | NH | 0 / 2 | 3–2 | 60% | |
Career statistics | |||||||||
2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | Career | |||
Tournaments | 0 | 5 | 23 | 24 | 12 | 14 | Career total: 78 | ||
Titles | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | Career total: 10 | ||
Finals | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | Career total: 15 | ||
Hard Win–Loss | 0–0 | 11–7 | 35–13 | 32–13 | 23–7 | 15–6 | 9 / 50 | 116–46 | 72% |
Clay Win–Loss | 0–0 | 0–0 | 4–5 | 5–5 | 6–3 | 13–3 | 1 / 16 | 28–16 | 64% |
Grass Win–Loss | 0–0 | 1–1 | 7–4 | 2–4 | 0–0 | 7–3 | 0 / 12 | 17–12 | 59% |
Overall Win–Loss | 0–0 | 12–8 | 46–22 | 39–22 | 29–10 | 35–12 | 10 / 78 | 161–74 | 69% |
Win (%) | – | 60% | 68% | 64% | 74% | 74% | Career total: 69% | ||
Year-end ranking | 159 | 78 | 11 | 11 | 10 | $8,019,347 |
Any thoughts? Unnamelessness ( talk) 04:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Using the color #696969 isn't distinct enough to tell it apart from regular black. It just looks like something is subtly wrong with the table, like when someone makes the font size of the whole table smaller for no reason. It would be better to just leave it as black. I also don't see why #696969 was chosen when anything as light as #767676 is still compliant. But even that wouldn't provide sufficient contrast with black. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 20:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Please stop by the conversation about implementing our pre-existing workgroups into the {{ WikiProject Tennis}} template. Here. Mjquinn_id ( talk) 20:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand the creation/usage/purpose of the many individual "Player" Navboxes being created? I am assuming there was a discussion that I missed, but it does not seem to be here in the archives? (Maybe I could see the top ten "GOAT" candidates or so, but we have drifted from that...)
Template changes are getting out of control now. It's one thing to have a player template for the most renowned players but it's quite another to make the for everyone. Plus we have several "retired" editors who insist on making them non-accessible for sight challenged readers and are adding tiny little icons all over the place. They are changing the color backgrounds of players on their own set of rules of favorite playing surface too. Plus they are adding the templates of say, Serena Williams, to the bottoms of other player pages and draws just because she may have played doubles a few time or participated in an event. It's getting out of control. We need to take some control of this before I can't keep up anymore with reverts.
There are so many issues with Serena Williams it's hard to count. Colorblind issues, tiny icons, minor tournaments added, format change with no consensus, trivial court surface buttons everywhere, etc... Per Wikipedia Nvigation Templates: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects". These navigation templates are sort of an option instead of putting a player's name under the "See also" section. When a player is in the finals of a tournament we don't want their whole history template placed on the draw page. Their name and article is linked all over the draw so it become overkill. We may need to put this in our Project Guidelines if this gets anymore out of control. I'm doing the best I can in fixing or reverting them but it ain't easy. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Top Seed Open. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 15#Top Seed Open until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone here know anything about this tournament? Should it have its own article, or was the redirect to Lexington Challenger correct? Please discuss if you are familiar with this subject. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey, there I am proposing we completely remove the following table from this event
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2021 BNP Paribas Open men's singles rankings table
|
and all related tables of this type for Masters tournaments. In my opinion, it is pointless to have them in the event pages for each of the 4 categories per Masters tournament every year, which is excessive Either move them to their respective draws, like we did for the Grand Slams [16], or stop using them altogether. I get it, newcomers want to keep track of the rankings during the tournament and update regularly. But risk of engaging in edit wars and for what? The rankings are updated weekly on Mondays throughout the year by the ATP and WTA Tours, respectively, anyway. So, all this match scrambling to find the right defending points and new points and now putting into account the adjusted rankings because of cancelled tournaments is too much. Too many edits over so little. And besides, there is a website that does just that (what many Wikipedia editors do, update said rankings table per XYZ Masters relentlessly) updates regularly, on a per player-win basis for all 4 categories: men's and women's singles and doubles. To summarize, either:
rather than having it take up unnecessary space in all of 9 Masters tournaments' main article's Wikipedia pages. That is my proposal. I am inviting other editors to weigh in on the matter, so common ground is reached. Qwerty284651 ( talk) 08:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Was wondering if with a Brit having won the US Open those editors who've made it a thing over the last 9 years to select (for no discernible reason) just 1 East European woman in the entire encylopaedia for diacritic-stripping could let her have her fully spelled name back? In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I have come across numerous sites, both generic and individual specific, that make all manner of claims to records that are either not correct or imply something more than it is. The key issue underlying this seems to me that the records are not properly qualified. While there is some separation into Amatuer and Open eras that is not always an appropriate fit so if we are talking about the current Masters tournaments or the reintroduction of tennis at the Olympics as an official tournament then we should make clear that this was only possible from 1988 and if a record is being claimed for also winning the mixed doubles in this period of the Olympics it should also be specified, where that is different to the general date, when that occurred (e.g. 2012). The same applies to Grand Slam claims. If one holds (and has made clear the argument for exclusion) that the FO was not a Grand Slam tournament until 1925 then the first time that the "Grand Slam" could have been achieved was 1925 and that should be stated. This also applies to variation s on the theme such as career slams, surface slams (1978 if all four majors have to be won as well) etc. So "Grand Slam" records were not and are not "all-time" records. They were and are records established pertaining to a set of criteria that was only made possible at a certain time. Now that is different from records that may relate to "Grand Slam" tournaments (I prefer Major as this term confuses the individual tournaments with the specific definition in respect to attaining all four 'Majors' but accept it is an approved term by the ITF) - these (once defined/justified as that for the relevant period) could be claimed to commence in 1877. So, for example, the record for the most Majors did commence in 1877 and it is an all time one, the all time record for the most AO did commence in 1905 etc. By being more disciplined in this we can: - help avoid the ongoing additions to sites for claims that are incorrect - qualify records, where appropriate, to understand the period to which they pertain - better focus on earlier achievements (records) that were achieved but have been effectively superseded by a record, the combination of which didn't even apply to them Antipodenz ( talk) 23:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Don't see a notification about it here but there is a discussion ongoing at WP:NSPORT on whether Fed Cup and Davis Cup participation should be removed from the notability criteria for tennis players.-- Wolbo ( talk) 22:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi... I am referring to "World No.1 ranked male tennis players" article page. We are basically listing sources, who based on their judgement awarding their champion for the full year performance. ATP Player of the year and ITF World champion are two awards decided by two big sources ATP and ITF respectively. As you know, the year disrupted by COVID-19 pandemic, so no tournaments were made mandatory by ATP for players’ participation. ATP Rankings frozen from 16 March 2020 to 24 August 2020 as tour was not played (Tour was played less than half of the year). There was revision of ATP year-end ranking to ATP’s Best of 24-month ranking. ATP had awarded their player of the year based on best of 2019 and 2020 performance, which is not exactly taking into account 2020 performance alone. Very few tournaments were played by few players including Grand Slams. ITF did not announce its World Champion due to pandemic. In this case, few editors awarding World no.1 player based on single source (ATP). How to assess the performance of the player in a partial season ??. Now, An undisputed number one player for the year (without another player regarded as co-number one) is shown in BOLD and the year is also shown BOLD against the player. My proposal is to make the year un-bold by the virtue of partial season for any player. We need to add no.1 for that player if the season is played without any disruption or suspension. e.g. The year 2020 would be un-bold irrespective of player regarded as no.1 by any one of the big sources as the season was partial. Kindly let us know your views on this. Krmohan ( talk) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Also posted on Talk: 2021 WTA Tour -- I only just noticed this for some reason, but apparently the WTA tour Schedule tables have font size set to 85%, whereas ATP have font size set to 95%. This seems to be consistent across years for the ATP, but seems to have changed to 85% for the WTA from 2012 onwards. Is there a reason for this? If not (my working theory is that it was a typo that nobody noticed), I'm proposing to make font sizes consistent across ATP and WTA. I'm not sure if this is the best place to put this comment, but since this is the page I first realised it I'll stick it here and hopefully someone will note it. Also, which out of 85% and 95% should be the preferred standard?
For this version of my post, I should say that I haven't checked through all the archives in this talk to see if it was noticed or mentioned before. If so, my apologies. Still, that there's a sudden change from 2011 WTA Tour to 2012 WTA Tour suggests that it might just have been missed. I also would add that I prefer the 85% text size, but this would presumably require a lot more editing. Jimthree60 ( talk) 07:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
There has been some disagreements about how to list achievements of Grand Slam Tournament Winners on the List of Grand Slam men's singles champions page. I was suggested to come here and ask.
Following the discussion Here, I pose the question - Should each Title Double have its own table? Also, should each Table be limited to exactly that combination, or should there be double-counting? For example, in 2010, Rafael Nadal won the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. Should Rafael Nadal be added to the French Open/Wimbledon/US Open Triple, and French Open/Wimbledon Double (as part of the Channel Slam), and/or Wimbledon/US Open Double, or a combination of these? .
To give an rough indication of what having all the Title Doubles as tables would look like, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions&oldid=1016421340#Winners_of_two_Grand_Slam_singles_tournaments_in_the_same_calendar_year gives an indication.
This (LINK) is what it currently looks like. Note the Pre-Open and Open distinctions, as well as the listing of the Channel Slam as the only Title Double as a table.
Your thoughts would be much appreciated. If anyone thinks this deserves an RfC, please also comment on that. DiamondIIIXX ( talk) 05:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Pretty important change being discussed at World number 1 ranked male tennis players. It's looking like in column two, the No. 2 player will be replaced by the No. 1 amateur. If this is something you like or don't like and want to comment please do so on that talk page topic. It's an important article for Tennis Project and I didn't want anyone blindsided. Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 02:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
There is discussion at World number 1 ranked male tennis players that may or may not remove some or as some have suggested all rankings from all players. If that's the case we may need to rename the article. Please voice an opinion. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 07:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Eleven editors decided 7-4 to remove Davis Cup and Billie Jean King Cup participation from automatic notability. It has not changed in our own Tennis Project Guidelines, but keep it in mind when creating new articles based solely on those ITF team events. Some of us had thought a compromise to those players being in the main World Group of 16 countries should have automatic notability, but that did not happen. This is just an FYI to those not privy to that discussion. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 02:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
As was already mentioned on this page above, a recent discussion removed the Davis Cup and the BJK Cup (i.e. the Fed Cup) part of the WP:NTENNIS guideline for presumed notability. In short, the rationale for removing these tournaments was that some Davis Cup players who compete in Group IV definitely don't meet WP:GNG, so the entire thing should be removed. We were only notified of the discussion after a request to close the discussion was submitted, so we were largely left out of the discussion. Requests to re-open the discussion have (at least so far) been denied because regular editors of the sports notability page don't think it is necessary to notify editors who don't follow already follow that page and because the late comments from us didn't dispute the reasons for closing. If they don't like that version of the guideline, then let's develop a new one. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 16:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't like that the discussion treated the Davis Cup and BJK Cup as single entities. There are different levels of these competitions (Finals, Group I, Group II, etc.) just like in the rest of tennis (e.g. with the ATP Tour, Challenger Tour, and ITF Futures). Here is a breakdown by group...
First, the more obvious ones:
Then, the less obvious ones:
Summary:
Thoughts? I'd want to see what the editors who normally create these articles have to say in particular. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 16:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
-
One thing. The World group might not always be so "obvious", so it needs to be in the guidelines. Remember that it includes 16 teams but only eight from the year prior. The next eight have to play preliminary rounds where upsets from lesser teams happen. Players on those lesser teams may be much more unknown outside their countries. Otherwise I don't usually create these articles but your reasoning is sound. Groups 2 and 3 are probably notable but that can be quite different than "presumed notable." Fyunck(click) ( talk) 17:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
The proposal is flawed from the beginning if you ask me. For some reason only the current format is considered, which is recentism and not even presented properly. The Davis Cup does presently not have one but two World Groups and a Finals level above them.
I think the proposed guidelines are just to vague and general to properly deal with a tournament that is actually older than three of the grand slam tournaments. The Fed Cup, recently renamed to Billie Jean King Cup, is younger but equally evolved through the decades. It's too simplistic to say all players who played in a World Group match, of which the Fed Cup had two and the Billie Jean King Cup has none, are presumed notable. Two important things are ignored:
These are quite big issues and therefore I cannot support the current proposal. Moreover, in general I still believe that players who played in these cups and are notable are notable for other achievements in Tennis and that players who only ever played one match in these cups, whichever level, or not notable just because of that. T v x1 17:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#Tennis at multi-sport competitions about numerous tennis MSE navbox templates which have been replaced by Template:Infobox tennis tournament event and Template:Infobox tennis tournament year. Any comments therein by WP:Tennis members would be appreciated. Sod25 ( talk) 14:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
A move request at Talk:The Championships, Wimbledon is taking place to move any Wimbledon article titles that contain Gentlemen's and Ladies' to Men's and Women's. Not sure if we ever decided what to do about this. Back in 2009 a discussion took place to use Gentlemen's and Ladies' because that's what Wimbledon has always used, but I don't see anything since. The current invitational articles still use G&L rather than M&W, and articles before 1903 do also. Not sure who moved them to men's and Womens or why. Does anyone recall a conversation where it was decided? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 10:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Tennis,
I have some questions whether this article is a target of paid editors so I'm hoping that editors more familiar with tennis and tennis players than I am can confirm that she is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Thanks, in advance. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello to everybody! I'm wondering what is correct way of writing ITF names and how Fed Cup/Billie Jean King Cup table should look like? Most ITF tournaments are represented as ITF + name city, Country, talking about 10/15/25K tournaments, but what about higher level ones? Should there be universal template for all tournaments on the ITF Tour? Names of some higher level tournaments ex. Coleman Vision Tennis Championships (held in Albuquerque) is too long and maybe it will be better to specify the city rather? Also there are some tournaments like Copa LP Chile where saying Cope LP Chile, Chile is a little bit pointless cuz we already can see that tournament is hold in Chile. Talking about Fed Cup/BJKP chart, I can't found proper version cuz on almost all female ralated pages there are not the same chart represented in Article Guidline for Davis Cup. Davis Cup chart is for me unlegible and needs new format. JamesAndersoon ( talk) 15:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. However, 力's proposal of "X at the Davis Cup" has some merit and I'd like to see discussion on that without it being unduly influenced by this discussion. Sceptre ( talk) 03:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
– I want to move to proper name and per WP:COMMON. -- Ruling party ( talk) 15:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Does this make sense? It really should....
Suggestion: Move all team to "country men's national team" and "country women's national team".
Ruling party is still moving pages. Jevansen ( talk) 01:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Resubstituted Template:Requested moves simply so it is easier to see examples of what proposer (now blocked) intended, especially after the RM is closed. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 22:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Coming from a brief conversation at User_talk:Ytfc23#Championships ... I find things like 2016 Nielsen Pro Tennis Championships where "Championships" seems to be inappropriately plural. I just did a fix at 2015 Nielsen Pro Tennis Championship and related articles, but wanted to get more input before continuing in that direction. Back when nielsenprotennis.com existed, it only used the singular, as far as I've found (but I didn't look further back than 2015); see archived 2016 page. OK to fix these? Is there a similar issue in other championships? User:Ytfc23 suggests that maybe Brits use plural and Americans use singular. Comments? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
One more thing: on these I was working on, and probably on others, I find " – Singles" and " – Doubles" on titles, where the capitalization does not seem justifiable. So I'm downcasing those. Any objections? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
And MOS:SENTENCECAPS says When an independent clause ends with a dash or semicolon, the first letter of the following word should not be capitalized, even if it begins a new independent clause that could be a grammatically separate sentence: Cheese is a dairy product; bacon is not., suggesting that we also not cap Men's, Women's, etc., since those are routinely lowercase in sentences and the after-dash context is not to be treated like the start of a sentence. I think I'll work on downcasing all these purely descriptive topic narrowing phrases. Any objections? Dicklyon ( talk) 21:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Here's a tennis template that gets it right (not overcapping singles and doubles, but using sentence case for each linked item):
See WT:Article titles#Dash in sporting event titles. Please say there if you understand something about the meaning or history or use of these dashed titles. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a tennis/sports titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 10:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox tennis tournament year and Template:Infobox tennis tournament event have the option to lowercase singles and doubles in "Men's Singles", etc., but they default to uppercase, which results in a lot of excess capitalization in infoboxes. I suggest we just remove the option and default to following the advice of MOS:CAPS in using sentence-case heading instead of title-case. Or at least change the default, so that contexts that want the over-capitalization for some reason need to specify so. Yes? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Actually, this option also controls the links, so looks like we can't really fix it until we fix the overcapitalization in article titles. So it would be better to leave the option as is for controlling the links for now, and just fix the text presented in the infobox to be not affected by this option. Yes? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Here's a sandbox diff illustrating the suggested change. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Overcapitalization in infoboxes. We'll see what happens... Dicklyon ( talk) 05:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
lowercase
param to the infoboxes to support the capitalization style of tennis at multi-sport competition articles), as long as you're happy to update all the wikilinks so we don't link to redirects everywhere.
Sod25k (
talk)
06:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Please tell me where should information about nation's participation in World Team Tennis and ATP cup go??? Will every competition have its own page?? (I cannot believe this nonsense.) Setenzatsu.2 ( talk) 20:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Please note, the 2021 Rolex Paris Masters' content has been deleted and redirected to the main article. I think it should be restored at least in some form. Cheers, Kacir 21:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NTENNIS] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 ( talk) 15:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
In this edit, Fyunck capitalizes headings with these terms, that I had previously changed to sentence case, per MOS:CAPS. The article has citations to atptour.com and wtatennis.com, both of which do not capitalize these terms in sentences. It would make more sense to follow those, and to follow MOS:CAPS, than to use title case in these headings. Comments? Dicklyon ( talk) 06:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Fyunck says "it is longstanding consensus to use capitalization such as Women's Singles in Tennis Project articles"; but it's also longstanding consensus to capitalize "Other Entrants" and all kinds of other stuff, it seems. And to put spaces into date ranges such as 1 – 5 June (should be 1–5 June). I routinely fix such things when I find them (rapidly, using regular expressions in JWB), independent of what projects put their stamps on them. See WP:CONLEVEL about how a central consensus is not overridden by a local project consensus (and I still don't know that such a local project consensus ever existed, since nobody can point me at a discussion about it).
And Fyunck continues to misunderstand the basis of MOS:CAPS when he says you can find these terms capped "all over the place"; nobody denies that (see above where I said "I've stipulated several times that sources DO sometimes cap these things."), but the criterion for treatment as a proper name is: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. And per WP:TITLEFORMAT, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text. I don't see why he says I have "presented this a bit skewed". He went through and added caps to headings, and not in running text (where it was already pretty inconsistent). Dicklyon ( talk) 17:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
They're not proper names, they're just event or "discipline" descriptions like "300 m dash" and "men's triathlon" and "nine-ball". Should be lower case. Because this wikiproject seems unaware of WP:CONLEVEL policy and the fact that the reason it was enacted was to stop wikiprojects trying to make up their own "rules" against site-wide consensus, this should just be subjected to an RfC outside the wikiproject, e.g. at WT:MOSCAPS. 20:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish ( talk • contribs)
We keep hearing about this long-standing consensus and it has been asked for a couple of times. It is starting to sound like a unicorn. Per DL, these headings are using title case when the term is not being capped in running text of the article. WP uses sentence case for headings. In any case, Fyunck has answered the question: It may not be the most prevalent way, but it's common ...
MOS:CAPS states "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". The terms are clearly not reaching this threshold. As SMcC says, we don't cap other sports disciplines either.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
03:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
It is longstanding consensus .... I have seen the same statement before in other recent discussions where you (or anybody else) have also been asked to evidence the consensus. You only just now enlighten us by saying:
it is now longstanding consensus, not that it was decided by consensus.[emphasis added] Please! This is low on the WP:CONLEVEL compared with P&G - particularly as it clearly goes against guidelines with community level consensus (and probably policy - section headings?). I am thinking that the burden rests with those that want to keep capitalisation, since the question is contrary to P&G but MOS:CAPS also places a burden to show that caps are necessary. Capitalisation is ultimately dependent on sources (and touches on WP:V). So far (particularly considering your own "evidence"), there is a clear and strong consensus to uphold P&G. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the sentence case (e.g. "Men's singles") is probably more correct for the section headers because of MOS:HEAD, but not because they aren't proper nouns. They still can be proper nouns, and that's even more often the case when they are used in isolation. You can't just say they're not. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 20:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Support the decapitalization of these section headings per the policies/guidelines raised by those above. Dicklyon, please also start the mass-move request of tennis articles to e.g. "– Men's singles", which has precedent from the Wimbledon move, and is also the least disruptive solution to the overcapitalization problem (~5k articles needing to be moved vs. ~17k for "– men's singles"). This shouldn't need to drag out for months. Sod25k ( talk) 11:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Doubles | 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' doubles 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Doubles | 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' doubles 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Singles | 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' singles 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Singles | 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' singles 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Singles | 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' singles 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Doubles | 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' doubles 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Doubles | 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' doubles 2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Doubles | 2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' doubles 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Doubles | 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' doubles 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Singles | 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' singles 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Singles | 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' singles 2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Singles | 2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' singles 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Singles | 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' singles 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Doubles | 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Men's doubles 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Doubles | 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Men's doubles 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Doubles | 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Men's doubles 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Doubles | 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Men's doubles 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Singles | 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Men's singles 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Singles | 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Men's singles 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Singles | 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Men's singles 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Singles | 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Men's singles 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Doubles | 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Women's doubles 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Doubles | 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Women's doubles 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Doubles | 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Women's doubles 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Doubles | 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Women's doubles 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Singles | 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Women's singles 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Singles | 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Women's singles 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Singles | 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Women's singles 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Singles | 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Women's singles |
OK, RM is launched at Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed Doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The RM concluded consensus to move, but nothing is moved yet. We're waiting on a bot task, using a bot that was waiting for approval on a previous big move task, at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13. Now that task 13 is approved, it is expected to run by Tuesday (downcasing the Thailand Districts etc.), and at that time a bot request will be put in (per User talk:Tol#Another big move job for TolBot) for a TolBot task for these 5000 or so tennis moves. Patience. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Notification of an RfC on Peng Shuai's article. Would appreciate folk's providing input. NickCT ( talk) 16:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Couldsomeone from the project please look at this and see if they can add references. He would probably be notable DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
At Talk:2006 US Open – Girls' singles#Juniors' possessive I ask whether we really want that apostrophe on juniors' and seniors'. Dicklyon ( talk) 14:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I was informed by user ( Fyunck(click)) 01:20, 1 February 2022 Sorry per Tennis Project the dates format for American (USA) 🇺🇸 tennis athletes are different then the others , “that it is what we do by longstanding consensus”.
My reply ( talk) 1 February 2022 : Do not understand why an International tennis athlete page which has a uniform format for all athletes has to have a different date format “MON DD, YEAR” in the case of Sebastian Korda on his page. I thought Wikipedia is working towards uniformity in GLOBAL sports like Tennis . Also “updated by” date or any other date outside the infobox does not make sense to be in that format. A specific date rule does not make sense for a Global athlete page to be followed just for one country (USA) in the case that person is American, when all other pages have DD MM YEAR. Thoughts? Sashona ( talk) 16:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS/NTENNIS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:
Having occasionally updated the world rankings of tennis players in their articles, I have noticed what a tedious process this is with there being 1000s of active players ATP&WTA combined and with the existence of singles and doubles rankings. While recently editing some articles on darts players, I noticed that they use a set of templates and modules which allow them automatically update the rakings in the articles of all players with one centralized edit. I was wondering wether a similat system could be used for tennis. T v x1 17:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The main article is called Monte-Carlo Masters, but the year-by-year articles omit the hyphen up to 2007, and include it after that. (See Category:Monte-Carlo Masters). Is this intentional ot an anomaly that should be fixed? Colonies Chris ( talk) 13:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I recently read through some of the career statistics articles and found a bit problematic with the grand slam seeding sections. Made some reformatting stuff but has some disputes with JamesAndersoon. Here is one of the situation at the Iga Świątek career statistics article:
Season | Australian Open | French Open | Wimbledon | US Open |
---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | – | – | – | – |
2020 | – | – (1) | NH | – |
2021 | 15th | 8th | 7th | 7th |
2022 | 7th |
I believe the abbreviations along with the dashes are unclear to a general encyclopedia for a general audience. It is not like the timeline tables which have a key legend before the matrix, such abbreviations just exist for the don't-know-what reason, especially the short dashes. The first time I came across with that, I thought that meant Did Not Play, then I hover the cursor over the tooltips — which are inaccessible for mobile readers and later being removed because so — that referred to Unseeded. Then why everything has to be abbreviated hence everything is fine as what it stands as Roger Federer career statistics#Career Grand Slam tournament seedings? Would be very appreciated if someone could provide a WP:3O. Unnamelessness ( talk) 11:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Why you need this to be so extended?
It's normal for human eye to see something simpler and more readable, isn't it?
Just gonna add legend and problem solved.
Naturally there's a lot of editing going on with 2022 competitions, but what's with all the socks and reverts, such as at 2022 Gran Canaria Challenger – Singles? Not something I would expect at pages that just collect facts. Also, now that all (or most) of the over-capitalization in tennis articles has been fixed, how might be get the attention of editors to the fact that caps are not needed in parentheticals such as "(first round)". Are they following an old script that needs to be updated? I've reverted a few just to get their attention, but at least one of those turned out to be a sock I think. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
|
I agree. Part of the difficulty in writing a lead sentence is that the article titles in many cases (not just the 230, but thousands) are not such that they can be incorporated unchanged into a sentence. It's generally necessary to change from e.g. "– Men's singles" to just "men's singles" to make it fit into a sentence. It's worth the trouble. Alternatively, merge all the "sub-articles" into the main articles and get rid of these odd subtitled articles. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I edited 2008 SAP Open – Doubles as an example of what I mean. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
For those that don't have the page watch-listed, please be aware that WP:NTENNIS has been rewritten to remove any participation criteria, after the close of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. Jevansen ( talk) 00:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
At User talk:Dicklyon#Suggested task, another tennis editor asked for my help with downcasing "draw" and related changes. Please review there before I do much more of that, and let me know if there are any reservations or alternative suggestions. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Wolbo: reverted the addition of "draw" in a bunch, so I guess I don't need to worry about undoing. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of rankings, we have this oft-repeated notation:
Can we change it to reduce over-capitalization, and maybe replace the one-sided paren with something more normal? Maybe:
Other suggestions? Dicklyon ( talk) 06:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
If there's a problem from our project members let me know or revert, but I just went ahead and changed our guideline rows from Win–Loss to W–L. It matches what we already use for our columns and there are some who don't want the double capitals of Win–Loss. This seems the best compromise as suggested by @ Sportsfan77777: and I'm getting tired of all the back and forth. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 08:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of Roger Federer, I did this edit trying to reduce the variability into how "year-end championships" is rendered. Case, hyphen, and singular/plural variaitons abound. Most commonly it seems that "year-end championships" is used, or "Year-end championships" for sentence case. Is the singular cool, too? I didn't touch that one yet there. Advice? Dicklyon ( talk) 22:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Below is a list of the tennis "top ten" templates, taken from Category:ATP Tour navigational boxes and Category:WTA Tour navigational boxes. I can't help thinking that this is a massively long list (160 or so) and I'm interested in people's thought on these. I know there sort of things were quite popular in the early days of Wikipedia but my own view now, is that I don't find them at all useful. They're WP:NAVBOXes, meant to help readers navigate between articles, but I'm pretty doubtful that they serve that purpose. In addition most of them only get updated sporadically, so we're providing out of date information to readers. And I can't help thinking that there's either going to be a large amount of effort maintaining these for no real benefit or they're almost always out of date. My suggestion is that we have a cull of these, which would hopefully focus effort on the few remaining ones. Is anyone really interested in doubles rankings? Thoughts? Nigej ( talk) 10:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I've nominated a bunch here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Top ten male doubles tennis players templates, for deletion. Nigej ( talk) 08:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I've nominated another set of these here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Top ten male singles tennis players templates where you can comment on these templates. Nigej ( talk) 08:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
“Top ten Italian male doubles tennis players” needs to be deleted. Still showing in Wikipedia. Sashona( talk) 19:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if anyone had sources for US National Championships Mixed Doubles winners from 1887 - 1891. While I realize these were unofficial events, I was hoping to update List of US Open mixed doubles champions as there are names from List of Grand Slam mixed doubles champions not in the US Open page. Also, it would have to state those years were unofficial like some years at List of French Open mixed doubles champions. I checked The Bud Collins History of Tennis book but it doesn't have those years for mixed doubles. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 01:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
This seemed like a pretty big article of Tennis Project so I thought all should be informed of a potential move of Tennis Masters Series records and statistics. I'm not exactly sure where or whether it should be moved but maybe some here have some good ideas. See discussion at Talk:Tennis Masters Series records and statistics. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 06:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Our tennis articles, such as 2021 WTA Tour, under the "tournament" column of the four Majors, says Singles–Doubles–Mixed or Singles–Doubles–Mixed doubles. I see no need for Mixed doubles as there is only one discipline for Mixed. Do we need to add doubles here? It seems tighter to use one word for the link. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
There's still plenty, in tennis, in other sports, and all over Wikipedia. One item common to a few thousand tennis articles is the phrase "Win–Loss" in a table, where sentence case might be OK, so it should be "Win-loss", and also in some contexts where it needs to be "win–loss". So I fixed a few thousand of those (not just in tennis). Now User:Sportsfan77777 argues that where the abbreviation W-L is used, loss ought to be capitalized. I'm pretty sure that's contrary to MOS:CAPS#Expanded forms of abbreviations, but he wants to discuss it. He also says that sometimes the dash should be a hyphen; not sure how he thinks so. Opinions? Dicklyon ( talk) 07:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Tournament | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | SR | W–L | Win % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australian Open | Q2 | 1R | SF | 3R | SF | SF | 0 / 5 | 17-5 | 77% |
French Open | 1R | 2R | 4R | SF | F | 0 / 5 | 15–5 | 75% | |
Wimbledon | 1R | 4R | 1R | NH | 1R | 0 / 4 | 3–4 | 43% | |
US Open | Q3 | 2R | 1R | 3R | 3R | 0 / 4 | 5–4 | 56% | |
Win–Loss | 0–2 | 5–4 | 8–4 | 8–3 | 13–4 | 5–1 | 0 / 18 | 38–18 | 68% |
Tournament | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | SR | W–L | Win % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australian Open | Q2 | 1R | SF | 3R | SF | SF | 0 / 5 | 17-5 | 77% |
French Open | 1R | 2R | 4R | SF | F | 0 / 5 | 15–5 | 75% | |
Wimbledon | 1R | 4R | 1R | NH | 1R | 0 / 4 | 3–4 | 43% | |
US Open | Q3 | 2R | 1R | 3R | 3R | 0 / 4 | 5–4 | 56% | |
Win–loss | 0–2 | 5–4 | 8–4 | 8–3 | 13–4 | 5–1 | 0 / 18 | 38–18 | 68% |
In sources, it's overwhelmingly lowercase win–loss, and it is also so in Wikipedia (though with a mixture of hyphen and dash and slash styling). For a table heading, we use sentence case, so it becomes Win–loss. This is also commonly seen in sources. What would be a reason to cap here, when our MOS says we avoid unnecessary capitalization? I certainly didn't expect any controversy around this routine case fixing work. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, you have not explained why you think "W–L" is allowed, but "Win–Loss" is not allowed. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 18:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
See MOS:SENTENCECAPS. We use sentence case. We don't cap after a dash or colon. Tables are not an exception to using sentence case and nor is a dash. The burden set by MOS:CAPS is to avoid unnecessary caps. It isn't necessary. If it isn't capped in a sentence we wouldn't cap it in a table either. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
that's what an en dash is for – joining balanced equals
If you read the column vertically
MOS:ENBETWEEN- fair point. However I think that applies only to the meanings of the words; it does not affects the rules of grammar and casing. Eg (first example from ENBETWEEN) we would write "Boyfriend–girlfriend problems are a cause of stress." (lowercase girlfriend) not "Boyfriend–Girlfriend problems are a cause of stress." (uppercase Girlfriend). Thus "Win–loss numbers exclude ties" (lowercase loss) not "Win–Loss numbers exclude ties" (uppercase Loss), thus "Win–loss" not Win–Loss". Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Wow, lot's of comments above! Still, no one has provided what I asked for: an example of "Win–loss" being used in isolation (as in, just "Win–loss", not "Win–loss record"). To clarify, I would be happy with "Win–loss" if I saw an example from a good source, or an example of another WikiProject using "Win–loss" in a table. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 05:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, to those of you above (like Firefangledfeathers) who are still confused about which policy "Win–loss" violates, it's MOS:ABBR. To paraphrase MOS:ABBR, "Avoid making up new abbreviations. For example, "Win–loss" seems like a good abbreviation of "Win–loss record", but "Win–loss" is not used by any official tennis websites or tennis reliable sources; use the full name "Win–loss record" or an abbreviation that's used in practice: "W–L" or "Win–Loss"." Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 06:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
That's not true. It was consistently "Win-Loss" for both ATP and WTA players before Dicklyon changed it.It wasn't Dicklyon that changed it. It was in the table when it was originally added here and, I believe it was copied into the guideline from Roger Federer#Grand Slam tournament performance timeline, where it is also "Win-loss". See also David Ferrer#Grand Slam tournament performance timeline. I am sure that if I keep digging I will find more. You asked for an example. I provided it and now another two - though yes, it may not have been realised or it may even have been a concious decision when the guideline was edited (neither you nor I can say). Regardless, the guideline was inconsistent and it wasn't because of DL (though it has just been amended). If nothing else, this external scrutiny is helping to clean up a few inconsistencies. I am not pretending anything. I made a statement of fact that the guideline was inconsistent. Waving around WP:AGF strikes me as being a bit WP:POT.
"One sees many instances of such shortenings" --- Yes, that's what I am asking for.Well, that wasn't your original question (I answered that). This is a new question.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom ..."United Kingdom" is a shortened form. It is not referred to as an abbreviation. Similarly,
Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia ...[Links added in both cases] See House Un-American Activities Committee#Precursors to the committee, where it is simpy referred to in a shortened form as "the committee". At Infantry in the Middle Ages#English longbowmen, "bowmen" is used as a shortened form to refer to "longbowmen". These are all common examples of a shortened form of a fuller term and they aren't considered abbreviations (per my statement) and, if they are capitalised, it is becase they are considered proper nouns/names in their own right. Asked and answered (again). Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
"One sees many instances of such shortenings" --- Yes, that's what I am asking for. Show me those shortenings, and I'll concede!. My post immediately above answered that question. But answering your question immediately above now, see Thierry Lincou, David Palmer (squash player) and Nick Matthew. I stopped at three. It is consistently used in a table in squash as "Win-loss". Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I mean examples of something like this:
Win–Loss | 10–5 |
rather than this:
Win–loss | 10–5 |
If we had something like
Titles / Tournaments | 2 / 15 |
That's perfectly fine because it's two separate terms and two separate quantities. (i.e. it's starting "a new sentence".) There is no rule in MOS:CAPS against that. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 05:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Terms | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
W–L | Win–loss | NWS | Not a World Series event | ||||||||||||
NG50 | Not an international event | NH | Not held | ||||||||||||
A | Absent | LQ/#Q | Lost in qualifying draw and round number | ||||||||||||
RR | Lost at round robin stage | #R | Lost in the early rounds | ||||||||||||
QF | Quarterfinalist | SF | Semifinalist | ||||||||||||
SF-B | Semifinalist, won bronze medal | F | Runner-up | ||||||||||||
F | Runner-up, won silver medal | W | Winner |
@ Sportsfan77777: are you conceding now, or do you still have something you want to discuss before I get back to fixing tooltips and table headers to sentence case (without prejudice against later changes if y'all decide that all lowercase, or W–L, or no tooltips is preferable)? Dicklyon ( talk) 02:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Besides the use in the table heading, I had also downcased the tooltips that said "Win–Loss" to "Win–loss", but that was apparently not an issue. Or so I thought. Now Sportsfan77777, in this revert, is saying that "Strike Rate" needs to be capped (not "Strike rate") in a tooltip. Not clear what theory of capitalization he has in mind. I'm again shocked that this routine fix can be made cnotroversial. Can anyone explain? Does WP use title case for tooltips? See Template:tooltip. Uses in other topic areas don't seem to have an issue with sentence case (e.g. see 1966 FIFA World Cup Final). Dicklyon ( talk) 15:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a neutral way to start a discussion for three reasons:
I started a more neutral discussion at WT:MOSCAPS#Caps in tooltips. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Concerning the topic Uppercase/lowercase, it's seems to mostly come down to WikiProject vs MoS. GoodDay ( talk) 06:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
W | F | SF | QF | #R | RR | Q# | P# | DNQ | A | Z# | PO | G | S | B | NMS | NTI | P | NH |
{{abbr|TKO|technical knockout}}
. If you wanted to use SR in a sentence for some reason, you would write e.g. In tennis, SR (strike rate) is the ratio of the number of times a player has won an event to the number of times a player has competed there. If it's used like that in prose, you wouldn't capitalize it just because it's in a tooltip.
Sportsfan77777 (
talk)
08:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)I've always thought the tooltip capitalization in the key was wrong. The list below the key is meant to be a carbon copy of the tooltips, yet the tooltips are capitalized and the list is lowercase. That doesn't make any sense. It's not consistent. Either they should both be capitalized, or neither should be. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 04:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The current proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Caps in tooltips is to "Capitalize the expanded form as if it were in parentheses following the abbreviation". That would mean "win–loss" and "strike rate", but also a lot of other downcasing in tennis templates and articles. If people are comfortable with that, I can implement it (I won't do just those two). I see just above that Sportsfan is in agreement. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
W | F | SF | QF | #R | RR | Q# | P# | DNQ | A | Z# | PO | G | S | B | NMS | NTI | P | NH |
General Comment for our tennis editors. I understand that most of the poll editors here are heavy into lower case since the discussion above was posted on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters page. That's ok. What I'm amazed at lately is that tennis editors whose opinions I respect have pretty much disappeared from these conversations. I have no idea what our hundreds of tennis editors think on these issues but it seems no one cares what these articles and tables look like anymore to even voice an opinion. Maybe we should just hand off all our guidelines, charts, biographies, etc and have them handled by WikiProjectMOS, WikiProjectMusic, WikiProjectMilitary, etc. It would sure be easier to maintain if we let others handle things. It seems that everyone has disappeared lately. I don't care if our opinions differ but it's strange you wouldn't get in the game. And not just this current issue either. I realize that things have changed here a lot since I joined where we had tennis editors coming out of the woodwork, but the last year or so has been disappointing in participation. We supposedly have 245 members listed and goodness who knows how many who didn't actually plop themselves on out list. It just seems strange to me. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 07:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we should just hand off all our guidelines, charts, biographies, etc and have them handled by WikiProjectMOS— Yes please! As an AWB-wielding copy-editor-for-style over a large range of topics, I have trouble remembering all the non-MOS-compliant style quirks that every project seems to have (sports are the worst), which leads to occasional friction when I fix some style issue (eg capitalisation) on many articles in a short time (not necessarily all in one project, e.g. I might be processing articles under Category:Western Australia), only to be told that I'm wrong because "Project X does it differently" - and my appeals to WP:CONLEVEL fall on deaf ears. Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Now that some other distractions are passed, let's get back to deciding what we want to do. Here I list a few options in two categories (tooltips and table headers) that remain inconsistent. Other editors are invited to add more solution options if I haven't covered what they want (though adding options that are at odds with MOS:CAPS is not advised). Dicklyon ( talk) 23:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
(e.g. where currently we have mostly Win–loss or Win–Loss, Strike rate or Strike Rate, etc.)
(e.g. where currently we have mostly Win–loss or Win–Loss, Titles / Tournaments or Titles / tournaments)
For background, please review discussions at WT:MOSCAPS#Caps in tooltips and WT:WikiProject_Tennis#Over-capitalization still. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Fyunck(click) and Sportsfan77777: if you have other options you want us to consider, please add them in the lists where I have "Something else". Or say here if the lists seem OK or not. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Implementing 1C would be a pain. I did it for the templates that had legends already, but doing more will be hard to semi-automate. For consistency, that would mean 1A, I think. I don't know whether any "Win–loss" will show up in that process, or whether anyone but Fyunck would be bothered by that. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, there are a handful of articles still with table header Win–Loss in Title Case still (like 2B; in violation of guidelines). It still looks like Fyunck is not representing the project in being bothered by that, and there's a pretty broad consensus to follow MOSCAPS, here and in general. So I'll put those back to Sentence case (like all other table headings). If the project decides to switch to W–L, having them all alike will make that easier, too. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I suggest holding off posting your !votes here until after we get the list of options finished and some discussion going. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, I think the alternatives are fleshed out; time to poll. I'll start:
And it is MOS that has to show us where W(ndash)L is different than Win(ndash)Loss— W-L is captialised as an initialism ( MOS:ACRO), but MOS:EXPABBR says "Do not apply initial capitals ... in a full term that is a common-noun phrase just because capitals are used in its abbreviation". Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements.This is a case directly comparable to "win-loss". In examples where the two terms are not proper nouns (ie not usually capitalised when they appear alone) neither term is capitalised when they are combined using a dash. I don't see any reason to think the MOS is not sufficiently clear on this? Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Since sources mostly say "ATP rankings", "WTA rankings", and such w/o caps, I've started a move discussion on those: Talk:ATP Rankings#Requested move 2 April 2022. Dicklyon ( talk) 14:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13A, where User:Tol is requesting permission to move/rename/downcase 5425 tennis pages with his bot, per the discussion above and the RM close. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, the bot has done the 5425 article moves. I'm going to go slow on cleanup edits, learning more about regex as I go. If anyone wants to help, let me know. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I've been developing the replace expressions to clean up 16000+ tennis articles; see User:Dicklyon/Tennis cleanup JWB JSON. Please review my edits (mostly of Feb. 1) to see what these do, and let me know if you see any errors, or if you can suggest improvments. If we converge on the patterns maybe I can get a bot to finish the lot. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, 729 down, 16,000 to go. I'll stop there. Big work day on Feb. 2. Please review. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
A lot of my recent edits were incremental, as I added a few more replace rules. But all the recently edited articles should have ended up in a good place, with a few things left to fix like the occasional succession box. I mostly want to make sure there are no "false positive" downcasings, or other weirdness. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
After about the first 788 files, I get a screwup at this most recent edit]. So, work to do. Later. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
A bot request for approval has been filed: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DoggoBot 5. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
One error has been pointed out and reverted here. Since the redirect didn't get moved, the updated "previous" link make a redlink. There could be more like that, I suppose. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
-
to en dash –
?
Qwerty284651 (
talk)
22:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the patterns are not "looked up", but rather pieced together to match certain text that you want to find in articles. In this case, I'm finding over-capitalized text in articles and then creating patterns that will match it to find all articles with the same type of over-capitalization. Dicklyon, here are a few more issues I've found that you could work on (listed in order of priority):
Why don't you do a run on all tennis biographies downcasing all the links so that editors don't end up copying the wikitext for old links and changing the year to link to new tournaments, which will produce red links and therefore ongoing confusion, as redirects won't exist from the old title casing style to those new tournaments' articles. There was also an old discussion I found in the archives about changing the colour of faded text in timelines from #696969 to #767676. You could kill two birds with one stone by making those changes as well. Letcord ( talk) 07:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(\[\[[^\]]+(–|-) )((Men's|Women's|Ladies'|(Senior )?Gentlemen's|Mixed|Boys'|Girls'|Wheelchair (Men's|Women's|Quad)|Quad|Legends(')?( (Under|Over) (45|50)| Mixed))( (Legends(')?|Invitation))? )?(Singles|Doubles|Champions Invitational|Draw)( Qualifying)?(#[^\|\]]+)?(\||\])
" → "$1{{subst:ucfirst:{{subst:lc:$3$14$15}}}}$16$17
" will do it with no false positives. This should be done for all articles with
hastemplate:"Infobox tennis biography" (the bulk),
incategory:"Tennis career statistics",
hastemplate:"Tennis records and statistics" and
hastemplate:"Grand Slam champions". The color one can be done by just replacing 696969 with 767676 (the color that
Sportsfan77777 suggested as the faintest that passes accessibility guidelines, but wasn't changed to because nobody had access to the semi-automated tools).
Letcord (
talk)
17:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
\{\| *width="?[0-9]+%"?\n\| *valign="?top"? +width="?[0-9]+%"? +align="?left"? *\|\n\{\| *class="?wikitable"?\n\|\- *bgcolor="?#eeeeee"?\n\|'''Flag (I|i)con (K|k)ey'''\n\|-\n\| *\[\[List of IOC country codes(#Current NOCs)?\|List of National Flags\]\]\n\|\}\n\|\}\n
" with nothing with JWB for the articles in
this search.
Letcord (
talk)
00:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
\| *(SF|F)-(B|S)
" with "|$2
" for the articles in
this search will do that new task, though I note that you made the relevant change to {{
Performance key}}
[28], so I hope there is consensus for it (I see the merit in both formats, personally).
Letcord (
talk)
08:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)@ JamesAndersoon: You've been undoing some of these case fix edits, possibly by editing slightly old versions. Most of these have been undone by an IPv6 user, and I undid one (you'll need to reapply your intended updates). Dicklyon ( talk) 17:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, i thought to let you know about these move requests, since they are generically deserted by editors. I thought that posting here could maybe draw someone interested to take a look at them. Cheers. 79.42.106.116 ( talk) 16:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Cleveland Challenger
Done.
Sanremo Tennis Cup
Done.
Challenger ATP de Salinas Diario Expreso
Done.
2021 Città di Forlì II — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.42.106.116 (
talk)
18:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Portal:Tennis has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tennis. Thank you. Letcord ( talk) 13:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Letcord ( talk) 14:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1989 Czechoslovak Open#Requested move 16 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 08:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, i went by accident on the official page of the ATP Prague Open and found something amiss among past finals, i double check on its reported website and found nothing, apart some comments on last year Prague winners. Then i checked with the wikipage of I.ČLTK Prague Open and found something peculiar there. After checking the history section of its website https://www.pragueopen.org/history-historie i found out the reason.
I.ČLTK Prague Open is an offspring of
ATP Prague Open, that is until 2013 all past finals are correctly listed on
ATP Prague Open but since 2014 they are separated and enlisted on
I.ČLTK Prague Open, while Sparta Prague's editions are attached to
ATP Prague Open and as you can see from the aforementioned link that was fundamentally wrong. The Sparta Prague's editions were the one who should have written under a separated article.
Upon researching what was the problem here, i found out that someone (i mean here and here) wrongly wrote on ATP Prague Open's infobox that since 2014 the tournament switched venue, going to Sparta Prague, which is clearly false since again the history page says there wasn't such a switch but only continuity on the same venue under different sponsor.
So, finally and rightly, we need to divide the two tournaments by venue. In order to do this we clearly have to cut half of ATP Prague Open's past finals and attach them to I.ČLTK Prague Open. Then we need to change the title of ATP Prague Open into Sparta Prague Open, and put in there indeed all the previous Sparta Prague TK editions, 2014 Prague Open (which by the way is wrong as it should be "2014 Sparta Prague Open" which is the title currently used for women tournament which on its turn should be changed into "2014 WTA Sparta Prague Open" or unified with men's tournament in one only article. I prefer them to stay divided), 2015 Sparta Prague Open, 2016 Sparta Prague Open, 2021 ATP Prague Open and 2021 ATP Prague Open II. All tournaments correctly played at Sparta Prague Tennis Club.
There are two other problems involving Prague tournaments. As i said above WTA Prague Open is a redirect from Sparta Prague Open. I think this title is more correct for ATP Challenger tournaments and so we should cut that redirect and rename the women's yearly tournaments as 20XX WTA Sparta Prague Open and leave under the title a line to say something like "if you were looking for the men tournaments played on Sparta Prague , this is at ... "insert wikilink". OR we need to unify men's and women's tournaments played on Sparta Prague venue. I'd rather prefer to keep things as simple as possible, so i'm against unifying them. And anyway, we need to change womens' yearly tournament edition 2014 Prague Open, because that name now goes for men's tournament.
And finally I checked other Prague's tournaments since 2001 and found out only Czech Indoor Open but it was played on a different venue from the two mentioned, so at least we don't have this headache too to think about. I didn't know where to start, since one move is consequential to another, so i didn't put any template "move" or "cancel/unify/etc.." over the pages since i wanted to check here first -- 95.250.109.34 ( talk) 18:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, it occured to me while re-ordering Prague tournaments that this one 2020 Advantage Cars Prague Open has a title which doesn't exist, since MD, official website and the official bulletin of the tournament show a different name. If you're interested you can leave a comment on its talk page -- 95.250.109.34 ( talk) 00:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1992 Czechoslovak Open#Requested move 16 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 08:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I have tried to convert US dollars to British pounds on the Andrew Castle page, but it is not working. Can anyone help please? BrightOrion ( talk) 06:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking at Category:ATP_Tour_seasons, I see that the tour article and category titles refer to "ATP Tour" generally, but from 2009 to 2018 they use "ATP World Tour". Did something change during those years, or is this a naming anomaly that should be fixed? Colonies Chris ( talk) 08:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2009 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso#Requested move 3 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Challenger ATP de Salinas Diario Expreso#Requested move 3 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2009 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso – Doubles#Requested move 3 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that the article on the 2022 Wimbledon Championships still hasn't been created. I feel though that it's more than appropriate to create it, given the fact that the event has been discussed al lot in the press for weeks already. This because of a highly controversial decision to ban any player with Russian or Belarusian nationality to enter and the ATP, WTA and ITF's subsequent sanctions against the tournament. Any thoughts? T v x1 12:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I have started a draft. With feedback and additions from the WikiProject we should be able to make an article from this that is can be moved to main space. T v x1 19:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Any comments?? T v x1 11:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I have noticed that some text in some of the bracket templates listed at
Category:Tennis tournament bracket templates is too small. The text in the whole template is set at 90%, and then <small>...</small>
tags are used inside the template, reducing the size of the text below the 85% minimum threshold set by
MOS:FONTSIZE for accessibility. I removed the font-size declaration from one of the templates, leaving the small tags, but then I saw that there were more templates and thought I would ask here before continuing. Do you want to remove the font-size declarations, remove the small tags, or find some other way to fix this problem? –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
06:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
WTA 125 tournaments are played as top level tournaments and their number is increasing every year. Could competing in the main draw in one of the top professional tournaments be an important criteria area for Tennis figures? Vecihi91 ( talk) 23:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I was recently changing a section header into a lot of tournaments' Singles and Doubles page, so i went through any single page of them in the ATP, WTA and Challenger circuit. Not only in the last years, but also way back in time. And they are pretty much the same. They are essentially a copy of the draw linked at the bottom, (which you cannot dispense of in any case since you need a source to back the wiki-rewritten draw). Apart from that, there are info on the seeds, qualifiers and such which are repeated/copied from the yearly page of the tournament. The lead is the most discomforting of them all. Usually is in the form "X was the defending champion. He defended the title defeating Y a-b, c-a, a-d" with little expansion over the tournament development at all.
This is actually the standard of the ATP Challenger Singles and Doubles page. Hardly you'll find something more.
In the ATP/WTA Singles and Doubles page, there's occasionally some elaboration related to a player retiring, or some sort of statistics about being that the 100 masters win of X player, and such. This elaborations though, are present on few tournaments, while the overwhelming rest has usually the Challenger's treatment "X was the defending champion...".
Now i saw the argument "the lead will be expanded in the future" mentioned when this issue was recurringly brought to the attention of the project. I can mention one of such prominent case, during
Estoril Men's singles page's AfD. It was said it needed to be expanded from the Challenger's standard and guess what? in 18 years it stayed the same 2 lines.
So, i think this project need to face that apart few cases, the whole (ATP WTA and Challenger) Singles and Double articles will stay the same 2 lines, and will not be expanded. You can check for yourself. Just to give you an example, let's see the case for 2021: ATP has 10 Tournament's Singles articles with leads exceeding 5 lines, (excluding Grand Slam and Olympics), WTA did better with 12-13 articles but many were around 6 lines. The ATP Challenger had 0 Singles and Doubles articles exceeding 2 lines (well, to be fair maybe 10 went up to 3) out of 147 Singles page.
And just like that, we need to figure it out what to do about. They gave redundant information, the most article size is taken by copying a link into a wiki-draw, and the rest is copied from yearly edition of the tournament.
Proposal
I think those articles should not be made anymore. All the info they have is already in the yearly edition. I think we should add the official draw links there and dispense with the standalone Singles and Doubles pages altogether.
In the case some relevant and encyclopedic news are coming up, those can be added into the usually short lead of the yearly edition page, maybe under a Development section, if one want to make them stand apart, which anyway won't constitute a size problem at all for the page.
That is valid for ATP/WTA and ATP Challenger Tour.
About Grand Slam pages, since they involve much more players and are divided into more competitions ( singles, doubles, mixed, boys,...) and there is usually a plethora of news coming up, (not to mention their Single pages usually exceed the 20 lines) in that case also for WP:SIZE reasons too, it's better to have those as standalone page. But i strongly suggest to regroup them by category, i.e AO Women would include both previous Women's Singles and Doubles pages, so for Men, etc... The mixed page would remain as standalone page, of course, since it hasn't the requisites to be included in any of the category mentioned. And this model should be valid also for the Olympics pages.
This proposal would have the effect of eliminating the superfluous repetition of the same info over and over (up to four time alone in the singles and double pages: lead, infobox, draw, and external link), and freeing resources to be used on more effective practice and needed articles improvements. Opencross ( talk) 00:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis be
renamed and moved to
's-Hertogenbosch Open.
result: Move logs:
source title ·
target title
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Rosmalen Grass Court Championships → 's-Hertogenbosch Open
I see the trouble here. The official name of the tournament is a sponsor name "Libema Open". So, according to internal tennis project guidelines, only yearly editions can bear the sponsor name in the title, but not their main articles.
Well, we have a good example of how to do it correctly with
Cincinnati Masters.
It's actually known with its sponsorship name "Western & Southern" and it's held in the city of Mason, OH. Does it get called "Mason Masters"?? No, it's called "Cincinnati Masters".
So, leave Rosmalen in the location into the infobox (like it's done for Cincinnati Masters) and change Rosmalen into 's-Hertogenbosch in the title of the main article. As for the apex in the name, the official wikipage of the city has already solved
the problem, and just using some semi-automatic bot, AWB for example, it can be easily changed into all the previous wikipages.--
Opencross (
talk)
21:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing regarding at Talk:Internazionali_di_Tennis_Città_di_Forlì regarding the tournament's history. Any additional input is welcome. T v x1 14:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Lately i saw no categories are used for ATP Challenger Tour tournaments draw pages. I went back to previous years, and it's pretty much the same pattern. So far the proportion is 98% with no categories apart from "YYYY ATP Challenger Tour" alone, to 2% with them (few i have been making, and some other which are mixed tournaments Ch/ATP or Ch/WTA). On ATP and WTA pages it's pretty much the opposite with a reversed proportion. Also over there is even used prevalently the category "YYYY Rfgndgo Open" under tournaments draws pages, which is pretty specific, and it goes against historic practice of using "Rfgndgo Open" category some years ago instead, as i checked. I'm not going to see if there is any unofficial guideline about it into the previous 20 archived pages in here, but please if you have a link to where it was discussed, then provide it. Thanks. -- Opencross ( talk) 15:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
With the grass court season underway and watching some of its coverage, I took a look at the Wikipedia coverage of the Nottingham tournaments. Under the impression that we had articles on three separate tournaments, I stumbled on the fact that a major merge of Nottingham Challenge into Nottingham Open, without any prior discussion. Thus I decide to revert, but I was immediately re-reverted and my action was added to an ANI complaint. Note that the ATP lists the Challenge's finals seperately.
With that complaint now resolved, I decided to start this thread to try to finally clean up these articles. Nottingham Challenge is now a redirect. Nottingham Open incorrectly claimed that it was replaced by the Challenge in 2009, even though that tournament didn't start until two years later. Notttingham Trophy claims it deals with a tournament that started in 2009, yet the results tables, list men's tournaments all the way back to 2004. I have been digging through archives and did indeed find draws of Challenger which took place in Nottingham in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. There is no indication whatsoever that these were editions of the Nottingham Trophy. In fact, I even found two earlier editions ( 2002and 2003), though these took place on hard courts.
Any thoughts on what the correct facts are regarding the Nottingham tournaments? T v x1 14:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
We also need to remove the prose on the Nottingham Trophy article that mentions it starting in 2009, because the PDF draws linked and the article page itself has results back to 2004.
If nobody has any further objections, I will move the incorrect tournaments out of the Nottingham Trophy and into a separate article later today. Adamtt9 ( talk) 11:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Hi all, I am relatively new to editing Tennis on Wiki so I may have a lot of random questions. Will try to condense them into one thread but for now had one question. Is it really necessary to list when someone has won 0 WTA or ATP events? Like when I see in an infobox: 0 WTA, 2 ITF? Seems like it should just say 2 ITF, why list 0?
Or I have seen articles where someone has won no events and it says 0. Shouldn't be just leave it blank? Michfan2123 ( talk) 9:09, 2 February 2020
Don't you think it's confusing when yesterday you have "0WTA 2ITF" and today "1"? As long as the infobox does not clarify which titles it talks about, it wouldn't be correct to remove anything. "Career titles" should be clearer or include all titles. Just a bare number that we currently have is the worst, factually incorrect. "WTA" in the end is better, even if you want to remove ITF titles. Pelmeen10 ( talk) 10:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me some things.
I have so many doubts about "rules" on this tennis-related pages, but don't know who should I contact, cuz I don't see them anywhere? p.s Only user that saying something is Fyunck(click) but I really want to hear someone else, cuz he/she is very contradicitonal about some statements, and never has proof where he "learned" this. I'm guessing he may make up these things how he/she like it? It will be really nice if someone respond this, cuz I really want to edit pages corectly but this users always stop me with that. Thanks - JamesAndersoon ( talk) 11:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
User:
in front to make a user link like
User:Fyunck(click). You haven't mentioned any edits by them so I'm not commenting on your disagreement. Do not make
personal attacks like
[1].
PrimeHunter (
talk)
14:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Per our guidelines, there is no background color in the performance chart if you lose in qualifying. Our performance template shows it clear as we have at Novak Djokovic career statistics. However, many articles do have a color attached to losing in Q1, Q2, Q3.... and it does vary by article. I have seen both ecf2ff, as in Jan-Lennard Struff and f0f8ff, as in Juan Martín del Potro, used for the background color, but there may be more in use. Today I noticed an editor changes the template and several articles to ecf2ff. I looked and didn't see a mention of this here or the guideline talk page as to why. To me, leaving it clear is fine as it separates it from the actual event, but with widespread use of some color maybe others here want it something other than clear? One thing though. Davis Cup uses ecf2ff so I would highly advise against the same color scheme. f0f8ff would be a better choice if we made any changes. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 20:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 00:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Does w/l from Fed Cup/Olympic Games/Hopman Cup count in performance timeline table in "overall win-loss"? If it does, does it also mean that these tournaments are count as tournaments played? - JamesAndersoon ( talk) 17:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Portal:Tennis had not been updated with new content for quite some time, so I have expanded it. A detailed summary of updates that were performed exists at Portal talk:Tennis § Portal updates. Feel free to post comments about the portal there, if desired. North America 1000 09:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I have recently had citations removed for not being reliable, specifically the Tennis Archives website. Now, I understand that there are some issues with the classifications on that site, sometimes the labels for tournaments are not easily identified. However, that is not unusual in tennis sources, often we have had to correct McCauley's results, not just for the classification of tournaments and tours, but also for scores and interpretation of newspaper reports. So I do not see how Tennis Archives is substantially below the standard. And there are many results available which can lead to other sources. Further, I notice that Tennis Archives is the principal source for at least two Wikipedia tennis articles, the U.S. Pro Tennis Championships Draws, 1946-1967 in particular. Do we now wipe out that entire article? We need some consistent direction on this issue. What is the policy? Tennisedu ( talk) 18:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I have a great deal of respect for Joe McCauley and his book (in its day it was a hugely influential book and I still recall the joy of first reading it 16 years ago), but I have spent a lot of time correcting mistakes in his book and so have other researchers. I would say McCauley is an acceptable source unless proved wrong with evidence (ie newspapers). I respect rules that are fairly applied, though sometimes the wikipedia rules for sourcing do not allow some very accurate sources to be used. Fortunately newspapers are an acceptable source and match reports can be used to prove whether McCauley is correct or not. There are many websites containing newspapers online. I have a large archive of newspaper match reports not available online and I know other researchers who also have an archive of newspaper match reports not available online. Tennishistory1877 ( talk) 20:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
HI all. Just wanted to let everyone know that Roger Federer is up for GA reassessment. See the discussion here. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 13:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking for some guidance on "format" topics.
Answers will allow me to update the project guidelines with more/better specifics. Mjquinn_id ( talk) 00:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
the stub template is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear after all article content. Leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it.-- Ym2X ( talk) 17:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I was reading the article, it's accessed to C rating, surely it's more a B? Govvy ( talk) 16:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I have looking occasionally looking at the 2020 US Open article the last few days with all the affects the pandemic is having on it. I noticed that it includes a list of withdrawn players (with replacements even), with line of explanation above that claiming that these players had entered the tournament, and subsequently withdrew. However, from what I can make up from the sources (most importantly the US Open's site), these players had never entered the tournament. They simply decided not to enter in the first place. They haven't announced a player field at all. Any thoughts? T v x1 20:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
This article really needs some oversight. There are constant additions of unsourced speculative information. T v x1 19:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The Milex Open hasn't gone by that name since 2017 and was the Santo Domingo Open in 2018 and 2019, so I moved the main article to Santo Domingo Open (tennis). If this needs to be moved again, let me know. Also the 2018 and 2019 tournament pages should be updated to reflect this, unless I'm missing something? Raymie ( t • c) 06:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not some earth shattering discussion.... just looking at some minor limitations on table inclusions at a particular article and how to stop some bloat. If this type of thing interests anyone here at the project, please feel free to jump in. At the time of my posting this we don't see any dissension but maybe someone has some different ideas and we don't want you left out if you do. It's at Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players for those interested. Cheers. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Big Three (tennis) is up for deletion. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
While watching the US Open I looked at the articles of some of the participating players. Doing so I stumbled on the article of Květa Peschke. I noticed that though she's a true veteran of the sport who is still very active at the age of 45 (recently won Cincinatti Open and reached quarterfinal of US Open in doubles), her doubles performance timeline had not been updated since Wimbledon 2017 for the Grand Slam tournaments and not since 2013(!) for the WTA Tour events. I updated it over the last few days, but it would be helpful if someone could double-check the figures. Especially the Succes Ratios and Win-Loss stats. T v x1 20:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Anyone? It would be greatly appreciated if someone would double-check those numbers. T v x1 16:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
See a relevant discussion at Talk:Naomi_Osaka#Accessibility where users are removing accessibility features, making the site hostile to the blind. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I've recently gone through and added draw links where missing to the ATP and WTA season templates, e.g. Template:1997 WTA Tour. They were already used for every season starting from 2009 [2], but for the most part weren't added to earlier years, probably due to it being a bit tedious (I made a template to solve this). However, my additions were reverted once by another editor, so it is worth bringing here for discussion. My view is that they make navigation much easier, e.g. if I'm looking at 2019 Monte-Carlo Masters – Singles, and want to see how a player fared in the other Masters tournaments that year, I can navigate directly to the respective draws rather than having to go through the main tournament pages first. The links also serve another purpose: showing editors which draws still need to be added, for example compare the 1984 WTA Tour template without [3] and with [4] the links—editors seeing the former would get the false impression that our coverage of the season is complete. For these reasons I think we should stick with the long-standing consensus from recent years' templates and keep the links. Any thoughts? These are some of our most visible templates, so it's worth getting it right. -- Somnifuguist ( talk) 16:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
With the help of Mad melone, I've published a tool that generates the draw sections of tennis tournament articles from their respective ITF printable URLs (e.g. go to a tournament [5] -> select singles/doubles, main draw/qualifying -> click print [6]). In tandem with an article template like Adamtt9's here, it should allow us to rapidly add all the missing draws articles from the open era, thereby filling in the red links in the above-mentioned season templates like this one. -- Somnifuguist ( talk) 08:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The tool has now been used to create ~400 articles on the German wiki, which shows its potential should someone choose to use it here. Somnifuguist ( talk) 03:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I have proposed that Big Four career statistics be merged into Big Three (tennis), or alternatively re-named and adjusted as appropriate. Input to the discussion here is welcomed, thanks. Crowsus ( talk) 19:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
In relation to the proposal above, user:Fyunck(click) and I are in disagreement over the intended content of the article. Broadly speaking, they feel the vast majority of content originally in Big Four (tennis) should be included, and I do not - more at the current discussion here. Although not explicitly stated as such, my interpretation of the merger discussion in October/November was that it was a more popular opinion to embrace the Big Three concept more fully and mention the Big Four concept more in passing, in the same way that a Big Five had been mentioned on the older article. Fyunck(click) thinks Big Four details should be included more fully from the merged article. I think there will need to be some tidying up either way, but as a middling observer of tennis I think this is an important and enduring topic that deserves a good quality article with consistent information - at present it's half Big 3, half Big 4 and readers might be confused. Notwithstanding Fyunck(click)'s status as a longstanding member of the project while I'm an interloper, some input from the other members on what should be included in the Big Three article would be appreciated; we can then move forward with changes to the related Statistics article as appropriate. Thanks very much. Crowsus ( talk) 21:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
A request for comment is open regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguation in relation to articles on sports stadia here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC Naming convention for sports stadia. Input is welcome. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 20:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Letting Tennis Project know that a move discussion at talk:Wimbledon, London has spilled over to include moving The Championships, Wimbledon to simply "Wimbledon". They at first moved it unilaterally but I complained that neither Tennis Project nor The Championships, Wimbledon talk pages were informed prior to the move. It was reopened. I'm actually not sure how I feel one way or the other, but I wanted our editors who do care to have the chance to express their opinions on that particular aspect of the discussion... especially since it's the most important tournament in tennis history. Again it's at talk:Wimbledon, London. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 07:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I would like to propose a change to current wikipedia policy on which sources are and are not allowed on wikipedia tennis pages. Currently the rule on self-published sources seems to be being administered unfairly by one editor who discriminates against Amazon published books. More and more good books are self-published these days. Particularly for the pre-open era pro tour, nearly all the sources are self-published. Currently some are allowed and some are not allowed, with Amazon-published works not being allowed by him. Perhaps the editor in question fears the opening of the floodgates if we allow all Amazon published works as sources, so let me set his mind at rest by proposing the following solution.
Amazon published works should be allowed as wikipedia sources under the following rules for minimum standards of entry:
Publication has an Amazon Sales Rank in five different countries.
Publication reviewed or recommended by a magazine or an established expert.
Publication accepted into the Kenneth Ritchie library at Wimbledon.
Author may not cite own work. Tennishistory1877 ( talk) 10:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a very easy way to check. Just email the Wimbledon library and the librarian will tell you if a book is in their library or not. They are very good at responding. I have posted this proposal on the page suggested by onecamera and have received support from Karoly Mazak and krosero. Tennishistory1877 ( talk) 14:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Currently this policy you constantly quote is being administered by you, Wolbo. I think you are skating on ice if you think your own very prejudicial judgement should be allowed to decide which sources qualify under this rule or not. I have already considered the issue of "plugging" my own book which is the reason why I stated authors could not cite their own work. My proposal isnt about any one book. This is about all books meeting minimum standards including the verification by experts. I prefer the verification of experts to the prejudicial judgement of one wikipedia editor.
Let me quote again the remarks you made in a talk page on this subject Wolbo. "No offence to anyone who has taken the effort to publish something but any idiot can self-publish (and it seems a lot of them have). Fyunck's view that "something is better than nothing" is simply wrong if it doesn't meet the requirements set out in WP:V, WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUB (which are not static but evolve with community consensus). It is a minimum standard that cannot be compromised. If we allow Mazak's "book" (and I use the term loosely) we might as well determine the rankings ourselves and that is aside from the question about the encyclopedic merit of judging in 2010 that Gore was the No. 1 ranked player in 1877.--"
In writing the paragraph above, Wolbo, you lost all respect in my eyes. It was full of spite, jealousy and bias and the last sentence was utter nonsense. You allow Ray Bowers to determine 1930s rankings in 2005 but you do not allow Karoly Mazak to do so in 2010. Tennishistory1877 ( talk) 23:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I have followed procedure on this and gone through RFC on sources. Without pre-judging the final result, it looks as if my proposal on establishing set rules for tennis sources will not carry. Editors from other subjects like the existing rule as it is. The problem is this leaves us with a major issue on these tennis pages and I do not know what the answer to it is. I would like a proper debate on this.
One editor, Wolbo, has taken it upon himself to be the sole arbitre of what sources are allowed and what sources are not. His judgement has been shown to be very prejudicial. If we debate books on a case by case basis then me trying to get my own book accepted as a source will be seen as me having a vested interest.
I find Wolbo's remarks on Karoly Mazak's book offensive for a number of reasons. Firstly, if we look at the page World number one ranked male tennis players we find rare sources for the early years and who did the research to find these sources? Karoly Mazak! This is the same person that Wolbo mocks and calls his book a "book" in inverted commas and says he might as well decide the rankings himself if we allow it as a source. Well where is your book Wolbo? Where is your research?
This is what the late Alan Little, former honorary librarian of Kenneth Ritchie Wimbledon library said about Karoly's book: "This is a tremendous effort and undoubtedly a fine document for future reference. The summary of each year and the ranking list attached will serve many researcher in the future. We will be pleased to put a copy on our shelves."
The problem is, the tennis history community is very small. The same person that writes a book edits on wikipedia. Someone who has a prejudice against amazon published books also edits on wikipedia. Who else regularly edits?, its mainly you fyunck, you may be the only one without a bias on this issue. I am not prepared to accept that Wolbo allows some self-published sources such as Ray Bowers, Robet Geist and tennisbase, while disallowing others. McCauley with all his many errors is allowed but my book with much more data and far fewer errors is not. Ray Bowers' retrospective rankings are accepted but not Karoly Mazak's. There is no justification that I can see, both Bowers and Mazak are the same.
I have always respected your expertise with technical issues (page formatting, etc.), Wolbo. You have more knowledge on how to format an infobox or a ref tag correctly than I do and I will be the first to admit that. You do have some knowledge of tennis history, but you are not someone I would class as an expert. And even leaving myself out of the conversation I have known experts. For example some of the data in my book comes from someone who adds data to the ATP website. I know how he researches (I have similar methods myself) and he is someone I have a high regard for as an expert, gathering data (some quite obscure) from libraries all over the world. Wikipedia editor Krosero is a researcher and someone who I have high regard for. And Karoly Mazak, who I have already mentioned.
A lot of people laugh at wikipedia tennis pages, mocking their lack of accuracy. My attitude is different. Wikipedia pages show up high on google searches. Do we want the pages to be as accurate as possible or do we want them to be rubbish? I say we should make them as accurate as we can, because a lot of people read them and it is important they receive the best information. I have spent some time (over the past year in particular) making them a lot more accurate. And whilst I do acknowledge the large number of tennis pages you have edited over many years Wolbo, improving the formatting, correcting spelling and grammar etc. and in some cases the content also, it is about time you showed myself and other tennis historians some respect for what we have done. I do not bow to any self-appointed authority you think you have in deciding sources on wikipedia. I would like suggestions of how to resolve this. Tennishistory1877 ( talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma ( https://internazionaliparma.com/) and Internazionali di Tennis Emilia Romagna ( https://internazionaliemiliaromagna.it) are two very different tournaments but at the moment they are in the same page. The former is a Challenger 80 ($52.080) held indoor in Parma city at the PalaRaschi (the main sport arena in Parma) on hard surface. The other one is a Challenger 125 ($156.240) held outdoor in Montechiarugolo, a suburb of Parma, on red clay. The only thing they have in common is the same organizer (MEF Tennis Events). Therefore a new page would be necessary for Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma, as Italian ( it:Internazionali di Tennis Città di Parma) and German ( de:ATP Challenger Parma-2) wikipedia have. Carlo58s ( talk) 13:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Djokovic–Federer rivalry for WP:GAN. Kindly edit and help improve the article.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 09:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Knockout brackets in sports events has a suggestion against adding a flag to the next round in draws before a match between players from the same country. PrimeHunter ( talk) 01:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Category:2020 ATP Tour currently includes:
Doubles is sorted before Singles because D is before S alphabetically. Most tournament articles are sorted like that. I think it should be opposite:
The number 1 comes before 2, singles gets far more attention than doubles, and singles is mentioned before doubles in nearly every context (if doubles is even mentioned). Small bonus: "Singles" is narrower than "Doubles" in proportional fonts so it looks better visually, and readers can more easily connect articles about the same event. All articles already have sortkeys to remove the year. I suggest sorting the word "Singles" as "1", e.g. 2020 Astana Open – Singles as "Astana Open – 1" (or optionally "Astana Open - 1" with hyphen instead of ndash). This places it between 2020 Astana Open and 2020 Astana Open – Doubles without having to change their current sortkeys. If somebody also sorts 2020 Astana Open – Doubles as "Astana Open – 2" then it's OK but not necessary. The same principle works in categories like Category:2019 Miami Open where 2019 Miami Open – Men's Singles can sort as "2019 Miami Open – Men's 1", and 2019 Miami Open – Women's Singles as "Miami Open – Women's 1". PrimeHunter ( talk) 15:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Can someone familiar with professional tennis look at the recent changes to Abu Dhabi Open? A pair of new editors suggest the event has a new name or new organization.
If they are correct, the information that they removed may need to go on a new page and the current page renamed.
If they are trying to hijack the article, then of course it needs to be reverted.
Here's the diff from January 13 to 22 February: [8]
Also, it looks like something changed in or before December 2020, when the page was moved. Here's the diff from December 19, 2020 to February 22, 2021: [9] davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 14:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
New to wiki's editing interface, so I apologize if this isn't the place to put this. I noticed an error in the tournament brackets of the 1983 Australian Open Men's Singles Tournament (link: /info/en/?search=1983_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles). The edit seems fairly straight forward to fix, but I'm unfamiliar with the coding for the brackets on that page and couldn't make heads or tails of what to change.
The Error: In Section 3, the scores are flipped in the second round match between M Davis and R Meyer. Currently, it shows that R Meyer won this match and went on to the Round of 16; however, in reality M Davis won this match. This is verified by the external links (ATP) and sources cited for the page, so appears to be a clerical error. It can be confirmed here ( https://www.atptour.com/en/scores/archive/australian-open/580/1983/draws?matchtype=singles) that M Davis did win that match. The scores and outcomes in the third and fourth rounds are correct, but they show R Meyer where M Davis should be.
Again, I hope this is the right place to put this, if not please let me know and I'll do what I can to move it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadPlayer91 ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I see that the "Template:Tennis hall of fame Australia" was just created and put on the bottom of the appropriate articles such as Rod Laver. Just how many bottom templates do we need? Couldn't this just be a listed category? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 10:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Category:Fed Cup and sub-cats have been nominated for speedy renaming according to Billie Jean King Cup. Please comment at WP:CFDS within the next 48 hours if there is a good reason not to proceed. – Fayenatic London 11:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia( talk) 01:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Cbl62 ( talk) 19:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
(in italian) nel 1925 due sorelle irlandesi di famiglia altolocata vinsero il titolo italiano di doppio femminile, si chiamavano Maud e Margery Maquay: credo che siano enciclopediche, di loro si possono trovare poche tracce nelle biblioteche ma da voi in Irlanda dovrebbe esserci molto di più.. -- 2.226.12.134 ( talk) 15:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
in 1925 two Irish sisters from a high-ranking family won the Italian title of female double, they were called Maud and Margery Maquay: I think they are encyclopedic, few traces of them can be found in libraries but in Ireland there should be a lot of more..
Diane Evers to Dianne Evers. I put it up for RM because there was minor controversy twice before, but with even her facebook page spelling it Dianne I think it's time for a move. Either way join in please. Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
A RFC is underway which might have a considerable effect on the usage of flags in the articles in this WikiProject. Any input is welcome and you can join the RFC here. T v x1 00:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
It has been raised at a recent AfD that playing in the Junior Fed Cup (and I suppose by extension we ought to include Junior Davis Cup in this) provides a presumption of notability under WP:NTENNIS. I can't see any mention of this on the current version. Was this previously the case? Should there be a presumption of notability for maybe playing in the final or semi-final of such a junior event? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion about the addition of detailed ranking tables to GS event pages has been started here. Any input would be appreciated. -- Somnifuguist ( talk) 13:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey, there. I was going through the day-by-day summaries of the previous editions of the French Open and it basically does not say what it clearly is for someone, who is reading the main page of a given year for the first time. My point is, the article is about the order of play for tennis matches being played on the main threes stadiums: Court Philippe Chatrier, Court Suzanne Lenglen, Court Simonne Mathieu. So, why not change the name to 'Order of play summaries' or 'Daily match summaries', which clearly says what the article is about, rather than having to guess what it is about. I would like for the other editors to weigh on the matter and help reach a consensus. Do I change the articles' name, or not? Best, Qwerty284651 ( talk) 02:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Sky News are reporting that a Russian tennis player has been arrested at the 2021 Roland Garros (why no article?, I'd have thought one would exist). Mjroots ( talk) 11:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that at Template talk:Infobox tennis tournament event an editor put in a request to change a template without a discussion here first. Since it affects hundreds of articles that didn't seem right. It came about because of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes and affects the order of the events in the infobox at articles such as 2021 French Open. When listing champions, what should be the best order? I don't think anyone has any issues with mens singles/womens singles/mens doubles/mixed doubles be listed first. It the order after that seems strange. When looking at the wheelchair events, to me it should be mens singles/womens singles/mens doubles/womens doubles/quad singles/quad doubles. The mens and womens singles and doubles have the same requirements, whereas the two quad events have higher restrictions. They should come last imho. Another editor has suggested it be mens singles/womens singles/quad singles/quad doubles/mens doubles/womens doubles.
The second issue I noticed... why the heck do the wheelchair events come after jrs? Wheelchair tennis is professional just like mens and womens singles, doubles, and mixed. It seems to me the boys and girls jr disciplines should be at the very bottom. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes that could affect 100s of articles. I'm not sure why it's over there rather than here or at Template talk:Infobox tennis tournament but that's the way things are. Two items: where to place the newer wheelchair quad events, and also the order of senior, wheelchair, junior, and legends in the infobox. Since it will be the order on all the Grand Slam tournament articles (such as the current 2021 French Open infobox) I feel everyone should know what's being discussed. Cheers. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 03:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
A discussion about whether to split Grand Slam (tennis) has been started here. This is quite an important topic to this project, so any input would be appreciated. — Somnifuguist ( talk) 07:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey everyone. Newish editor here. I was looking through the Category:Tennis matches page and I do think we need to have a discussion about the notability of maybe 1 or 2, if not more of the matches. Based on the WikiProject guidelines, the match needs to have more coverage "compared to other tennis matches at a similar level." Based on this, I want to ask why we've created/stuck with certain articles, going from what I consider to be the worst offenders to borderline cases.
Obvious cases
2018 Australian Open - Women's singles final: I fail to see any sort of reason why this is a more notable event than other major wins. Yes, it was a long final, but that's not necessarily out of the ordinary. Yes, Wozniacki won her first grand slam, but that's notable for her, not tennis. No real records were broken... if that was the only criteria, Hingis-Capriati in 2002 should have its own article (which I'm not opposed to). Finally, just by googling, I can't find any sort of coverage that isn't just your standard coverage of the event. This definitely should be nominated for deletion.
2015 Wimbledon Championships - Men's singles final: The article lists it as being a significant part of the Federer-Djokovic rivalry, but again, press coverage doesn't exactly highlight this match. It's certainly not more notable than the 2015 U.S Open final, which I don't think anyone is arguing to deserve its own article. It deserves mention in the Federer-Djokovic article, and nothing more.
Borderline
2014 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final: As a tennis fan, this was a pretty good final that I remember watching. I don't see the necessary press coverage to back it up though. It's considered to be one of the best matches of the 2010s though and is reflected as such on many lists. It also signaled the rise of Djokovic on grass. So more borderline.
2009 Australian Open – Men's singles final: Kind of the same thing as above... a significant part of the rivalry between two players, a great match considered to be one of the best of its generation, and more importantly this article does have the press coverage to suggest that it really did shape public opinion of Nadal and Federer. However, still has to do only with normal coverage. Borderline.
2012 French Open – Men's singles final: Yes, Nadal broke Borg's record here. That is pretty significant. However, we don't have an article for Federer breaking the Sampras/Renshaw record, and I personally don't think there's enough outside press coverage for that article either. Borderline.
I think that's about it. Please tell me what you guys think... I post this here just in the interest of fostering discussion. Thank you! Jonaththejonath ( talk) 21:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I’m not very familiar with tennis wikipedia pages. So help would be appreciated. Thanks. Sahaib3005 ( talk) 20:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Greetings from WP:WikiProject Women in Red! Starting 1 July, we’re going to have a three-month focus (July, August and September) on the women of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Your participants are warmly welcomed to join us for the event, documenting as many women as possible; additionally if you have relevant lists of red links that we should encourage participants to take up, we’d love to know. Thanks very much!-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Something was brought up at our Tennis Guideline talk page asking to include a chart documenting how the project handles walkovers and retirements in a our draw charts. There appears to be some inconsistencies in our articles. I'm posting it here in case others disagree with the chart being proposed or has advice as to where we should place it. Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I am proposing that the Event section, in this case, on the 2021 Wimbledon championships page, and in other yearly grand slam articles henceforth be categorized into subsections, such as:
for better aesthetics and easier navigation, for example. There used to be one jumbled up mess, where all of player's entry info and ranking tables on the main XYZ grand slam page of any given year, but then a consensus was reached and the excess info was moved into its corresponding draws, however, the editor who made the change, forgot to divide the draws in the Event section into subsections, which would consequently make it easier for readers to skim through, when looking for the right draw to click on.
There was an attempt to change the appearance by adding the aforementioned subsections, but was quickly removed, since no consensus was reached because of lack of interest. So, here I am starting this discussion again this time on the Tennis Wikiproject so, that other editors will weigh in on the matter in hopes of reaching a consensus this time around. Qwerty284651 ( talk) 11:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Tripped over a category of errors: Category:Pages using infobox tennis tournament year footer with an unknown event - Turns out, most are failing when adding a "sub-nav" portion to the main InfoBox. So, at least "after_name" does NOT work when populated with SAME name as current article. (TemplateFix#1 - on the Template's Talk Page)... Question #2 (for THIS page); Is adding this secondary 'infobox nav' part of a standard? (I am not seeing it, but it exists on roughly 50% of the "Tournament by Year" articles? See: 1884 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Singles as recently "fixed" article (adding "sub-nav"), and 1895 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Singles as article with pre-existing "sub-nav" ... - Mjquinn_id ( talk) 20:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, this is probably petty, but the early Wimbledon Championship event pages seem to need an "s", as in "Championships" for the Infobox Event Nav to work. This would require changing the names from 1881 Wimbledon Championship - Singles to 1881 Wimbledon Championships - Singles - EVEN THOUGH these were technically "single" event, which I figure is why they are named just "championship" (singular)?
You need to goto 'Edit' then change type=no to type=mens; then show preview (see the singles link looking for the 's'?
I am still trying to get "men" to ONLY show singles and "mens" to include the doubles... Mjquinn_id ( talk) 21:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
{{Infobox tennis tournament event|1881|Wimbledon Championships
to {{Infobox tennis tournament event|1881|Wimbledon Championship
, along with |type=mens
achieve what your looking for? —
Somnifuguist (
talk)
21:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
type=singles
. Alternatively, you can put type=no
to hide that section altogether. The ladies' doubles red links are a still an issue, but I don't think it's worth adding another option for just those years. —
Somnifuguist (
talk)
08:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
We're starting to see a couple of articles ( Emily Arbuthnott and Naho Sato) appear for players where their main claim to notability is getting a medal in a Summer Universiade. Where does this stand in terms of WP:NTENNIS and WP:SPORTCRIT? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I noticed regarding the Russian opponents of the 2020 Summer Olympics in certain player's article (such as Alexander Zverev) were using the flag of Russia, but really? Russia were banned from World Championships so as the Olympics. Russian athletes would have to use ROC instead. Just because the ATP/WTA tours using the flag of Russia does not inherit them the same in the Olympics. Accordingly, I believe should be used instead.
e.g. Karen Khachanov rather than Karen Khachanov in Zverev's article. Unnamelessness ( talk) 04:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I have proposed a new userbox. This is really just a clean-up with documentation. I also have to bump my template edits to get Template Editor rights... I have placed a new version (with documentation) at Template:User WikiProject Tennis/sandbox, that I would love your comments at Template talk:User WikiProject Tennis on before it gets published. Mjquinn_id ( talk) 15:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. First of all great job everyone on creating such wonderful information about tennis players. However I was wondering why on the Tour Records page Change and Becker are missing from the youngest winners. I expect there are a couple of others younger than 18 as well. If there is a date cut-off e.g. 1990 then this should be clearly stated. Even better would be a true "All-time youngest winners" where Chang and Becker and others can be seen. At the moment it is simply misleading. Regards. ConanTheCribber See /info/en/?search=ATP_Tour_records
I have founded several illogical performance timeline tables following the cancellations of China Open and Wuhan Open. This is an example that I copied from Aryna Sabalenka career statistics.
Tournament | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | SR | W–L | Win % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grand Slam tournaments | |||||||||
Australian Open | A | Q2 | 1R | 3R | 1R | 4R | 0 / 4 | 5–4 | 56% |
French Open | A | Q1 | 1R | 2R | 3R | 3R | 0 / 4 | 5–4 | 56% |
Wimbledon | A | 2R | 1R | 1R | NH | SF | 0 / 4 | 6–4 | 60% |
US Open | Q2 | Q1 | 4R | 2R | 2R | 0 / 3 | 5–3 | 63% | |
Win–Loss | 0–0 | 1–1 | 3–4 | 4–4 | 1–2 | 10–3 | 0 / 15 | 21–15 | 58% |
Year-end championships | |||||||||
WTA Finals | Did not qualify | NH | 0 / 0 | 0–0 | – | ||||
WTA Elite Trophy | DNQ | RR | W | NH | 1 / 2 | 5–1 | 83% | ||
National representation | |||||||||
Summer Olympics | A | Not Held | 2R | 0 / 1 | 1–1 | 50% | |||
Billie Jean King Cup | PO | F | 1R | SF | Finals | 0 / 3 | 10–6 | 63% | |
WTA 1000 | |||||||||
Dubai / Qatar Open | A | 1R | A | 3R | W | QF | 1 / 4 | 8–3 | 73% |
Indian Wells Open | A | A | 3R | 4R | NH | 0 / 2 | 4–2 | 67% | |
Miami Open | A | A | 2R | 2R | QF | 0 / 3 | 4–3 | 57% | |
Madrid Open | A | A | 1R | 1R | W | 1 / 3 | 6–2 | 75% | |
Italian Open | A | A | 1R | 1R | A | 3R | 0 / 3 | 1–3 | 25% |
Canadian Open | A | A | 3R | 1R | NH | 0 / 2 | 2–2 | 50% | |
Cincinnati Open | A | Q2 | SF | 3R | 3R | 0 / 3 | 7–3 | 70% | |
Wuhan Open | A | A | W | W | NH | 2 / 2 | 12–0 | 100% | |
China Open | A | Q1 | QF | 2R | 0 / 2 | 3–2 | 60% | ||
Career statistics | |||||||||
2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | Career | |||
Tournaments | 0 | 5 | 23 | 24 | 12 | 14 | Career total: 78 | ||
Titles | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | Career total: 10 | ||
Finals | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | Career total: 15 | ||
Hard Win–Loss | 0–0 | 11–7 | 35–13 | 32–13 | 23–7 | 15–6 | 9 / 50 | 116–46 | 72% |
Clay Win–Loss | 0–0 | 0–0 | 4–5 | 5–5 | 6–3 | 13–3 | 1 / 16 | 28–16 | 64% |
Grass Win–Loss | 0–0 | 1–1 | 7–4 | 2–4 | 0–0 | 7–3 | 0 / 12 | 17–12 | 59% |
Overall Win–Loss | 0–0 | 12–8 | 46–22 | 39–22 | 29–10 | 35–12 | 10 / 78 | 161–74 | 69% |
Win (%) | – | 60% | 68% | 64% | 74% | 74% | Career total: 69% | ||
Year-end ranking | 159 | 78 | 11 | 11 | 10 | $8,019,347 |
I just cannot figure out why the NHs are merged across different tournaments? Just because they are listed coincidentally together? I don't see they have the same to the columns of A(bsent)s. Instead of such illogical designs, it should be like:
Tournament | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | SR | W–L | Win % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grand Slam tournaments | |||||||||
Australian Open | A | Q2 | 1R | 3R | 1R | 4R | 0 / 4 | 5–4 | 56% |
French Open | A | Q1 | 1R | 2R | 3R | 3R | 0 / 4 | 5–4 | 56% |
Wimbledon | A | 2R | 1R | 1R | NH | SF | 0 / 4 | 6–4 | 60% |
US Open | Q2 | Q1 | 4R | 2R | 2R | 0 / 3 | 5–3 | 63% | |
Win–Loss | 0–0 | 1–1 | 3–4 | 4–4 | 1–2 | 10–3 | 0 / 15 | 21–15 | 58% |
Year-end championships | |||||||||
WTA Finals | Did not qualify | NH | 0 / 0 | 0–0 | – | ||||
WTA Elite Trophy | DNQ | RR | W | NH | 1 / 2 | 5–1 | 83% | ||
National representation | |||||||||
Summer Olympics | A | Not Held | 2R | 0 / 1 | 1–1 | 50% | |||
Billie Jean King Cup | PO | F | 1R | SF | Finals | 0 / 3 | 10–6 | 63% | |
WTA 1000 | |||||||||
Dubai / Qatar Open | A | 1R | A | 3R | W | QF | 1 / 4 | 8–3 | 73% |
Indian Wells Open | A | A | 3R | 4R | NH | 0 / 2 | 4–2 | 67% | |
Miami Open | A | A | 2R | 2R | NH | QF | 0 / 3 | 4–3 | 57% |
Madrid Open | A | A | 1R | 1R | NH | W | 1 / 3 | 6–2 | 75% |
Italian Open | A | A | 1R | 1R | A | 3R | 0 / 3 | 1–3 | 25% |
Canadian Open | A | A | 3R | 1R | NH | 0 / 2 | 2–2 | 50% | |
Cincinnati Open | A | Q2 | SF | 3R | 3R | 0 / 3 | 7–3 | 70% | |
Wuhan Open | A | A | W | W | NH | 2 / 2 | 12–0 | 100% | |
China Open | A | Q1 | QF | 2R | NH | 0 / 2 | 3–2 | 60% | |
Career statistics | |||||||||
2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | Career | |||
Tournaments | 0 | 5 | 23 | 24 | 12 | 14 | Career total: 78 | ||
Titles | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | Career total: 10 | ||
Finals | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | Career total: 15 | ||
Hard Win–Loss | 0–0 | 11–7 | 35–13 | 32–13 | 23–7 | 15–6 | 9 / 50 | 116–46 | 72% |
Clay Win–Loss | 0–0 | 0–0 | 4–5 | 5–5 | 6–3 | 13–3 | 1 / 16 | 28–16 | 64% |
Grass Win–Loss | 0–0 | 1–1 | 7–4 | 2–4 | 0–0 | 7–3 | 0 / 12 | 17–12 | 59% |
Overall Win–Loss | 0–0 | 12–8 | 46–22 | 39–22 | 29–10 | 35–12 | 10 / 78 | 161–74 | 69% |
Win (%) | – | 60% | 68% | 64% | 74% | 74% | Career total: 69% | ||
Year-end ranking | 159 | 78 | 11 | 11 | 10 | $8,019,347 |
Any thoughts? Unnamelessness ( talk) 04:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Using the color #696969 isn't distinct enough to tell it apart from regular black. It just looks like something is subtly wrong with the table, like when someone makes the font size of the whole table smaller for no reason. It would be better to just leave it as black. I also don't see why #696969 was chosen when anything as light as #767676 is still compliant. But even that wouldn't provide sufficient contrast with black. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 20:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Please stop by the conversation about implementing our pre-existing workgroups into the {{ WikiProject Tennis}} template. Here. Mjquinn_id ( talk) 20:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand the creation/usage/purpose of the many individual "Player" Navboxes being created? I am assuming there was a discussion that I missed, but it does not seem to be here in the archives? (Maybe I could see the top ten "GOAT" candidates or so, but we have drifted from that...)
Template changes are getting out of control now. It's one thing to have a player template for the most renowned players but it's quite another to make the for everyone. Plus we have several "retired" editors who insist on making them non-accessible for sight challenged readers and are adding tiny little icons all over the place. They are changing the color backgrounds of players on their own set of rules of favorite playing surface too. Plus they are adding the templates of say, Serena Williams, to the bottoms of other player pages and draws just because she may have played doubles a few time or participated in an event. It's getting out of control. We need to take some control of this before I can't keep up anymore with reverts.
There are so many issues with Serena Williams it's hard to count. Colorblind issues, tiny icons, minor tournaments added, format change with no consensus, trivial court surface buttons everywhere, etc... Per Wikipedia Nvigation Templates: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects". These navigation templates are sort of an option instead of putting a player's name under the "See also" section. When a player is in the finals of a tournament we don't want their whole history template placed on the draw page. Their name and article is linked all over the draw so it become overkill. We may need to put this in our Project Guidelines if this gets anymore out of control. I'm doing the best I can in fixing or reverting them but it ain't easy. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Top Seed Open. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 15#Top Seed Open until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone here know anything about this tournament? Should it have its own article, or was the redirect to Lexington Challenger correct? Please discuss if you are familiar with this subject. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey, there I am proposing we completely remove the following table from this event
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2021 BNP Paribas Open men's singles rankings table
|
and all related tables of this type for Masters tournaments. In my opinion, it is pointless to have them in the event pages for each of the 4 categories per Masters tournament every year, which is excessive Either move them to their respective draws, like we did for the Grand Slams [16], or stop using them altogether. I get it, newcomers want to keep track of the rankings during the tournament and update regularly. But risk of engaging in edit wars and for what? The rankings are updated weekly on Mondays throughout the year by the ATP and WTA Tours, respectively, anyway. So, all this match scrambling to find the right defending points and new points and now putting into account the adjusted rankings because of cancelled tournaments is too much. Too many edits over so little. And besides, there is a website that does just that (what many Wikipedia editors do, update said rankings table per XYZ Masters relentlessly) updates regularly, on a per player-win basis for all 4 categories: men's and women's singles and doubles. To summarize, either:
rather than having it take up unnecessary space in all of 9 Masters tournaments' main article's Wikipedia pages. That is my proposal. I am inviting other editors to weigh in on the matter, so common ground is reached. Qwerty284651 ( talk) 08:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Was wondering if with a Brit having won the US Open those editors who've made it a thing over the last 9 years to select (for no discernible reason) just 1 East European woman in the entire encylopaedia for diacritic-stripping could let her have her fully spelled name back? In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I have come across numerous sites, both generic and individual specific, that make all manner of claims to records that are either not correct or imply something more than it is. The key issue underlying this seems to me that the records are not properly qualified. While there is some separation into Amatuer and Open eras that is not always an appropriate fit so if we are talking about the current Masters tournaments or the reintroduction of tennis at the Olympics as an official tournament then we should make clear that this was only possible from 1988 and if a record is being claimed for also winning the mixed doubles in this period of the Olympics it should also be specified, where that is different to the general date, when that occurred (e.g. 2012). The same applies to Grand Slam claims. If one holds (and has made clear the argument for exclusion) that the FO was not a Grand Slam tournament until 1925 then the first time that the "Grand Slam" could have been achieved was 1925 and that should be stated. This also applies to variation s on the theme such as career slams, surface slams (1978 if all four majors have to be won as well) etc. So "Grand Slam" records were not and are not "all-time" records. They were and are records established pertaining to a set of criteria that was only made possible at a certain time. Now that is different from records that may relate to "Grand Slam" tournaments (I prefer Major as this term confuses the individual tournaments with the specific definition in respect to attaining all four 'Majors' but accept it is an approved term by the ITF) - these (once defined/justified as that for the relevant period) could be claimed to commence in 1877. So, for example, the record for the most Majors did commence in 1877 and it is an all time one, the all time record for the most AO did commence in 1905 etc. By being more disciplined in this we can: - help avoid the ongoing additions to sites for claims that are incorrect - qualify records, where appropriate, to understand the period to which they pertain - better focus on earlier achievements (records) that were achieved but have been effectively superseded by a record, the combination of which didn't even apply to them Antipodenz ( talk) 23:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Don't see a notification about it here but there is a discussion ongoing at WP:NSPORT on whether Fed Cup and Davis Cup participation should be removed from the notability criteria for tennis players.-- Wolbo ( talk) 22:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi... I am referring to "World No.1 ranked male tennis players" article page. We are basically listing sources, who based on their judgement awarding their champion for the full year performance. ATP Player of the year and ITF World champion are two awards decided by two big sources ATP and ITF respectively. As you know, the year disrupted by COVID-19 pandemic, so no tournaments were made mandatory by ATP for players’ participation. ATP Rankings frozen from 16 March 2020 to 24 August 2020 as tour was not played (Tour was played less than half of the year). There was revision of ATP year-end ranking to ATP’s Best of 24-month ranking. ATP had awarded their player of the year based on best of 2019 and 2020 performance, which is not exactly taking into account 2020 performance alone. Very few tournaments were played by few players including Grand Slams. ITF did not announce its World Champion due to pandemic. In this case, few editors awarding World no.1 player based on single source (ATP). How to assess the performance of the player in a partial season ??. Now, An undisputed number one player for the year (without another player regarded as co-number one) is shown in BOLD and the year is also shown BOLD against the player. My proposal is to make the year un-bold by the virtue of partial season for any player. We need to add no.1 for that player if the season is played without any disruption or suspension. e.g. The year 2020 would be un-bold irrespective of player regarded as no.1 by any one of the big sources as the season was partial. Kindly let us know your views on this. Krmohan ( talk) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Also posted on Talk: 2021 WTA Tour -- I only just noticed this for some reason, but apparently the WTA tour Schedule tables have font size set to 85%, whereas ATP have font size set to 95%. This seems to be consistent across years for the ATP, but seems to have changed to 85% for the WTA from 2012 onwards. Is there a reason for this? If not (my working theory is that it was a typo that nobody noticed), I'm proposing to make font sizes consistent across ATP and WTA. I'm not sure if this is the best place to put this comment, but since this is the page I first realised it I'll stick it here and hopefully someone will note it. Also, which out of 85% and 95% should be the preferred standard?
For this version of my post, I should say that I haven't checked through all the archives in this talk to see if it was noticed or mentioned before. If so, my apologies. Still, that there's a sudden change from 2011 WTA Tour to 2012 WTA Tour suggests that it might just have been missed. I also would add that I prefer the 85% text size, but this would presumably require a lot more editing. Jimthree60 ( talk) 07:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
There has been some disagreements about how to list achievements of Grand Slam Tournament Winners on the List of Grand Slam men's singles champions page. I was suggested to come here and ask.
Following the discussion Here, I pose the question - Should each Title Double have its own table? Also, should each Table be limited to exactly that combination, or should there be double-counting? For example, in 2010, Rafael Nadal won the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. Should Rafael Nadal be added to the French Open/Wimbledon/US Open Triple, and French Open/Wimbledon Double (as part of the Channel Slam), and/or Wimbledon/US Open Double, or a combination of these? .
To give an rough indication of what having all the Title Doubles as tables would look like, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions&oldid=1016421340#Winners_of_two_Grand_Slam_singles_tournaments_in_the_same_calendar_year gives an indication.
This (LINK) is what it currently looks like. Note the Pre-Open and Open distinctions, as well as the listing of the Channel Slam as the only Title Double as a table.
Your thoughts would be much appreciated. If anyone thinks this deserves an RfC, please also comment on that. DiamondIIIXX ( talk) 05:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Pretty important change being discussed at World number 1 ranked male tennis players. It's looking like in column two, the No. 2 player will be replaced by the No. 1 amateur. If this is something you like or don't like and want to comment please do so on that talk page topic. It's an important article for Tennis Project and I didn't want anyone blindsided. Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 02:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
There is discussion at World number 1 ranked male tennis players that may or may not remove some or as some have suggested all rankings from all players. If that's the case we may need to rename the article. Please voice an opinion. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 07:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Eleven editors decided 7-4 to remove Davis Cup and Billie Jean King Cup participation from automatic notability. It has not changed in our own Tennis Project Guidelines, but keep it in mind when creating new articles based solely on those ITF team events. Some of us had thought a compromise to those players being in the main World Group of 16 countries should have automatic notability, but that did not happen. This is just an FYI to those not privy to that discussion. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 02:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
As was already mentioned on this page above, a recent discussion removed the Davis Cup and the BJK Cup (i.e. the Fed Cup) part of the WP:NTENNIS guideline for presumed notability. In short, the rationale for removing these tournaments was that some Davis Cup players who compete in Group IV definitely don't meet WP:GNG, so the entire thing should be removed. We were only notified of the discussion after a request to close the discussion was submitted, so we were largely left out of the discussion. Requests to re-open the discussion have (at least so far) been denied because regular editors of the sports notability page don't think it is necessary to notify editors who don't follow already follow that page and because the late comments from us didn't dispute the reasons for closing. If they don't like that version of the guideline, then let's develop a new one. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 16:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't like that the discussion treated the Davis Cup and BJK Cup as single entities. There are different levels of these competitions (Finals, Group I, Group II, etc.) just like in the rest of tennis (e.g. with the ATP Tour, Challenger Tour, and ITF Futures). Here is a breakdown by group...
First, the more obvious ones:
Then, the less obvious ones:
Summary:
Thoughts? I'd want to see what the editors who normally create these articles have to say in particular. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 16:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
-
One thing. The World group might not always be so "obvious", so it needs to be in the guidelines. Remember that it includes 16 teams but only eight from the year prior. The next eight have to play preliminary rounds where upsets from lesser teams happen. Players on those lesser teams may be much more unknown outside their countries. Otherwise I don't usually create these articles but your reasoning is sound. Groups 2 and 3 are probably notable but that can be quite different than "presumed notable." Fyunck(click) ( talk) 17:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
The proposal is flawed from the beginning if you ask me. For some reason only the current format is considered, which is recentism and not even presented properly. The Davis Cup does presently not have one but two World Groups and a Finals level above them.
I think the proposed guidelines are just to vague and general to properly deal with a tournament that is actually older than three of the grand slam tournaments. The Fed Cup, recently renamed to Billie Jean King Cup, is younger but equally evolved through the decades. It's too simplistic to say all players who played in a World Group match, of which the Fed Cup had two and the Billie Jean King Cup has none, are presumed notable. Two important things are ignored:
These are quite big issues and therefore I cannot support the current proposal. Moreover, in general I still believe that players who played in these cups and are notable are notable for other achievements in Tennis and that players who only ever played one match in these cups, whichever level, or not notable just because of that. T v x1 17:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#Tennis at multi-sport competitions about numerous tennis MSE navbox templates which have been replaced by Template:Infobox tennis tournament event and Template:Infobox tennis tournament year. Any comments therein by WP:Tennis members would be appreciated. Sod25 ( talk) 14:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
A move request at Talk:The Championships, Wimbledon is taking place to move any Wimbledon article titles that contain Gentlemen's and Ladies' to Men's and Women's. Not sure if we ever decided what to do about this. Back in 2009 a discussion took place to use Gentlemen's and Ladies' because that's what Wimbledon has always used, but I don't see anything since. The current invitational articles still use G&L rather than M&W, and articles before 1903 do also. Not sure who moved them to men's and Womens or why. Does anyone recall a conversation where it was decided? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 10:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Tennis,
I have some questions whether this article is a target of paid editors so I'm hoping that editors more familiar with tennis and tennis players than I am can confirm that she is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Thanks, in advance. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello to everybody! I'm wondering what is correct way of writing ITF names and how Fed Cup/Billie Jean King Cup table should look like? Most ITF tournaments are represented as ITF + name city, Country, talking about 10/15/25K tournaments, but what about higher level ones? Should there be universal template for all tournaments on the ITF Tour? Names of some higher level tournaments ex. Coleman Vision Tennis Championships (held in Albuquerque) is too long and maybe it will be better to specify the city rather? Also there are some tournaments like Copa LP Chile where saying Cope LP Chile, Chile is a little bit pointless cuz we already can see that tournament is hold in Chile. Talking about Fed Cup/BJKP chart, I can't found proper version cuz on almost all female ralated pages there are not the same chart represented in Article Guidline for Davis Cup. Davis Cup chart is for me unlegible and needs new format. JamesAndersoon ( talk) 15:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. However, 力's proposal of "X at the Davis Cup" has some merit and I'd like to see discussion on that without it being unduly influenced by this discussion. Sceptre ( talk) 03:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
– I want to move to proper name and per WP:COMMON. -- Ruling party ( talk) 15:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Does this make sense? It really should....
Suggestion: Move all team to "country men's national team" and "country women's national team".
Ruling party is still moving pages. Jevansen ( talk) 01:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Resubstituted Template:Requested moves simply so it is easier to see examples of what proposer (now blocked) intended, especially after the RM is closed. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 22:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Coming from a brief conversation at User_talk:Ytfc23#Championships ... I find things like 2016 Nielsen Pro Tennis Championships where "Championships" seems to be inappropriately plural. I just did a fix at 2015 Nielsen Pro Tennis Championship and related articles, but wanted to get more input before continuing in that direction. Back when nielsenprotennis.com existed, it only used the singular, as far as I've found (but I didn't look further back than 2015); see archived 2016 page. OK to fix these? Is there a similar issue in other championships? User:Ytfc23 suggests that maybe Brits use plural and Americans use singular. Comments? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
One more thing: on these I was working on, and probably on others, I find " – Singles" and " – Doubles" on titles, where the capitalization does not seem justifiable. So I'm downcasing those. Any objections? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
And MOS:SENTENCECAPS says When an independent clause ends with a dash or semicolon, the first letter of the following word should not be capitalized, even if it begins a new independent clause that could be a grammatically separate sentence: Cheese is a dairy product; bacon is not., suggesting that we also not cap Men's, Women's, etc., since those are routinely lowercase in sentences and the after-dash context is not to be treated like the start of a sentence. I think I'll work on downcasing all these purely descriptive topic narrowing phrases. Any objections? Dicklyon ( talk) 21:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Here's a tennis template that gets it right (not overcapping singles and doubles, but using sentence case for each linked item):
See WT:Article titles#Dash in sporting event titles. Please say there if you understand something about the meaning or history or use of these dashed titles. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a tennis/sports titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 10:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox tennis tournament year and Template:Infobox tennis tournament event have the option to lowercase singles and doubles in "Men's Singles", etc., but they default to uppercase, which results in a lot of excess capitalization in infoboxes. I suggest we just remove the option and default to following the advice of MOS:CAPS in using sentence-case heading instead of title-case. Or at least change the default, so that contexts that want the over-capitalization for some reason need to specify so. Yes? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Actually, this option also controls the links, so looks like we can't really fix it until we fix the overcapitalization in article titles. So it would be better to leave the option as is for controlling the links for now, and just fix the text presented in the infobox to be not affected by this option. Yes? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Here's a sandbox diff illustrating the suggested change. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Overcapitalization in infoboxes. We'll see what happens... Dicklyon ( talk) 05:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
lowercase
param to the infoboxes to support the capitalization style of tennis at multi-sport competition articles), as long as you're happy to update all the wikilinks so we don't link to redirects everywhere.
Sod25k (
talk)
06:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Please tell me where should information about nation's participation in World Team Tennis and ATP cup go??? Will every competition have its own page?? (I cannot believe this nonsense.) Setenzatsu.2 ( talk) 20:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Please note, the 2021 Rolex Paris Masters' content has been deleted and redirected to the main article. I think it should be restored at least in some form. Cheers, Kacir 21:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NTENNIS] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 ( talk) 15:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
In this edit, Fyunck capitalizes headings with these terms, that I had previously changed to sentence case, per MOS:CAPS. The article has citations to atptour.com and wtatennis.com, both of which do not capitalize these terms in sentences. It would make more sense to follow those, and to follow MOS:CAPS, than to use title case in these headings. Comments? Dicklyon ( talk) 06:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Fyunck says "it is longstanding consensus to use capitalization such as Women's Singles in Tennis Project articles"; but it's also longstanding consensus to capitalize "Other Entrants" and all kinds of other stuff, it seems. And to put spaces into date ranges such as 1 – 5 June (should be 1–5 June). I routinely fix such things when I find them (rapidly, using regular expressions in JWB), independent of what projects put their stamps on them. See WP:CONLEVEL about how a central consensus is not overridden by a local project consensus (and I still don't know that such a local project consensus ever existed, since nobody can point me at a discussion about it).
And Fyunck continues to misunderstand the basis of MOS:CAPS when he says you can find these terms capped "all over the place"; nobody denies that (see above where I said "I've stipulated several times that sources DO sometimes cap these things."), but the criterion for treatment as a proper name is: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. And per WP:TITLEFORMAT, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text. I don't see why he says I have "presented this a bit skewed". He went through and added caps to headings, and not in running text (where it was already pretty inconsistent). Dicklyon ( talk) 17:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
They're not proper names, they're just event or "discipline" descriptions like "300 m dash" and "men's triathlon" and "nine-ball". Should be lower case. Because this wikiproject seems unaware of WP:CONLEVEL policy and the fact that the reason it was enacted was to stop wikiprojects trying to make up their own "rules" against site-wide consensus, this should just be subjected to an RfC outside the wikiproject, e.g. at WT:MOSCAPS. 20:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish ( talk • contribs)
We keep hearing about this long-standing consensus and it has been asked for a couple of times. It is starting to sound like a unicorn. Per DL, these headings are using title case when the term is not being capped in running text of the article. WP uses sentence case for headings. In any case, Fyunck has answered the question: It may not be the most prevalent way, but it's common ...
MOS:CAPS states "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". The terms are clearly not reaching this threshold. As SMcC says, we don't cap other sports disciplines either.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
03:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
It is longstanding consensus .... I have seen the same statement before in other recent discussions where you (or anybody else) have also been asked to evidence the consensus. You only just now enlighten us by saying:
it is now longstanding consensus, not that it was decided by consensus.[emphasis added] Please! This is low on the WP:CONLEVEL compared with P&G - particularly as it clearly goes against guidelines with community level consensus (and probably policy - section headings?). I am thinking that the burden rests with those that want to keep capitalisation, since the question is contrary to P&G but MOS:CAPS also places a burden to show that caps are necessary. Capitalisation is ultimately dependent on sources (and touches on WP:V). So far (particularly considering your own "evidence"), there is a clear and strong consensus to uphold P&G. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the sentence case (e.g. "Men's singles") is probably more correct for the section headers because of MOS:HEAD, but not because they aren't proper nouns. They still can be proper nouns, and that's even more often the case when they are used in isolation. You can't just say they're not. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 20:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Support the decapitalization of these section headings per the policies/guidelines raised by those above. Dicklyon, please also start the mass-move request of tennis articles to e.g. "– Men's singles", which has precedent from the Wimbledon move, and is also the least disruptive solution to the overcapitalization problem (~5k articles needing to be moved vs. ~17k for "– men's singles"). This shouldn't need to drag out for months. Sod25k ( talk) 11:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Doubles | 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' doubles 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Doubles | 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' doubles 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Singles | 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' singles 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Singles | 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' singles 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' Singles | 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Boys' singles 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Doubles | 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' doubles 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Doubles | 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' doubles 2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Doubles | 2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' doubles 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Doubles | 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' doubles 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Singles | 2015 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' singles 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Singles | 2016 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' singles 2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Singles | 2017 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' singles 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' Singles | 2018 Badminton Asia Junior Championships – Girls' singles 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Doubles | 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Men's doubles 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Doubles | 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Men's doubles 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Doubles | 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Men's doubles 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Doubles | 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Men's doubles 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Singles | 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Men's singles 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Singles | 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Men's singles 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Singles | 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Men's singles 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Men's Singles | 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Men's singles 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Doubles | 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Women's doubles 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Doubles | 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Women's doubles 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Doubles | 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Women's doubles 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Doubles | 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Women's doubles 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Singles | 2014 Racquetball World Championships – Women's singles 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Singles | 2016 Racquetball World Championships – Women's singles 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Singles | 2018 Racquetball World Championships – Women's singles 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Women's Singles | 2021 Racquetball World Championships – Women's singles |
OK, RM is launched at Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed Doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The RM concluded consensus to move, but nothing is moved yet. We're waiting on a bot task, using a bot that was waiting for approval on a previous big move task, at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13. Now that task 13 is approved, it is expected to run by Tuesday (downcasing the Thailand Districts etc.), and at that time a bot request will be put in (per User talk:Tol#Another big move job for TolBot) for a TolBot task for these 5000 or so tennis moves. Patience. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Notification of an RfC on Peng Shuai's article. Would appreciate folk's providing input. NickCT ( talk) 16:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Couldsomeone from the project please look at this and see if they can add references. He would probably be notable DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
At Talk:2006 US Open – Girls' singles#Juniors' possessive I ask whether we really want that apostrophe on juniors' and seniors'. Dicklyon ( talk) 14:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I was informed by user ( Fyunck(click)) 01:20, 1 February 2022 Sorry per Tennis Project the dates format for American (USA) 🇺🇸 tennis athletes are different then the others , “that it is what we do by longstanding consensus”.
My reply ( talk) 1 February 2022 : Do not understand why an International tennis athlete page which has a uniform format for all athletes has to have a different date format “MON DD, YEAR” in the case of Sebastian Korda on his page. I thought Wikipedia is working towards uniformity in GLOBAL sports like Tennis . Also “updated by” date or any other date outside the infobox does not make sense to be in that format. A specific date rule does not make sense for a Global athlete page to be followed just for one country (USA) in the case that person is American, when all other pages have DD MM YEAR. Thoughts? Sashona ( talk) 16:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS/NTENNIS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:
Having occasionally updated the world rankings of tennis players in their articles, I have noticed what a tedious process this is with there being 1000s of active players ATP&WTA combined and with the existence of singles and doubles rankings. While recently editing some articles on darts players, I noticed that they use a set of templates and modules which allow them automatically update the rakings in the articles of all players with one centralized edit. I was wondering wether a similat system could be used for tennis. T v x1 17:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The main article is called Monte-Carlo Masters, but the year-by-year articles omit the hyphen up to 2007, and include it after that. (See Category:Monte-Carlo Masters). Is this intentional ot an anomaly that should be fixed? Colonies Chris ( talk) 13:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I recently read through some of the career statistics articles and found a bit problematic with the grand slam seeding sections. Made some reformatting stuff but has some disputes with JamesAndersoon. Here is one of the situation at the Iga Świątek career statistics article:
Season | Australian Open | French Open | Wimbledon | US Open |
---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | – | – | – | – |
2020 | – | – (1) | NH | – |
2021 | 15th | 8th | 7th | 7th |
2022 | 7th |
I believe the abbreviations along with the dashes are unclear to a general encyclopedia for a general audience. It is not like the timeline tables which have a key legend before the matrix, such abbreviations just exist for the don't-know-what reason, especially the short dashes. The first time I came across with that, I thought that meant Did Not Play, then I hover the cursor over the tooltips — which are inaccessible for mobile readers and later being removed because so — that referred to Unseeded. Then why everything has to be abbreviated hence everything is fine as what it stands as Roger Federer career statistics#Career Grand Slam tournament seedings? Would be very appreciated if someone could provide a WP:3O. Unnamelessness ( talk) 11:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Why you need this to be so extended?
It's normal for human eye to see something simpler and more readable, isn't it?
Just gonna add legend and problem solved.
Naturally there's a lot of editing going on with 2022 competitions, but what's with all the socks and reverts, such as at 2022 Gran Canaria Challenger – Singles? Not something I would expect at pages that just collect facts. Also, now that all (or most) of the over-capitalization in tennis articles has been fixed, how might be get the attention of editors to the fact that caps are not needed in parentheticals such as "(first round)". Are they following an old script that needs to be updated? I've reverted a few just to get their attention, but at least one of those turned out to be a sock I think. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
|
I agree. Part of the difficulty in writing a lead sentence is that the article titles in many cases (not just the 230, but thousands) are not such that they can be incorporated unchanged into a sentence. It's generally necessary to change from e.g. "– Men's singles" to just "men's singles" to make it fit into a sentence. It's worth the trouble. Alternatively, merge all the "sub-articles" into the main articles and get rid of these odd subtitled articles. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I edited 2008 SAP Open – Doubles as an example of what I mean. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
For those that don't have the page watch-listed, please be aware that WP:NTENNIS has been rewritten to remove any participation criteria, after the close of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. Jevansen ( talk) 00:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
At User talk:Dicklyon#Suggested task, another tennis editor asked for my help with downcasing "draw" and related changes. Please review there before I do much more of that, and let me know if there are any reservations or alternative suggestions. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Wolbo: reverted the addition of "draw" in a bunch, so I guess I don't need to worry about undoing. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of rankings, we have this oft-repeated notation:
Can we change it to reduce over-capitalization, and maybe replace the one-sided paren with something more normal? Maybe:
Other suggestions? Dicklyon ( talk) 06:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
If there's a problem from our project members let me know or revert, but I just went ahead and changed our guideline rows from Win–Loss to W–L. It matches what we already use for our columns and there are some who don't want the double capitals of Win–Loss. This seems the best compromise as suggested by @ Sportsfan77777: and I'm getting tired of all the back and forth. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 08:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of Roger Federer, I did this edit trying to reduce the variability into how "year-end championships" is rendered. Case, hyphen, and singular/plural variaitons abound. Most commonly it seems that "year-end championships" is used, or "Year-end championships" for sentence case. Is the singular cool, too? I didn't touch that one yet there. Advice? Dicklyon ( talk) 22:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Below is a list of the tennis "top ten" templates, taken from Category:ATP Tour navigational boxes and Category:WTA Tour navigational boxes. I can't help thinking that this is a massively long list (160 or so) and I'm interested in people's thought on these. I know there sort of things were quite popular in the early days of Wikipedia but my own view now, is that I don't find them at all useful. They're WP:NAVBOXes, meant to help readers navigate between articles, but I'm pretty doubtful that they serve that purpose. In addition most of them only get updated sporadically, so we're providing out of date information to readers. And I can't help thinking that there's either going to be a large amount of effort maintaining these for no real benefit or they're almost always out of date. My suggestion is that we have a cull of these, which would hopefully focus effort on the few remaining ones. Is anyone really interested in doubles rankings? Thoughts? Nigej ( talk) 10:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I've nominated a bunch here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Top ten male doubles tennis players templates, for deletion. Nigej ( talk) 08:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I've nominated another set of these here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Top ten male singles tennis players templates where you can comment on these templates. Nigej ( talk) 08:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
“Top ten Italian male doubles tennis players” needs to be deleted. Still showing in Wikipedia. Sashona( talk) 19:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if anyone had sources for US National Championships Mixed Doubles winners from 1887 - 1891. While I realize these were unofficial events, I was hoping to update List of US Open mixed doubles champions as there are names from List of Grand Slam mixed doubles champions not in the US Open page. Also, it would have to state those years were unofficial like some years at List of French Open mixed doubles champions. I checked The Bud Collins History of Tennis book but it doesn't have those years for mixed doubles. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 01:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
This seemed like a pretty big article of Tennis Project so I thought all should be informed of a potential move of Tennis Masters Series records and statistics. I'm not exactly sure where or whether it should be moved but maybe some here have some good ideas. See discussion at Talk:Tennis Masters Series records and statistics. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 06:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Our tennis articles, such as 2021 WTA Tour, under the "tournament" column of the four Majors, says Singles–Doubles–Mixed or Singles–Doubles–Mixed doubles. I see no need for Mixed doubles as there is only one discipline for Mixed. Do we need to add doubles here? It seems tighter to use one word for the link. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
There's still plenty, in tennis, in other sports, and all over Wikipedia. One item common to a few thousand tennis articles is the phrase "Win–Loss" in a table, where sentence case might be OK, so it should be "Win-loss", and also in some contexts where it needs to be "win–loss". So I fixed a few thousand of those (not just in tennis). Now User:Sportsfan77777 argues that where the abbreviation W-L is used, loss ought to be capitalized. I'm pretty sure that's contrary to MOS:CAPS#Expanded forms of abbreviations, but he wants to discuss it. He also says that sometimes the dash should be a hyphen; not sure how he thinks so. Opinions? Dicklyon ( talk) 07:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Tournament | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | SR | W–L | Win % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australian Open | Q2 | 1R | SF | 3R | SF | SF | 0 / 5 | 17-5 | 77% |
French Open | 1R | 2R | 4R | SF | F | 0 / 5 | 15–5 | 75% | |
Wimbledon | 1R | 4R | 1R | NH | 1R | 0 / 4 | 3–4 | 43% | |
US Open | Q3 | 2R | 1R | 3R | 3R | 0 / 4 | 5–4 | 56% | |
Win–Loss | 0–2 | 5–4 | 8–4 | 8–3 | 13–4 | 5–1 | 0 / 18 | 38–18 | 68% |
Tournament | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | SR | W–L | Win % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australian Open | Q2 | 1R | SF | 3R | SF | SF | 0 / 5 | 17-5 | 77% |
French Open | 1R | 2R | 4R | SF | F | 0 / 5 | 15–5 | 75% | |
Wimbledon | 1R | 4R | 1R | NH | 1R | 0 / 4 | 3–4 | 43% | |
US Open | Q3 | 2R | 1R | 3R | 3R | 0 / 4 | 5–4 | 56% | |
Win–loss | 0–2 | 5–4 | 8–4 | 8–3 | 13–4 | 5–1 | 0 / 18 | 38–18 | 68% |
In sources, it's overwhelmingly lowercase win–loss, and it is also so in Wikipedia (though with a mixture of hyphen and dash and slash styling). For a table heading, we use sentence case, so it becomes Win–loss. This is also commonly seen in sources. What would be a reason to cap here, when our MOS says we avoid unnecessary capitalization? I certainly didn't expect any controversy around this routine case fixing work. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, you have not explained why you think "W–L" is allowed, but "Win–Loss" is not allowed. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 18:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
See MOS:SENTENCECAPS. We use sentence case. We don't cap after a dash or colon. Tables are not an exception to using sentence case and nor is a dash. The burden set by MOS:CAPS is to avoid unnecessary caps. It isn't necessary. If it isn't capped in a sentence we wouldn't cap it in a table either. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
that's what an en dash is for – joining balanced equals
If you read the column vertically
MOS:ENBETWEEN- fair point. However I think that applies only to the meanings of the words; it does not affects the rules of grammar and casing. Eg (first example from ENBETWEEN) we would write "Boyfriend–girlfriend problems are a cause of stress." (lowercase girlfriend) not "Boyfriend–Girlfriend problems are a cause of stress." (uppercase Girlfriend). Thus "Win–loss numbers exclude ties" (lowercase loss) not "Win–Loss numbers exclude ties" (uppercase Loss), thus "Win–loss" not Win–Loss". Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Wow, lot's of comments above! Still, no one has provided what I asked for: an example of "Win–loss" being used in isolation (as in, just "Win–loss", not "Win–loss record"). To clarify, I would be happy with "Win–loss" if I saw an example from a good source, or an example of another WikiProject using "Win–loss" in a table. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 05:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, to those of you above (like Firefangledfeathers) who are still confused about which policy "Win–loss" violates, it's MOS:ABBR. To paraphrase MOS:ABBR, "Avoid making up new abbreviations. For example, "Win–loss" seems like a good abbreviation of "Win–loss record", but "Win–loss" is not used by any official tennis websites or tennis reliable sources; use the full name "Win–loss record" or an abbreviation that's used in practice: "W–L" or "Win–Loss"." Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 06:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
That's not true. It was consistently "Win-Loss" for both ATP and WTA players before Dicklyon changed it.It wasn't Dicklyon that changed it. It was in the table when it was originally added here and, I believe it was copied into the guideline from Roger Federer#Grand Slam tournament performance timeline, where it is also "Win-loss". See also David Ferrer#Grand Slam tournament performance timeline. I am sure that if I keep digging I will find more. You asked for an example. I provided it and now another two - though yes, it may not have been realised or it may even have been a concious decision when the guideline was edited (neither you nor I can say). Regardless, the guideline was inconsistent and it wasn't because of DL (though it has just been amended). If nothing else, this external scrutiny is helping to clean up a few inconsistencies. I am not pretending anything. I made a statement of fact that the guideline was inconsistent. Waving around WP:AGF strikes me as being a bit WP:POT.
"One sees many instances of such shortenings" --- Yes, that's what I am asking for.Well, that wasn't your original question (I answered that). This is a new question.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom ..."United Kingdom" is a shortened form. It is not referred to as an abbreviation. Similarly,
Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia ...[Links added in both cases] See House Un-American Activities Committee#Precursors to the committee, where it is simpy referred to in a shortened form as "the committee". At Infantry in the Middle Ages#English longbowmen, "bowmen" is used as a shortened form to refer to "longbowmen". These are all common examples of a shortened form of a fuller term and they aren't considered abbreviations (per my statement) and, if they are capitalised, it is becase they are considered proper nouns/names in their own right. Asked and answered (again). Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
"One sees many instances of such shortenings" --- Yes, that's what I am asking for. Show me those shortenings, and I'll concede!. My post immediately above answered that question. But answering your question immediately above now, see Thierry Lincou, David Palmer (squash player) and Nick Matthew. I stopped at three. It is consistently used in a table in squash as "Win-loss". Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I mean examples of something like this:
Win–Loss | 10–5 |
rather than this:
Win–loss | 10–5 |
If we had something like
Titles / Tournaments | 2 / 15 |
That's perfectly fine because it's two separate terms and two separate quantities. (i.e. it's starting "a new sentence".) There is no rule in MOS:CAPS against that. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 05:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Terms | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
W–L | Win–loss | NWS | Not a World Series event | ||||||||||||
NG50 | Not an international event | NH | Not held | ||||||||||||
A | Absent | LQ/#Q | Lost in qualifying draw and round number | ||||||||||||
RR | Lost at round robin stage | #R | Lost in the early rounds | ||||||||||||
QF | Quarterfinalist | SF | Semifinalist | ||||||||||||
SF-B | Semifinalist, won bronze medal | F | Runner-up | ||||||||||||
F | Runner-up, won silver medal | W | Winner |
@ Sportsfan77777: are you conceding now, or do you still have something you want to discuss before I get back to fixing tooltips and table headers to sentence case (without prejudice against later changes if y'all decide that all lowercase, or W–L, or no tooltips is preferable)? Dicklyon ( talk) 02:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Besides the use in the table heading, I had also downcased the tooltips that said "Win–Loss" to "Win–loss", but that was apparently not an issue. Or so I thought. Now Sportsfan77777, in this revert, is saying that "Strike Rate" needs to be capped (not "Strike rate") in a tooltip. Not clear what theory of capitalization he has in mind. I'm again shocked that this routine fix can be made cnotroversial. Can anyone explain? Does WP use title case for tooltips? See Template:tooltip. Uses in other topic areas don't seem to have an issue with sentence case (e.g. see 1966 FIFA World Cup Final). Dicklyon ( talk) 15:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a neutral way to start a discussion for three reasons:
I started a more neutral discussion at WT:MOSCAPS#Caps in tooltips. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Concerning the topic Uppercase/lowercase, it's seems to mostly come down to WikiProject vs MoS. GoodDay ( talk) 06:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
W | F | SF | QF | #R | RR | Q# | P# | DNQ | A | Z# | PO | G | S | B | NMS | NTI | P | NH |
{{abbr|TKO|technical knockout}}
. If you wanted to use SR in a sentence for some reason, you would write e.g. In tennis, SR (strike rate) is the ratio of the number of times a player has won an event to the number of times a player has competed there. If it's used like that in prose, you wouldn't capitalize it just because it's in a tooltip.
Sportsfan77777 (
talk)
08:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)I've always thought the tooltip capitalization in the key was wrong. The list below the key is meant to be a carbon copy of the tooltips, yet the tooltips are capitalized and the list is lowercase. That doesn't make any sense. It's not consistent. Either they should both be capitalized, or neither should be. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 04:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The current proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Caps in tooltips is to "Capitalize the expanded form as if it were in parentheses following the abbreviation". That would mean "win–loss" and "strike rate", but also a lot of other downcasing in tennis templates and articles. If people are comfortable with that, I can implement it (I won't do just those two). I see just above that Sportsfan is in agreement. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
W | F | SF | QF | #R | RR | Q# | P# | DNQ | A | Z# | PO | G | S | B | NMS | NTI | P | NH |
General Comment for our tennis editors. I understand that most of the poll editors here are heavy into lower case since the discussion above was posted on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters page. That's ok. What I'm amazed at lately is that tennis editors whose opinions I respect have pretty much disappeared from these conversations. I have no idea what our hundreds of tennis editors think on these issues but it seems no one cares what these articles and tables look like anymore to even voice an opinion. Maybe we should just hand off all our guidelines, charts, biographies, etc and have them handled by WikiProjectMOS, WikiProjectMusic, WikiProjectMilitary, etc. It would sure be easier to maintain if we let others handle things. It seems that everyone has disappeared lately. I don't care if our opinions differ but it's strange you wouldn't get in the game. And not just this current issue either. I realize that things have changed here a lot since I joined where we had tennis editors coming out of the woodwork, but the last year or so has been disappointing in participation. We supposedly have 245 members listed and goodness who knows how many who didn't actually plop themselves on out list. It just seems strange to me. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 07:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we should just hand off all our guidelines, charts, biographies, etc and have them handled by WikiProjectMOS— Yes please! As an AWB-wielding copy-editor-for-style over a large range of topics, I have trouble remembering all the non-MOS-compliant style quirks that every project seems to have (sports are the worst), which leads to occasional friction when I fix some style issue (eg capitalisation) on many articles in a short time (not necessarily all in one project, e.g. I might be processing articles under Category:Western Australia), only to be told that I'm wrong because "Project X does it differently" - and my appeals to WP:CONLEVEL fall on deaf ears. Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Now that some other distractions are passed, let's get back to deciding what we want to do. Here I list a few options in two categories (tooltips and table headers) that remain inconsistent. Other editors are invited to add more solution options if I haven't covered what they want (though adding options that are at odds with MOS:CAPS is not advised). Dicklyon ( talk) 23:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
(e.g. where currently we have mostly Win–loss or Win–Loss, Strike rate or Strike Rate, etc.)
(e.g. where currently we have mostly Win–loss or Win–Loss, Titles / Tournaments or Titles / tournaments)
For background, please review discussions at WT:MOSCAPS#Caps in tooltips and WT:WikiProject_Tennis#Over-capitalization still. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Fyunck(click) and Sportsfan77777: if you have other options you want us to consider, please add them in the lists where I have "Something else". Or say here if the lists seem OK or not. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Implementing 1C would be a pain. I did it for the templates that had legends already, but doing more will be hard to semi-automate. For consistency, that would mean 1A, I think. I don't know whether any "Win–loss" will show up in that process, or whether anyone but Fyunck would be bothered by that. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, there are a handful of articles still with table header Win–Loss in Title Case still (like 2B; in violation of guidelines). It still looks like Fyunck is not representing the project in being bothered by that, and there's a pretty broad consensus to follow MOSCAPS, here and in general. So I'll put those back to Sentence case (like all other table headings). If the project decides to switch to W–L, having them all alike will make that easier, too. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I suggest holding off posting your !votes here until after we get the list of options finished and some discussion going. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, I think the alternatives are fleshed out; time to poll. I'll start:
And it is MOS that has to show us where W(ndash)L is different than Win(ndash)Loss— W-L is captialised as an initialism ( MOS:ACRO), but MOS:EXPABBR says "Do not apply initial capitals ... in a full term that is a common-noun phrase just because capitals are used in its abbreviation". Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements.This is a case directly comparable to "win-loss". In examples where the two terms are not proper nouns (ie not usually capitalised when they appear alone) neither term is capitalised when they are combined using a dash. I don't see any reason to think the MOS is not sufficiently clear on this? Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Since sources mostly say "ATP rankings", "WTA rankings", and such w/o caps, I've started a move discussion on those: Talk:ATP Rankings#Requested move 2 April 2022. Dicklyon ( talk) 14:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13A, where User:Tol is requesting permission to move/rename/downcase 5425 tennis pages with his bot, per the discussion above and the RM close. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, the bot has done the 5425 article moves. I'm going to go slow on cleanup edits, learning more about regex as I go. If anyone wants to help, let me know. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I've been developing the replace expressions to clean up 16000+ tennis articles; see User:Dicklyon/Tennis cleanup JWB JSON. Please review my edits (mostly of Feb. 1) to see what these do, and let me know if you see any errors, or if you can suggest improvments. If we converge on the patterns maybe I can get a bot to finish the lot. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, 729 down, 16,000 to go. I'll stop there. Big work day on Feb. 2. Please review. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
A lot of my recent edits were incremental, as I added a few more replace rules. But all the recently edited articles should have ended up in a good place, with a few things left to fix like the occasional succession box. I mostly want to make sure there are no "false positive" downcasings, or other weirdness. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
After about the first 788 files, I get a screwup at this most recent edit]. So, work to do. Later. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
A bot request for approval has been filed: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DoggoBot 5. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
One error has been pointed out and reverted here. Since the redirect didn't get moved, the updated "previous" link make a redlink. There could be more like that, I suppose. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
-
to en dash –
?
Qwerty284651 (
talk)
22:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the patterns are not "looked up", but rather pieced together to match certain text that you want to find in articles. In this case, I'm finding over-capitalized text in articles and then creating patterns that will match it to find all articles with the same type of over-capitalization. Dicklyon, here are a few more issues I've found that you could work on (listed in order of priority):
Why don't you do a run on all tennis biographies downcasing all the links so that editors don't end up copying the wikitext for old links and changing the year to link to new tournaments, which will produce red links and therefore ongoing confusion, as redirects won't exist from the old title casing style to those new tournaments' articles. There was also an old discussion I found in the archives about changing the colour of faded text in timelines from #696969 to #767676. You could kill two birds with one stone by making those changes as well. Letcord ( talk) 07:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(\[\[[^\]]+(–|-) )((Men's|Women's|Ladies'|(Senior )?Gentlemen's|Mixed|Boys'|Girls'|Wheelchair (Men's|Women's|Quad)|Quad|Legends(')?( (Under|Over) (45|50)| Mixed))( (Legends(')?|Invitation))? )?(Singles|Doubles|Champions Invitational|Draw)( Qualifying)?(#[^\|\]]+)?(\||\])
" → "$1{{subst:ucfirst:{{subst:lc:$3$14$15}}}}$16$17
" will do it with no false positives. This should be done for all articles with
hastemplate:"Infobox tennis biography" (the bulk),
incategory:"Tennis career statistics",
hastemplate:"Tennis records and statistics" and
hastemplate:"Grand Slam champions". The color one can be done by just replacing 696969 with 767676 (the color that
Sportsfan77777 suggested as the faintest that passes accessibility guidelines, but wasn't changed to because nobody had access to the semi-automated tools).
Letcord (
talk)
17:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
\{\| *width="?[0-9]+%"?\n\| *valign="?top"? +width="?[0-9]+%"? +align="?left"? *\|\n\{\| *class="?wikitable"?\n\|\- *bgcolor="?#eeeeee"?\n\|'''Flag (I|i)con (K|k)ey'''\n\|-\n\| *\[\[List of IOC country codes(#Current NOCs)?\|List of National Flags\]\]\n\|\}\n\|\}\n
" with nothing with JWB for the articles in
this search.
Letcord (
talk)
00:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
\| *(SF|F)-(B|S)
" with "|$2
" for the articles in
this search will do that new task, though I note that you made the relevant change to {{
Performance key}}
[28], so I hope there is consensus for it (I see the merit in both formats, personally).
Letcord (
talk)
08:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)@ JamesAndersoon: You've been undoing some of these case fix edits, possibly by editing slightly old versions. Most of these have been undone by an IPv6 user, and I undid one (you'll need to reapply your intended updates). Dicklyon ( talk) 17:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, i thought to let you know about these move requests, since they are generically deserted by editors. I thought that posting here could maybe draw someone interested to take a look at them. Cheers. 79.42.106.116 ( talk) 16:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Cleveland Challenger
Done.
Sanremo Tennis Cup
Done.
Challenger ATP de Salinas Diario Expreso
Done.
2021 Città di Forlì II — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.42.106.116 (
talk)
18:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Portal:Tennis has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tennis. Thank you. Letcord ( talk) 13:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Letcord ( talk) 14:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1989 Czechoslovak Open#Requested move 16 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 08:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, i went by accident on the official page of the ATP Prague Open and found something amiss among past finals, i double check on its reported website and found nothing, apart some comments on last year Prague winners. Then i checked with the wikipage of I.ČLTK Prague Open and found something peculiar there. After checking the history section of its website https://www.pragueopen.org/history-historie i found out the reason.
I.ČLTK Prague Open is an offspring of
ATP Prague Open, that is until 2013 all past finals are correctly listed on
ATP Prague Open but since 2014 they are separated and enlisted on
I.ČLTK Prague Open, while Sparta Prague's editions are attached to
ATP Prague Open and as you can see from the aforementioned link that was fundamentally wrong. The Sparta Prague's editions were the one who should have written under a separated article.
Upon researching what was the problem here, i found out that someone (i mean here and here) wrongly wrote on ATP Prague Open's infobox that since 2014 the tournament switched venue, going to Sparta Prague, which is clearly false since again the history page says there wasn't such a switch but only continuity on the same venue under different sponsor.
So, finally and rightly, we need to divide the two tournaments by venue. In order to do this we clearly have to cut half of ATP Prague Open's past finals and attach them to I.ČLTK Prague Open. Then we need to change the title of ATP Prague Open into Sparta Prague Open, and put in there indeed all the previous Sparta Prague TK editions, 2014 Prague Open (which by the way is wrong as it should be "2014 Sparta Prague Open" which is the title currently used for women tournament which on its turn should be changed into "2014 WTA Sparta Prague Open" or unified with men's tournament in one only article. I prefer them to stay divided), 2015 Sparta Prague Open, 2016 Sparta Prague Open, 2021 ATP Prague Open and 2021 ATP Prague Open II. All tournaments correctly played at Sparta Prague Tennis Club.
There are two other problems involving Prague tournaments. As i said above WTA Prague Open is a redirect from Sparta Prague Open. I think this title is more correct for ATP Challenger tournaments and so we should cut that redirect and rename the women's yearly tournaments as 20XX WTA Sparta Prague Open and leave under the title a line to say something like "if you were looking for the men tournaments played on Sparta Prague , this is at ... "insert wikilink". OR we need to unify men's and women's tournaments played on Sparta Prague venue. I'd rather prefer to keep things as simple as possible, so i'm against unifying them. And anyway, we need to change womens' yearly tournament edition 2014 Prague Open, because that name now goes for men's tournament.
And finally I checked other Prague's tournaments since 2001 and found out only Czech Indoor Open but it was played on a different venue from the two mentioned, so at least we don't have this headache too to think about. I didn't know where to start, since one move is consequential to another, so i didn't put any template "move" or "cancel/unify/etc.." over the pages since i wanted to check here first -- 95.250.109.34 ( talk) 18:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, it occured to me while re-ordering Prague tournaments that this one 2020 Advantage Cars Prague Open has a title which doesn't exist, since MD, official website and the official bulletin of the tournament show a different name. If you're interested you can leave a comment on its talk page -- 95.250.109.34 ( talk) 00:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1992 Czechoslovak Open#Requested move 16 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 08:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I have tried to convert US dollars to British pounds on the Andrew Castle page, but it is not working. Can anyone help please? BrightOrion ( talk) 06:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking at Category:ATP_Tour_seasons, I see that the tour article and category titles refer to "ATP Tour" generally, but from 2009 to 2018 they use "ATP World Tour". Did something change during those years, or is this a naming anomaly that should be fixed? Colonies Chris ( talk) 08:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2009 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso#Requested move 3 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Challenger ATP de Salinas Diario Expreso#Requested move 3 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2009 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso – Doubles#Requested move 3 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that the article on the 2022 Wimbledon Championships still hasn't been created. I feel though that it's more than appropriate to create it, given the fact that the event has been discussed al lot in the press for weeks already. This because of a highly controversial decision to ban any player with Russian or Belarusian nationality to enter and the ATP, WTA and ITF's subsequent sanctions against the tournament. Any thoughts? T v x1 12:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I have started a draft. With feedback and additions from the WikiProject we should be able to make an article from this that is can be moved to main space. T v x1 19:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Any comments?? T v x1 11:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I have noticed that some text in some of the bracket templates listed at
Category:Tennis tournament bracket templates is too small. The text in the whole template is set at 90%, and then <small>...</small>
tags are used inside the template, reducing the size of the text below the 85% minimum threshold set by
MOS:FONTSIZE for accessibility. I removed the font-size declaration from one of the templates, leaving the small tags, but then I saw that there were more templates and thought I would ask here before continuing. Do you want to remove the font-size declarations, remove the small tags, or find some other way to fix this problem? –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
06:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
WTA 125 tournaments are played as top level tournaments and their number is increasing every year. Could competing in the main draw in one of the top professional tournaments be an important criteria area for Tennis figures? Vecihi91 ( talk) 23:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I was recently changing a section header into a lot of tournaments' Singles and Doubles page, so i went through any single page of them in the ATP, WTA and Challenger circuit. Not only in the last years, but also way back in time. And they are pretty much the same. They are essentially a copy of the draw linked at the bottom, (which you cannot dispense of in any case since you need a source to back the wiki-rewritten draw). Apart from that, there are info on the seeds, qualifiers and such which are repeated/copied from the yearly page of the tournament. The lead is the most discomforting of them all. Usually is in the form "X was the defending champion. He defended the title defeating Y a-b, c-a, a-d" with little expansion over the tournament development at all.
This is actually the standard of the ATP Challenger Singles and Doubles page. Hardly you'll find something more.
In the ATP/WTA Singles and Doubles page, there's occasionally some elaboration related to a player retiring, or some sort of statistics about being that the 100 masters win of X player, and such. This elaborations though, are present on few tournaments, while the overwhelming rest has usually the Challenger's treatment "X was the defending champion...".
Now i saw the argument "the lead will be expanded in the future" mentioned when this issue was recurringly brought to the attention of the project. I can mention one of such prominent case, during
Estoril Men's singles page's AfD. It was said it needed to be expanded from the Challenger's standard and guess what? in 18 years it stayed the same 2 lines.
So, i think this project need to face that apart few cases, the whole (ATP WTA and Challenger) Singles and Double articles will stay the same 2 lines, and will not be expanded. You can check for yourself. Just to give you an example, let's see the case for 2021: ATP has 10 Tournament's Singles articles with leads exceeding 5 lines, (excluding Grand Slam and Olympics), WTA did better with 12-13 articles but many were around 6 lines. The ATP Challenger had 0 Singles and Doubles articles exceeding 2 lines (well, to be fair maybe 10 went up to 3) out of 147 Singles page.
And just like that, we need to figure it out what to do about. They gave redundant information, the most article size is taken by copying a link into a wiki-draw, and the rest is copied from yearly edition of the tournament.
Proposal
I think those articles should not be made anymore. All the info they have is already in the yearly edition. I think we should add the official draw links there and dispense with the standalone Singles and Doubles pages altogether.
In the case some relevant and encyclopedic news are coming up, those can be added into the usually short lead of the yearly edition page, maybe under a Development section, if one want to make them stand apart, which anyway won't constitute a size problem at all for the page.
That is valid for ATP/WTA and ATP Challenger Tour.
About Grand Slam pages, since they involve much more players and are divided into more competitions ( singles, doubles, mixed, boys,...) and there is usually a plethora of news coming up, (not to mention their Single pages usually exceed the 20 lines) in that case also for WP:SIZE reasons too, it's better to have those as standalone page. But i strongly suggest to regroup them by category, i.e AO Women would include both previous Women's Singles and Doubles pages, so for Men, etc... The mixed page would remain as standalone page, of course, since it hasn't the requisites to be included in any of the category mentioned. And this model should be valid also for the Olympics pages.
This proposal would have the effect of eliminating the superfluous repetition of the same info over and over (up to four time alone in the singles and double pages: lead, infobox, draw, and external link), and freeing resources to be used on more effective practice and needed articles improvements. Opencross ( talk) 00:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis be
renamed and moved to
's-Hertogenbosch Open.
result: Move logs:
source title ·
target title
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Rosmalen Grass Court Championships → 's-Hertogenbosch Open
I see the trouble here. The official name of the tournament is a sponsor name "Libema Open". So, according to internal tennis project guidelines, only yearly editions can bear the sponsor name in the title, but not their main articles.
Well, we have a good example of how to do it correctly with
Cincinnati Masters.
It's actually known with its sponsorship name "Western & Southern" and it's held in the city of Mason, OH. Does it get called "Mason Masters"?? No, it's called "Cincinnati Masters".
So, leave Rosmalen in the location into the infobox (like it's done for Cincinnati Masters) and change Rosmalen into 's-Hertogenbosch in the title of the main article. As for the apex in the name, the official wikipage of the city has already solved
the problem, and just using some semi-automatic bot, AWB for example, it can be easily changed into all the previous wikipages.--
Opencross (
talk)
21:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing regarding at Talk:Internazionali_di_Tennis_Città_di_Forlì regarding the tournament's history. Any additional input is welcome. T v x1 14:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Lately i saw no categories are used for ATP Challenger Tour tournaments draw pages. I went back to previous years, and it's pretty much the same pattern. So far the proportion is 98% with no categories apart from "YYYY ATP Challenger Tour" alone, to 2% with them (few i have been making, and some other which are mixed tournaments Ch/ATP or Ch/WTA). On ATP and WTA pages it's pretty much the opposite with a reversed proportion. Also over there is even used prevalently the category "YYYY Rfgndgo Open" under tournaments draws pages, which is pretty specific, and it goes against historic practice of using "Rfgndgo Open" category some years ago instead, as i checked. I'm not going to see if there is any unofficial guideline about it into the previous 20 archived pages in here, but please if you have a link to where it was discussed, then provide it. Thanks. -- Opencross ( talk) 15:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
With the grass court season underway and watching some of its coverage, I took a look at the Wikipedia coverage of the Nottingham tournaments. Under the impression that we had articles on three separate tournaments, I stumbled on the fact that a major merge of Nottingham Challenge into Nottingham Open, without any prior discussion. Thus I decide to revert, but I was immediately re-reverted and my action was added to an ANI complaint. Note that the ATP lists the Challenge's finals seperately.
With that complaint now resolved, I decided to start this thread to try to finally clean up these articles. Nottingham Challenge is now a redirect. Nottingham Open incorrectly claimed that it was replaced by the Challenge in 2009, even though that tournament didn't start until two years later. Notttingham Trophy claims it deals with a tournament that started in 2009, yet the results tables, list men's tournaments all the way back to 2004. I have been digging through archives and did indeed find draws of Challenger which took place in Nottingham in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. There is no indication whatsoever that these were editions of the Nottingham Trophy. In fact, I even found two earlier editions ( 2002and 2003), though these took place on hard courts.
Any thoughts on what the correct facts are regarding the Nottingham tournaments? T v x1 14:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
We also need to remove the prose on the Nottingham Trophy article that mentions it starting in 2009, because the PDF draws linked and the article page itself has results back to 2004.
If nobody has any further objections, I will move the incorrect tournaments out of the Nottingham Trophy and into a separate article later today. Adamtt9 ( talk) 11:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)