Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Ranking tables in GS events

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)

In my opinion, it is unnecessary and tedious, because it is requires daily updating of 64 seeds, 32 for men's and women's singles draws and is frankly, iffy. Plus, I noticed a bunch errors from miscalculations. No need to go and remove previous versions thereof. Just let it be a lesson for future draws articles/pages. If it was me, I would just stop using the ranking tables altogether. But, hey, I am not the majority here. Let the others vote if it they want it to stay or not. If one wants to update draws, refer to this live rankings, which is pretty much the same thing just in non-wiki form. The tables should be made defunct for future Masters tournaments, as well. Keep it short and simple. Just saying. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to change the day-by-day summaries article name

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)

The content of these articles was only split off from the main tournament articles in 2017. "Day-by-day summaries" was an appropriate name for the earlier years, e.g. 2010, as they actually have substantial prose summaries of each day's matches alongside the tables, but recent years' pages have little to no prose and, while useful to us tennis fans, would probably not survive AFD if nominated as Wikipedia is not a directory. I say improve the lead sentences as you've already done for RG2021, or write daily summaries if you're interested in doing that, as the name expresses what these pages should be but currently aren't. --Somnifuguist (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. What they really need is some prose for each section such as the 2010 article. It's a true day-by-day summary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest either we stick to its true name and write daily summaries, which would be tedious and extra work for editors, but beneficial for readers, who missed the tournament and want to catch up. In all honesty, rarely who would go on wiki to read daily summaries of grand slam matches. There are separate articles for that on the official pages of both tours and slams. Or we truncate the article's name to 'Order of play', which would be appropriate, given it currently only sums up matches on the main courts of said Grand slam, be it FO, or any other major, for that matter, and nothing else. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

And editor made a request to change a tennis template

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)

Agree. Deb (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I actually made that request on this very talk page, but then removed it, because I thought it was too specific for it to be relevant here. Did not know that Tennis WikiProject was the one in charge, followed by the rest of its subsections/forks/branches, call them what you will, tennis pages relating to infoboxes, hence why I posted the question in the said template's talk page. I have never requested for templates to me modified before, so, unbeknowngst to me how the order of operations went, I posted the request elsewhere rather than leaving it here first and then upon agreed consensus go forward with make a change request. Will not make the same mistake again...Anyway...the changes also need to be made to the whole order of draws categories. My suggestion: professional (normal and wheelchair), followed by junior, followed by legends at the end. I think that is all of the draws. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

See the template talk page for context. My request is orthogonal to the discussion already being had (and which I hadn't seen) as it affects a completely different template, bringing RG in line with AO and USO which already have quads in their events' infoboxes, i.e. compare the infobox in RG with AO and USO. The broader ordering question is separate; let's not fragment the discussion further and keep it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. Somnifuguist (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a question. Do the Grand Slam events only have men's events in WC Quad? The titles for those events don't really make clear whether they're for men or women (or mixed in case of the doubles events).Tvx1 14:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It's an open classification, but only men have competed in the major tournaments from what I've seen. It's basically the same handful of guys playing each other from tournament to tournament. --Somnifuguist (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The highest ranked woman is 19th [1], too high to make it into the very limited draws at slams. Somnifuguist (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There are women's singles and doubles divisions/events/disciplines, call them what you will, for wheelchair competition, but from what I have gathered quads are only represented by men. Will have to check other slams draws to double-source my claim. I could be wrong though. AO and USO introduced quads a few years back, not sure about Wimbledon, though. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Arrest at Roland Garros

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've created a redirect. As for the arrest, this is probably best covered on the biography rather than the article for the event (don't forget about WP:BLPCRIME). Iffy★Chat -- 12:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Because in the Anglo-Saxon world it is called the French Open and thus that's where the article is located.Tvx1 14:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for matches

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)

@Jonaththejonath: Long time editor here. Overall, I think your assessment is correct. As compared to matches of similar kind, nothing at all special about those matches. My guess is no one noticed when they were created (probably quite awhile ago), and once they sit around for a bit people sort of shrug their shoulders and move on. I don't think they really deserve to be here but you'd have to put the worst offender up for deletion and see what fish you catch. If it gets deleted, then we'd see about doing a multi-deletion-request on the others... but I'm not sure which way this will go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jonaththejonath:, @Fyunck(click): I disagree with both of you. Regardless of the coverage of the press and media about the above mentioned finals. They should not be put up for deletion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No, that’s not how it works. We can’t have articles regardless of coverage.Tvx1 13:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

An AFD has been started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Australian Open – Women's singles final. —Somnifuguist (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion every Grand Slam singles final is notable enough and receives sufficient coverage to warrant a separate article and this is in not in contradiction with WP:TENNIS guidelines. The match articles should be limited to Grand Slam and Olympic finals and only for the singles events. The content of e.g. 2018 Australian Open - Women's singles final is sufficiently distinct from 2018 Australian Open – Women's Singles and there is no easy way to merge those articles. Some of the older Grand Slam or Olympic singles finals may not have enough coverage to warrant a separate article but that should be determined on a case by case basis. Apart from that I do not see a practical way to distinguish between separate Grand Slam finals which would not be entirely subjective, as shown by the examples listed above.--Wolbo (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Potential change to template "Infobox tennis event"

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)

Proposed split of Grand Slam (tennis)

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)

Help needed for Draft:Dermot Bailey

I’m not very familiar with tennis wikipedia pages. So help would be appreciated. Thanks. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red hosting Olympics and Paralympics

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)

New small chart for guideline page

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)

Proposal to subcategorize the Event section in yearly grand slam articles

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:

• Senior
• Wheelchair
• Juniors
• Legends/Invitation/Exhibition (different name depending on slam)

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)

• I agree. The senior, wheelchair, junior, and exhibition events are all quite different from each other. Keeping them all together makes this section really long, particularly if every event actually has a respectable amount of prose. I would suggest categorizing at the section level though, with this type of layout, rather than subdividing at the subsection level. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• I was thinking more on dividing the 4 events into subsections. It would not make any sense to split into different sections, because they all fall under the events main section. See example..followed by the next logical subsection order would be senior, wheelchair, junior and exhibition, and afterwards divide those into their respective subsections. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I agree that this makes navigation easier/the TOC clear, and this is already the standard format in all our older years' pages. The removal of these headers in the first place was started for the US Open by an ip in 2016, without discussion, and was propagated forward to later years of that event as editors copied from previous years pages to make the new ones. The headings were only removed from the other slams in September last year, by editor(s) citing the consensus from the 2020 US Open page [2][3], evidently thinking they had been removed from it as part of the GAN process at Talk:2020 US Open (tennis). In fact, the headers were never in the article from the first revision the events were added to it [4], as the events had (it seems) just been copied over from the previous year's page. Thus, the GAN made no determination on the headers. Given this context, it is clear that their removal, sparked by an ip without consensus, was unfounded, and they should be added back. —Somnifuguist (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Disagree. I wouldn't say that it was forgotten. It was more likely deemed unnecessary. It was triple nested in the past and the redesigner may have looked at it and couldn't even figure out why it was double nested. When you look at 2020 French Open, as long as you have the correct order, why do we need the subsections? Is it hard to find the discipline in the legend, no. Does it break up substantially different topics, no. Personally I don't see where it helps. What has always sounded strange though is the term "senior." It makes it seem like it's the over-65 tennis section. It's a term I never hear in tennis. If I separated any part it would be the exhibitions from non-exhibitions. And, if the terms are to be used, I would maintain "exhibition" for all four majors. That makes it more understandable for our readers. There might be some who don't like separating the professionals from the wheelchair section. So overall I would not agree to the change, but it's a minor disagree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with your remark on the term senior. In fact, Wimbledon calls the legends tournament for the older of its two age groups “Senior Gentlemen’s Invitational Doubles”.Tvx1 20:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Tvx1: @Fyunck(click): And do you have any alternatives for the term senior? Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Main events" maybe?Tvx1 14:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis and sports

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

TemplateQ: Infobox_Tennis_tournament_event - Errors: Before_name and After_name do not work when same as current

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)

Template discussion is at: Template_talk:Infobox tennis tournament event#Errors: Before_name and After_name do not work when same as current. —Somnifuguist (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Early Wimbledon naming

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)

@Mjquinn id: Does changing {{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)

YES! (well, kind of). I apologize, I had not caught that the title up there did not match the article... Although it would still be great if "men" singular only shown "Singles"... and "mens" plural showed doubles (same with women/womens)...Since there were no Ladies Doubles till 1913? (some 30 yrs of redlinks?) Mjquinn_id (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

We'd need to make an edit request to Module:Tennis events nav to add a "singles" option (and "doubles" for e.g. 1996 World Doubles Cup – Doubles). "men" and "mens" are treated as aliases currently, so it'd be better to leave them as is. —Somnifuguist (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mjquinn id: Showing only singles can now be achieved with 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)

Awesome, you're doing your part to make tennis on here just a little bit better each day! Thanks, Mjquinn_id (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Template changes:WikiProject banner

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)

Universiade and notability

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)

It does not meet Tennis Project guidelines, so it is not some automatic thing. They may meet GNG but they aren't part of Tennis Project so the template should not be there. To be honest, unless it is gold, GNG is doubtful. They are all created by the same editor Vecihi91 who has made a whole bunch of junior articles that had to be deleted or blanked & redirected. But he has also made good articles with players from Billy Jean King Cup teams and first-time main draw players. He seems to thrive on the edge of GNG/routine article creation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've decided to bite the bullet and put a few up for AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Player Templates?

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:Petr Korda
• Template:Aslan Karatsev Mjquinn_id (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mjquinn id: Top 10 GOAT candidates would be beyond subjective so a HUGE no to that. However to your larger point... I agree that these navboxes have become ridiculous in scope. It's as if there's a race to see how much clutter we can pile on the bottom of an article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mjquinn id: As you might have noticed, these templates of "common non-Big-3" used to look like Template:Eugenie Bouchard. My purpose in creating them was to ease the navigation (because it's only logical to surf the draws from the player's template), to check the draws (career statistics often list the wrong ones), and to list all the GS semifinalists. However, before my "evil touch" (lol) that has brought Karatsev and Bouchard into the same category, these templates seemed to be a kind of non-surfing vanity projects to generate traffic for the players' personal websites. Just to let you know. No offense. My usability-improving "job" was to make tennis tournaments (not only GSs) look easier considering all their rebrandings (that's why I've started with Navratilova and Graf, sorry to not being paid for the job, unlike the ones that track the "deleted URLs" to the players websites and erase my efforts from Federer and Djokovic templates). You can delete the people from Mordor and enjoy my touch on Template:Ashleigh Barty and other greats that nobody even has thought about creating before (because they're not playing, so nobody takes care of their traffic and legacy, imho). That's a vivid example of how little tennis is really followed compared to the other sports. No offense. Farewell. You can enjoy the templates that are made for the sake of existing, not for users. Sorry for the bitterness. Enjoy your phallometric competition. No offense, again. Sincerely, Orc from Mordor. Revolynka (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have utterly no problem with someone's efforts to create the templates. Though I wish they would at least add the WP:Tennis banner...
• I have no problem with these being on the Player's page (or even their most common doubles partner) (Mike Bryan on Bob's, Bob Bryan on Mike's)
• I even do not mind them being at the bottom of tournament finals pages (but only when they won...)
• But Template:Petr Korda on Andre Agassi's page because they won an ATP Doubles event, pretty early in his career(the 1st one)? Do you realize how many "other" players might end up at the bottom of his page? God forbid...Martina's? Listing all her doubles partners would have to be a separate PAGE!?
  • I could see Agassi on Graf's page, and Graf on his...but that would be an incredible rarity.
• My only hope, with this thread, is to try to nail down some basic guidelines as the What goes Where and When/Why?

---

I propose the following for general consideration:

1. ) Only if they have been a world #1 - not everybody. But, if you want to create your favorite player...You GO, girl!
2. ) Only on their page,
   1. ) a tournament final (by event) that they won,
      (though the links to their player's pages should already be there... and the Tournament Event Predecessor/Successor should be first). "Tournament" above player on Tournament pages... Yearly Event, then Yearly Tournament, then Tour, then player that won?
   2. ) on their MOST FREQUENT doubles partner.
      Maybe at least 25% of their total doubles together? (See Martina Nav with Leander Paes? or Pam Shriver?)
   3. ) N on every page of every player that they ever played with.
3. ) Maybe both players on certain "rivarly" pages?
4. ) leaving room for other people's thoughts...

Mjquinn_id (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• BTW, Why the farewell? Has there been a kerfuffle that I am not aware of? Mjquinn_id (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'll say this. While I think many are overkill, it is far easier to read the new templates rather than the old Eugenie Bouchard template. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  I have no issue with the look'n'feel... just trying to understand "placement" more than anything else? Mjquinn_id (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Russia or ROC

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)

Agreed. They were not allowed to use the Russian flag so neither should we. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

New UserBox (Need consensus please)

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)

The rowspaned NHs in the performance timeline table

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)

Thanks for bringing this to attention. Agree that these cells should not be merged vertically and , with the exception of NH, also not horizontally. In your version there is still an issue with the font color of NH and similar values. These do not meet accessibility guidelines and should be in black like the rest of the values to provide sufficient color contrast with the background. Also there should be consistency in usage, not NH in one case and Not Held in another. Finally, DNQ is not part of the legend, so it should either be added or not used. If it is added it should probably be listed as NQ for Not Qualified to fit into the cell and for consistency with NH.--Wolbo (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Tennis guidelines should be amended accordingly then. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This can certainly be done. I agree with NQ as it is shorter and gets the point across. As far as font color the only thing I can say is it does not have to be changed to black. Using a color such as #696969 (Dim Grey) is also compatible. I changed the very last China Open NH to that color in the above chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) According to the color tool, such color combination is still WCAG 2 AAA Compliant. Not severe, but better avoiding. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Well we also have to be careful. There is a fine line between what is safest and what is useful. The grey color we have now was used to purposefully offset matches that were played and matches that were not played. We wanted it to be different. If you make it too dark you can't tell the difference between black and grey, at least not on my screen. We don't want it to be the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I actually have no problems with the color here, but I do have some problems with the timeline table. Given how COVID-19 affected both ATP and WTA tours and the implementation of new WTA Tier tournaments since 2020, I do believe the timeline table in the tennis guideline should have a proper update. Not only can we respond to the discussion above, but also a best opportunity to guide editors what to do and, more importantly, how to do under the current circumstances. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You mean the example we give at wikiproject tennis should show current events/section titles rather than old events/section titles? That sounds very reasonable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Current examples are pretty stale to be honest. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

DNQ is the de facto standard abbreviation used on these timelines [5], so should be added to the legend unless someone wants to go back and change all instances to NQ. Fading the NHs/DNQs is a relatively recent innovation that should be rolled back, as it is haphazardly applied, harms accessibility, and is logically inconsistent—a player whose ranking was too low to qualify for the qualification rounds of a mandatory tournament literally "did not qualify", yet the 'A'bsents are not greyed out like the DNQs. If only the NHs were faded it would make sense but even then be a net-negative IMO due to the impact on accessibility. —Somnifuguist (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Have updated the full performance timeline table on the article guidelines page in line with this discussion. Have used #696969 for NH.--Wolbo (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Also the colors (font in combination with background) for the Olympic bronze medal are far from WCAG compliant. We need to change that as well.--Wolbo (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wolbo: Thanks. If you select a new colour for bronze (and Gold/Silver if necessary), I'll do an AWB run to correct all the DNQ/NH/medal colours in one go. —Somnifuguist (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Changed the Olympic bronze medal color from #CD7F32 to #E5B47D to make it WCAG compliant (compare the legend with the full timeline on the article guidelines page). Will have a look at the silver.--Wolbo (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Gold and silver medal colors seem to be complaint.--Wolbo (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Chang, Becker and others missing from youngest winners

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Tour_records

It is clearly stated in the 2nd sentence: "The ATP Tour is the modern top-level men's professional tennis circuit. It was introduced in 1990..." So there can't be anything before it was created in 1990. However what you are looking for is Open Era tennis records – men's singles where you will find Chang and becker listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)