Talk:2017 ATP World Tour

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Erick H.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Convert to 1 line format?

I think 1 line per event would be best for now. Anyone up for it? What do you guys think? Naki (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Or it should be just like the 2018 article. The bare minimum. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Gender bias in Wikipedia?

There is a 2017 ATP article. Why no similar 2017 WTA article exists? Naki (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Naki: Wikipedia is written by volunteers who choose what to work on and nobody has started an article at 2017 WTA Tour yet. You are free to start it yourself. The schedule is at http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/AboutTheTour/TourCalendar_2017.pdf. 2017 ATP World Tour was started in January. The WTA schedule was announced March 14 [1] so I don't think it would have made sense to start the article in January. By the way, the ATP article was nominated for deletion as "too early" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 ATP World Tour. It was kept and a similar WTA article seems certain to stay when somebody creates it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Another note: The editor who started the ATP article hasn't edited since January. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Laver Cup

Add Laver Cup? I mean Hopman Cup is already here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.128.214.2 (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Tournaments played for Race to London

An FYI on Federer's tournaments played. He has actually only played 4 tournaments... that's a fact. But per correspondence with the ATP, they told me that ranking penalties count as an event played. Federer received a ranking penalty for Madrid and this makes his events total 5 events for the Race to London. So that solves the mystery of the extra event listed... a penalty. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Can someone put a padlock? You know semi-protect this page. Many people change that number many times. Kleyw (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that this is still being altered multiple days. The mistake is made because some editors think only tournaments where the player physically played a match are counted, which isn't true at all. Some tournaments are mandatory once you're ranked above a certain position and you can't skip this at will. Even if you don't actually play these are counted as events were 0 points were scored. This is why the Madrid and the French Open still count towards Roger's tally. And actually Rome should count as well as that is a mandatory event, but for some reason the ATP doesn't count it for his tally.Tvx1 15:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems that Canada, Cincinnati, and Rome are his three exempt mandatory Masters since they are not listed on ATP Ranking breakdown, but no idea why those three. Maybe in some cases he officially reported being injured? Gap9551 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Remember also that age/time on the tour also count. The older you get the more exemptions allowed before penalties. Per the ATP rulebook: A player’s number of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 commitment tournaments shall be reduced by one (1) tournament for reaching each of the following milestones:

• 1) 600 matches* (as of 1 January of the commitment year);
• 2) 12 years of service;
• 3) 30 years of age (as of 1 January of the commitment year).

If all three (3) conditions are met then the player has a complete exemption from the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 player commitment. A player may not use his commitment reduction to withdraw from an event if he withdrew in any manner (including a late withdrawal or an on-site withdrawal) from the same event the previous year.

While Federer doesn't have to play the events, obviously for the points race certain ones do matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The ATP rankings remain a bizarre thing. According to the rules cited by Fyunck(click) Federer should be entirely exempt from the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 player commitment, yet his current ranking includes 0 points from Madrid and Cincinnati and even a 0 from Tokyo this year?Tvx1 00:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

There are severe penalties for failing to play events. Fines, sanctions, points, etc... Federer does not get those. But they base the Points race on a certain amount of events and certain events... Federer gets a big fat zero for events not played. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but these 0’s aren’t only there in the point race. They’re also their in his World Ranking with a drop date somewhere in 2018.Tvx1 11:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

But I don't think having a zero affects his ranking does it? That's based on total points, and whether an event is blank or has a zero doesn't really matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It does. They can only have a limited number tournaments counting for their rankings. So having some of these spots filled by a zero is something no player wants to happen.Tvx1 21:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrong flag for Nick Kyrgios in ATP Rankings (singles) table

How to fix that table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:4FB:3700:0:0:0:0 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

image authenticity

Doesn't it make sense for the images of the players to be of them during the season the article is about? Why is it just random pictures of these players? Glowparty (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Because we need free images and it isn't straightforward to find non-copyrighted images stremming for the specific season's events.Tvx1 15:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

January section

I'm just posting here to point out that the January box is now squished. It happened within past couple of days or so.

I would attempt to fix it myself, but wouldn't know where to begin. 22:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8AA3:C300:702C:DCB2:F6A3:E668 (talk)

It is a little squished... that's because someone made the photos of Rafa and Fed so large and included so much text. The text should be in the prose section as opposed to filling up a photo description. The pics themselves should also be cut in half. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem but I guess your screen displays the January table to the left of the images. I have added {{clear}} to prevent this.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tickertape news source

This article is results oriented, that is... what we put in the article stays in the article. We don't keep adding "what if" combinations into a table just so two days later we take some of the player names away. That is not the way this encyclopedia is supposed to work. It looks like consensus has been for the semifinals box, to put only the players names in that don't make it to the finals. So no names should be put in there until we know the results of the semifinals. At that point in time we enter the two losing player's names. We aren't in any hurry... when we know things we add things. That box should be edited twice at most... once when the first semifinal is over, and once more when the second semifinal is over. All the table boxes should work that way. If you need more detail then readers can click on the singles or doubles draw in the very first box. That's what it's there for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If editors want to spend their time on these updates then I don't see a problem. The players are semifinalists by the time they reach the semifinals. The column heading isn't "Losing semifinalists". I have used this information as a reader, and it's a little odd to name players who are knocked out but not the more important players who are still in. The page has 2.4 million views in 2017, and views greatly increase around the end of big events. I guess many others want updated information. It seems worth the effort for those willing to do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, we disagree because this sort of thing can spread to other topics. Certainly the column could be losing semifinalists or all semifinalists, but every other column here is losing semifinalists. You can't just have one tournament listing them all without all the others doing the same. But if you like the idea of the tickertape, add/remove/add/remove/add/remove then I'll leave it alone. However, I will make note of this decision in case it comes up elsewhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Fyunck(click) here. Wikipedia is not a news site and not a spectator's guide. The last thing this already huge tables should do is act as draws. If anyone really wants to see the semifinal lineups, they should go to the draw article.Tvx1 15:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Two of you disagreeing with the general norm that has been followed doesn't mean anything. Wikipedia is not ticker news, but what's wrong with adding confirmed lineups? 122.171.227.21 (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It just seems strange to me to add something to a table that must be removed in 24 hours. Then add something again to the same table that again must be removed in 24 hours. Ideally we would add something once and be done with it. If you need to know that level of detail, bookmark the singles draw (which is in the same row) and look there. Or go to a sports news website like ESPN. It seems I have seen this same sort of thing curtailed at other types of articles but I can't put my finger on which ones. I was simply trying to follow what I assumed was Wiki-protocol. But administrator PrimeHunter certainly knows the inner workings of Wikipedia better than I do, so I stopped reverting. As long as this type of entry/re-entry is good to go across all levels of Wikipedia, and isn't simply restricted to tennis tables, I'll look the other way and deal with other more important items. But remember... that round robin box can work the same way. If someone starts adding all the player's names to that box and then starts removing them as they move on, or starts putting match-ups in the round robin box, and they ask me about it... I would have to say that there is nothing wrong with adding names in that manner because of the semifinal box precedent. I hope it doesn't happen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's a "general norm" then I'm sure you can point to the guideline or policy detailing that. That something has been done for a period of time doesn't give us the obligation to keep doing it like that. We have every right to change what we do. More than enough reasons have been provided here to justify the change. This is just not the right article to include this information.Tvx1 23:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why is this a problem. The box says Semifinalist. Federer lost the semifinal, but in this moment Sock and Dimitrov are in the same round. Also, it has been updated the last years, and nobody think it was an issue. The fact is that only two users, think they have the rights to do their way. And it doesn't seem fair to me.Kleyw (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it follows Wikipedia Guidelines. And there aren't exactly dozens of registered editors trying to use the table for what it was never intended. Why doesn't the box always list all the semifinalists instead of only the two that fail to move on? And just because no one caught the mistake before is no reason to continue it. I happened to find the miss-use, corrected the miss-use, and was told by a couple of you that you like the miss-use. So I let the miss-use stand with the understanding that every box in the article is potentially up for grabs with all kinds of updates, including listing all players in the round-robin as soon as it's announced who's in the event. I feel it's a bad precedent for all types of articles on wikipedia, not just this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Those two users are the only ones bring any meaningful arguments in this discussion. All you bring up is "I like it" and "We done this for years". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia brings after the events verifiable facts. This is sort of article should list the tournament results after the events. This is no the sort of article that should bring hot of the needle match-ups. We have draw articles for that.Tvx1 12:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)