Talk:2021 French Open – Men's singles

Ranking tables?
I noticed the addition of a table showing detailed ranking point differentials for each seeded player. This seems a bit excessive, as the seeds and withdrawals sections already show the relative rankings of the players, and these tables if used across the board would add an enormous amount of overhead for each tournament, especially for slams where there are 9 (5 senior + 4 wheelchair) events. --Somnifuguist (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC). Update: the tables have been moved to 2021 French Open; I think discussion is still warranted. --Somnifuguist (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that these should be removed. Wikipedia is not a stats site.Tvx1 13:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed and consensus was reached. Those charts of seeds and wildcards, etc.. only belong on the individual discipline articles, never the main page. They go under the brackets. The detailed seed table was iffy that it was really needed at all since there is already a seed table above the bracket. Just look at the last four majors and see what was done. The 2020 French Open is how things are supposed to be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The "iffy" seed table is precisely what we are discussing here. The "Other entry information" section, which isn't being challenged here, along with the seed table was moved by to the main tournament article. You've half-undone this by removing it all from the tournament page without adding it back to the event pages, leaving that info now nowhere on-wiki. Also, when a citing consensus to shut down a discussion, it's best to link the talk page(s) where it was supposedly reached so that that claim can be evaluated and the discussions built upon. --Somnifuguist (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was answering hurriedly and didn't have a link to the discussion. There were a couple of discussions and some of them were done because the main article was cluttered and readers were complaining about not even being able to find out who won and event. Part of it was discussed here. And I wasn't sure if I could just undo Quertys removals or if much more reconstruction would need to happen. So I left it for others to fix. I have now moved his first removal back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for that link. I also found another directly relevant discussion here. As you mentioned, the past 4 slams have the seeds/other entry info that used to be in the main tournament article in the individual event pages instead, which works fine except for the seed tables as we already have seed sections. Consensus from the discussion I linked was unclear, which is probably why the tables were created again for this tournament. Pinging, , , , , , , , , , who participated in the previous discussions so that we can settle this. I see 3 options:

--Somnifuguist (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep the seeds/ranking points tables (ex.) in the event pages
 * 2) Move the tables (but not the other entry information) to the main tournament page, where they were for slams prior to 2020, e.g 2019 US Open (tennis)
 * 3) Delete the tables altogether

Survey
The consensus is clear to keep the tables in the event pages, then. —Somnifuguist (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 3 per WP:NOTSTATS, as the ranking points info in the tables has little lasting significance and is unsourced. Somnifuguist (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 1, as I believe the info could be useful to some, though personally I'd have no problem doing away with the tables altogether. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support 1 From previous edit wars I know the table is important to some but it does clutter the page. Personally I don't really much care for it either. If it remains it should be hidden in a collapsed table and labeled "Detailed seed chart". A huge problem with the table is no legend for the pink color plus you can't use color only to describe something on wikipedia. Those with color-blind issues can't see it. Absolutely do not move it back to the main page as prior consensus was to remove it from there, so that ship has sailed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 1 or 2 I still think the information is valuable. Especially when a player earns the #1 ranking or extends a streak, it is useful to see how they did so. Was it a narrow thing, or was it mathematically guaranteed? That is part of the narrative of an individual sport like tennis. I can see the argument about this information being "primary" in some way, but so are the results of matches, or the tabulation of results in an election — which I doubt many people would advocate removing. —Ed Cormany (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 1 I hope I am not too late to the party. I vote for the table to stay but in their own respective sections (no need for clutter). The tables are important to many editors and readers alike, plus, it provides useful information on the progress of ranking points distribution during the tournament, be it a slam or masters tournament. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

epic
It's tabloid nonsense to use words like "epic" to describe something. That isn't impartial.