Talk:ATP Masters 1000 tournaments

Event order
Pretty much every article we have is always done chronologically yet this article is done in reverse. It looks very strange to see 2023 first and it should be changed to our normal order. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, we can either retain the chronological descending order OR have it be in ascending, but then someone is going to make a Current finals section, thereby adding litter with another unnecessary section, instead of keeping to a single one, for the Masters winners. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I like both formats to be honest. Either way I agree the current finals should be at the top. BTW, Shanghai is not cancelled for 2023, that was clearly a typo from an ATP editor. ForzaUV (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ATP's FAQ lists Shanghai as cancelled. Albeit early in the season I'll take their word for it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a typo, read the question on their page, it's about 2022, they even mentioned no-points Wimbledon in the same sentence, that's for 2022 as we still don't know what AELTC decides for 2023. Shanghai will be played this season, https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-drop-covid-tests-inbound-travellers-jan-8-2022-12-28/.


 * The current final is not on top of any other set of lists, no matter what tournament we go to. There is no need for the current event to be on top unless it's in an infobox. I looked at the edits and prior to March 17 of 2022 it went in chronological order with no one messing with it. It worked fine. Then editor ForzaUV moved only the 2022 to the top for a reason that eludes me. Then on October 6 Qwerty284651 changed the order altogether to non-chronological, which goes against all our other articles. A very strange set of edits in my book. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed the order from ascending to descending to avoid having 2 sections for the same thing. And besides Forza UV is an advocate of listing years in lists, tables, and so forth, from latest to oldest, not from oldest to latest. So, I compensated for his preference, whilst also omitting the excess "2022 finals" section. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That was when me and Letcord made a proposal to merge the two masters articles. After the articles were merged I realized that the merger process resulted in so many tables and sub-sections in the (Results) section that readers had to scroll so much especially on mobile to see the finals of the current season. I put the finals of current season in its own section temporarily until the end of the season. Then I guess Qwerty wanted only one section for all finals so he reversed the order. I'd say the most logical and practical option is to keep the current finals in its own section and have the past finals ordered chronologically. Basically we go back to this format. ForzaUV (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What I would do then is put all the finals in chronological order, including the now past 2022. But I would add a "see most recent season at 2022 ATP Tour Masters 1000" at the top of the results section, where readers would get more detail. This article is an overview of ALL the events, not just the most current season. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Current finals" is a more fitting name for the section if we decide with that route. WTA 1000 should follow the same order when decided upon it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fyunck's suggestion works too actually. I'm still leaning towards having the current finals in it's own section but we can't go wrong either way. What we can all agree upon is we need to put the list in chronological order. ForzaUV (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The lists already are in chronological order, they go 1990–2023 or 2023–1990, which we are both chrono. orders. The former being ascending, the latter descending...the question is do we want the tables in ascending or descending order. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Chronological, by definition, is earliest first. When I see "current" I automatically assume it is on-going. It should be in chronological order like every other tennis table at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It is better to be chronological and the way it is done in other articles (e.g.Champions by year from 1990 to....). The current champions are already getting updated in the tournaments section after event completion. That is sufficient to indicate the latest Masters champions. Ongoing may not be required. Rest everything can be in chronological order for standardization, I think... Krmohan (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse, you have to add doubles champions also in the tournaments section for defending champions.. Krmohan (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding doubles champs would be overkill. The table's already wide enough. They can always check the 2022 subsection for latest singles AND doubles winners, which is sufficient. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why only Singles is there in the table..Other information like prize money etc may not be required. The existing order is not at all correct and consistent in my view. Krmohan (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean in tournaments section... Krmohan (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I know the table's info and arrangement is not consistent and I've been meaning to tend to it, but I just haven't gotten the time to do it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Qwerty284651 What's the issue with the table info? I think it's fine and as you said adding the double champions would be an overkill. They could be added of course but we'd have to remove one or two other columns, maybe the court capacity or even the venue. If you're going to do it you can also merge the the tournaments and country columns into one to save space, using a flagicon instead of the country name. ForzaUV (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , I propose the current table's modified, so it resembles the WTA 1000 one. And ditch the defunct tournament's info from the table, since it's already in the section's prose. Why ditch them? Because the WTA had 20 different tournaments over the years. Imagine having all in the table. That would add clutter for no reason. The goal is to keep our readers informed of the current events. If they're interested about the defunct/inactive events, they can always read about it in the prose. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your reasoning here, you want to ditch them because of the WTA tour's structure? Why does that even matter when this article is about the ATP tour and its tournaments? The doubles champions can be added but no need for wholesale removal. Could you work on it in a draft first? We'll make it work together. Edit: I made my minor contribution, you can add the doubles champions and it should be perfect I think. ForzaUV (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Qwerty284651 Fully agree with your views Sir. Krmohan (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I added the doubles champs and restructured the table, so the winners are displayed first and then everything else. The defunct tournaments rows pertinence to the table are up for debate. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @ForzaUV, we can remove the "edition" column by adding the years next to each winner, singles and doubles. Also I merged the same surface and draw sizes for succinctness. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's cleaner to have the edition in its column. I understand why you merged the same surfaces and draw sizes but I feel it's better to have the info of each tournament in its own row especially for that row-highlight template when added. Do you remember how it's done? ForzaUV (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See mw-datatable. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I remember we used to do it differently in the past but then stopped working for a while with the promise that it would be fixed. 'Row hover highlight' template seems to be the solution they came up, it's only six months old. ForzaUV (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The only difference is that, in order for the row highlighting feature to work now is you have to add  before a table as well as the necessary class mw-datatable. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is weird that only this article is not in chronological order. All other articles (refer "See also" like WTA 1000 tournaments, List of ATP Tour top-level tournament singles champions etc.) are elaborated in a chronological order (i.e. from 1990 to 2023). Krmohan (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Post-expand include size issue
, are the newly added nested templates in the results sections in most of the yearly Masters articles from 1990–2023 the possible cause of the recent exceeding of the WP:PEIS limit on the page? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I know too many nowraps with whitespace can cause text overflow in CSS. Why all the new nowraps anyways? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pindrice prefers to have longer names be displayed on 1 line instead of 2.
 * I relocated the efn templates in the results section in 2020 and 2023 articles suspecting they were the cause of the issue. We had the same issue back in November, which was fixed by replacing #if:1 and trim with . Qwerty284651 (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Solved the issue by replacing {flag} with {flagg|cxxlo} in the broadcasting rights section, I didn't see at first. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that at the bottom or I would have said we need a different fix. Those flag icons are not allowed to be there for the countries. They are for individuals sports nationality only! Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the flags against guidelines. There were also some in the first chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , see relevant discussion on WP:VPT. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope all works now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything has been taken care of. Thank you. Qwerty284651 (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Article name revert?
Ok so I had changed the article name three or four weeks ago to the name the ATP has used for fifteen years... ATP Masters 1000 tournaments. Just like the ATP 500 tournaments and ATP 250 tournaments are. Today it was reverted with no reason given as to why. A head scratcher to me as this seemed like a no brainer when looking at the ATP logo for the event. Why wouldn't we use what the ATP uses? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Since there is no negative here I'll move it back. It's been seven days. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fyunck(click), I do not know what you are referring to. At least, the source must have been linked. The article is about the series, not about the tournaments. In fact, I prefer names of other articles to be ATP Tour 500, ATP Tour 250, ATP Tour Masters 1000 etc., which means latest name of the series, rather than adding tournaments at the last (which have been changing).  ATP logo indicates ATP 500, ATP 250 etc. or ATP Tour 500s, ATP Tour 250s for the tournaments in the ATP website.  Any other opinions from other editors/readers are welcome. Krmohan (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the difference is that you are talking about. The article is about the ATP Masters 1000 tournaments. Whether you call them series or tournaments it doesn't matter, it means the same thing to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fyunck(click) I simply can not agree with you. I already explained the difference and anyways, your point is also not sourced. As per you, if both are same, change is not required at first...Let us listen from others..Cheers.. Krmohan (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually my point is the only real source. Every tournament has the same moniker.... "ATP Masters 1000." What it was, "ATP Tour Masters 1000" has no different meaning but that term has been deprecated for awhile now. You mentioned in an edit summary that it's all the events since 1990. That creates different problems with the article title if you are trying to encompass many name changes. The only time the tournaments had "Masters 1000" in them was 2009-present. From 2000-2008 it was only "Masters." From 1996-1999 it was "Super 9." From 1990-1995 it was "Championship Series." Before then we had the "Grand Prix – Super Series" but that series was more garbled and the number of events fluctuated yearly.
 * The ATP 500 tournaments went through the same transitions, being the "ATP International Series Gold" events from 2000-2008, and the "ATP Championship Series" from 1990-1999. Yet we have a separate article for the time frame where we don't with this article. We have at least six name changes for these events since 1990. There are multiple ways to handle that situation. We could have six articles, each encompassing the given years of existence. From 2000+, since they all have Masters in the title, we could create an article from that time period called "ATP Masters tournaments." But encompassing all the events since 1990 would usually incur the latest name only, "ATP Masters 1000" tournaments, with sections and name changes within the article so that readers know the name has changed through the years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fyunck(click) Thanks for your explanation. When series name is changing, one can not justify the article's name. In this case, it is better to indicate the article name to the name of latest series or general name like "ATP Masters". In my opinion, adding "tournaments" may be apt for 500 or 250 series, need not be required for the "Masters" when it is already there in the articles name. This article's name is well established over the years, that's why I do not see any need for this change right now. If at all required, better to be simply "ATP Masters" to cover events since 1990 from ATP's series organisation point of view, when the tournaments are fluctuating. If no other editors/readers have any opinion, I am not averse to this (yours) title....Cheers... Krmohan (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But, since there is 250 and 500 terms in similar articles, to not have any articles with the official and common term of 1000 should be a no go for a title. I can see not using the term "tournaments" though I think it's clearer, but "ATP Masters 1000" needs to have an article, whether it's this one or a separate article from 2009-present. Heck our own guideline career charts require the use of "1000". Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fyunck(click) Yes, agreed. ATP Masters 1000 tournaments can be a separate article. From 1990 to 2008 may be separated as there are significant changes before and since 2009 from ATP. But it needs wide consensus. What happens, if current tournaments are added with one more grass-court event, making it 10th Masters. Until then, title to be the same to avoid any redirects etc. and hence, change of name is not warranted in my view. Krmohan (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)



Article split?
, there used to be 2 ATP Masters articles: ATP Masters Series, containing a list of 1990–2008 winners, and ATP Masters 1000, containing the winners from 2009–onwards, before they got merged into the current ATP Masters 1000 tournaments article (see archived discussion).

As for as wide consensus is concerned. It took just 3 editors to agree on merging the then 2 articles in March 2022. Therefore, splitting the article back into 2 shouldn't get a pushback as one thinks it would. Note: the above merger proposal wasn't taken to the Projects's talk page. If it had been taken, it would probably have had a bigger discussion with the outcome most probably being the same.

We could take this potential article split to project's talk page if the need for that arises. Per WP:SIZERULE an article should be split if it exceeds 100kB or 15,000 words in readable prose size, which this article does not (see here). Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Splitting the article would require a follow-up split of Masters-related navboxes. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ATP Masters tournaments
 * ATP Masters Series tournament winners
 * ATP Masters Series tournament doubles winners


 * This is probably a Project-worthy discussion, but as you said it may not change the outcome. Tennis is always so convoluted on tournaments and series.... I don't think any other sport has these issues. My question is why those split dates? This article has Masters in the title but there were no Masters prior to 2000? The term Masters was for the year-end event. Whey wouldn't we have a split of 1990-1999 and 2000-present? There is no question there was a monumental shift between 1989 and 1990, but afterwards the shifts were more modest. The big difference from 2008 to 2009 was that Hamburg was out and Shanghai was in and Madrid changed dates. Well we had that in 1994 to 1995 also with Stockholm out and Essen in. In 1995 to 1996, Essen out and Stuttgart in (though they were both Germany). What 2009 has going for it is that all the tournaments have been stable since that time. Overall I'm not sold we need a change from the current article. Things are similar enough to include them all.


 * What I'm more concerned with is the ATP uses logos for each level of events. ATP 250, ATP 500, and ATP Masters 1000. Everyone who watches tv sees them day in and day out. Usually we would use the current common name of the tournaments unless it has a sponsored name or is a one-off event for a single year. These have been stable for awhile so couldn't we just use them? For readers clarity we have "ATP 250 tournaments", "ATP 500 tournaments", and we should also have "ATP Masters 1000 tournaments". We explain right up front that the historical names were different so that's good. Heck we could make it more concise by calling them "ATP 250 tennis tournaments" so readers see right off the bat it's the sport of tennis, but I'm not sure we need to go that far. We could make them less concise and title the pages "ATP 250", "ATP 500", and "ATP Masters 1000" but I feel the word tournaments should be there. Those are my thoughts unless someone convinces me otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fyunck(click), I think the split occurred because "1000" was added to the mix and ranking points across the board were doubled; for Masters it went from 500 to 1000 (not the best source for this topic but it at least provides some clarity). As you said, the term "Masters" had been around for awhile by then, even before the 1990s there were the Grand Prix Masters Series,...
 * I agree with you that adding "tournaments" does help the reader understand what the article's about based off of the title alone. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When I look back through old newspapers I only see Grand Prix Super Series, not Grand Prix Masters Series. "Masters" only seems to be used for the year-end event. "Masters" as the individual event name seems to have occurred as this article states.... the year 2000. But I'm good with how we have it right this second. In the performance timeline columns we shorten it to ATP 250, ATP 500, and Masters 1000. I can live with that but would it be better to propose at Tennis Project changing the Masters 1000 to be like the others and call it ATP 1000? Just for the tables mind you, not the article title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * By performance timeline columns you mean BLP's performance timelines, such as, Novak Djokovic career statistics? I don't see any columns labeled "ATP 250" or "ATP 500", besides "Masters 1000" in the middle of perf. charts. Unless you meant Novak Djokovic career statistics. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. Yes in the career statistics section where label the tournament type. What's interesting is that some articles say 500 series and some say ATP 500 under the Tier column. The ladies such as Iga Świątek career statistics use WTA 250, WTA 500, WTA 1000. Our guidelines are a little fuzzy on what to use, usually what was used at the time. Maybe we should be more uniform with what we show in the guidelines and build off of Swiatek and do the same with the men. ATP 250, ATP 500, ATP 1000? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, this makes more sense. Thanks for clearing it up. As far as unifying the tier terms by omitting "Series" from "1000/500/250 ATP/WTA Series" is concerned, I am all up for it. I don't think we'll need a consensus to replace those terms in some tables, especially the Career totals sections. I consider it as copyedit. Nobody's going to mind.
 * It is a mammoth task though as it covers a lot of BLPs career statistics related pages (mind you, older BLPs don't even have ...career statistics articles A BRFA, mass replacement of series to the wanted result, should do the trick, but a list would need to be compiled first with AWB....
 * Do remember that this isn't a permament solution for the unity as tournament categories change every 10-15 years. After each category renamal, if future editors would like to retain some consistency, they'd have to go through the same process as we are planning on going through right now. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. We usually want short and sweet in that column. But our guidelines may need updating since usually new editors look there first as guidance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Our guidelines need updating on multiple fronts: Career stats, performance timelines, etc. This is going to be fun. Oh, boy. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They do but some things aren't really major changes. Performance timelines may have tournaments name changes but no real formatting changes. Even when I have made a minor tournament name change I log it asap on our project talk page to let everyone know. If it gets reverted as controversial it would never be changed back without substantial discussion. I have always tried to do that. We want transparency and let everyone know. Not what they tried at talk:MOS the other week where every tennis and Olympic article would be changed without telling a single project about the change. They tried to slip a major change in and got caught. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I will peruse in more detail our guidelines in the upcoming days, see what needs changing, improving, and start a discussion on the project's talk page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion there right now on the guideline talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)