Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

A potential new Performance timeline
At tennis guidelines a new performance timeline design was agreed upon.

→ Rephrased: Last February a new design for the Performance timeline was proposed and brought here for additional input from the community before it could get implemented. I additionally wrote it was agreed upon...I meant on at tennis guideline, but NOT here. So, once again: I am asking the WikiProject Tennis community for improvement and new ideas for the below table. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Timeline
Iga Świątek career statistics

Performance timeline
 

Comments
Now it is taken up here for further discussion and consensus from the wider community. Share us your thoughts on whether the proposed chart befits this project or we should go back to the old format. The chart was changed because it went against MOS:HEADER hence why the row headers were redesigned to meet the guidelines. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's make sure it's presented properly. The decade old chart was vetted multiple times with screen readers and MOS and had no issues. One or two here think it goes against MOS header which was designed so that screen readers would work better. Yet it was tested years ago with no issues from folks who used those screen readers. A new chart was designed anyway. It is the best we could come up with though it has not been vetted at all. It is certainly ready to be presented here, though in the discussion it is not universally agreed that we need it at all. We need some with screen readers to take a look, but we would also want those who create new articles on a regular basis to see if they like it better than the long-standing original chart. Note the SR (strike rate) column has been removed. Note also that if there is only one "team event" in that row (it's shown with two items), the height of that row will be much higher than the other rows. Such as:
 * , does the above chart comply with WCAG? Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems OK to me personally as a screen reader user, but I can't evaulate its suitability beyond that. You'd be better off asking at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility. Graham87 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Graham87, thanks. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure of a work-around for "team events" that would work. It was already shortened from "National representation" to "Team events." As an alternative chart, it is the best we could do. The comparison of what we have now is this current Iga Swiatek chart. Perhaps many will like the new chart better than what we have now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, but the linked discussion doesn’t appear to show a new design that is actually agreed upon. It appears to be just your proposal for an alternative design.Tvx1 07:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But that's sort of why this isn't an RfC. We wanted input from others here at the project. The new rendition is certainly the best three of us could come up with but it needs the vast experience of the full tennis project to weigh in. It does need those who use screen readers to test it out... probably to help others in giving an opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is why it was brought here for further review and discussion. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree I don't see any difference with the old design or any improvements. Except that the headers are on the left side instead of above. It seems a lot of work for no reason to go change just the positions of some headers. Sashona (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Why does it need to say “events”? It is taking too much space with those headers on the left and the table will be much wider as a result, especially when you add multiple years and it expands on further on the right. I do not see any improvements. Sashona (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Events columns is used to not have all single text rows, because it confuses visually impaired users, for example, Graham86, who is completely blind. Because the current format of the Performance timeline chart goes against MOS:COLHEAD and consequently WCAG, the redesign was proposed last February and its implementation in the Article guidelines is pending.


 * As far as the chart taking too much space. The text overflow can be resolved with a scrolling div. See . Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What I meant is to take out the word “events” as it expands the column. You can put it on top of the column, and then “Tournament” can be one single column, instead of spanning in two columns. Sashona (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I follow. Can you demonstrate please? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Updated Table example

Sashona (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the opening header here. This chart was never agreed upon per se. It is far inferior to our standard chart which causes no issues and got no traction for change. It was the "best" alternate chart that we could come up with at the time. Also, we had asked screen reader users such as Graham86 when the original chart was created, and they had no issues understanding it at all. That's why we vetted it at the time. This new chart is certainly worse for sighted users. There is always a balance between the best charts and when changes are required. Have screen readers gone backwards in ability to comprehend? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Fyunck(click), @Sashona, I meant the first chart: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fyunck(click), I posted this back in February with the original header. I thought it was agreed upon on the Article guidelines talk page to be asked here for more input from the community. I will rephrase it to "ideas for improvement". Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't clear... my bad if so. The wording of "a new performance timeline design was agreed upon" is fuzzy. It makes it sound like all those who talked about it agreed this was what we want and we want more input here. That would be totally wrong. Most did not want the chart to change at all and saw no reason to change it at all. But we thought this chart was the best that we could come up with that was not the original chart. We needed this alternate chart vetted to make sure it was spotless, just like we did with the original chart. Then if it could be shown that the alternative chart passes muster here, we could honestly compare it to the original chart. I just wanted to make sure this particular discussion was not a discussion on replacing the old chart, it's a preliminary discussion on whether the new chart is any good to begin with. Then we could move on with more discussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why I changed my header to read asking for input on the new chart from the community. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I was just trying to help with saving space by moving “events” word in the column header, instead of having it repeat in each row. Really improving the chart, will be eliminating the “events” column and just leaving the “Tournament” column. Sashona (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then remove them. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Records against top 10 players section is being deleted on multiple pages without consensus
Where is the consensus vote on deleting this information mentioned in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 21, I don’t see any. We need to create an RFC and bring up a vote before deleting multitude of pages with information collected for years by the contributors based on a singles opinion by user. Sashona (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Per discussions at several talk pages including Iga Swiatek, and finally at this talk page where we removed the trivial charts but kept the wins over top 10 (at the time) charts. Most of the women's charts have been done, but the men still need a lot of removal and fixes. I'm working on it slow but steady. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Tennis%2FArchive_21&diff=1210061435&oldid=1210060522 moved the above comment], which was posted after the discussion had been archived, from the archive page to the Project's talk page to revive the discussion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the timeline to get the Women’s and Men’s Win AND Loss charts done, right now you are deleting whole head-to-head Win-Loss sections and not replacing it with anything. I only see a Top 10 Wins section. Sashona (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fyunck(click) STOP deleting the section record win/loss in the players profile pages, unless you have a replacement new WP:COMPROMISE chart that combines Wins AND Losses over top-10 players. Sashona (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You have to remember most things are not handled by wikipedia-wide RfCs. They are handled by discussions. We had a recent discussion about whether to include nationality of Russia and Belarus in all of our rankings charts. Three people joined in after a month of discussions. It went a whopping 2-1 (I was the lone vote against). Since no one else joined we went with 2-1 and we moved on. It happens that way sometimes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How are we supposed to know there was even a discussion on Records against Top-10 players? I don’t see a vote, who were the people for and the people against besides you, can you tag them on here?
 * We need to vote on this, you are erasing a lot of information collected over the years. If you want to not included it in the newly created profiles that is fine but I don’t agree with deleting information. Sashona (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The whole top 10 record sections are WP:NOR. And they do not reflect the actual ranking of the opponent, who at one point was ranked in top 10 of the rankings, that a player faced off against. Sections that list the top 10 win record against actual top 10 players at the time are fine, the rest I would remove, including past BLPs and current ones. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is there for every tennis player, but it is “no original research”. I don’t understand, how do you know? We still need an RFC so we can vote to delete or not that section, since it is on all players pages. For the future new players profiles we can omit it if a decision is made to take it out. Sashona (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a form of original research as there don’t appear to be any source who seem to specifically maintain lists of wins against top ten ranked players, thus there is no proof of notability of this concept. Moreover the criterium used to define a “top ten player” is completely original research.Tvx1 07:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So if Top 10 Wins  section is original research, then why are we keeping that section but not the Records against top 10 section. I thought the whole idea of Wikipedia is to create records of things that other sources don’t have. Are you saying we should or not keep the Records against top 10 section? Sashona (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is 100% dead wrong. Wikipedia creates nothing! We are an encyclopedia. We can post stats that are already published somewhere else we don't really synthesize data into new data WP:OR. In fact we are not supposed to be a repository of stats at all WP:NOTDATABASE. Maybe that's what the problem is in these discussions, that the rules are being broken and editors don't realize that. One of the problems with the old chart, and why we eliminated it, was it was almost impossible to prove it was correct WP:VERIFY. At least a chart that is top 10 "at the time they played" can be linked and seen pretty quickly. The problem occurs when Jimbo Clodhopper starts the year winning three events and makes it to the top 10 and the rest of his 20 years career he's out of the top 200. With the old deprecated non-consensus charts it doesn't matter... he could be ranked 371, play Medvedev, and we have to add Jimbo Clodhopper to Medvedevs top 10 chart. Or the opposite when after 20 years of being ranked 300, Shelly Rackethead wins a depleted Australian Open and gets ranked in the top 10. We would now have to go back and add 20 years of her playing to every single player who ever played her, since she is a top 10 player. It's ridiculous and almost impossible to keep track of for accuracy. Wins over top 10 players at the time they played, is much easier to maintain for accuracy and non-trivial use of stats.


 * And you could be confusing two very different items. "Top 10 Wins" and "Records against top 10" are apples and oranges. The "top 10 wins" chart is at the time of participation... the player was in the top 10 when they played. Easy to find, maintain, and prove the chart is correct. The non-consensus "Records against top 10" the players could be ranked 999 when they played and still be in the chart. That's crazy and why we removed it. Andy Murrays body has sadly broken down and he's ranked 67 and about to retire. It's no accomplishment to beat him now. Yet if a minor league ITF player crushes him he would get to add Murray to top 10 defeats in the the old non-consensus chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am confused are you talking about WP:NOR? What is WP:OR? In any case all these data can be verified as we know who the top 10 players are and we know the the head-to-head for each player against those players, so that is what the chart represents. All head-to-heads for a player against players that are currently or were ranked in the top 10 before. ITF level matches are not included in this chart, only the ATP matches.Sashona (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OR and WP:NOR both redirect to No original research. Two shortcuts for the same thing.
 * What Fyunck is trying to say is if a newcomer breaks in the top 10, any previous match with any other opponent would have to be registered in those opponent's career stat pages as a top 10 win/loss which would be nonsensical and not supported by sources. Whereas, records between players who at least 1 was in the top 10 at the time of the match can br easily be tracked and verified with sources (tennis articles).
 * This is why the record against top 10 players (if it doesn't count a match WHEN that player was NOT in the top 10) has to go and ONLY count wins against top 10 players. Players with long careers (Serena, Djokovic, Federer, Navratilova) all played numerous top 10 players and listing all the losses would be make for a very long and redundant chart — that is why they are being limited to top 10 wins only. See the discussion I posted the link to below for more clarification. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you explained it better than I did. And to Sashona, we do not always know every single player that has ever been in the top ten at some point in their career. That's not always easy to look up. It's easy to look up one specific match (since it should be sourced) to see the rankings of the two players involved. So a top 10 at the time they played doesn't seem too trivial and it's easily verifiable by the link. Otherwise what you want is for us to keep watch on any player that ever breaks into the top 10, even for a week. Then we have to go back to every single match they ever played prior to that, then add the match record to every single player they ever played. And hope we don't miss one (which is likely). It's overly burdensome, overly trivial, and original research. Some might think that even a top 10 wins at the time of the match is a trivial chart, and a data repository against wikipedia policy, but at least it is easily verifiable. We try to strike a balance between trivial data and data needed by most readers. It's always a bit tricky. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If I were right, the very first action on this was started on Talk:Iga Świątek career statistics, and there was a clearly consensus on deleting the WP:OR Records against top 10 players table, and instead feature a new top-10 win-loss table as a WP:COMPROMISE. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The only chart I see is Wins over top 10 players under Taylor Fritz career statistics, for example. Sashona (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which needs to be updated to new layout. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The new layout need to include the Wins AND the Losses. Where is that chart? Right now all I see is the Top 10 Win. The section Records with Wins and Losses are being wiped out by @Fyunck(click) from the players pages and not replaced. Sashona (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is why I said "Which needs to be updated to new layout.". Unnamelessness (talk) 12:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And under Wins over top 10 players section it says: Taylor Fritz has a 20–34 (37.0%) record against players who were, at the time the match was played, ranked in the top 10. So it gives you the total wins and losses, the total head to head against top-10, but ONLY lists the individual Wins over top 10 players NOT the individual Losses. How do we check for the losses numbers if we don’t list them? Sashona (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sashona, you can find the career record of any player against top 10 players on ATP's website (records started being tracked from 1991 onwards). Taylor Fritz's top 10 win-loss record, for example. Unfortunately, WTA doesn't include those kind of career stats any more for the women. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, we should then update the old ATP source link in all pages to point to this NEW link. That also means we should list the Wins AND Losses against top 10 players since we have an additional place to check it, besides using the head-to-head and the match activity. Sashona (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would still limit the chart to wins ONLY because, as mentioned earlier, players with 15-20 year careers have played against over 300 top 10 players. Listing all of those would add up too much clutter. To avoid that, I propose to limit the top 10 charts to wins only. AND, of course, remove the record against top 10 players section as it goes against WP:NOR. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We probrably don't need the WTA or the ATP. There are third-party pages, like this one, where you can filter out records against top 10 players of any player by choosing VS top N and type in 10 on the right. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This site, for example, is the place. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we know the accuracy of that betting site? Can it be corroborated by another site? It does make it a bit quicker to create a "wins only" chart for all the players. Sadly, you can't directly link to it, but in sourcing a "wins-only" chart it would allow diehard readers to click the source to see the super trivial detailed stats they crave. That is something Wikipedia is good at; showing the encyclopedic highlights but giving the source where more detail can be found for those few who want it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * At the bottom it says "All data from ATP/WTA Live, ATP/WTA/ITF Official Websites and Sofascore." While I do consider all four sites they talk about as a reliable source, I would suggest using these instead of this one. YellowStahh (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you find that chart on the WTA/ATP/ITF websites? I can't. Taking Taylor Fritz, if you goto ATP under "Activity/Win-Loss/versus top 10" he has a record of 20-34. It doesn't say whom. I can buy that if it's 20-34 at ATP, and the betting site says it's 20-34 and also lists the actual matches, that it's probably correct. No idea what sofascore is. But then we run into length and trivia. Fritz is 26 and already a win/loss chart would be 54 rows long where with wins only it would be 20 rows long. Djokovik's win only chart is 257 rows long! Could you imagine if it had losses. The wikipedia rfc data police would run us out of town. Iga Swiatek has Wins/Losses she's 22 and it is already a lengthy 49 rows long. And the issue with an RfC is that it includes all projects and administrators. They may want half the charts on the article gone whereas we are talking about one chart gone and one chart shortened. That's why RfCs are a last resort per wikipedia. If we have to we have to. But it's one thing to include both wins and losses in the current chart, and it's quite another to include the deprecated head-to-head chart that is beyond trivial and original research. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually answered this question before, which is to use collapse wikitable to reduce the length, like Zheng Qinwen career statistics. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What I want to keep is the “head to head” or H2H record against top 10 players, wins and losses. Why do we want to get rid of that research? Sashona (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And that's a big problem at Wikipedia. We are not allowed to do original research per Policy. That chart takes a heap of effort and research and we have no idea whether it's correct or not. When you look at that chart under "number 5 ranked players", we see three players. How do we know there aren't thirteen players? There is no source for the chart. And under those "number 5 ranked players" you see Kevin Anderson at the top. They played once only... in 2020 and Anderson was ranked 122 in the world... not even in the top 100, not in the top 50, not in the top 20. That is useless trivia that requires lot's of original research to find out that he beat an old low-ranked player. If Anderson was in the top 10 it would be in the consensus chart as a victory for Fritz over a top 10 opponent. Same with number 8 ranked "Marcos Baghdatis." They also played once when Baghdatis was in steady decline and ranked 83. How Fritz does against the 83rd ranked player in the world is beyond trivial plus those looking at it will think it was a top 10 match. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The head-to-head charts have appeared in the career statistics of almost every tennis player for years. Over the years, no one thought to delete them, until suddenly the user Fyunck(click) and only this user thought that these charts were “trivial, trivial, trivial” and must be deleted. And now he thinks he can delete them all, and he's the only one who actually deletes them, with no respect whatsoever for the work of the editors who edited these charts for years.
 * This is weird. The head-to-head charts are popular, just keep them alive and stop deleting them. BundesBerti (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If they can be sourced, there's no reason not to, but I would cite WP:RANK though there is likely a more suitable outline in general notability guidelines for article content. "Notability is about having published, non-trivial information (i.e., more than a mere mention) in multiple sources independent of the subject, and the article itself not being the first place to provide the information." is the argument I would use against something deemed popular. There are also examples of other WikiProjects getting rid of "Popular content" such as the Pro wrestling project getting rid of the "In wrestling" section, while sometimes sourced really well it was left up to original research. YellowStahh (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They really can't be sourced without original research. And there is no way to know how "popular" those charts are, so that's made up. My guess is the entire article is not massively popular and a chart that shows how a player did against the number 100 ranked player has got to be way on the bottom and trivial. That's why we have sources listed, so people can go see trivial betting site info if they really want it. And we had consensus on the charts being gone, so that is absolute baloney about both only me and disrespect. I do the dirty work after decisions are made, so I do expect this type of response from some. It goes with the territory of wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @BundesBerti, @Sashona, there was consensus where it was agreed upon to remove the losses and only keep the wins in the top 10 wins chart (I am posting the link to the discussion for the third and, hopefully, the last time). So, stop disrespecting other editors. I, too, think that head-to-head charts versus top 10 have to be deleted. They are original research, backtracking for each new top 10 player win/loss would require extra unnecessary research and you have been told twice this before in this discussion. Some sections need to go, top 10 wins can stay as they can easily be sourced. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus, if there was one, was a WP: COMPROMISE according to user @Unnamelessness on keeping the head-to-head records charts for Men and Women containing “Wins AND Losses against top 10 players” with modified layout, not just deleting an entire Records against top 10 player section with no replacement coming. Sashona (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And then it came up for discussion again to be wins only. New players could have wins and losses since their charts would be like 10 rows. Once they get to a certain level the chart becomes unwieldy. Like the infobox where we use minor league ITF records until they start winning on the main tour. Then the ITF records are removed and replaced with WTA records. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Where is that discussion? Who agreed and who did not? So far just Qwerty284651 wants to keep ONLY the Top 10 wins. Sashona (talk) 02:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Alex Michelsen is a new player, I only see the top 10 wins NOT the losses in his chart. Sashona (talk) 02:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree we should keep the head-to-head charts, that are in the “Records against top 10 players“ chart. Please vote on it in the section below. Sashona (talk) 02:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Vote section
I propose a vote to settle who is in favor of keeping only top 10 wins or top wins and losses. Vote to replace or not the "Record against top 10 players":
 * 1. Replace with Top 10 wins chart ONLY
 * 2. Replace with Top 10 wins AND losses chart
 * 3. Do NOT replace the "Record against Top 10 players"


 * I vote for 1 to keep only the wins charts. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I vote for 3 to NOT replace the "Record against top players" Sashona (talk) 02:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No change - in other words, keep current consensus of top 10 wins and no trivial original research charts of records against 183rd ranked players. I guess we do this survey now (there is no voting at wikipedia) every couple of months to watch the ping pong ball. It's going to take some doing to overturn the last discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I vote for 3 to NOT replace the "Record against top players" BundesBerti (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Further comments moved to Village Pump

 * Tennis statistics, Hopefully I've pinged everyone involved, but I believe it's probably best to leave the discussion here. YellowStahh (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. Appreciate trying to resolve this. Sashona (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Making sure... you want the topic here not at Village Pump? It was confusing looking what you wrote above and what you wrote at the Pump. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is so much back and forth with accusations and name calling, I feel we move it over there and open it up to a wider bunch of editors and take out the close-nit nature of this conversation which is becoming unproductive. If we come to a different conclusion or the same one that at least will hopefully resolve the dispute here. YellowStahh (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we then close this discussion? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We could do, and then encourage any remnants to follow over on village pump, I would recommend everyone I pinged to state their case, and then hopefully we can get a bigger variety of opinion from users not specifically tied to this project. YellowStahh (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would not close it. Most discussions do not need closing. Plus tennis editors who see a purple closed discussion background pass it by as old... never reading it. It can be discussed over there but eventually it would need to be pasted here or at least synthesized here with a link to the VPs archives. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @YellowStahh I tried to get to the Village Pump, Tennis statistics but I do no see it there any longer. Did you move it? Sashona (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There'd be no point in me moving it. It'd been too long without any additional comments, the bot archived it. YellowStahh (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. Any idea where to find it, so we can see the outcome of the conversation? Sashona (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sashona You can find the discussion here Here  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 14:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sashona (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Any idea update on what the outcome of the conversation was? The way The way I read it, Wins/Losses record vs top 10 is acceptable. Sashona (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Update??? It was pretty much, one chart was totally against policy and the other two were borderline original research because the betting sites the info is gotten from is fringe/trivial and not standard sports websites like ESPN or WTA/ATP or Tennis.com. They were also looked at as likely against undue weight wikipedia guideline standards. The longer they get the more undue weight. Djokovic was far and away undue weight and should probably be wins against top 3 only. I'm hoping that "wins only" against actual top 10 doesn't get looked at as overly burdensome for most players, plus the last discussions we had here said top 10 wins only. Others have reverted you on this and it's getting disruptive... you are even adding completely trivial "loss only" tables. Move on and we'll see if the "top 10 wins" only table gets a pass from wikipedia. If a player's "top 10 wins" only starts to get too long we'll have to look at top 5 for some players. I hope not, but the policy discussion seemed to take a dim view of all those tables (some worse than others). The policy discussion didn't even look at "Best Grand Slam results details tables" or "Grand Slam seedings tables" or year-by-year "career earnings tables." We should probably be thankful for that because I doubt they would pass policy original research at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * From what I read, there was little support for ANY of the charts. So we really should ditch them. The reality is that WE are the ones giving this importance, not the sources.Tvx1 10:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The information sources are not ATP or ESPN, the sources are Tennisabstract as well as live-tennis, quite reliable and showing Win/Loss record against top 10, currently being listed on the tennis career statistics pages. Sashona (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And the policy discussion pretty much heeded them no more than a worm in the mud. They are used for betting and are not mainstream sports sources we were told and one of the reasons the two charts in question were borderline original research, and undue weight candidates. We are an encyclopedia where we take info that can be found everywhere... we are not a sports almanac. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * if I remember correctly, as far as the discussions went, it wasn't a knock on the reliability of TennisAbstract and Live-Tennis, but its the fact they're the only ones maintaining any type of available record for these statistics, so most of it falls into Original research. If it was Tennis.com, ESPN, BBC Sport and whatever other source you would like to throw in there, that also maintained these lists (outside of a few mentions of the win-loss record itself) then we could use that, as Wikipedia isn't then generating its own content. At that stage it's an established notable statistic, and Wikipedia is built on notability standards, it's why Marta Kostyuk gets an article but Mariia Kostiuk doesn't. If we are moving forward with another neverending discussion, lets not act like it's a simple straight forward "can we find a site that maintains the record I want to keep", there are multiple issues with the sourcing What Source, How It's Reported and How Many Reliable Sources are Recording the Information, are all factors to be considered. YellowStahh (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Things we need Village Pump specific help with:
 * 1) Record Against Top 10 players. We had decided by consensus to remove this chart per original research and trivial. A few now feel it's a good chart worthy of inclusion. Note that these players were not necessarily in the top 10 when they actually played each other, just at some point in their careers. Do we bring this chart back?
 * At this point, I feel it would be best for the career statistics pages to not have the "records against top 10 players" because, as discussed on numerous occasions, they represent records against top 10 players, which include matches of when the players listed were not/had never been nin the top 10, which is original research and per WP:OR should be removed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 1) Wins over top 10 players and Wins/Losses over top 10 players. These have been deemed ok by Tennis Project since they show only players in the top 10 when the two met. Each individual match should be sourced but have not been in this example. We are having trouble deciding what is a better choice without too much detail for an encyclopedia. There is some debate about whether "wins only" is consensus here.
 * I would keep the top 10 win chart only and remove the top 10 losses. What's next? The next thing you, someone's going to add more to the bloat about top 10 records, might want to throw in wins per surfaces and in tournaments, and win %...I mean come on. This is an encyclopedia not a repository of trivial stats. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Additional comments not related to subject

 * 1) Looking at an article that has most things, like Novak Djokovic Career Statistics, starting about ATP ranking and downward, is there any advice others can give about what charts could be trivial or original research? We don't want to keep coming back here. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would remove the best slam result section altogether. Best results can be found in the performance timeline. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need opinion at Village pump for this seemingly no-brainer decision. Why add clutter to an already long article. As a reader or a casual fan visiting career statistics pages, it would be in my interest to see what records wikipedia holds. By seeing clutter I would get the wrong impression that it is normal to add all sorts of info in articles without prior knowledge of Wiki's core policy and guidelines, thereby creating more problems than solutions. The goal is to keep presentable and in moderation and not decorate an article with stats like it is a Christmas tree. Those are my 2 cents on this overdiscussed topic, which I sure do hope so is last. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You have to remember most things are not handled by wikipedia-wide RfCs. They are handled by discussions. We had a recent discussion about whether to include nationality of Russia and Belarus in all of our rankings charts. Three people joined in after a month of discussions. It went a whopping 2-1 (I was the lone vote against). Since no one else joined we went with 2-1 and we moved on. It happens that way sometimes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On the Russian flags you had a previous an RFC not just a discussion, and in the later discussion, the vote was 3-2 to delete the flags. Sashona (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There was no RfC on flags. It was simply a discussion as was the charts. My goodness everything doesn't get up and down votes... This is wikipedia not a state bond proposal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 21 Sashona (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought you meant an RfC to "remove" the flags. The RfC concluded to keep the flags. The discussion resulted in remove the flags. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which was then put for another discussion and the vote was 2–1 to remove the BLR/RUS flags in all instances after the Russian-Ukrainian war including the rankings. I don't see what's the problem now regarding the flags. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly first RFC and then a discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis, except it was a vote of 3-2 in favor of removing the flags. You and Fyunck were against removing them.Sashona (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's not beat a dead horse. This discussion is over. The flags have been removed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The point was that there was an RFC to make the change. So we should create one for these above changes as well. We cannot have changes based on one person’s opinion. Sashona (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I already count three people on this discussion. I could be a fourth. This is not one person’s opinion. Also, we don’t need to have an RFC for everything. We can easily settle this through a normal consensus discussion.Tvx1 07:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I posted above my vote against deleting the section Records against top 10 players. Sashona (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion and it was NOT one person's opinion. It was multiple. And it finally had no dissent. Then we discussed it again at the project guidelines page where even the one person who wanted the charts agreed to only the wins chart. We can't help it if you weren't a part of it. Shall we go back and redo every discussion and RfC that you missed? We don't really need another discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Who was for, besides you and Qwerty284651 as you always go in pair in these discussions, and who was against? Sashona (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sashona, this is the Top 10 wins discussion you are asking about. It was 3–1 to include only wins and remove losses in the "Record against top 10 players" sections.
 * And as for myself and Fyunck always going in pairs in discussions. We don't. Yes, we are involved in discussions here on Tennis project's talk page but not all of them. If I see a discussion that I am interested in and want to share my opinion on or potential point of improvement, I will. Otherwise, I stay out of it. I am only active in tennis-related discussions. Fyunck, on the other hand, is active in various different topics/projects, including non-sports related. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please comment above and state your vote, I do not know who agreed or no with you and Funck previously, that is why we are having this discussion. Sashona (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Kind reminder that Wikipedia discussions are not a vote! Tvx1 08:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines on doubles notability - change?
I just updated the tier names of our events at the notability section of our guidelines. This is just to make sure new article creators have updated info. But I'm thinking we may need a change on the last sentence of player notability... "This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players." It may have been borderline fine when these guidelines were written, but doubles has been wanning drastically for 50 years... and notability with it. Obviously there will always be doubles teams that fly through general notability with big write-ups in reliable sources, but they are few and far between, and nothing on par like the singles events. Our notability guidelines are to steer writers into article creation for players who are quite likely to have solo sources written about them, and while that happens with singles Challenger event winners it is not likely with doubles Challenger event winners. In fact, I don't think it's likely with a person whose only accolade is getting into the main draw of a doubles main tour event. They have to keep tweaking the rules of doubles to try and get fans out to watch and the press is about as kind. I would propose we get rid of doubles notability for any Challenger win, and maybe rewrite the main draw accolade to QFs of any Main draw in doubles for anything other than the four Majors or Tour Finals.

As a side note I would also tweak the player notability section to read (bold is possible addition):
 * Significant coverage is likely to exist for a tennis player if he/she:
 * 1) Has competed in one of the international team competitions: Olympics, Fed Cup/Billie Jean King Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or World Team Cup.
 * 2) Has competed, as a non-wild card entry, in the main draw in one of these higher level professional tournaments:

I'm not sure why Olympics is missing, and there have been several topic conversations saying home-town wild card entries need to win a match, not just show up. Any thoughts or criticisms? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It feels like we require a bigger discussion about notability maybe? Because picking a random draw from 2000 and Sunil-Kumar Sipaeya (linked as Sunil Kumar (tennis), so maybe I'm confused) seemingly has nothing else notable about him apart from a Davis Cup appearance teaming with Leander Paes in 2007. I'm not sure he'd have what is described as significant courage to warrant and article. YellowStahh (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I will just make a sidenote here, that if we are saying that competing in a double draw is not notable enough on its own, then it would bring in to question maybe apart from the Main ATP/WTA tours about bunching up the information on the lower circuits into one main article, rather than 2/3 separate articles. YellowStahh (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How many articles do we have on the lower circuits? I can do the merging. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the ATP Challenger Tour has the most expansion since 2009/2010, so that's 13/14 years with 150 tournaments each, so I would speculate 4500 articles to be merged into 1500 articles. That's not really counting the ITF Women's Circuit. YellowStahh (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume what you are saying is the following... take the Heilbronner Neckarcup and when it links by date to 2023 it takes you to 2023 Heilbronner Neckarcup. Everything about 2023 should be on that page alone? What is there now plus the singles and doubles draws? I want to make sure I understand you correctly. If so, I agree that as a minor league event it really doesn't need extra pages. As a single article I assume that combined, it would look something like this:
 * revised 2023 Heilbronner Neckarcup.
 * I can see that done with all the minor league articles but it would be a major undertaking. Perhaps at least going forward we could make sure they are all on one page and then fix the others as time allows? That would be assuming we get agreement from all at Wikiproject Tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be my recommendation, if the players who compete in the draw aren't considered notable or its determined the Doubles players who win aren't notable then moving forward, putting all the information onto a single article instead of three should the standard for an article. YellowStahh (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, you mention the three articled being put into one. Which articled is that? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You want the main yearly title and both draw pages from the same article on the same page. Did I get that right? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think so per YellowStahh's answer. So based on that I cobbled together a combined page to see what it would vaguely look like. It works for me too. If articles aren't too long it's usually better to keep them together for easier updating and house-cleaning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Technically, most players who compete on the Challenger tour are notable, just not through participating in the Challenger tour. For example for the tournaments this week, there are only a couple of players each in Vicenza and Little Rock who are not notable. They are mainly wildcards and qualifiers, but typically all direct acceptances already have Wiki articles. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Only if they win a Challenger event or they compete on the main tour as a non-wildcard are they likely notable. Are you saying that most players that compete on the Challenger tour have those attributes? I'm not so sure about that. And what I'm saying is if a Challenger level player only has doubles wins (since I believe they usually compete in both singles and doubles) then that isn't notable. And it isn't likely notable that a doubles player who enters the main draw of a 250 level event is notable. If their only claim to fame is losing in the first round twice at ATP 250 level, I don't think the sources will show notability. If the team makes it to the Qfs of a 250 event, then I think it very likely that they have sources to confirm notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a very small sample size as I have no time to go through a bunch of tournaments, but if you look at the players playing this week in singles in Vicenza. There are 32 players in the main draw. 3 don't have an article. Of the remaining 29, 25 have played on the ATP tour or in a Grand Slam main draw or won a Challenger singles title. The remaining players are Prado Angelo (Davis Cup appearance, which no longer meets WP:NTENNIS but was still around when the article was created, and junior Grand Slam runner-up), Gaubas (Davis Cup appearance), Dellien (Davis Cup and Challenger doubles titles, which may or may not indicate notability, I'm not sure), Fonio (Challenger doubles titles). Adamtt9 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What you say is true for doubles, but the line is a lot blurrier for the singles tournaments, where a lot of players have ATP tour appearances but then drop in rankings for a little or get injured and then are right back to Challengers. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But I was advocating for no change to singles notability at all, only doubles which has dropped off a cliff over 50 years as far as popularity and magazine/newspaper articles we use as sources. Of those singles 25... have any only gotten into a draw (non-Grand Slam tournament) on a wild card? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2 of them. Neumayer in Kitzbuhel in 2021 and Arnaboldi with a doubles wildcard at the Rome Masters last year. The rest either have a Challenger singles title. I believe Kachmazov entered as a wildcard but won his 1R match. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that info. I think the main info we want to give our readers per our TennisProject Guidelines is: when is notability very likely (sources that are specifically about that player or team). Not "might be" but by and large "usually" notable. I don't think a doubles team with "only" Challenger wins or only 1st round exits in an ATP 250 event is usually notable. Obviously a team that wins six Challenger doubles crowns or is in ten ATP 250 events would be different, but we are supposed to be giving our editors the minimum required for likely notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that the statement that these guidelines apply equally to singles and doubles should be removed, as it does not reflect reality. Unfortunately, the notability of doubles has waned over the years. Even the doubles finals of the four grand slam tournaments are barely shown on terrestrial television. BBC still shows them for Wimbledon live on their channels, but they appear to be the only one maintaining that tradition. France Télévisions, who produce the national broadcast of the French Open, will only show a doubles final if it features a French player. Save for that, Europeans have to turn to Eurosport to watch some doubles action from the Grand Slam tournaments. It's indeed true that reaching quarterfinals is generally the benchmark of players getting significant coverage and that applies even to the majors. And even then it is mostly in their own country's press. If it didn't feature one of their own nation, good luck finding a mention of the result of doubles final of a major in a newspaper.
 * As for the proposed player guidelines changes, I think neither is suitable since they are based on the deprecated participation criterium. For the international events the criterium is to vague as competities like the Davis Cup and BJK Cup have lower division zonal level ties that rarely get significant coverages, let alone for the individual players. Also players who made just one unremarkable appearance in a dead rubber also don't tend to get the coverage. As for the second proposed guideline, again just appearing in a draw, even as a non-wildcard, for an unremarkable straight sets defeat is just not something that garners significant coverage. The standard should be that they at least won a match and maybe two, not just played one. Tvx1 00:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Spanish International/Spanish Open
Hello I moved the Spanish Open to Spanish International Championships or Campeonatos Internacionales de España because for nearly all of its existence it was called either the International Championships of Spain from 1904 to 1967 played in San Sebastian, Santander and Barcelona. From 1968 it was permanently played in Barcelona, at the Real Club de Tenis Barcelona under the joint denomination of Spanish International Championships or Campeonatos Internacionales de España and & Trofeo Conde de Godó until 1980 when it was a joint event (as yet no women showing on the Barcelona Open roll.

The women's tournament was moved to a different date in the calendar, but it was still played at the same venue until 1995 when it was last called the 1995 Ford International Championships of Spain – Singles not Spanish Open. From 1981 to 1995 the women's event did not carry the joint title of Trofeo Conde de Godó only till 1980. Both titles in name were equally weighted. I went through every edition of the Real Club de Tenis Barcelona archive here:https://archivo.rctb1899.es/ The 1968 edition information here;https://archivo.rctb1899.es/edicion-bcnopen/xvi-trofeo-conde-de-godo on the right side under Breaks it says the following ' The Royal Spanish Tennis Federation, on behalf of the International Tennis Federation, grants the Conde de Godó Trophy the category of International Championships of Spain and donates a challenge trophy for the winner of the individual event', and here its the promotional poster; https://archivo.rctb1899.es/sites/default/files/bcn-open-edition/poster/tc_godo_16-1968.jpg

Now instead the research I had spent hours doing going through year to check and re check the event titles, had been removed in a matter of minutes, some questions need to be asked of the editor who reversed my edits. If the men's and women's International Championships of Spain, which were founded in San Sebastian as a joint event, and played in 1936 in Barcelona at the same venue, clearly the cannot be included in the Barcelona roll before 1968. Their should not have been a problem including the men's Barcelona results as the sources clearly show the Spanish Tennis Association also granted the Conde de Godó Trophy the category title of International Championships of Spain!!. It was made very clear in the tables section this was the case!. If a national tennis federation grants the event a joint title category the men's events from Barcelona should be included here as they carried that title until 2007. as seen here, the promotional poster states Open Seat 2007 and 55th Trofeo Conde de Godó and 40th Campeonatos Internacionales de España in Barcelona If the original events pages had been properly researched in the first place each Barcelona event from 1968 should be showing the following information Edition No: Trofeo Conde de Godó, Edition No: Campeonatos Internacionales de España and the Edition No: Sponsored Name that year as all three  are shown in the sources provided!! Ive added that info where I have been able to do so with a citation for each page.

For me their is genuine grounds to included rolls in men's tournaments that were in fact combined tournaments for certain periods but for a lot of pages are never showing joint rolls, as the International Championships of Spain was a national event category the men's winners in Barcelona should be in the Spanish International Championships rolls as the event was played in three other cities not just Barcelona. Moving on to the WTA Madrid Open, I have lost my source that confirms that 2000 to 2002 editions also carried the joint title of Campeonatos Internacionales de España as with the Barcelona events. Navops47 (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be me since it wasn't discussed and tennis tournament article merging is a very messy business because the tournament names are very convoluted. The mens event you put in the Spanish Open already has an extensive web presence at the Barcelona Open (tennis) article. This is confirmed at the actual tournament website in their own roll of champions and Trofeo Conde de Godó winners right here. No women mentioned. We don't need two identical articles on the men. As for the women and the name, most times sources call it Barcelona or WTA Barcelona. The WTA pdf simply says Barcelona Spain. We also have a breakdown of event names per Grand Slam History. It was by no means consistent. Sources in 1991 called it the "WTA Seat Open". Sources in 1993 called it the La Familia Open, and did so again in 1994, so I'm not sure about your hours of checking and rechecking. What I went back to is what we originally had the article at and the fact it was the womens event. I even started a talk page discussion that we already have a tournament page for the men with a different name. I'm not saying we can't use the International Championships of Spain (even though it has had multiple name changes), but before we start double dipping on already establish article and throwing in the men, this needs to be discussed. I would have thought at the article talk page where i started it, but here works ok too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Trivia dump - when does it end?
Over the past few top tier tournaments (Madrid, Rome, now French open (1, 2)), there has been a dump of stats in the lead section, because someone stumbled upon them in an article, found them interesting and decided to put it in the lead sections of men's singles, women's singles draw pages. Cited or not we don't just put EVERY stat wr come across in articles because it sounds interesting. Limit it to winners, def champs, someone retiring, battle for no. 1, that's it. We want to keep it short and concise.

Youngest/oldest/first...born in XYZ decade to reach all () in masters and slams...since...then and then. So much specific records that are pure bloat and balast. Unnecessary. We have every mention of country-related stats (first spaniard/colombian/peruvian) to reach semis of...xyz event...fine.. but the above the examples on all quarters across masters and slam reached....quarters? Well, that's a low round. It's not even finals. And it is becoming a trend, a bad one,..next year more dump is going to be added and pollute the lead section of big tournaments even more because editors usually copy from previous editions when creating the event's draw pages and before you know it it will turn into an essay.

Pinging, who has been adding some of these stats.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. It is getting out of hand. When does it end? Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Put MOS:INTRO here. The lede should be short but concise. A brief MOS:FIRST sentence to describe the event's location, date, etc, then followed by the defending champion info, the current champion, and No.1 scenario (where applicable). Everything else should be gone. 2024 French Open Men's singles could be written something like:
 * Finally, adding a image of the current champion would be great.
 * P.S. Main should also be removed from the lede per its documentation: Unnamelessness (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A couple things. I agree that I'm seeing more and more "throw everything in but the kitchen sink" additions. Way too trivial where I've had to remove new additions. I'm not sure it's a lead thing though. What's to stop someone from ending the lead section and starting a new section and including all the same trivia? The trivia problem would still exist. There is also the question of of "Main." If there is no other prose then there is no other place to put it. Originally we simply linked the the most important first line (which is by consensus) as "Jack defeated Billy in the final 6-4, 6-4 to win the men's singles title at the 2024 French Open." Since it is linked in the first line there is no real reason to include a "Main" template. Player bio leads have the same problem of overbloat.... sometimes much worse. We could also use the templates "Further" or "Broader" instead of main, as they have no such limits that I know of. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Qwerty284651. "Grigor Dimitrov completed the career set of quarterfinals at all majors and Masters tournaments. Alex de Minaur became the first Australian man to reach the French Open quarterfinals since Lleyton Hewitt in 2004". This is bloat. These are supposed to be tournament draw pages. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree that it is bloat, de Minaur's achievement is draw related. And in the past our articles have been criticized for not having enough prose to go along with the data charts. We aren't supposed to have just data. But I would think that extra prose should be very draw specific. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There may be editors that prefer a long list of stats, personally I don't. Also, the older Grand Slam drawsheets do not have this amount of statistical information.  It's not something I feel strongly about.  I have my own archive of grand slam mens singles results but I do occasionally use wikipedia to look something up and it is a minor irritation to scroll past the stats to find the results. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In answer to "not enough prose", I do notice on the 2024 French Open section there is quite a description of the draw and how it proceeded. This could be done on the draw page itself and would solve the lack of prose. You can also then pepper in the bloat and make it more relevant. You could make a proper section, have some kind of description of the venue and format. YellowStahh (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @YellowStahh, why would you pepper in more bloat? The goal is to have less of it not more. Some draw related info, 3-4 paragraphs max, not like the women's singles draw, where you have everything you can come across in articles that is interesting for some and decide to add in the lead of the draw page. Why? And even if we maintain the info in the lead to a reasonable prose size, it'll be only of matter of time before it get readded...sigh..
 * This feels like a draw page lead guideline discussion more than anything. Will be interesting what the outcome of it will be. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "why would you pepper in more bloat?" It's more in response to "in the past our articles have been criticized for not having enough prose". If you can write the bloat in properly in regards to the other information it would cease to be bloat. Which is why I make reference to the Events section in French, if it's something like that plus one or two other bits of information that's considered bloat then it would cease to be bloated. I'm not saying every bit of bloat gets added, but if part of prose inits own section is "de Minaur reached his first quarterfinal after defeating and became the first Australian to reach a Quarterfinal since Hewitt etc." Then it's factual and peppered in properly. I'm not even saying I'm correct in this line of thinking, it's just more of an idea. YellowStahh (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In answer to "not enough prose", I do notice on the 2024 French Open section there is quite a description of the draw and how it proceeded. This could be done on the draw page itself and would solve the lack of prose. You can also then pepper in the bloat and make it more relevant. You could make a proper section, have some kind of description of the venue and format. YellowStahh (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @YellowStahh, why would you pepper in more bloat? The goal is to have less of it not more. Some draw related info, 3-4 paragraphs max, not like the women's singles draw, where you have everything you can come across in articles that is interesting for some and decide to add in the lead of the draw page. Why? And even if we maintain the info in the lead to a reasonable prose size, it'll be only of matter of time before it get readded...sigh..
 * This feels like a draw page lead guideline discussion more than anything. Will be interesting what the outcome of it will be. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "why would you pepper in more bloat?" It's more in response to "in the past our articles have been criticized for not having enough prose". If you can write the bloat in properly in regards to the other information it would cease to be bloat. Which is why I make reference to the Events section in French, if it's something like that plus one or two other bits of information that's considered bloat then it would cease to be bloated. I'm not saying every bit of bloat gets added, but if part of prose inits own section is "de Minaur reached his first quarterfinal after defeating and became the first Australian to reach a Quarterfinal since Hewitt etc." Then it's factual and peppered in properly. I'm not even saying I'm correct in this line of thinking, it's just more of an idea. YellowStahh (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I always think it has too much bloat. Perhaps the lead could be two sentences. Who won and what it was (the most important aspect). And perhaps the date range, the arena name... perhaps last years winner's fate. Remember this is a stand-alone article, not a subpage. Everything else below the lead in a "Highlights" section. The women's 2024 French would be like:
 * Lead
 * Two-time defending champion Iga Świątek defeated Jasmine Paolini in the final, 6–2, 6–1 to win her third consecutive women's singles tennis title at the 2024 French Open.[1] The event took place at Stade Roland Garros tennis complex in Paris, France from 26 May to 9 June.


 * Highlights
 * Świątek saved a match point (in the second round against Naomi Osaka) en route to her fourth French Open and fifth major title.[2] She dropped only one set en route to the title and became the third woman in the Open Era to win three consecutive French Open titles.[3][4] The victory completed a sweep for Świątek of the Madrid Open, Italian Open, and French Open clay tournaments.[5] Świątek's victory over Anastasia Potapova in the fourth round, which lasted 40 minutes, was the shortest match played at the French Open since the 1988 final between Steffi Graf and Natasha Zvereva.[6]


 * Paolini became the third Italian woman to reach the French Open final and in so doing reached a career high WTA ranking of No. 7.[7] Mirra Andreeva, who defeated world No. 2 Aryna Sabalenka in the quarterfinals, became the youngest player to reach a major semifinal since Martina Hingis at the 1997 US Open.[8] This tournament marked the final professional appearance of former world No. 11 Alizé Cornet. Cornet was contesting her 69th consecutive major main draw appearance (out of 72 overall appearances), the longest consecutive streak of major appearances by any woman.[9]


 * So what if we tried doing it more like this format? A short to-the-point lead, and a short highlight prose section with records that matter. A lot of the extra stuff could be found in the links if readers really want to know more details, and the really trivial bloat belongs on the player bios, not the French Open draw article. I called it highlights because I didn't know what else to use. Most events will also have a mention of what happened to last years winner and that would be in the highlights section below the first paragraph. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I like this format much better. Hits the main points in a single sentence. Short and concise.


 * I would not add a subsection titled "highlights" for the additional info, though. Keep the current style of the lead with paragraphs without subsections. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The thing is, most of what's there is not lead-worthy. The lead is supposed to be a short highlight of what is in prose... and we have no prose. Andreeva being the youngest or Cornet's retirement is something for prose, not lead. As I said, it was simply a suggestion of what could be done to stop lead clutter. I added it without the highlight section since everyone here seems to thing we have over-bloated trivia. We'll see how it goes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

1000 title leaders charts
I have been testing new versions in "Title leader" in women's singles to distinguish the active events from defunct. See below the original and 3 versions. Which one do you vote for?

I plan to implement this new design to the other 3 related articles once a consensus is reached:

1. men's singles

2. men's doubles and

3. women's doubles. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Original (events not categorized by active/defunct)



 * Players with 5+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in  bold .
 * 73 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.

Version 1 (events listed in time slot chronological order)
• :Boc (Boca Raton)

• :Dub (Dubai)

• :Doh (Doha)

• :Ind (Indian Wells)

• :Mia (Miami)

• :Cha (Charleston)

• :Mad (Madrid)

• :Ber (Berlin)

• :Rom (Rome)

• :Can (Canada)

• :San (San Diego)

• :Cin (Cincinnati)

• :Phi (Philadelphia)

• :Mos (Moscow)

• :Tok (Tokyo)

• :Wuh (Wuhan)

• :Zur (Zürich)

• :Bei (Beijing) 

Version 2 (active followed by defunct events)
• :Dub (Dubai)

• :Doh (Doha)

• :Ind (Indian Wells)

• :Mia (Miami)

• :Mad (Madrid)

• :Rom (Rome)

• :Can (Canada)

• :Cin (Cincinnati)

• :Wuh (Wuhan)

• :Bei (Beijing)

• :Boc (Boca Raton)

• :Cha (Charleston)

• :Ber (Berlin)

• :San (San Diego)

• :Phi (Philadelphia)

• :Mos (Moscow)

• :Tok (Tokyo)

• :Zur (Zürich) 

Version 3 (defunct followed by active events)
• :Boc (Boca Raton)

• :Cha (Charleston)

• :Ber (Berlin)

• :San (San Diego)

• :Phi (Philadelphia)

• :Mos (Moscow)

• :Tok (Tokyo)

• :Zur (Zürich)

• :Dub (Dubai)

• :Doh (Doha)

• :Ind (Indian Wells)

• :Mia (Miami)

• :Mad (Madrid)

• :Rom (Rome)

• :Can (Canada)

• :Cin (Cincinnati)

• :Wuh (Wuhan)

• :Bei (Beijing) 

Timeshifter's table

 * Note: I removed the table from the collapsible show/hide box. Horizontal sticky row headers do not work correctly inside the box in Firefox in Windows 10 Pro. Nor in Safari in my iphone SE 2020. See the table inside the box in this version of the page.
 * nowrap has been left in so that this table can be compared to Qwerty284651's table (without nowrap) in portrait view on cell phones. We both agree that nowrap should not be used. Nowrap messes up portrait view on mobile by making the location column take up too much width (see discussion). On desktop PC monitor (Windows 10 Pro) there appears to be a bug (in Firefox only) in dealing with nowrap that causes the table to be cut off slightly at the end of the row, and the horizontal scrollbar appears.

I edited version 2 (active followed by defunct events) to get the following table below. I lessened the height with this:

The article editors can decide what scrolling table height to use.

New readers: Sticky horizontal headers work. Lessen your browser window width to see. Also, feel free to start your own table section here, or in a user sandbox.

The table below (when nowrap is ignored or removed) is working perfectly on my desktop PC monitor in Windows 10 Pro. Also on my iphone SE 2020 (in portrait and landscape view). It has been tested in Safari, Firefox, Chrome, Edge, and Opera. The row and column headers are both sticky.

Bei (Beijing)

Ber (Berlin)

Boc (Boca Raton)

Can (Canada)

Cha (Charleston)

Cin (Cincinnati)

Doh (Doha)

Dub (Dubai)

Ind (Indian Wells)

Mad (Madrid)

Mia (Miami)

Mos (Moscow)

Phi (Philadelphia)

Rom (Rome)

San (San Diego)

Tok (Tokyo)

Wuh (Wuhan)

Zur (Zürich)



--Timeshifter (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Players with 5+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in  bold .
 * 73 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.

Qwerty284651's table
Bei (Beijing)

Ber (Berlin)

Boc (Boca Raton)

Can (Canada)

Cha (Charleston)

Cin (Cincinnati)

Doh (Doha)

Dub (Dubai)

Ind (Indian Wells)

Mad (Madrid)

Mia (Miami)

Mos (Moscow)

Phi (Philadelphia)

Rom (Rome)

San (San Diego)

Tok (Tokyo)

Wuh (Wuhan)

Zur (Zürich)




 * Players with 5+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in  bold .
 * 73 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.

Added my version above. See current difference between your and my version. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Fixed sticky rows not working (sticky-Col1 -> sticky-col1). Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I prefer the chronological instead of the alphabetic order; it makes it easier to look for the event's name. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I leave that up to you. Though I don't understand what you mean by chronological order. I am not a tennis fan, and so I have no idea of the chronological order of events.
 * I prefer version 2. Since cell phone users will want to see active events first without having to scroll horizontally.
 * Also, it is nice to let the years sort too.
 * I removed any table formatting that did not seem to be needed. Or did not seem to be doing anything. Such as style="margin:o;"
 * What is that doing? And I think you meant to use a zero, and not the letter "o"
 * With the flat-list glossary it is not needed since the space between the glossary and table is not large. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The original order listed was the chronological before you changed it to alphabetic. The column order is the chronological order for the active and defunct events. Which is why I would like to see it in the legend above.
 * Added margin:0 to omit excess wrapping whitespace.
 * Agree: current events should be listed first.
 * Is the year column even necessary or can we do without it? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You can change the flat-list glossary to chronological order. But alphabetical order is a lot more intuitive. Especially for casual tennis fans who may not know the chronological order of events. I assume that is what you mean by chronological order? And the flat list takes up less vertical space than Columns-list. That is important for cell phones.
 * I noticed that you have margin:0 within the table wikitext in your version 2 higher up. I removed it from my version 2. I don't see that it is doing anything at all.
 * On your version 2, the scrolling window stops prematurely in the horizontal direction. In my version 2 I can read all the columns. That is because I removed class=nowrap from the table.
 * I like having the year column. So I know what is the time period for each tennis player winning the titles. And I like it being sortable. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would leave nowrap and margin:0; I am using desktop version on mobile. It leaves a line of whitespace on my end (desktop version on mobile and regular desktop), which I bypass with margin:0 (without margin:0 vs. with margin:0). I agree with the glossary being in alphabetical order—more intuitive to the casual reader. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Replaced the plain flat-list glossary ( •  -> *  ) with flatlist. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit my version 2 further. It is very confusing.
 * Edit your version 2 higher up. Then I can make comparisons.
 * flatlist is a good idea. I think I had a problem with it before. But now it is working. I will keep it in my version.
 * I removed margin:0 from my version 2 for comparison purposes.
 * Will be looking later in browsers on my cell phone.
 * --Timeshifter (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In what way confusing? I feel a live update on the same table is faster and more efficient than each editing their own table.
 * Okay will not add margin:0 until further notice. I remembered sidebars/navboxes use html lists often so I looked into those. The best I could come up was flatlist. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the table's design and code, I am content with how it turned out, unless you have something else to add. nowrap and margin:0 are minor things and preferential. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am constantly tweaking. So I need to see what effect my changes are having. And I need to compare with your version 2. I can just scroll up and down this talk page to compare the 2. Plus WP:TALK requires not editing others' posts. I rarely do that except when it is something minor that I know they will appreciate. Like changing margin:o to margin:0 in your versions that still needed to be changed.

If margin:0 is of help to you, then I have no problem with you using it in your version 2, and in articles. I am just trying to see for myself what it is doing. Will do some cell phone work later. Same for nowrap. I think it causes problems sometimes on desktop screens. It may help on cell phones in this case.

I am using max-height. So the scrolling table window is less tall:

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I truncated version 1-3 to only display the notable changes and removed the rest (glossary flat-list and table's column headers) for better readibility. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See:
 * User:Timeshifter/Sandbox255 - not scrolling.
 * User:Timeshifter/Sandbox256 - scrolling.
 * Margin:0 helps with the scrolling table. On my desktop monitor there is less space between the top of it and the section header when you push the scroll bar all the way to the top. That is all I have noticed so far. I haven't noticed any difference on my mobile browsers yet. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I said. The difference can be noticed on desktop and the desktop mode on mobile browsers but not on mobile mode, because the latter defaults to Minerva skin which omits any stray whitespace. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Continued discussion
I don't know if you noticed my note in my table section: "Note: I removed the table from the show/hide box. Horizontal sticky row headers do not work correctly inside the box in Firefox in Windows 10 Pro. Nor in Safari in my iphone SE 2020."

Look at your table in the show/hide box to see what I mean. I suggest removing the box so that others reading this thread can see that the horizontal row headers are sticky, and work correctly. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I get you. cot/cob, Collapse box, as you call it show/hide box, overrides disables overflow, thereby disabling and sticky headers (row and column). Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Btw, I propose we rename the tables to version 1 & 2, respectively, because with our names next to them sounds like we one the tables which goes against WP:OWN. We don't own anything on wiki, but rather share it with the rest of the community. You named them thusly to distinguish whose proposed design is but it may rub people the wrong way. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not saying I own the table in the article, and so it doesn't go against WP:OWN. Saying "Timeshifter's table" in the heading just prevents others from editing the table in that section. And it allows me to continue editing it. Since the discussion is in another section it makes it easy. And it makes it simpler for others to follow the discussion. And others can come up with their own table ideas in their own sections if they want to. Or in a sandbox. I left a note to that effect in my table section. Going by table numbers alone could get very confusing.
 * I added back margin:0 to my table per discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with your request. It's just that I have been involved in a couple of table redesign discussions where we've gone through several versions and combinations for a result: all edits on 1 table or set of tables. But have it your way.


 * Imagine 10 editors, each with their own version. You would never reach a consensus that way. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess I could move my table to a sandbox. Maybe wait to see if more tables show up before consolidating on one here. I think we have the same table except for the height and nowrap. Amount of height is a decision of the article editors. So is nowrap. I prefer not using it, but I can live with it. Right now people can quickly compare our 2 tables on the same page to decide whether they want nowrap or not. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I have changed my mind after looking at my cell phone again. Keep nowrap. I was torn between its effects on desktop PC screen versus mobile screen. Mobile wins out on this one. I am talking about mobile (not desktop) view on my iphone SE 2020. This iphone has a relatively smaller screen compared to other cell phones. And I use a larger text size. So if nowrap works on it, then it will also work fine on other cell phones. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: After additional testing on portrait mobile, I noticed that nowrap obstructs field of view of the table by 70% similar to tall column headers but for rows. (see with nowrap vs. without nowrap). Removed nowrap from my version. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am pretty much done on my end and I am happy with the version. I feel you and I are, sans margin:0, on the same page. I will give the new design a month to marinate until the next event from the list above. And, if noone objects will implement said design in all 4 pages. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That's funny, I did not even think to look at such a wide table in portrait view on my cell. I just did, and since it is a smaller screen, and because I use a large font, I can only see one and a half data cells in the row. That is with nowrap on. I can see 4 and a half data cells without nowrap on. So nowrap can remain off as far as I am concerned.

Feel free to implement the changes now. Further discussion may make further improvements. But I see no reason to wait to implement these improvements. And we agree on keeping margin:0. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I primarily edit in desktop mode on mobile, so I always use portrait view. I doubt the majority of wiki visitors use landscape mode on mobile. 4 and a half cells is 9x more than half a data cell (on my end, goes from 5 to 8 cells) without nowrap. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For me it is 3x more without nowrap in mobile mode in portrait view. 1.5 vs 4.5 data cells visible without horizontal scrolling.
 * You are right about the majority of wiki readers since most will have a larger cell phone than me.
 * I don't like to indent too many times. Messages end up being very long and narrow, and some occupy only a third of the width of the screen on my phone in portrait view.
 * I just noticed that outdent operates differently on my cell versus on desktop PC screen.
 * - The colons are needed on my phone to get the outdent arrow to line up at all in portrait view. Unlike in desktop PC where they are not really needed. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, I left nowrap in my table so readers can compare our 2 tables in portrait view on cell phones. Your table does not have nowrap. That way readers can see why we both now oppose nowrap. I left a note about it before my table. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * od does behave differently on mobile vs. on desktop. Still, don't need to outdent every few comments. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have the smaller cell screen. So I think I would know when to do it. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Event name change discussion
Comment - I'm not really into this whole chart so I have no say in how it's displayed. Whatever works for you two. I do have one complaint about these type of charts in general since you are in the process of fine-tuning this one. In almost all tennis articles we have had a big no-no to listing tournaments as only a city. They are the common tournament name, not a location. Why on earth would we retain the city here when it's being updated? It seems like the events could easily be two letter abbreviations. Indian Wells is the event name so it should be IW or IWO for Indian Wells Open. It should never be Rome since it's the Italian Open that everyone knows. So IT or IO or ITO. No Tokyo it's Pan Pacific Open. PP or PPO. No Beijing... it's the China Open. CO or CHO. And the key should not say the cities either but instead use the name of the event. Pretty much all our charts by consensus make sure we use the tournament name under tournaments. Why is this chart funky? I see Moscow and I have no idea what event that is... Kremlin Cup. Same with Berlin since it's the German Open. And the abbreviations should also link to the proper tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Will update the glossary. Thanks for the feedback. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This then merits updating the following pages:
 * ATP: WTA 1000 tournaments's transcluded charts found in Category:WTA 1000 tournaments seasons and respective records and stat pages: WTA 1000 Series singles records and statistics, WTA 1000 Series doubles records and statistics
 * WTA: ATP Masters 1000 tournaments's transcluded charts found in Category:ATP Tour Masters 1000 seasons and respective records and stat pages: Tennis Masters Series singles records and statistics,  Tennis Masters Series doubles records and statistics. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, some tables have been wrong for awhile, and some have slowly been fixed. Since you two were updating these particular charts it seems like a good time to fix the city names and make them proper event names. Whether it gets left as Ind for Indian Wells Open is not a huge deal, but leaving it as Ber for German Open or Rom for Italian Open or Tok for Pan Pacific Open is the bigger issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fyunck(click), I surmise you want the event names in ATP Masters 1000 tournaments and WTA 1000 tournaments's "Past finals" sections expanded to full names. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I substituted the charts on the main pages (atp masters and wta 1000). Here are the current events' names:

Event short names
1. Bei (Beijing) - CH or CO or CN for China Open

2. Ber (Berlin) - GO or GR or GE for German Open

3. Boc (Boca Raton) - VF or FL for Virginia Slims of Florida

4. Can (Canada) - CO or CN or CA for Canadian Open

5. Cha (Charleston) - CL or CH or CO or CR for Charleston open

6. Chi (Chicago) - a tricky one....VC or AC or CI or CG for Virginia Slims of Chicago/Ameritech Cup

7. Cin (Cincinnati) - CI for Cincinnati Open

8. Doh (Doha) - QO or QA or QT for Qatar Open

9. Dub (Dubai) - DC or DU or DB for Dubai Championships

10. Ind (Indian Wells) - IW for Indian Wells Open

11. Mad (Madrid) - MA or MD for Madrid Open

12. Mia (Miami) - MI for Miami Open

13. Mon (Monte Carlo) - MO or MC for Monte-Carlo Masters

14. Mos (Moscow) - KC for Kremlin Cup

15. Gua (Guadalajara) - GU or GO or GD for Guadalajara

16. Par (Paris) - PA for Paris Masters

17. Phi (Philadelphia) - PH or VP for Virginia Slims of Philadelphia

18. Rom (Rome) - IT for Italian Open

19. San (San Diego) - SD or SC or SO for San Diego Open, Southern California Open

20. Sha (Shanghai) - SH for Shanghai Masters

21. Tok (Tokyo) - PP for Pan Pacific Open

22. Wuh (Wuhan) - WO or WU for Wuhan Open

23. Zur (Zurich) - ZU or ZO for Zurich Open
 * Note:
 * Added the missing Chicago and Guadalajara (now defunct) to the list. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * CH is proposed twice for China Open and Charleston Open. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Several are proposed twice as I didn't know what was best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Any other abbreviations you would like to propose or is that it? Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If not, then let's vote on it. Which abbreviations do you opt for? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Added Monte Carlo, Shanghai and Paris. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging to chip in. Which names and abbreviations would you replace them with? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not a tennis fan, so I don't have a clue about the column headers. 2-letter abbreviations would make the table less wide. That is a good thing. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I too am a proponent of narrow tables. The less horizontal scrolling the better. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So if we do our best to make it two letters I added one set of choices above. And I think it should be Zurich since that is the English usage at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a big deal but in order I think I'd go with:
 * 1.CN, 2.GE, 3.FL, 4.CA, 5.CH, 6. AC VC, 7.CI, 8. QT QA, 9.DU, 10.IW, 11.MA, 12.MI, 13.MC, 14.KC, 15.GD, 16.PA, 17.PH, 18.IT, 19.SD, 20.SH, 21.PP, 22.WU, 23.ZU Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose the following abbr:


 * CN
 * GE
 * FL
 * CA
 * CH
 * VC
 * CI
 * QA
 * DU
 * IW
 * MA
 * MI
 * MC
 * KC
 * GU
 * PA
 * PH
 * IT
 * SC
 * SH
 * PP
 * WU
 * ZU
 * Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Two items I was just looking at. China already has an official country code of CN, so I think more people would be familiar with equating China Open with CN, which leaves CH for Charleston. Likewise the country code for Qatar is QA so I will change my Qatar to QA also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed mine to CN and CH, respectively. Short names not yet decided upon:
 * 6. VC or AC; 15. GD or GU; 19. SD or SC? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with yours. Only question in looking at it is SC. Not because it doesn't work well with Southern California Open, but that article was recently changed to San Diego Open (tennis). The chart you have here is from 1990 onwards and the San Diego event was only a 1000 level from 2004-2007, and in that time it always had San Diego in the title. In fact from 1990 through today, only in 2013 was it called the Southern California Open. Because of the recent page move to San Diego Open (tennis) which these events will link to, it should probably be at SD or SO. I would personally stick with SD. Otherwise VC and GU are fine. I think I went with GD because some will not know how to spell Guadalajara and GD seemed to roll off the the tongue better for me. I had no clue what to do with the Virginia Slims of Chicago/ Ameritech Cup. I didn't want another "C" issue. VC I think works better now that I think of it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's stick with the events' current names and use abbreviations according to those. SD, GD (valid argument about others not knowing how to spell it - even though only contested twice; now defunct), AC...until they change again.
 * Because we are changing the names events, all 4 stat and record articles are using the event's names by city, I would leave the rest of the articles tables unchanged, maybe add something in lead along the lines of "The following is a list of the events played by sponsor name and city:  WTA German Open (Berlin),...Italian Open (Rome),..Virginia Slims of Florida (Boca Raton), etc." What do you think? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not my first choice, but yes we can also keep it as is. I would only put the sponsor name if we do at the main tournament page, which is almost never unless the sponsor name is the only name it ever had here. Also if you change to two letters, and all they are is the first two letters of a city name, the second letter should not be capitalized. CN sure, two word names like Indian Wells (IW) or San Diego (SD or Sa), but Rome would be Ro, Guadalahara would be GD or Gu. VC but Be. And what do we do with the Qatar Open? put it at Do for Doha? It is a bit strange that these are the only type of charts that do not use the tournament name. I find it confusing but I guess others don't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The NaN transcluded charts at WTA 1000 and ATP 1000 from the yearly pages and the 4x records and statistics pages all use the city name instead of the tournament, i.e. sponsorship name. I purposefully added the events' cities to save up on space in the charts — for conciseness, really.
 * The problem with the main 2 pages is that they contain NaN transcluded charts each. If we, let's say, change the city name to the current tournament's name, this would then require constant updating whenever a tournament changes its name in the future. That's I am hesitant on renaming them...it requires maintenance. With the current city names it's no problem. Even Cincy was once contested in a different city but still only Cincinnati is listed, for consistency and to avoid confusion.
 * If we use the name of the tournament at the time it was played, it would confuse everyone. So many events went through numerous sponsorship name changes over the years that listing them all for any tournament would be inefficient.
 * This is why I am fine with listing the full names in the lead of the 2 main and 4 records pages as a compromise. If that is okay with you? Otherwise, I am not getting involved in changing the event names. Plus, even atp/wta refer to them by their city names when listing records (Iga's Madrid-Rome double; Nadal's Canada-Cincinnati double, etc.).
 * With consensus you might get them to be renamed, but don't count my vote. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as the abbreviations is concerned, I have concocted this prototype:
 * CA (Canadian Open)
 * CH (Charleston Open)
 * CI (Cincinnati Open)
 * CN (China Open)
 * DU (Dubai Championship)
 * FL (Virginia Slims of Florida)
 * GD (Guadalajara)
 * GE (German Open)
 * IT (Italian Open)
 * IW (Indian Wells Open)
 * KC (Kremlin Cup)
 * MA (Madrid Open)
 * MC (Monte-Carlo Masters)
 * MI (Miami Open)
 * PA (Paris Masters)
 * PH (Virginia Slims of Philadelphia)
 * PP (Pan Pacific Open)
 * QA (Qatar Open)
 * SD (San Diego Open)
 * SH (Shanghai Masters)
 * VC (Ameritech Cup)
 * WU (Wuhan Open)
 * ZU (Zurich Open)
 * ZU (Zurich Open)


 * Thoughts? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatever on this one. However those cites initials should each absolutely link to the events so you have the same issue of events name changes. I don't know what the worry is though since every time an event name changes the old name is redirected. And I never said to use the event name at the time it was played with sponsorships. We would use the general common name. The Ameritech Cup is a sponsorship name that we try not to use... but that's really the only name we have for that event. Virginia Slims is also a sponsorship name but it is what it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, what do you propose then? We revert to the original version (wta singles (outdated) version below) or replace the current one with the one above, listing only events pertinent to the discipline or keep the glossary/legend as is? I wikilinked the above events.
 * Bei (Beijing)
 * Ber (Berlin)
 * Boc (Boca Raton)
 * Can (Canada)
 * Cha (Charleston)
 * Cin (Cincinnati)
 * Doh (Doha)
 * Dub (Dubai)
 * Ind (Indian Wells)
 * Mad (Madrid)
 * Mia (Miami)
 * Mos (Moscow)
 * Phi (Philadelphia)
 * Rom (Rome)
 * San (San Diego)
 * Tok (Tokyo)
 * Wuh (Wuhan)
 * Zur (Zürich)
 * Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You will certainly never see me advocate for a city name over an event name. If the column header says tournament or championship we would not do that. It is wrong to list a city under a tournament headers. We corrected many charts that did this long ago, like the performance timelines. These were so stewy, and to be honest a lot of original research, that they were ignored I guess. I just thought that if they were being be updated it would be a good time to fix the city names under the tournament header. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, event name it is. I just remembered the 3 defunct masters events: Stuttgart, Stockholm and Hamburg in men's. I assume we just use Eurocard Open, Stockholm Open and Hamburg European Open, respectively, correct? What about abbreviations for them? What do you propose? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hamburg European Open should be Hamburg Masters. During the time as a 1000 level it was German Open and Hamburg Masters. Then from '09 to '18 it was back to German Open. It's now at Hamburg again. The men's event has never been called the Hamburg European Open. Our article is broken with the Hamburg European Open title and needs some fixing. That's a women's 125 level event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And for abbreviations? I suggest something like this: EU or EO for Eurocard Open, ST for Stockholm Open and HA for Hamburg Masters (at the time it was played). Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeppers. I'd go with EU. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Like so? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * CA (Canadian Open)
 * CH (Charleston Open)
 * CI (Cincinnati Open)
 * CN (China Open)
 * DU (Dubai Championship)
 * EU (Eurocard Open)
 * FL (Virginia Slims of Florida)
 * GD (Guadalajara)
 * GE (German Open)
 * HA (Hamburg Masters)
 * IT (Italian Open)
 * IW (Indian Wells Open)
 * KC (Kremlin Cup)
 * MA (Madrid Open)
 * MC (Monte-Carlo Masters)
 * MI (Miami Open)
 * PA (Paris Masters)
 * PH (Virginia Slims of Philadelphia)
 * PP (Pan Pacific Open)
 * QA (Qatar Open)
 * SD (San Diego Open)
 * SH (Shanghai Masters)
 * ST (Stockholm Open)
 * VC (Virginia Slims of Chicago)
 * WU (Wuhan Open)
 * ZU (Zurich Open)
 * Boy that sure looks great! If we go with VC shouldn't it then be Virginia Slims of Chicago? Otherwise AC for Ameritech Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ZU (Zurich Open)
 * Boy that sure looks great! If we go with VC shouldn't it then be Virginia Slims of Chicago? Otherwise AC for Ameritech Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is the final product: Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC) CA (Canadian Open)
 * ATP Singles

CI (Cincinnati Open)

EU (Eurocard Open)

HA (Hamburg Masters)

IT (Italian Open)

IW (Indian Wells Open)

MA (Madrid Open)

MC (Monte-Carlo Masters)

MI (Miami Open)

PA (Paris Masters)

SH (Shanghai Masters)

ST (Stockholm Open)



79 champions in 303 events as of 2024 Rome.

CA (Canadian Open)
 * ATP Doubles

CI (Cincinnati Open)

EU (Eurocard Open)

HA (Hamburg Masters)

IT (Italian Open)

IW (Indian Wells Open)

MA (Madrid Open)

MC (Monte-Carlo Masters)

MI (Miami Open)

PA (Paris Masters)

SH (Shanghai Masters)

ST (Stockholm Open)




 * Players with 6+ titles. Active players and tournament records indicated in  bold .
 * 171 champions in 303 events as of 2024 Rome.
 * Masters' time slots indicated with 1st–9th column names.

CA (Canadian Open)
 * WTA Singles

CH (Charleston Open)

CI (Cincinnati Open)

CN (China Open)

DU (Dubai Championship)

FL (Virginia Slims of Florida)

GE (German Open)

IT (Italian Open)

IW (Indian Wells Open)

KC (Kremlin Cup)

MA (Madrid Open)

MI (Miami Open)

PH (Virginia Slims of Philadelphia)

PP (Pan Pacific Open)

QA (Qatar Open)

SD (San Diego Open)

WU (Wuhan Open)

ZU (Zurich Open)




 * Players with 5+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in  bold .
 * 73 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.

CA (Canadian Open)
 * WTA Doubles

CH (Charleston Open)

CI (Cincinnati Open)

CN (China Open)

DU (Dubai Championship)

FL (Virginia Slims of Florida)

GD (Guadalajara)

GE (German Open)

IT (Italian Open)

IW (Indian Wells Open)

KC (Kremlin Cup)

MA (Madrid Open)

MI (Miami Open)

PH (Virginia Slims of Philadelphia)

PP (Pan Pacific Open)

QA (Qatar Open)

SD (San Diego Open)

VC (Virginia Slims of Chicago)

WU (Wuhan Open)

ZU (Zurich Open)




 * Players with 6+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in  bold .
 * 154 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.