Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 17

No. column in career finals tables – let's try and solve this together
Our recent RfC above clarified but also has caused a rift between myself and Wolbo. I want it fixed as I'm tired of this back and forth. The RfC kept our longstanding current Project Guidelines in place (by majority) for career tennis charts. However it was by a slim margin so there was no consensus to go around changing 100s of older articles. I started to conform some older articles when I was changing other things on them, but was slapped down hard by Wolbo. I then concentrated on only fixing the newer article to conform to RfC Guidelines (2016-present). There are other editors helping in this as well. This was a truce of sorts but it seems to be being broken as we speak by Wolbo. This can't go on.

I really don't think we want two sets of variables for new and old articles. I have put forth multiple options to Wolbo but all have been instantly rejected. I have tried these compromises because I wanted to find any type of common ground. Wolbo seems to be bent on a "my way or the highway approach." If I'm wrong on that i haven't seen a single compromise coming from him... it's all me and a few others doing the compromising.

Here is another attempt at getting a chart done that all can live with. I made the charts purposefully smaller and I incorporated a couple of user Saskoiler's suggestions. I will tag all the last RfC people in this after posting. , ,

Current RfC approved chart from last RfC

Non-approved grandfathered chart wanted by Wolbo

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Option 5

or we could make it just a year (or month and year) instead of the whole date. We would link the date with the actual draw. Option 6

Of course, other than approved chart 1, I really dislike the rest. Numbering wins and ridiculous numbering of losses is bloat we don't need. i would keep that column dumped. However Wolbo and a few others feel just as strongly the other way, that the No. column is vital to the chart and to our readers. Actually I think Wolbo was the only one in the recent Rfc who wanted to add a number column.

If we throw out the current and grandfathered charts, I'm willing to bite my tongue and support any of options 1–6 if it will get us off this logjam. Is there any of these options that our editors could live with? You'll note that I changed the winner/runner-up to win/loss as suggested by some other editors. Less room if we include any type of number. Also option 3 requires extra coding in the No. column to keep it near the same color. There is no column coding parameter to make all cells light grey. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

These are my proposals for a compromise on this issue.--Wolbo (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the current situation for the the vast majority of the player articles (with the exception of the Category field which still needs to be added to most articles).

Proposal 1 – Switch tournament and category columns

Proposal 2 – Switch Result column options to win / loss (instead of winner / runner-up)

Alternative 1 – Use win/loss colors for the No. column to create more visual distinction between the win and loss counters.

Alternative 2 – Switch Result and No. columns

Alternative 3 – Combination of Alternative 1 and 2

Alternative 4 – To avoid two numbering sequences in one column switch the No. column to a W–L column,

Alternative 5 – Remove the No. column and add the W–L info to the Results column

Alternative 6 – Same as Alternative 5 but W–L in superscript

Alternative 7 – As Alternative 6 but with No. column for finals

Notes: Proposal 1 was added as it seems more logical to list the Tournament field first, followed by the Category field given that the Category field says something about the tournament. Also it appears, to me at least, more 'natural' to have the Tournament and Date fields next to each other. Proposal 2 follows the suggestion made by Fyunck(click) to shorten winner / runner-up to win / loss as it saves a bit of space without losing any info and is arguable a bit easier to read / scan. The Alternatives listed take Proposal 2 as the starting point. Note that Result column in Alternative 5 and 6 is not sortable.--Wolbo (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions
Since I started this discussion, like I have all the compromises and topics on the subject... I want to come out say I'm not in this to win. In fact I'd rather not since then we have disgruntled parties. I want to come to some compromise. So I will come out right out and say we should use option #1 even though I feel it goes the furthest towards Wolbo's point of view. It retains counting winners and runners-up, it shortens to wins/loss, it only counts by 5's in color coded numbers. Otherwise I kinda like Option #4 that counts all events in a running total on the left. Some of our oldest articles were done this way. No separating wins and losses by totals... that's done above all these charts anyways. The tournament color is only on the category and tournament. A somewhat cleaner look. Maybe there are some options I hadn't thought of but if we move off the guidelines and grandfather charts I hope we can find some common ground to work with. This was purposely not done as an RfC because I want unanimous agreement on something that will work for everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

But you'd think that while this is discussed here that Wolbo would stop his addition/reversion crusade... but no. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't make these false claims Fyunck(click), you are the only one who is on a crusade by changing all these articles against a widely held and longstanding editing consensus in this project that dates back to the previous decade. In all these instances you are the initiator and I only react to your edits. You can try to spin it all you like but the editing history of these articles tell the real story.--Wolbo (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, hiding removal of the No. column under edit summaries like "[| proper colors per guidelines]" probably does not help your case.--Wolbo (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually that was probably an error since I wouldn't have left and entire chart on the same page with the No. column intact. You hawever often write "formatting". Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have done everything I can to not make a fight of this and you have been a one-man wrecking ball initiating revert after revert. No compromise at all from you... zero...nada. I do not understand the hostility on this issue, and frankly now I don't care. Everyone can see I have been the one trying and you have been the one reverting reverting reverting with no compromise in sight. As if hoping by sheer willpower that everyone will come to their senses and go against the RfC. It hasn't happened except for your crusade to ignore the RfC. Why did we even have it? Why do we even have guidelines if they are to be ignored? What do i tell new editors? "Ignore our guidelines because they mean absolutely nothing." That color scheme for tables... ignore it. Notability... ignore it and create an article about a tennis playing 5th grader. It's why we went through the Rfc to begin with. To lock down the guidelines that you 100% ignore... and now even for new articles. So here we are, mad at each other, and exactly what I wanted to avoid by compromise. You would not let it happen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are again making claims that are demonstrably false. The way in which you started and phrased this whole discussion is also far from the neutral and constructive tone that is common around here (and required for any RfC). Whatever happened to "playing the ball, not the man"? Regarding the article guidelines; of course they are important to improve the quality and consistency of our articles, which is why I have made numerous contributions to them as well as a great number of edits to get our articles to comply. But any guideline needs to have been discussed properly and supported to a certain minimum level to have any weight and authority as a 'project consensus' and that has simply not been the case for the No. column (as you yourself have admitted). There was never a consensus not to add the No. column and, as mentioned previously, the column has been widely used by many editors in thousands of articles over a long period of time, making it the real de facto 'project consensus'. Our guidelines should be updated to reflect that editing consensus.--Wolbo (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We really do see things differently here. My claims are absolutely true. This discussion was brought about by you suddenly reverting more articles created this year... three or four today. I'm very unhappy about it and with your attitude about it. There is no consensus to add the number column at all. There is an RfC backing it's inclusion in our guidelines, which you choose not to follow. I feel very good on the high road here with all the suggestions made to reach out to multiple editors. The item above that you said doesn't help my case was probably an error (Ithought this was referring to something eles). I've reached out on your talk page, I've reached out on this talk page... both places multiple times. I got Zip from you except "the issue has to be forced one way or another" if we can't see eye to eye. I've tried and you have not, that is a fact! Show me where I'm wrong where you have made some compromise proposals to meet someone halfway. If I take this the An/i or dispute resolution they're going to see that I tried. And we are now certainly heading that way since you have reverted a bunch more articles today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At this stage you are just responding to my posts with new falsehoods and that leads this discussion nowhere. On a personal note, we have after all been cooperating here for quite a few years, I have never seen you display such an antagonistic behaviour before and am a bit baffled by it. I will not respond to all your claims, that will just deflect from the issue at hand, but I do take offense at you repeatedly stating that I am neither willing to compromise nor have offered any compromise. That is 100% incorrect. On this very page during the earlier discussion I posted "As a practical way forward I would not object to the compromise you suggested of only using the no. column for tables with 10 or more entries (finals). That would remove the column for the large majority of player articles, probably around 90%, where it has the least added value.".--Wolbo (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then the bafflement is 100% mutual with the exact same reasoning. I don't recall making that offer of 10 or more, but it's been awhile. I'm not so sure about that 90%. So many nothing players also have ITF charts that have 10 tournaments. Look at Katarzyna Kawa who's highest rank was 254. I think it's more like 10% would not have 10 finals. But you are correct that you did offer that compromise, so I apologize. However was that during the RfC which confirmed the current chart? Me and others have offered several compromise charts since then. have you, because I hadn't seen any. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

As for the new choices Wolbo posted. I had started this conversation with trying to find common ground in a compromise, so I excluded the current guideline chart with no number column and no counting of wins/losses. To include only moving of columns around would have been no compromise, so a waste of time. New proposals 1&2 (with alternatives 1,2,3) are no compromise at all. It's just moving around or different shading, so not worthy of discussion. I could have made the same charts with our current approved guideline chart, but it would get us nowhere. Now, proposals 4,5 & 6 are compromises worthy of considering. Where the category column is placed I don't care one way or the other. And the dates, while they might work better shortened to a year or a month and a year, is no big deal either. I do like my chart options 1,2,3,4 much better because they look cleaner to me. But I guess that is to be expected. Alternative 5, I don't like with the big numbering. Alternative 6 (with the superscript), while I don't like it as much as option 1, might be the best of the lot. It's not a confusing column of odd numbers though I might have used "small" instead of "superscript." And i wonder what the superscript would look like in a softer color rather than the same black as the win and loss. Alternative 4 I'm still looking at. I might have to see it merged with Option 4, with the W-L in place of the No. on the far left side and no coloring in the number column. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Because I wanted to see it, Alt 4 merged with Option 4 would look something like the following: Date is only month and year because I was also looking at that, but it isn't part of the discussion. This also has Wolbo's wish of the category after the tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting somewhere.--Wolbo (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think that dispute resolution might be the better venue to find a solution. Tvx1 00:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Column issue continued
I think we have some choices forming here, none of which are my favs, but I can accept them if everyone wants a particular chart. These are compromises from our current Guidelines and grandfathered career finals charts. We are trying to have one chart for all career finals instead of new charts and old charts. It would be great to get a unanimous thumbs up on one of these because we all have to back each other up on guideline usage with new editors. And remember, this chart would slowly replace every ITF/Challenger/ATP/WTA career chart that we currently have. Obviously not the Grand Slam or Masters only charts. Our guidelines probably only cover 20% of any given article... most is left to discussion/consensus on that particular article. But most of our charts are uniform in color and columns.

Notes 1. These choices are for deciding on our columns only for career finals. Full or partial color across rows is for another discussion, as is whether a w/l or No. column goes before or after the results, or the category goes before or after the tournament, or the date uses days/months/years. I just wanted to make these uniform so we can better judge what is best for our readers.

Notes 2. It has been pointed out that having any kind of counting method is trivial overkill since there is always a Key above each chart showing us the wins and losses of a player. And we don't use any counting for individual Grand Slam or Masters charts. However, others would like some sort of counting method for career finals because it's far easier to confirm that the Key's W–L record is correct if the actual events are tallied in some way. Not everyone is Roger Federer with 136 career finals to count, but even 50 career finals can be tough to keep track of. These charts are an attempted compromise to cover the situation.

1) Separate W–L column counting of all finals

2) Separate No. column counting of all finals

3) small/colored, every 5th, W or L number in the result column

4) superscripted/small WL record in the result column

Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

-- Saskoiler (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I don't have a strong preference either way, I would like to inject a few ideas and reiterate some of my earlier thoughts:
 * Why does it have to be a single table format applied to thousands of articles? Why not allow for a little flexibility? In general, Wikipedians don't like rigid rules ("there is one way, and only one way"). They do better when presented with guidelines or best practices (which are derived from sound principles), which they can apply along with a dose of local knowledge to the articles which they are editing. Why not make this number column optional? Where it makes sense (e.g. Federer), Wikipedians can use it. Where it doesn't make sense, Wikipedians can skip it.
 * For example... There are certain items which should be mandatory columns in these tables -- Result ("Win" or "Loss"), Tournament (linked to draw for highest usability), Category, Opponent (linked to their article), and Score (in standard format). A Year (year only) or Date (full date or month/year) must also be added. Columns such as Reference, Surface, Number, W/L, City, or Country may be added if desired. If they are, then these columns should follow standard formats, colors, etc... (or something like that)
 * My personal preference is to cut down the amount of information in these tables to improve usability. With all these wide columns and "no break" symbols, I've seen many tennis article tables that won't display on either my tablet or my vertical desktop monitor. That's a problem. If Wikipedia isn't usable, readers will go elsewhere for their information.
 * All in all, I think we would collectively produce a better set of tennis articles for readers if we'd stop edit-warring and arguing about things like number columns on final appearance tables. Instead, let's focus on more substantial quality issues, like ensuring that articles have complete citations to reliable sources (including final appearance tables), or striving to have more tennis articles meet the good article criteria (or featured article or featured list).
 * Of course we could completely remove the table from our guidelines and leave it up to the creation editor. There's no iron-clad reason to have any of our guidelines except for a bare-minimum cohesiveness between articles. Readers going from player to player would tend to expect to find the same things so that comparisons can be made. We want to give our readers vital information without bogging down the articles with trivial or over-saturated data. The problem is that one persons trivia is another persons meat-and-potatoes, and edit wars do and will continue to fester this particular situation. It just seems that it would be better if we had something uniform on this front instead of one grandfathered chart and one guideline chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Some interesting options provided by Fyunck(click). Option 1 would be fine with me and I would also not object to option 4, although it is a bit more difficult to read. Only see value in option 2) if it is combined with a W/L column and would not consider option 3 at all. To be complete I added two more options below. Option 1 is somehow visually appealing but given the context the column order of option 6) seems more logical. --Wolbo (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

5) superscripted / small W and L record in the result column

6) as option 1) but with the first two columns in a different order

I can imagine that some editors might have been turned away from participating in this discussion by the length of it as well as the somewhat combative tone early on so perhaps the best way forward would be to see this as a precursor to a formal RfC where preferably one proposal would be put forward. If no single proposal can be agreed upon then two or three options could be given. --Wolbo (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going as far as judging where the columns were placed... we haven't even decided if we are moving the category column or changing the color placement in the row. This was just for which columns to have and which not to have and that was mentioned in the paragraph preceding the charts. As for which is best, if EVERYONE wanted a particular chart of the four compromise charts put up, I would go along grudgingly... just to get a single chart for all and some cohesiveness. had I ranked them by personal choice it would have been 3,2,1,4. Your chart 6 is the same as chart 1... just the placement is different. Chart 5 is terrible... it might even be worse than the grandfathered chart. I was trying to do it without an RfC since our last one kept the chart as is which you didn't like. I am trying to get everyone to bend a significant distance away from no column and no numbers at all on one side, and a column that totals single digit wins and losses on the other side. I guess it'll be a success if everyone dislikes a chart but votes for it anyway. Or if 10 other people picked the chart and you and I only implemented it into our articles. We'll have to see what happens here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this went nowhere. :-( Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a pity there isn't more participation in this discussion but it still has the potential to result in meaningful improvements to our career finals tables. We just need to figure out a constructive way forward.--Wolbo (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

7) I still don't really like it, but what about this?

One worry has been that the charts are getting too wide and having standard 21–17 just makes the column wider still. So what about small numbering to make it 21–17 ? It's also easier on the eye when "small" and butted up against the date. We aren't discussing it yet but I also inserted Tier in place of category (which never sounded quite right to me. I had thought of using Level or Class, but thought Tier would be better. But that's a minor issue. I really want some sort of uniform chart instead of correcting them all the time, and I'm still trying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I was also looking at it with the date switched around. It gives a uniform look with the year first and make it cleaner, but I admit it is different than we are use to seeing. Just a thought.

Burnie International is an organisational disaster
I've been trying to add and clean up older tournament/draw articles from the ATP Challenger Tour and am just completely stumped by what we're meant to do with the Burnie event. Here's a quick summary of what I've worked out:

The Burnie International has run from 2003 to 2017. It was held twice in 2007, not held in 2008, and not held in 2016.

The location in the ATP Archives is listed as "Burnie" from 2005 to 2017, but "Tasmania" for 2003 and 2004. The ATP has also given it four or five distinct tournament IDs, but I believe this is due to changes in the Challenger schedule and am very confident that all events at this venue are considered the same tournament.

It has been known under the following names:


 * Uncle Toby's ATP Challenger (2003)
 * Uncle Toby's Burnie Challenger (2004)
 * Uncle Toby's Challenger (2005)
 * KIA International (2006)
 * MST ATP Challenger International (Feb 2007)
 * McDonald's Burnie International (Dec 2007-2015)
 * Burnie International (2017)

So already that's quite confusing, but not outside the realms of what we can handle. My judgement here was to have 2003-2005 all listed as the "Uncle Toby's Burnie Challenger" for tournament and draw articles, and leave the remaining names as-is for articles, but I'm open to discussion there. No articles exist for the 2003-2008 tournaments so this is not too pressing of a concern right now, but it's worth bringing up.

However, things get more complicated, because in 2009 the women joined in on the party at Burnie and had a $25k ITF event there. Current notability guidelines say that a post-2007 ITF Circuit tournament is not notable unless it has a $50k or greater prize pool, and the women's draw at Burnie didn't have its pool raised to $50k until 2014 (and then had it raise to $60k for 2017).

What do we do about tournaments where only half of the event is notable? As far as I see we have three options:


 * 1) The women's draw is inherently notable, being part of a larger event that meets WP:GNG. e.g., 2011 McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Singles
 * 2) The event is notable, but the women's draw specifically is not. It should be listed on the tournament page but an article for the draw should only be created for the Men's Singles and Men's Doubles. e.g. 2012 McDonald's Burnie International
 * 3) The women's draw is not notable and as such should not even be mentioned in the year article, with the men's draw being under "Singles" instead of "Men's Singles". e.g., 2009 McDonald's Burnie International

The third option seems absolutely ludicrous to me and the first seems the most intuitive, but I could see arguments for the second so I wanted to ask around before making any article moves and major changes.

So for cleanup these are the actions we'd have to take:


 * Move 2010 McDonald's Burnie International – Singles to 2010 McDonald's Burnie International – Men's Singles
 * Move 2009 McDonald's Burnie International – Singles to 2009 McDonald's Burnie International – Men's Singles
 * Move 2010 McDonald's Burnie International – Doubles to 2010 McDonald's Burnie International – Men's Doubles
 * Move 2009 McDonald's Burnie International – Doubles to 2009 McDonald's Burnie International – Men's Doubles
 * Add information about the women's draw to 2010 McDonald's Burnie International and 2009 McDonald's Burnie International

Then if we decide that the women's draw is notable
 * Create 2012 McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Singles and 2012 McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Doubles
 * Create 2010 McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Singles and 2010 McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Doubles
 * Create 2009 McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Singles and 2009 McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Doubles

OR if we decide that it is not notable
 * Delete 2013 McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Singles and 2013 McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Doubles
 * Delete 2011 McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Singles and 2011 McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Doubles

I'm definitely in support of the women's draw articles acquiring inherent notability from being at the same event simply because it's the most sane, but either option is far better than the hodge-podge of ambiguity and inconsistency we have at the moment. I also strongly think that we should have navboxes for Challenger tournaments ala some other language wikipedias to help prevent - or at least more easily diagnose - this issue in the future.

In short: Does an ITF Women' Circuit draw that doesn't meet tennis GNG become inherently notable if it's in the same event as a men's draw that does? Sellyme Talk 08:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Draw articles shouldn't be created for ITF women's tournaments where the prize money isn't $50,000. So, the 2011 and 2013 draw articles that you mentioned above should be deleted. However, I don't see a problem with mentioning the women's tournament in the yearly tournament article. So, for example, in 2011, 2011 McDonald's Burnie International can mention the women's tournament, but the separate draw articles shouldn't be there. You can see this at the 2016 Morelos Open for example. The women's tournament is mentioned, but separate draw articles don't exist because the prize money isn't high enough. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the reasonable answer so nothing for me to add. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The offending articles had been there awhile so I redirected them instead to the corresponding ladies yearly circuit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, starting to work on cleanup. I feel like we should redirect the women's draw articles to the overall tournament article though - e.g., 2011 McDonald's Burnie International – Women's Singles goes to 2011 McDonald's Burnie International instead of 2011 ITF Women's Circuit Sellyme Talk 02:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the plan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

{od}Just realised that this causes redirect loops because of the TennisEventInfo template forcing specific links, so I'll actually leave it with the ITF Circuit link unless we can find a template that works around that.

As it stands, we've now got the women's final mentioned in every tournament article 2009-2013, redirects for the women's draw to the ITF Circuit article for that specific year, and every men's draw from 2009 onwards is listed as "YYYY McDonald's Burnie International – Men's Singles" instead of just "Singles" for disambig. 2003-2007 (December) articles do not exist at all - either for the tournament pages as a whole, or for Men's Singles/Men's Doubles (the ITF Women's only joined in 2008). I'm considering this a low priority though, as there's many pages from 2009 that don't exist and I'm going through those first.

Now that the women's draw is fixed, what are the thoughts on the following:

Article names for Burnie Challenger pre-2008
 * 2003 Uncle Toby's Burnie Challenger
 * 2004 Uncle Toby's Burnie Challenger
 * 2005 Uncle Toby's Burnie Challenger
 * 2006 KIA International
 * 2007 MST ATP Challenger (this one was held in February)
 * 2007 McDonald's Burnie International (this one was held in December, instead of a 2008 event)

Also, probably more importantly, creating an navbox for Challenger-level tournaments similar to it:Template:McDonald's Burnie Men's International. We have yearly templates for the ITF Circuit and the Challenger tour so it would make sense to also have a way to easily get from 2017 Burnie International to 2009 McDonald's Burnie International. Sellyme Talk 03:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I mean, it's not that hard, you can just get there through the main Burnie International page. I don't really know if we need to create a bunch of nav boxes, and with the loose status of some Challengers, some nav boxes would only have one year. Adamtt9 (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It actually is pretty hard, a lot of the main pages in fact don't link to the tournament's year-by-year pages but only the pages for individual draws. It's basically a fifty-fifty chance on whether or not a Challenger event will link to 2017 Burnie International or 2017 Burnie International – Men's Singles in the table for Men's Singles champions. Obviously the latter makes far more sense intuitively, but it's also nonsensical to not have links to the actual tournament articles year-by-year on that tournament's main page.
 * Looking at high profile events (for example, Miami Open (tennis)) it seems like the general consensus is that if you click "2016" under "Men's Singles Champions" you expect to get directed to the 2016 Men's Singles article, not 2016 Miami Open. My suggestion here is not because I think those tournaments strictly "need" navboxes, but because it's the only reasonable way to have navigation to all articles in easy access whilst staying consistent with the formatting of other tennis articles.
 * The problems with some navboxes being virtually empty are worth considering though. I think it's safe to say that we don't need navboxes for tournaments with only one event as the lead will definitely mention the year it was held and you could simply wikilink that. I also think that having a navbox for an event held five or more times is completely reasonable, but I'm not really sure what the best way to handle any in that gap would be.
 * In summary, our choice is to either have to deal with navbox oddities, or be inconsistent with ATP/WTA Pro Tour events and link to the tournament's main article instead of the event article in the champion tables. Either way it would be nice to know for sure which articles should be wikilinked in those tables. Sellyme Talk 03:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Broken event draw links in 2000-2016 articles
So for about a decade and a half the ATP used "atpworldtour.com" as the domain for hosting their draw pdf files. As I'm sure anyone who has been creating tournament/event articles has noticed, at some point last year, they moved all of these files to "protennislive.com". Fortunately for us, the URL pattern didn't change for the direct PDF link, going from ExampleOld to ExampleNew.

These are fortunately quite easy to find and fix, so I've gone through every single page in the 2000-2017 ATP World Tour categories as well as the 2008-2017 ATP Challenger Tour articles to find and correct them. In total, out of the 7,091 articles in those categories, 2,976 were broken in the manner described above, with a total of nearly 4,500 broken links. These are now all fixed, but those were only the most common cases. While fixing I found a few other issues, as outlined below.


 * Some articles use a direct link to the ATP Scores Archive instead of a pdf link. These are theoretically translatable into the PDF links, however before about 2002 there's no guarantee that the PDF files actually exist. My approach here has been to assume that these links exist solely where PDF links do not, and not bother trying to check if there's any that have a PDF available as this would take considerable time to do for every article.


 * Many very old ATP World Tour events use an .aspx link to the draw (Example), which just redirects to the front page of the event archive. This specific link pattern can be translated into pdfs as well (and I've already got the regex for it just in case), but again, in many cases those pdfs do not exist. Unfortunately it can not be translated into its equivalent Results Archive page, as the event name is required in the ATP Archive's URL. If someone is up to the challenge of creating a table of every EventId and their ATP location string ("Copenhagen", for EventId=481) then we could possibly fix those URLs, but that's well outside the scope of what I'm prepared to work on right now.


 * ATP Challenger events mostly are consistent now, as we have very very few articles from pre-2009 for the Challenger Tour (there should be about 440-500 a year, we only had 19 for 2008, and I can't even find any for 2007 and prior). This means that they've only suffered from the most recent of the ATP's domain changes, saving us from the more irritating aspx ones.


 * The WTA has the same problem, moving from "sonyericssonwtatour.com" to "wtatennis.com" (ExampleOld ExampleNew). I haven't looked into the WTA Tour too extensively yet but if the templates are anything like the ATP's then I should be able to fix most of those over the course of a day or two.


 * Bizarrely, the ITF Women's Circuit is the best-kept of them all, linking to a page similar to the ATP Results Archive that seems to have been fairly consistent for as far back as we have Wikipedia articles. I don't believe that any major fixes are needed for ITF Circuit events, because although it's not possible to directly link the drawsheet (as the tournament tabs are handled inline with javascript), unlike the ATP their website is actually usable for people not on mobile devices, and as such it's reasonable to expect users to be able to navigate to the specific information they want within a few seconds of opening the page.

Personally, I'm inclined to continue with fixing the simple domain changes for the WTA Tour, and then call it a job well done. As I said, if anyone would like to take up the Herculean task of fixing the ancient aspx links that no longer work, I'm happy to lend some assistance, but I'm unlikely to want to continue on with that myself. In any case, 4500 broken links have been fixed already, and I'm about to start repeating that over the WTA articles as well, which should make general cleanup a lot easier on those old articles. Sellyme Talk 06:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Update: Surprisingly few broken WTA links, out of the 2,586 articles in the WTA Tour categories from 2000-2017 only 272 had broken links. They're all fixed now. Sellyme Talk 09:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice about adminship to participants at this project
Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

AfD
There is an ongoing discussion at Articles for deletion/Isabelle Wallace which you might be interested in participating in. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Extra columns for counts of W, F, SF, QF in Grand Slam performance timelines for Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, etc.
Hi folks, for several years, I've thought that in the articles about Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (and other greats with numerous top Grand Slam results), it would be very useful to include a summary table showing how many times they had reached the finals, semis, and quarters at each of the Grand Slams. Yesterday I decided to try to implement my idea on the Federer page, by adding 4 extra columns to the right side of the "Grand Slam tournament performance timeline" table. Once I started testing, I spent well over 1 hour of my time on it, figuring out how to add those columns in the best possible way, testing several different variations on the Federer page before saving the edit, and then replicating it on the Nadal and Djokovic pages since the result looked good on the Federer page.

However, a couple hours later, User:Fyunck(click) reverted my additions on all 3 pages, stating that it was an "against consensus addition per Tennis Project Guidelines". So I checked WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines and saw nothing there which states that additional columns may not be added to those separate Grand Slam-only performance timelines. But anyway, after discussing it with Fyunck(click) on his talk page, it seems best to raise the issue here. It appears that these particular columns may have never been discussed here before, and so there is no specific prior consensus against them.

I'll post a comparison showing what the extra columns look like on each of the 3 pages where I added it, and then afterward address the concerns / questions raised by Fyunck(click).

Old version (Federer)
(Note that the Federer table was already set to use "font-size:90%" before my edit, but not so for the Nadal and Djokovic tables.)

New version (Federer)
diff

New version (Nadal)
diff

New version (Djokovic)
diff

Purpose and advantages of the extra columns

 * For players like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (and other players with large numbers of Grand Slam W, F, SF, QF), the additional columns provide very useful info in a compact format.
 * At a quick glance, it's easy to see exactly how many times the player was a quarterfinalist / semifinalist / finalist at each Grand Slam, without having to tediously add up the results in the yearly part of the table.
 * This complete info is not found anywhere else in the article, or even on the extended stats pages like Roger Federer career statistics, etc.
 * Because those extended stats pages combine the Grand Slam table with Masters and surfaces and all that in a single table, it would not even be possible to add the extra columns there.
 * But for players like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic who have separate Grand Slam-only performance timelines on their main article, it is possible to add the columns, and it is a very useful addition.
 * While adding the new columns, I also tried to streamline the existing parts of the tables, reducing unnecessarily wide columns in the Federer and especially Djokovic tables (Nadal table had no such extra width in it), and also reduced the percentages to show only 1 decimal place (2 decimal places is just excessive).

Responses to concerns / questions raised by Fyunck(click) at User talk:Fyunck(click)

 * Those charts shown in the guidelines are pretty firm. We do not add extra columns, tournaments, stats, etc... We use a short form on the main article and a longer form on the career stats articles. This keeps them fairly uniform with each other and makes it easy for readers to go from chart to chart with no surprises.
 * Uniformity is great, but for players with numerous top Grand Slam results, the extra columns are a very useful addition. If any readers are actually surprised to see them, I think it would only be a pleasant surprise.


 * There is nothing against adding that info in prose to those articles, but not in those charts.
 * Unfortunately adding all that info to the prose is impossible -- there are 20 separate numbers in those 4 columns, which only make logical sense in a table, where the columns can be summed too.


 * Your additions are simply tallies of what's already there in plain sight
 * Yes, obviously they are, but adding up those results from the table at a glance is not easy. Without the tallies, there's no easy way to quickly see from the table that, e.g., Federer is a 14-time Wimbledon quarterfinalist. Or even to see really interesting things, like the fact that all 5 times Nadal made the Wimbledon QF, he also made it all the way to the finals -- now obvious from the extra columns, but not at all obvious at a glance from the old table.


 * there are other considerations for uniformity. Do we use colors at the top as you did? Do we bold the wins as you did?
 * Those are not my arbitrary choices at all -- those colors and bolding are copied exactly from the colors and bolding already used in Template:Performance key and the existing columns of the table (although all the column headings ended up bold anyway). Using the exact same colors gives the reader an immediate idea of what those 4 extra columns mean, with help from the Tooltips if needed.


 * Do we use it for every player (where many would simply have a mess of zeros)? Do we make exceptions for certain players and if so what is the cutoff so we don't have editors adding it to every single player?
 * Obviously there's no point in doing this for every player, the whole point is that those 4 columns are useful for players with numerous Slam W, F, SF, QF only. Editors could be free to add them for any player where it made sense (where it is an actual improvement and useful to see), but if necessary the guidelines could suggest an arbitrary cutoff like at least 10 Slam QF or 20 or something.


 * Add it to Federer's stats page and it'll be off the page unless we shrink the fonts.
 * The extra width of those 4 columns could be a problem. But as the tables above show, other columns in those tables are currently set far too wide, so adding the extra 4 columns while reducing a few of the too-wide columns allows the addition with almost no extra width, or even an overall width reduction as for the Djokovic table. Note that the Federer table was already set to use "font-size:90%" before my edit, but not so for the Nadal and Djokovic tables. And currently, the column widths used in this table differ wildly on various players' pages, with no uniformity or consistency at all.
 * If extra width really is a huge concern, then this information could be moved to a separate table just below the current table, like this:


 * {|class=wikitable style=text-align:center;

!Tournament!!width=20 style=background:lime|W!!width=20 style=background:thistle| F !!width=20 style=background:yellow|SF!!width=20 style=background:#ffebcd|QF !style=text-align:left|Totals !18 !28 !41 !49
 * align=left|Australian Open
 * 5
 * 6
 * 13
 * 13
 * align=left|French Open
 * 1
 * 5
 * 7
 * 11
 * align=left|Wimbledon
 * 7
 * 10
 * 11
 * 14
 * align=left|US Open
 * 5
 * 7
 * 10
 * 11
 * 5
 * 7
 * 10
 * 11
 * }
 * But I think it's much better implemented as an extra 4 columns on the right of the current table.
 * However, I do think that this separate table would be a useful addition to the extended stats pages like Roger Federer career statistics, where it is not possible to add the extra Grand Slam columns to the all-in-one giant table. And where despite the plethora of other stats, the summary in this little table is not available at all. Adding it maybe in the "Grand Slam tournaments" section, just below the paragraph where it already states that "Federer has won the most grand slam titles (18). He has reached the most finals (28), semifinals (41) and quarterfinals (49)." The version on that page could even be extended to show all the rounds:
 * {|class=wikitable style=text-align:center;

!Tournament!!width=20 style=background:lime|W!!width=20 style=background:thistle| F !!width=20 style=background:yellow|SF!!width=20 style=background:#ffebcd|QF!!width=20 style=background:#afeeee|4R!!width=20 style=background:#afeeee|3R!!width=20 style=background:#afeeee|2R!!width=20 style=background:#afeeee|1R !style=text-align:left|Totals !18 !28 !41 !49 !57 !62 !63 !69
 * align=left|Australian Open
 * 5
 * 6
 * 13
 * 13
 * 15
 * 18
 * 18
 * 18
 * align=left|French Open
 * 1
 * 5
 * 7
 * 11
 * 13
 * 14
 * 14
 * 17
 * align=left|Wimbledon
 * 7
 * 10
 * 11
 * 14
 * 14
 * 14
 * 15
 * 18
 * align=left|US Open
 * 5
 * 7
 * 10
 * 11
 * 15
 * 16
 * 16
 * 16
 * 15
 * 16
 * 16
 * 16
 * }
 * If it's a separate table anyway, then it makes sense to go ahead and include earlier rounds for the sake of completeness.


 * My biggest concern with the addition was that it was something that could affect our standard charts in hundreds of articles (thousands without a cutoff). With that kind of affect, even if I loved it, it needed to be discussed and vetted properly.
 * Hopefully the discussion here will address that.

Summary
I feel strongly that this would be a positive addition overall, and that the extra columns in the Grand Slam performance timelines would be an improvement to those tables and those articles. I also think that the separate Grand Slam table would be a useful addition to the extended stats pages like Roger Federer career statistics, either the smaller W-F-SF-QF version or (preferably) the full version including earlier rounds.

Thanks for considering this proposal. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll have to muse more on this later. I would be against adding even more columns to the main page graph of any player and I'm not sure making the fonts smaller and smaller helps things either. Maybe I'm in the minority on this. I don't think those particular columns have ever been discussed so this is certainly a valid proposal, though it could affect thousands and thousands of articles. Where do we cut off? Do we allow it for doubles and mixed doubles tables? If we make a cutoff will editors follow it or will we have to constantly revert them? By the way aesthetically I really don't like the "W" being extra bolded up on top and I'm not sure about the "Qf" column being needed at all.


 * Now, what about this on the career stats article of these players? I again think these charts are already awfully wide (especially for the best players), so I would be against it unless convinced otherwise. What minimum amount would we set to allow the columns? We could have players with all zeros in the first 3 columns, or even all the columns. Do we allow it if a player has reached 1 QF in their career? As for a separate chart, that has much more merit. We don't allow any extra performance charts other than our guidelines, but as a standalone I'm not sure it qualifies as a performance chart (as long as it's not under the performance chart header). I don't care one way or the other on a separate chart, though the extra rounds seem really trivial and unneeded. And again we'd need some player cutoff spelled out specifically in the guidelines. Also the extra rounds could cause problems for earlier players since not all majors had 7 rounds. If it was only 6 rounds does it go under 4th round or QF? Anyways those are some preliminary thoughts on this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To add even more to the confusion. Some majors did have seven rounds with a number of the top seeds getting a bye in the first round.Tvx1 23:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm strongly for including these tables into the Career Statistics articles, they add useful information in an easy-to-digest format and there's really no reason for them not to be there. This also bypasses the question of a cut-off point, because any player notable enough to have a career statistics article is going to have enough notable results to make the table actually productive. I'm a bit concerned with having them on player articles as per Fyunck(click)'s reasoning, but I think it's worth noting that the edited table for Federer - likely one of the widest that will exist - does fit on a 1366x768 laptop monitor with the Wikipedia sidebar enabled. That's a fairly reasonable minimum screen resolution to support, but removing the quarterfinals column will even support 1280x1024 monitors, which were widely considered a fair minimum requirement over a decade ago, so I don't think that size is a particularly justifiable issue there.
 * The question in my mind is whether or not this table is considered worthwhile to have on players that don't meet the requirements for a career statistics article. If no, then I think it's fine to just have it included on the statistics articles, and not on the player's main pages. If it is worth having for other players, then we'd need to agree on some very clearly defined requirements. I think 10 Slam quarterfinals is far too low of a requirement, as this will probably lead to many players with a full column of 0 Ws or even Fs. I feel like 20 Slam quarterfinals is probably a better requirement. If we decide to eliminate the QF column and only have W/F/SF, somewhere in the range of 10-15 semifinal appearances seems appropriate, although I think it would be worth seeing how many and which players actually meet that first before deciding. Sellyme Talk 09:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a well-presented proposal. As other have mentioned the additional statistical information is too much detail to include on a player article but it is well-suited for a player statistics article and I am in favor of adding it. Due to the table-width argument my preference goes to creating a separate table which has the benefit that it can include all rounds instead of just W, F, SF and QF. If we do include it in the performance timeline the SR column might as well be removed.--Wolbo (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Prize moneys for Indian Wells
Hello everybody,

I am from the francophone Wikipedia. We are currently harmonising tournament articles per edition. By editing BNP Paribas Open, I am surprised by the prize moneys for this tournament (men's editions).

If we look at 2014 BNP Paribas Open :
 * ITF says it is $4,720,380.
 * ATP website indicates $5,240,015
 * ATP PDF version indicates $6,169,040 : maybe it is Total financial commitment on this document, but in this case, it is still different from the website (non-pdf version).

I am wondering whether you have an idea to explain these differences, and above all whether you can say me how we know which data is the right one.

Thanks! A.Gust14 (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * To make things even more confusing, actually adding up the total prize money per stage multiplied by the number of players that would be able to reach that section yields three entirely different results! I get $4,094,000 for Men's Singles, $5,014,680 for Singles+Doubles, and $5,115,480 for Singles, Doubles, and Qualifying. Given that the prize money is demonstrably far exceeding ITF's figure, and that the PDF $6mil figure is seemingly including hospitality, it seems like the ATP Archive figure is going to be the most accurate one. I encountered this problem recently for Indian Wells when looking at an article displaying different $ figures for the men's and women's draws, despite the prize breakdowns being identical. For some reason both the ATP and the WTA are wildly inconsistent with their calculations, and unfortunately I don't know if there's any consistent sources that we can use. In this case I think the $5.2mil figure is the most accurate, though. Sellyme Talk 20:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between prize money and financial commitment. Prize Money is the onsite prize money awarded to players advancing within the tournament. Total Financial Commitment is the tournament’s investment in the event including ATP Sanction and Marketing Fees, Onsite Prize Money and Bonus Pool Contributions, where applicable. That doesn't answer why the totals vary between documents though. Strange is the world of financial books and how to interpret them. Just look at the US gov't where every piece of paper says something different. I wonder if someone did the totaling from this source if it would equal any of the above? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the same thing happen with the ITF/WTA prize money in 2014? WTA says it's $5,946,740. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This year the prize money looks to be consistent between the WTA and ATP. Both sites say it's $6,993,450. I think in 2014 the winner of the women's event only earned half of what the men earned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The numbers for specific placings in your 2014 Bleacher Report source are the same as what I used from the PDF for my calculations, and don't add up to any reported overall figures. Sellyme Talk 02:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just emailed the ITF and asked about 2014 and why the 3 or more different values. If I here something back (about 50/50) I'll let you know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answers! On our side (fr.wiki), we prefer keeping ATP data (non-pdf) at the moment, but I hope we will get an answer from ITF in order to confirm figures... A.Gust14 (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikilinking Guidelines
So there's a lot of inconsistency between tennis articles about where links should go, especially in navboxes and tables. Here's a few examples, taken directly from articles. On the right you'll see the infobox for the 2016 Miami Masters Men's Singles event. You may want to view the source for a more clear example here.

The before/after links go directly to the same event page of the previous and subsequent year. Below that infobox is another one from the 2015 Indian Wells Men's Singles article.

These links just go to the overall tournament article instead of the single event.

Similarly, in the articles for the actual tournament (the entire thing, not just a single edition):

This is the table listing previous champions under the header "Men's singles" (slightly adjusted for sizing purposes), and all the year links go directly to the Men's Singles article. Meanwhile, if we look at the Irving Tennis Classic:

Not only is this in a different order, but the links also just go to the tournament's main article rather than any specific draw. Interestingly, this is the more common method (both in orientation and linking), although it seems that the more popular events tend to have links to the draw rather than the tournament article.

So has there been any discussion on this in the past? Which methods are preferred? I'm on the side of linking to the specific draw in both instances (and orienting champion lists with the most recent at the top), but there's an absurd amount of articles that would need to be fixed either way. Even amongst extremely high-profile events, there's a lot of inconsistency here. If we were to go with linking to the specific draw we'd have to be aware of times when an event is non-notable (e.g., a $25k ITF Women's tournament held at the same event as an ATP Challenger) where linking to the yearly event article would still be preferable, but apart from that it should be fairly straight forward. Thoughts? Sellyme Talk 16:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure (in the tables) the "year link" has an exact guideline, and you're correct that it's all over the place... even withing the same chart! The order in the tables is firm consensus... it's eldest first and it has been that way for years and years. So it would be 2014 first. On the infoboxes I would think that if you are are the men's singles draw article you would want to keep being directed to men's singles draw articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * On another note... in the Indian Wells Masters list you can see that the numbers for multiple championships are in bold. That is WRONG and it is caused by the fact that no one is closing the bold quotes on the player's names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The before and after links should go to the articles on the same hierarchical level, i.e. 2016 Miami Open > 2017 Miami Open and 2016 Miami Open – Men's Singles > 2017 Miami Open – Men's Singles. The tables should be in chronological order from oldest to newest. There is no need or justification to bold the champions column in tournament tables nor to set the font-size to anything smaller than 100%. The latter is an accessibility issue and the bolding is not in line with MOS:BOLD. A tournament table without bolding or smaller font-size (see e.g. Sydney International) is easier to read and calmer on the eyes.--Wolbo (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The date linking in tables is indeed inconsistent, both in tournament articles as well as in player articles. Since the tables relate to specific events it seems preferable to link them to the event articles (2016 Miami Open – Men's Singles) instead of tournament edition articles (2016 Miami Open), as was mainly done in the past. But event articles are not always available and in those cases I would argue it is better to link to the tournament edition article than not to link at all, even if this results in linking inconsistency.--Wolbo (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * However, the Sydney International is not consensus either since the individual columns should not have a width parameter. I just ran into this causing a problem because different browsers (Firefox, IE, Chrome, Mobile) all handle the pixels differently. What looks like bloated extra space in one might actually force wrapping in another). But yes, actually bolding those winners is not kosher either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sydney International does have smaller font sizes for number of titles in the wikitables though. Although the MoS only says not to put it 85%, and I think a single small tag stays within that, so it shouldn't be an accessibility problem either way. Sellyme Talk 03:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the basic standard is to keep things at 100% and no column widths. Of course we have exceptions too. Federer charts are usually very wide because of how long he has played, so shrinking those down to fit the page is reasonable. So we strive for 100% but realize there are exceptions. The width tags are somewhat subjective. Some like the cells with a little air in them after the wording. I personally have no trouble at all with the aesthetics of say 5–10 pixels extra after a partner's name, or the score. But it does create extra problems with different browsers, which is why i think it's best to not have them. I don't think our guideline tables use them for this reason, but I'm not sure if we extensively talked about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

So is everyone happy with the following guidelines?


 * In champions boards, link the year to the specific draw for that event (e.g., 2017 not 2017 ). Redlinks are fine, unless the specific draw is not notable (ITF tournaments that gained a greater status later, or held alongside notable ATP events), in which case link to the yearly article for the tournament as a whole.


 * Strip any "width=" entries from champions board columns, except under exceptional circumstances (e.g., an absurdly long player name).


 * Close bold tags on player names in tables, and for players who've won the title multiple times, include in brackets with no markup the number of that title.


 * In any article for a specific event or draw, the infobox should always link back to the previous/next year's event at the same hierarchical. 2017 Challenger La Manche – Singles should have a before_year linking to 2016 Challenger La Manche – Singles.

There's a few other minor oddities that need to be brought up (e.g., before_name entries for events that were known under a different name for the men's and women's draws the previous year), but if there's agreement on those four major points I can get to work on cleaning up the Challenger Tour while doing my tiebreak fixes. Sellyme Talk 04:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In agreement with points 1 and 4 but not 2 and 3. The "width" formatting (or rather the css equivalent 'style="width: px"') serves a purpose to increase the readability and scannability of the information and any cross-browser formatting issues that exist should be easily fixable via minor adjustments. For point 3 my proposal was to remove the bold formatting and font-size reduction entirely. --Wolbo (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the width formatting would ever increase (or even change) readability unless one of the columns was so wide as to cause unexpected wrapping. What advantage do they give over just letting the auto-formatting sort it out until there's a player with an extraordinarily long name listed? Sellyme Talk 13:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For the most part width is not needed. A lot of these tables have been made much wider than they need to be, which actually makes it harder on readability and keeping your eye on the correct line. Some have even added width statements to the entire table. As Sellyme points out there are exceptions for incredibly long names. I'm actually not so sure about #1. What is the real advantage of linking to the draw rather than just 2017 Challenger La Manche? It's not a big deal but you can reach the draw from the yearly article and you get to see the seed rankings and wildcard listings that are missing from the draw. And I disagree with the red links. If there is no draw then link to the yearly article. And as Wolbo said, I don't think the bold is supposed to be there at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, at the bottom of the 2015 BNP Paribas Open infobox, it should say Indian Wells Masters, not BNP Paribas Open. A "main_name=Indian Wells Masters" tag is missing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My thought process for #1 is that in many combined gender tournaments, there will be at least 5 separate wikilinked listings of years (Men's Singles, Men's Doubles, Women's Singles, Women's Doubles, navbox), and to have every single one of those listings go to the same set of articles seems excessively redundant, especially when for many of these articles that's the only substantial content. Personally I think having each year wikilink go to the specific draw and then prioritising creation of navboxes where needed (WP:NENAN suggests that tournaments with 5+ editions is a good benchmark) would be the least astonishing thing for the end user. I can see where there'd be a bit of hesitation on articles for tournaments with few editions where a navbox is either wholly unnecessary or just a bit unpleasantly empty, but it definitely seems like the most sane choice for nearly all events to me. I think it's best to have tournaments that don't necessitate navboxes still follow the same linking pattern for consistency's sake, and although that's clearly not ideal it's a lot better than the current system in my opinion. If anyone can come up with a more elegant solution for those I'm all ears, though. Sellyme Talk 20:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify my position on the first point, redlinks are only fine if there is no edition article available, otherwise link to that. In order to progress I suggest to set the width argument aside for now. --Wolbo (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can agree with linking to the edition article if that exists but the event article does not (but should), but realistically I think we should be trying to create the event article as we notice issues like that. For tournaments post-2000 they shouldn't take too long to set up. There's a very small number of articles where that's a problem currently (I think mostly 2009 Challenger Tour articles missing a doubles page) and I was working on creating them before I realised that there were so many inconsistencies with inter-article navigation. I'll draft up a "goal" page tonight so that we have something more meticulous to work off of. Sellyme Talk 22:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with points 1 and 4 and I'm neutral regarding point 2. However I don't agree with point 3. There shouldn't be any bolding.Tvx1 22:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've created an example of a "template page" over at User:Sellyme/Dump using the Burnie International as a source, as it has a fairly convoluted history that should throw up nearly all of the edge cases we need to address. I've implemented most of the changes mentioned here (even the contentious ones) so that a comparison can effectively be made. Additionally, I've also made a Burnie International navbox so that the issue of having easy links to the yearly edition articles is solved. This may be contentious, as there's a lot of Challenger events and so far very few (if any?) of them have had infoboxes created, but I'm strongly of the opinion that this is a benefit to the article. Of note is that, in addition to the issues brought up here, I've found a few other minor edge cases that should be addressed:


 * Should people who've been runners-up numerous times have that addressed in the tables? (I don't think so)
 * When a tournament occurs twice in a year, should that be denoted by,  ,  , or  ? I've used  , as that seems to be the current standard (and as a way of demonstrating how the small tag can be implemented into the wikilink), but I think specifying the month would be a better option unless there's any truly unusual cases of a tournament being held twice within the same month. With regards to the small tag as an accessibility issue, as the table is no longer globally set to 90%, that should no longer be an accessibility issue, so having the tag is an option now.
 * Should walkovers be denoted in the score column as "w/o", "W/O", or "Walkover"? The abbreviations seem to be the most common, but I'm in favour of changing to the latter. There's more than enough space for it and it eliminates any risk of someone not being familiar with the abbreviation.
 * How should doubles teams where either player (or both) previously won the event with a different partner be handled?

So what do people think of the changes that have been applied, and the new quirks mentioned above? Right now I'm fairly happy with all of the new adjustments, apart from maybe the width parameters being removed, as it does make the article look noticeable less "nice". I think the wikilinking changes, handling of markup and denotion of repeated winners, and chronology adjustments are all fairly non-contentious at this stage and can start being applied en-masse (and I shall start doing so tomorrow in absence of any major objections), but the navboxes, width markup, and minor edge cases are something that still need input. Sellyme Talk 02:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Junior Fed Cup
Is the Junior Fed Cup notable under WP:NTENNIS or no? I don't see any mention of it but I would assume it is not-notable similar to other junior tournaments. There are discussions taking place at Articles for deletion/2015 Fed Cup Junior and Articles for deletion/2016 Fed Cup Junior. If the Junior Fed Cup is notable, leave me a message and I will withdraw the deletion nomination. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess everyone might have a different opinion but I don't think it's notable at all. We have Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup that lists all the winners and runner-up teams. That's far and away enough in my book. Season articles seem ridiculous to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No of course. I meant seasonal articles. I saw that two of them were recently created so I nominated them for deletion, because while the Junior Fed Cup overall may be notable, the yearly versions aren't. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

João Pedro Sorgi
There is a discussion taking place at Articles for deletion/João Pedro Sorgi which you may be interested in participating in. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion is still taking place and has been relisted for further discussion. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Runner-up or Final for Seed elimination note?
So anyone who edits draw articles will be familiar with this section:

==Seeds== • # 🇨🇳 Zheng Saisai (Champion)

• # Chang Kai-chen (Second round)

• # 🇨🇳 Zhang Kailin (Quarterfinals)

• # 🇨🇳 Han Xinyun (Second round)

• # 🇨🇳 Zhu Lin (Second round)

• # 🇨🇳 Liu Fangzhou (Runner-up)

• # 🇰🇷 Jang Su-jeong (Semifinals)

• # 🇯🇵 Hiroko Kuwata (Semifinals)

However, a lot of articles have  instead of   (or vice versa?) and I can't seem to find any discussion on which is preferred previously.

This is an extremely simple one to mass-fix across all draw articles and could be done in just a few minutes, so it seems like a good opportunity to decide on one of the two and standardise our articles. I think that "Final" would probably be a better option, since that's what's used most often in player-specific data (e.g., "F" in career timeline tables), but I'm open to discussion. Sellyme Talk 06:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would definitely say Final. Since all the other players have the round where they were eliminated (quarterfinals, semifinals, etc.), I think using Final would be the most consistent. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll support final as well.Tvx1 15:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed on final. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also agree on using 'Final'. I have seen 'Finalist' used as well, which is in line with 'Champion' but that setup doesn't work with the first four rounds so it's preferable to use 'Final'. --Wolbo (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty strong consensus then. I've processed just under 7,000 draw articles across the ATP World Tour, ATP Challenger Tour, WTA Tour, and ITF Women's Circuit from 2000 through 2017 to find all of the "Runner-up" and "Finalist" entries, and am working on fixing them now. There's surprisingly far fewer than I had thought. Sellyme Talk 12:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Aren't you rushing a bit here? It's been barely 24 since you made your proposal.Tvx1 12:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A bit, but considering the unanimous agreement from a larger number of people than normally show up on this Talk page, as well as the fact that over 90% of articles were already using that standard, it seemed pretty obvious what to do. I would have left it a bit longer but when I was doing the pre-processing to work out what articles used what formatting I found out that 6346 articles used "Final" already, so there really isn't the divide that I thought there was when making this thread. Sellyme Talk 13:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Final' looks the most consistent to me, as well. Janik17B (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Records against other players
Is there a standard for what matches to include in the head to head results against other notable players in career statistics pages? The record keeping of the official authorities seems inconsistent on this front... For example, the WTA has a different record for Simona Halep vs Johanna Konta than the ITF. The inconsistency here appears to be a Fed Cup meeting between the two that the ITF counts and the WTA doesn't, presumably because it occurred below World Group level. Only matches played in World Group team cup matches would be OK as a definition, but if we rely on the official records to source these then this is inconsistent between the Men's and Women's Tours, as the ATP include non-World Group Davis Cup matches in their h2h stats! The ITF maintains separate profiles for a players pro and junior careers, so their pro h2h numbers shouldn't capture junior matches that definitely shouldn't be counted. Maybe using that as the reference works better than the ATP/WTA (unless that is already meant to be the case, and I've missed it)? Janik17B (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If the ATP and ITF both agree on what counts in H2H then I think we should go with those as sources, rather than the WTA. Things are a bit more ambiguous if they all differ on some facets, though. I did a few rudimentary checks and couldn't find any other differences. Sellyme Talk 09:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , Some players have head-to-head records in the career stats or season articles. I guess I haven't paid much attention to it but what is the deal when they play ATP/WTA sanctioned events vs ITF sanctioned events? Should we make separate head to head charts for each governing body, or do we combine them into one chart with asterisks for the ITF events? ATP/WTA events are most tournaments and ITF events are the 4 majors/DavisCup/FedCup/HopmanCup. Do we keep the totals separate, combine them all, combine the ATP and ITF majors... what should the protocol be? It can make a difference when the opening line of the head to head tells readers the win-loss record and the ITF and ATP differ since the ATP ignores HopmanCup and sometimes DavisCup matches and the ITF does not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ATP H2H stats do not recognise Davis Cup or Hopman Cup at all (example). It only counts wins in ATP World Tour event main draws in the H2H count, but will display Qualifier/Challenger/Futures matches further down the page (example). ITF H2H stats will display all matches and counts Hopman Cup in the H2H count (example) but does not count qualifier matches in the H2H record even though it displays them (example). The WTA is the most sensible out of all of these, counting any match that they display (example), although they do not display Fed Cup matches (example).
 * So in summary: no official source consistently displays the H2H record of every match the players have actually played against each other, although the ITF does at least show the results of every match. Given that the ITF is consistent between men and women and has more data, I think we should be using them as a source. Sellyme Talk 09:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That does make some sense. I noticed it at first when the news and ITF kept saying that Alexander Zverev leads Roger Federer in head to head 2–1. I checked the ITF and it says 2–1 in Zverev's favor. The ATP has it 1–1. Hopman Cup doesn't give points (just like the Olympics) but it is an official event on the ITF Calendar, as is Davis Cup, the Olympics, and the 4 majors. The ITF also recognizes all the ATP tournaments. I corrected Federer's article and it was reverted and then put in a special section. I thought maybe we at Wikipedia don't include Olympics, Davis Cup and Hopman Cup in head to head tallies... so I thought I'd bring it up here to clarify. I don't usually edit the head to head charts in player bios. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , The ATP does, in fact, recognise Davis Cup matches. Just not Hopman Cup ones. So Murray-Kyrgios gets shown as 5-0 rather than 5-1, but Murray-Muller appears as 5-0 on both the ATP and ITF with their non-World group Davis Cup meeting included each time. As noted, however, the WTA does not seem to count Fed Cup ties below World Group level. See their record for A.Radwanska vs Arvidsson and compare to the ITF version which incorporates a 2009 non-World Group encounter that the WTA omits. Overall, I agree that the ITF is the best source. Its the closest to being consistent as it treats male and female records in the same manner. Janik17B (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Template Formatting
Just to give everyone a heads up in regards to Template:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3-Byes. Previously, you had to use a non-breaking space for the second line in a doubles draw to make the players align. I asked for that to be fixed, so the non-breaking space is no longer needed. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

nowrap
I will run this through to you guys before asking for an actual change. I realize that a majority of tennis draw articles use nowrap to keep long player names on one line, which makes sense. However, each time, nowrap has to be added into the code. I want to know if we should change it so that nowrap is inserted into the template code originally, so that nowrap is no longer needed for every article since it is already built into the template. For example, I know that Template:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3-Byes uses nowrap, but should we add it to all tennis bracket templates. Or is there a case when you want a line to wrap? Adamtt9 (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's ever been a case where we want a line to wrap. In situations with staggeringly long player names I think shortening them is a better way to go than wrapping. Sellyme Talk 11:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a way for the bracket template to have nowrap built into it, so I am asking if you actually want it built into the template. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I'm saying - since the only times where not having nowrap would be preferable are when shortening the name is even better still, there's no reason not to have nowrap built into in the template. Sellyme Talk 13:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It should now be inserted into the template, so adding nowrap to each article is no longer necessary. It should happen automatically. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Tennis bracket templates
and anyone else who has an opinion. I have been working on the tennis bracket templates, to try to (1) reduce the processing overhead, and (2) harmonize the syntax used in the various templates. eventually, I hope to merge some of them, but that is for a later date and after more discussion. I am currently working on the 'with third' and 'with 3rd' templates in Category:Tennis tournament bracket templates. I have noticed three different methods for specifying the 3rd place match. for example, for an 8 team, 3 round, 3 set tournament we have,

   
 * Method 1:
 * 3rd = ...
 * 3rd-seed1 =
 * 3rd-team1 =
 * 3rd-score1-1 =
 * 3rd-score1-2 =
 * 3rd-score1-3 =
 * 3rd-seed2 =
 * 3rd-team2 =
 * 3rd-score2-1 =
 * 3rd-score2-2 =
 * 3rd-score2-3 =
 * Method 2:
 * Consol = ...
 * RD3-seed3 =
 * RD3-team3 =
 * RD3-score3-1 =
 * RD3-score3-2 =
 * RD3-score3-3 =
 * RD3-seed4 =
 * RD3-team4 =
 * RD3-score4-1 =
 * RD3-score4-2 =
 * RD3-score4-3 =
 * Method 3:
 * RD4 = ...
 * RD4-seed1 =
 * RD4-team1 =
 * RD4-score1-1 =
 * RD4-score1-2 =
 * RD4-score1-3 =
 * RD4-seed2 =
 * RD4-team2 =
 * RD4-score2-1 =
 * RD4-score2-2 =
 * RD4-score2-3 =
 * Method 4:
 * RD3b = ...
 * RD3b-seed1 =
 * RD3b-team1 =
 * RD3b-score1-1 =
 * RD3b-score1-2 =
 * RD3b-score1-3 =
 * RD3b-seed2 =
 * RD3b-team2 =
 * RD3b-score2-1 =
 * RD3b-score2-2 =
 * RD3b-score2-3 =

and some minor permutations based on padding the numbers with a leading zero. my question is, which format should we use? I am currently supporting all three methods internally in the LUA module, but it requires a chunk of translation code. any preferences? Frietjes (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Method 1 is certainly not the commonly used option. In all the draw templates that I have seen the rounds were designated as 'RD#' (# is round number). What are the exact differences between Method 2 and 3 and what is the function of the line '| Consol = ...' in Method 2? --Wolbo (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wolbo, in this context, 3rd, Consol, and RD4 all set the heading for the "consolation match". for examples of each method we have
 * Method 1: Template:4TeamBracket-Tennis3-with third (136), Template:4TeamBracket-Tennis35-with third (8), Template:6TeamBracket-Tennis5-with third (2), Template:8TeamBracket-Tennis3-with third (111), Template:8TeamBracket-Tennis5-with third (38), Template:8TeamBracket-Tennis35-with third (16), Template:4TeamBracket-Tennis5-NoSeeds-with 3rd (0), Template:4TeamBracket-Tennis7-with 3rd (14)
 * Method 2: Template:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis5-NoSeeds-Byes-with-third (4), Template:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3-with 3rd (40), Template:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis7-with 3rd (7)
 * Method 3: Template:4TeamBracket-Tennis5-with 3rd (75)
 * Method 4: Template:8TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3-with 3rd (10), Template:8TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis7-with 3rd (16), Template:8TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis9-with 3rd (12), Template:8TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis577-with 3rd (2)
 * so, as far as total number of templates, "Method 1" is the most common. but, none of these templates have more than 136 transclusions, which may be why you haven't seen many of these.  I would say that using "seed 3 and seed 4" for the 3rd vs 4th place match makes logical sense.  from a LUA coding perspective, using "round 4 with seed 1 and seed 2" requires the fewest additional lines of code.  but, we shouldn't bend over backwards just to make the code a couple lines shorter.  as I said, right now I am supporting all methods by translating the input arguments.  given that there are so few transclusions of these templates, we can really select any method we want and just change the others.  Frietjes (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Method 4 (RD3b) seems the most intuitive to me. RD4 definitely shouldn't be used, the 3rd place match is not further into the tournament than the final and I can definitely see people accidentally putting finalists in the wrong area by accident because of the way it would be named. Sellyme Talk 14:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Eduardo Russi Assumpção
There is a discussion taking place at Articles for deletion/Eduardo Russi Assumpção which you may be interested in participating in.Tvx1 15:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)