Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines

'Career statistics' consesus
Hello to everyone! Since there are so many dispute about different topics, I would like you to propose you template of how these pages should look like and also to clear up some doubts and EVENTUALLY once for all find CONSESUS. Please, say everything that bothers you and also suggest some changes if any is needed. Pay attention to everything, including SECTION NAMES, SPELLING, COLOR and etc. p.s. Time is to finally find CONSESUS that all players should share. Current GUIDLINES missing some things and is not precise enough. Cheers. p.s. I change section titles to Level 1 only in this case to make everything inside one section! JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)



#0 Vertical infobox
I would keep separate W/L records for WTA 500 and WTA 250 instead of merging them under 1 row. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree with you. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I propose this change be put into motion once the current discussion is closed. Could easily be done by referring to ITF, however it lists obsolete event cats, unfortunately. One can back check to see which tournies are the WTA 250 and 500, respectively, though. (example with outdated tournament categories). Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WTA is trying to riff (not sure if spelled correctly) off what ITF has but without an outdated tournament category, which I reckon, is the second best reliable source we have (WTA's resource). Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

#1 Performance timelines
''Only main-draw results in WTA Tour, Grand Slam tournaments, Billie Jean King Cup, Hopman Cup, United Cup and Olympic Games are included in win–loss records. ''

Singles
Current after the 2023 San Diego Open.

▶ Notes


 * Mixed doubles has short version with only Grand Slams & National representation (Billie Jean king Cup & Summer Olympics)
 * Hopman Cup, United Cup & Billie Jean King Cup (formerly Fed Cup) counted only for win/loss, not for tournaments.
 * If there is colspan in a row, should it be e.g. "DNQ" or "did not qualify", "NH" or "not held" ?
 * Due to its long names, I propose these abbreviations:
 * W, F, SF, 1R*, RR – for World Group (* it could be QF as it said when you open e.g. 2018 Fed Cup World Group, but since it's opening round, for me personally it's better to say "1R")
 * PO – World Group Play-off
 * WG2 – World Group II
 * PO2 – World Group II Play-off
 * Z1/2/3 – Zone Groups Round Robin
 * POZ1/Z2/Z3 – when a team is playing for the promotion, not relegation.
 * Having notes for 2020–21 edition of the Billie Jean King Cup, since it can be confused for some people why this edition is splitted into the two years.
 * For me personally it's better to have only 'Hard win-loss' (or Hardcourt?) and no 'Carpet' as separated, because when you e.g. came to the ITF official site, you can see that e.g. they counted 'Tournoi de Québec' as a 'Hard' tournament. The reason why i'm addressing this site is because it seams to be more reliable so far (WTA official site has a lot of mistakes – e.g. for some tournament that now switched to the WTA 125K category, you can found that tournament in some player's listed matches as that category, but in the past it was different category. In addition, e.g. in 2021 there are some duplicated matches, and they still hasn't fixed it all – see e.g. Magda Linette doubles matches).

This needs revamping. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Also MOS:DTT concerned. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Dubai and Qatar could not share the same line row any more as they are both 1000 events since (or at least in) 2024. I have done an update to Iga Świątek career statistics as a sample, and left "NW1" (not WTA 1000) for the year they held as 500 tournaments per the tennis guideline suggests "Results from the WTA Premier Events (i.e. 500 tournaments) ... should not be included and/or separated into timelines and instead should be documented within the body of the player's article." Comments are welcome. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Unnamelessness, I wouldn't split Qatar and Dubai into 2 separate rows. They are tournaments that alternate each year. Many older players', current and former, BLPs career stats have them merged in 1 row. You can add a footnote citing Dubai is being played in odd- and Doha (Qatar Open) in even-numbered years. Let's try not to add extra rows. A footnote will do the trick. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Except they are no longer alternative afterwards. As I said, both tournaments are featured as 1000 events on the 2024 tour. Current layout no longer works. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Dubai and Doha've been featured as Premier 5 before the inception of WTA 1000 in 2021, which is the same categorization just under a different name. Current layout's just fine. But I am open to others weigh in on this. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, in 2024 we would see, for the FIRST time, both Dubai and Doha would be held as WTA 1000 events. This is something that never happened before. Before 2024, it is EITHER Dubai OR Qatar run as a WTA 1000/Premier 5 event, which meant we need TWO cells, instead of just one (becasue of row-sharing), to fill in the results in the timeline table. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell: before 2024, either or; after 2024, both and. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with two separate rows. I think this is the only logical solution. JamesAndersoon (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just saw the new 2024 WTA Calendar. They are adding a 10th WTA 1000 tournament. Basically, adding both Dubai and Doha and returning Wuhan, which temporarily was replaced by Guadalajara, and putting it after Beijing.... Man, the last time there were 10 WTA 1000 or equivalent events was back in 2007, under the old WTA Tier I name. This calls for a project-wide discussion. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. tl;dr I am okay with the 2 row change, having heard this news. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Right off hand, I can't think of any way to do it other than two separate rows. We may need to leave the note but change the wording a bit to explain the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion on the Project's talk page about the 10 WTA 1000 events. Not related to the performance timeline, moreso to the articles involving WTA 1000. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Doubles: 1 (1 Gold Medal)
▶ Notes


 * Tokyo Summer Olympics / Summer Olympics, Tokyo, Summer Olympics, Japan / Summer Olympics, Tokyo, Japan ?

Doubles: 3 (1 title, 2 runner-ups)
▶ Notes


 * WTA Finals Guadalajara / WTA Finals, Mexico / WTA Finals, Guadalajara / WTA Finals, Guadalajara, Mexico ?

Doubles: 5 (3 titles, 2 runner-ups)
I created this discussion section so it's easier to add comments. First lets not put the one section under "#3 Other significant finals". We don't really use it in the articles anymore afaik. Otherwise my first thoughts would be the following. We didn't want to be a cookie cutter project so some things were purposely left out of the guidelines. I'm not saying that we couldn't/shouldn't add more, just that it was intentionally left out to allow flexibility. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

3: Olympics I would use Summer Olympics, Tokyo. Probably the only city name in our charts. Year-end championships. I would probably have "WTA Finals" and nothing else. The place isn't needed here. If we must include it them "WTA Finals, Mexico".


 * This section is deprecated? But every player that reached these final have it? Don't get the point. Contradiction JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)


 * They do? We have the tables, yes but not under the heading of "significant finals." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Aryna Sabalenka career statistics for instance JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Some do some don't. I don't see it as needed. Certainly not in our guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Significant finals subsection title is present in player's BLPs who have retired back. More recent articles, 2010– don't have those. I propose to remove them and merge them with the Slams, WTA 1000s and Olympics under 1 section. And then have the career section, which lists all finals ever played by XYZ player in a separate section below the "Major finals" section. Section title needs some work Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Doubles: 28 (18 titles, 10 runner-ups)
Note: Tournaments sourced from official WTA archives

▶ Notes


 * We should use current tier's names. However, when we list these finals in the table, it's better to cite the name of this tier at that time. Then, we can use notes to inform users to what current tier this one correspond. E.g. we now have 'WTA 250' that is formerly known as International tier. For the players that have 'career statistics' we have this note at the 'career finals box' at the beginning of the page and then just use this 'refname'.
 * If a player ended his/her career before new system was introduced, old one should be used.
 * Result in the tie-breaks should be displayed in full form (e.g. 7–6(7–4) not 7–6(4)).

In the career charts we would want the footnotes in the legend, not the actual charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Billie Jean King Cup: 1 (1 titles)
▶ Notes


 * We a team won a BJKC trophy, we should also count all the players that was part of the team during that edition. Still, we can inform users which ones were in the final round and give others a note (just like in the example above).

5: Billie Jean King Cup. Why would we include all the players on the teams? This is a single player bio and a link is fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Why would we include all the players on the teams? This is a single player bio and a link is fine." She is part of the team, and all members should be named. She is not only one that get the trophy. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)


 * But this is a personal bio, not a team bio. The link to the team article should be enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fully disagree with you. We just mentioned them, why that should be the problem? It's personally bio, but playing the team events is part of that. There is no 50 players, just max of 10. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no need for other teammates at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add nowrap and list the actual results for each match, not just the final rubber result, but would keep the list of all the team mates. And remove the footnote. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree! JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Doubles: 1 (1 title)
Note: Tournaments sourced from official WTA archives

▶ Notes

6/7 "The note you propose has issues"? Pardon?? It literally said that it is the same category but 'title (prize money)' changed. What is the problem? We don't need to add each version of these tiers. This is the purpose of notes. It looks really messy adding all these tiers. Please, don't make it complicated without reason. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)
 * I know we have "External Links" for player's profiles at the WTA & ITF, but still, it's better to sourced every section of the page (it looks more natural – otherwise, user needs to scroll to the bottom and maybe even don't know about these profile links). Also, I saw some editors add warning that some sections need to be sourced e.g. Ekaterina Alexandrova career statistics.
 * WTA 125 Limoges, France / Open de Limoges, France ? Where is also dispute about this one.


 * Well, we disagree on this. I find the note much more obtrusive than 50/60. It is way longer and readers have to look down the page to find it rather than it being quickly seen in the legend. We'll just have to see what other think on this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * |There is something called 'tooltip'. They don't need to scroll down. Still, you can't find the perfect combination for all users – ofcourse we need to think about different cases, but you exaggerate. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not every computer/phone handles those tooltips properly. Plus Wikipedia doesn't want you to use them if something else will do, and with far less characters to boot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Singles: 21 (14 titles, 7 runner–ups)
Note: Tournaments sourced from official ITF archives

▶ Notes


 * Just like in 'WTA Tour career finals' it's pointless to add '$75/80 tournaments' instead of only '$80 tournaments' before '80' is now current. Thanks to color and note, user can understand connections between past and current tiers.
 * Also, maybe tiers should be labeled as 'W80' instead of '$80 tournaments' ?
 * Again, better to source section with 'Tournaments sourced from official ITF archives'.
 * If a player ended his/her career before new system was introduced, old one should be used.
 * Name of a tournament:
 * ITF Osijek, Croatia / ITF Osijek, Croatia ?
 * Innisbrook Open / ITF Innisbrook ?
 * Bella Cup / ITF Toruń / Bella Cup Toruń ?

Singles/Doubles: 26 (16 titles, 10 runner–ups)
Note: Tournaments sourced from official Junior ITF archives

▶ Notes


 * Regadless we have 'Grand Slams' listed in the 'Junior Grand Slam finals' it's the same situation as the senior tournaments where we have 'significant finals' & 'WTA Tour career finals' separated. Also, when you come to the ITF website, they listed 'Grand Slam' as a 'Grade A' (or nowdays 'J500')
 * If a player ended his/her career before new system was introduced, old one should be used. (e.g. 'Grade 1' – nowdays 'J300').
 * Walkover should be counted as a loss or neutral?

All looks relatively fine till we get to the ITF finals where we never came to an agreement on what to call the individual events. i.e. whether we would call it the ITF Turin or Bella Cup. That would need to be decided before we add that chart, and it is a chart we missed and should be included. And when there are both 75 and 80 events in a players timeline we do use $75/80. It is not pointless. In new charts I would use W80. The note you propose has issues. It is way longer than simply using 50/60, which only adds three extra characters. 50/60 is instantly viewable by readers so no need to mouseover a note where on phones it doesn't work well. You mentioned color as a way of discerning... that doesn't help those who are colorblind. Using 10/15, 50/60, 75/80 is the best and easiest way to handle the legend. When there is only one entry of $75 then that's what we would use in the legend, since there would be no need for an 80. Same with newer players who have only played under W80 events. That's all we'd use with no need for notes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Add  between doubles players to conserve space. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I always do this, but here accidentally forgot. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I will give a more detailed feedback on this subsection later in the day. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#9 Billie Jean King Cup participation

 * Key

Doubles: 1 (1–0)
▶ Notes

Then we are ok until we get to #9.
 * As you can see, in doubles table, not played matches can be also addressed but they are not counted as a win/loss.
 * I need help with legend for this, since in the past we had 'World Group I/II' + two play-offs + 'Zone Groups', but nowdays it's different with 'Finals' + 'Qualifying round' + 'Play-off' + 'Zone Groups'

9: I do not like the abbreviation for country location. Mouseover doesn't always work for phones and many readers don't have a clue about what CZE means. Just normal Antalya, Turkey. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Tooltips hasn't worked for years on mobile. There were 2 Phabricator requests started. Both didn't yield any results, because of it being a low-priority issue. I agree with Fyunck: use Prague, Czech Republic instead, for e.g. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Added a legend. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Understand about a tooltip. Thank you for the legend but this need expanding, since we have another rounds as well (e.g. World Group II, World Group II play-off, Zone Group ...) and I don't know which color should I use? JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * About the color scheme for the legend neither do I. This could be discussed in greater detail on a separate discussion. What do you think? See for reference. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, but in the "performance key" there are no colors for e.g. "World Group" . JamesAndersoon (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We could create a similar legend template for BJK/Davis Cup various groups with WCAG-compliant colors and everything. I proposed as an example. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

#10 WTA ranking
Current after the 2022 season.

10: Pretty much already included on the bottom of the performance timeline. Not really needed nor does it need a guideline. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Where? Don't see it. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)
 * How can you not see it? The ranking is at the bottom of every performance timeline. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I still can't see it. I only see year-end, but no 'highest' and 'lowest'. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You can see continual year-end highest for every year. No one cares about lowest ranking. And the infobox has their highest ranking and current ranking. We don't need more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur with Fyunck here. The year end rankings suffice, no need to add both highest AND lowest yearly ranking. We really don't. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, since it turns out I'm the only one for this and also don't have problem with eliminating this. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ That settles this subsection. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#11 WTA Tour career earnings
Current after the 2023 Canadian Open.

▶ Notes


 * All three events are counted: singles, doubles & mixed doubles. If player only has singles titles, then we can remove this note and just add e.g. 'WTA singles titles'.

11: Trivial chart that we don't need. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Trivial? Why? JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)


 * Once again it's at the bottom of every performance timeline. Why on earth would we double up? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Where? I only see total amount. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All that's needed is their total career earnings and we already have that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would remove the titles won stats but keep the seasonal and career prize money won. The subsection is about prize money, let's keep it limited to that only. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree! JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ This subsection discussion is settled. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Grand Slam tournament seedings
The tournaments won by Krejčíková are in boldface, and advanced into finals by Krejčíková are in italics.

Doubles
▶ Notes


 * not seeded / unseeded ?
 * did not play / absent ?
 * as you can see e.g. 2022 French Open, Krejcikova and Siniakova were seeded No. 1 but they withdrew right before tournament started. It should be counted but with note (it should be counted since it's about seeding not participating)

Best Grand Slam results details
Grand Slam winners are in boldface, and runner–ups are in italics.

Singles
12: Grand Slam tournament seeding – another non-needed chart. Best Grand Slam result – already in the performance timeline. This is why we have a performance timeline. The actual score is trivial and can be linked to if someone wants that info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Non-needed chart? Pardon? JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)


 * A grand slam seeding chart? That is fluff in my book. We have way too many charts on these pages and this one is super trivial. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "in my book". What? That is exactly the problem. No cooperation at all. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You asked for input here. I find these charts obtrusive and trivial. Certainly should not be in a guideline. But others may feel differently, I realize that. These are simply yours and my opinions, and many opinions form a consensus. We'll see what happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would remove the "best slam results" section as it is, as Fyunck had already mentioned, in the performance timeline. If you want to keep it, then limit it to 1 best result per slam and have the tables collapsed to save up on space. Otherwise, remove the subsection altogether. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, then we should remove 'best slam results' but keep 'seedings' from my POV. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I proposed. Ditch the best slam results but retain the slam seedings. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Singles

 * Krejčíková has an 11–17 record against players who were, at the time the match was played, ranked in the top 10.

▶ Notes


 * Record against other players / Head-to-head records ?

13: Is fine but with a caveat. We certainly don't want these to overwhelm an article in length. A player like Djokovic would be so long as to be ridiculous. He should only have top 10 victories. Where we have the cutoff I'm not sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You literally agreed on this table before??? JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)


 * I agreed on the table, but we also have to be reasonable. It works great for almost all players. But if someone like Federer or Djokovic have one that is 10x longer than everyone else it could be too unwieldy. Their articles are way too long already. It might be better to only have top 10 wins for them, or for the table to be hidden. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why you didn't say anything about when we make consesus? I can't understand. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One doesn't always think about every aspect at all times. We would want a players bio to be half filled with a single chart. So we make exceptions. That's normal. Remember that I didn't necessarily like the chart, but the original chart was horrid and non-sourceable. This chart seemed the best compromise. If I was building it I would have only had a top 10 wins chart. And it wasn't being proposed at the time for our guidelines. Others here may have different opinions as to it's usefulness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Limit it to back to the original Top 10 wins, not Top 10 win %. Krejčíková has an 11–17 (39%) record against players who were, at the time the match was played, ranked in the top 10 could be reworded to Krejčíková has an 11–17 (39%) record against players ranked in the top 10. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think one of the problems in the past was the addition of another table that was worded as "record against players ranked in the top 10" and that included players who were ever ranked in the top ten... even if they never met when they were in the top 10. More and more of the those massive tables were being created with no way to source them. It was original research. So articles contained a top 10 wins chart AND and a non-sourceble top 10 at any time chart. While I thought all we needed was a top 10 wins chart (with a simple overall record posted) for sanity I agreed to a compromise. If this is being opened up for all to see at the project I would agree with Qwerty here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I really don't know how to think about this one. Again, if I'm the only one wanting the loss top 10 matches as well, then we should only include wins. I wanted to find compromise between top 10 wins and former table. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am willing to negotiate on this one to satisfy both sides of the discussion in more detail. I propose a new section gets created which only focuses on raw statistics: "Top 10 wins" being one of them (see Open Era Top 10 win stats), preferably, at the end of Career stats pages. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The current table is MOS:DTT concerned. A good layout would be several independent tables with the year as the repective header, something like the entry list I created for Rally articles (e.g. 2023 Rally Japan) If the table is too long, consider to collapse it, though the only problem for this is that, correct me if I am wrong, it is not accessible for mobile users. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A legend could be created above the 2nd table to accommodate for mobile users not being able to open tooltips. Note: tooltips can be opened if clicked on in the Desktop version of Wiki on mobile, but not in the mobile Wikipedia app. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I just went to check at the Wiki app. It seems that every wikitable is automatically collapsed by default. Anyway, the only problem here is to deal the MOS:DTT issue. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's auto-collapsed to save up on scrolling, I opine. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * BTW, the performace timeline also has MOS:DTT issue. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what. It was built and updated with discussion from accessibility groups, and screen readers. Then tested a lot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You may refer to MOS:COLHEAD. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unname is talking about scopes row and col in conjunction with ! and WCAG colors. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

#14 Longest winning streaks

 * 4-match singles winning streak (2021)

14: Do we need a guideline for this? Very few players should have this chart unless it's approaching some kind of record. That's what I see in my first look through. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes we need. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)


 * Once again we disagree on every player having a winning streak chart. These charts should be for records of some sort. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Halfly agree, but still we don't make it when someone have 3 consecutive wins... JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Too short of a win streak to be listed here. I propose list match win streaks with 20 and above consecutive matches won. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually it's longer in Barbora's case (15) but I didn't want this layout to be so long ony for demonstration purpose. I will limit it with 10+ if you agree with me. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. 10+ wins, only list the longest streak bookended by both losses, when the streak began and ended. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

New comments
Świątek's 18 match winning streak at the French Open is nothing to joke about. It is an pretty impressive fest and it deserves to be included in this article. It is not a 2+ title streak at an random WTA 250 tournament, it is an long winning streak at an grand slam event. Also, why is the "4" grand slam win a criteria for a list of such kind?  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 03:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Who said there was such a criteria? I never heard of it as far as I can recall. Usually these things are player specific as far as importance. Heck there have only been four women to ever win three consecutive French Majors (never more) since it's inception in 1925, so winning 2+ is a pretty big deal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fyunck(click) That is why I added that table because winning 18 match consecutively at any tournament is impressive but winning at a Grand Slam is on an another level. I mentioned the 4 Grand slam criteria because that's what said while removing that table. He said "There have been many much longer streaks than 2+ consecutive titles whose match win streaks are not listed. A single sentence of mention is enough. No need to list every streak at any slam that is under at least 4 consecutive titles or at least an open era record". I even have ethe sources to back that table.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK  04:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With the four majors he is correct that there have been many longer streaks. But two things here. NO one has won more than three French majors in a row (skipping it matters). If Swiatec wins her third in a row (still a tall order) she will join an elite club of five. And also, look at her 37 match win streak. We include that because it is long and it huge for her. Many many women have had longer win streaks... much longer... years longer. But it's here because it big for her. Justine Henin has her win streak included and it was only 32. Jessica Pegula has her 9-match winning streak in doubles included, because it's her best. Sabalenka has her 15-match win streak included, because it's her best (not sure about keeping that one). Now what would be good is to have those charts with a scroll bar like we do the Top 10 wins chart. The streak table shouldn't be any longer than that table. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose we take this discussion to the article guidelines subpage as it pertains more to the scope of the articles. Plus, we have yet to reach consensus on certain tennis player's career statistics pages. @PrinceofPunjab, what Fyunck mentioned earlier there have been many longer instances per slam and yet they are not included. 2+ titles is very bare minimum, not worth mentioning. Don't get me started on the big 3 and none of their slam match win streak not being listed and nobody bats an eye. Nadal's section has a bit more bloat with semis and finals win streak, but that's a different story. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Qwerty284651 I get it that winning two grand slam will create far too many streaks but I think winning Three grand slams back to back should warrant a streak mention on the statistics page. It is a pretty rare achievement, if I am not wrong only two players have won three consecutive titles at a grand slam this century, Justine Henin at the French open (2005-07) and Serena Williams at the US Open (2012–14). So, if (!!) Świątek is able to defend her title at the Roland-Garros, it would take her winning streak to 21 matches and I believe we should add a table representing that.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK  12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, the other 4 players match streaks are not mentioned on their career stats pages (those who have one) but since you insist, have at it. Changing my vote to against. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal (nadal's semi and final streaks are bloat, in my opinion), Navratilova's 6 wimby title win streak, none of them are mentioned in their respective win streak sections. Only overall and occasionally surface streaks are added, milestone wins recently started being, I see. I would limit this addition to if it constitutes a potential open era/all-time record, otherwise just don't add it. Just mention in one sentence.
 * Not to mention the: doubles teams from the early/mid 1990s with 10+ titles in a row (doubles: men's, women's and mixed). Even those don't have the streaks mentioned and it is not the end of the world...
 * Anyway, here is list of the longest all-time title streaks per slam for women's for reference. And match win streaks. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but why the heck was this moved from Swiatek's talk page? While I'm sure Qwerty284651 means well, this was ongoing on the page that it affects and it's probably a one off. It's not everyday you get this long a win streak at the French Open, and didn't need full project input. I'm a bit worried with the liberty taken here and on some chart changes where some of the edits have been great and some not so great. That said, it's always tough to decide important win streaks. Most are probably not needed. No one seemed to mind when 10 or more wins was mentioned and this French Open chart certainly blows past that number. And it does constitute a potential record. As the conversation was left hanging, every player would a get a chart if their win streak reached 10. I didn't agree. We didn't go into what if the win streak was on any of the four majors (which is even harder to do). Would we include the longest streak of any of the four majors? Longest streak in each of the four majors? From my looking at consecutive streaks at consecutive French Opens we have Henin and Seles with 21 wins, Graf 20, Evert 19, Sperling 16, Scriven and Wills 15 each. Those are the longest streaks in consecutive French majors in history. Swiatek now has 18 putting her 5th all-time even if she loses her next match. That is pretty impressive in tennis history and stacks up against the legends of the sport. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Fyunck(click), I moved the discussion here to rekindle the discussion on what win-streak records should be added in win-streak sections and this constitutes a rare example, which I feel should be mentioned and tackled. I am with its addition, but I moved it here to settle the discussion on this section and many others on this page, that has died out since our last active discussion(s) back in October. This entire page needs to be discussed and what perfect section to start on than on a current one that we hit a snag on: I am against, you with Prince are for it...and to reopen the discussion...If you look at Nadal's records mentioned: semis and finals streaks, correct if I am wrong, but that needs to go. We want uniformity across articles, as soon as one extra chart is added, new editors will assume that anything can be added in akin sections and start piling on new records they think of it is worth mentioning or have strong inclination towards.
 * From my looking at consecutive streaks at consecutive French Opens we have Henin and Seles with 21 wins, Graf 20, Evert 19, Sperling 16, Scriven and Wills 15 each. → and yet no mention of any of these records in their respective player's career stat pages. Why should it be added now? When Djokovic won 4, chasing 5 consecutive wimbledons last year, nobody added anything and 5 vs 3 in a row is a BIGGER deal, way bigger. 3- in a row albeit rare, merits, in my opinion, no chart besides a mention in a single sentence. What are we gonna start now piling up every consecutive slam match-win streak to Iga or whomever else? And where are Ram/Salisbury's 3 consecutive US Opens, an ACTIVE streak and an Open era record. Huh? Where are their streaks mentioned..nowhere? Why? because it is not neceessary. Why is all of sudden Iga's potential record any more worth mentioning? Seriously. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are good points. First though.... while some uniformity is good, complete cookie-cutter uniformity is bad imho. One of the reasons we don't have all these charts in our guidelines was specifically not to infringe on flexibility. We wanted certain charts like the performance timelines iron-clad and non-changeable, which is why we went to lengths to get it as correct as possible, with people with screen readers joining in long ago to tell us any issues they encountered. Other charts we left flexibility. Many of these charts had not even been imagined at the time. We added uniform color codes but not a lot else. As long as they weren't original research.


 * But as you have pointed out, some charts are way too trivial, some are original research, and some are simply overkill with info already in the article. Many, if not most, have deprecated coding. Some have coding that could be improved for screen readers as long as it doesn't impact the standard appearance and make it worse for sighted readers. But we have to be careful in over-fixing. For example, in Swiateks top 10 chart you added a static row for the first column of numbers. In some ways it's good and in some it's bad. Numbers are auto and it takes less coding... that's good. But in standard editing the article player by player, like adding references, it is monumentally easier to scroll down to a particular player number and work on that reference. Not having a visual number is bad for editing. I would never have added that static column because of that issue, but I can live with it. Some things a good though, like you adding a scrolling bar. It can work with many long tables. But I notice that it won't work if tables are still using deprecated bgcolor. It leaves everything as white background. Great that it forces folks to change bgcolor= to style=background: but it's also worrisome that some will simply add the scrolling and leave the background white because they don't have the time or ability to fix bgcolor themselves.


 * Now Djokovic has 43-win streak chart, an Australia win-streak chart, an indoor win streak chart, a Grand Slam tournament win streak chart, a China win streak chart. He also has a centennial match wins chart, a Milestone hard court match wins chart, a Milestone clay court match wins chart, a Milestone grass court match wins chart, etc... he has detailed recordings of all his exhibition matches. Swiatek has none of those and all a person wanted to do was add a chart for the 5th longest French Open win streak in consecutive events. It seemed reasonable to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked more into static row numbers in the mean time and will have to revert it, because it does not fully comply with WCAG, a screen reader doesn't announce a new row there because the number row does not actually exist in table markup, it is displayed for the regular reader visually. I will replace it with regular rows, whether they are ! scope=row or regular | 1 I have yet to decide. Preferably, no scope to go with the article's style used in other charts.
 * One could potentially mass change across all Wiki with a bot: bgcolor to style=background:#...BUT many templates use bg or bgcolor as a background color changing parameter and setting the exact regex for it, to exclude the param and only target table wikimarkup is something to be desired. Probably why it has never been done before....or yet.
 * Djokovic's match win streak section is the epitome of overkill. Country, surface, milestone charts (that isn't even a win streak..lol)...I would remove the country and milestone wins. Keep the surface and 43+ chart. Exhibition is out of scope of this discussion. Belongs elsewhere. But I get why you bring it up. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, doesn't properly support accessibility (see discussion), so I removed it from Iga's stat page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Navigate to this discussion after Świątek's third consective French Open title, and I still failed to see the significance, even the 21-match winning streak put her 5th best in the tournament history. As far as I am concerned, the only winning streak table that could fit in here is the pure winning streak itself. Others are nothing but some trivial statistic collection with a bunch of restrictive words. By that logic, maybe I could come up with something like Świątek's first-round winning streak and that could be a 50+ table, if I were correct. But is that useful? Absoulte no. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You know what? at this point just undo, revert and delete whatever you guys want, I don't even care at this point. I think WP:TENNIS is a truly toxic project, I mean just see what happened during the Top 10 W/L discussion. There are some two-three users who always seems to be monitoring what pages I edit and then they go and revert those edits and sometimes justify those reverts by their own made up rules. Even a meaningful edits are undone, even though there are some truly terrible charts and info that has been up there for years. I willingly bow out of this project. Peace Out ✌️,  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 15:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was away. Her win streak at the French is of HUGE significance. Her 21 match win streak is the longest in HISTORY for consecutive French Opens. It makes a big difference if you don't skip events as you please. She breaks a tie and is all alone if she wins a first round match next year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but this is not an all-time record. For reference, goats like Graf, Williams, Federer have no win streak per tournament tables. This is nothing but WP:NOTSTATS. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry but many of their tables are far worse. And this IS an all-time record. It's a tie for an all-time record with Seles and Henin, but it's very possible she could break it with another win in the first round. I thought when it was 18 it was a big enough deal to merit, but when I watched it grow to 21 I assumed this was a slam dunk now. When I came back online I figured this discussion was over and I can't fathom how it isn't. No one else has won more than three consecutive French titles since it became a major in 1925. Only Lenglen and Matthey won four consecutive titles but that was pre-major when only French players were allowed. This is a huge deal at the French Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

WTA Awards

 * Doubles Team of the year: 2018, 2021 and 2022 (alongside Kateřina Siniaková)

More awards could be added here... Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#16 See also

 * Krejčíková–Siniaková doubles team

JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

General comments

 * NOTE: From your POV we only need to provide just some basic info that you can literally found everywhere. Plus, these tables (just like Performance timelines) are full of mistakes (literally). So, provided only these information seems so much lazy and unrealiable (because of mistakes). All of these tables that I represented here is not my work, they have been there before I came. I just decide to continue populating them with new info. I never came across someone having any issue with having all these tables, notes etc. Plus, it has been there for a while, with no complaining. I really can't understand your desire to just make some quick changes without even thinking how much effort other user give in order to make these tables good. It is really disrespectfull and selfish to just came and say everything is 'trivial' and to add some new rules over the night. Yesterday I saw you adding names of previous tiers of WTA Tour to the Kateřina Siniaková career statistics. What is your point? No one complain about it, and also this is a big work to change each 'career statistics' that miss these 'former names'. I really start thinking that is all directed on me, because of everything you done in past. You cannot have excuse for not knowing that 'career statistics' need to have 'former names', because it has been like that for MONTHS/YEARS. I have always had respect towards you, but this getting pointless. Bravo ... JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You asked for comments so gave them. Nothing more or less. Almost all these items are not in our guidelines for a reason. They did not garner support to be required entities in the past. Why would we add them now? Wikipedia is not supposed be a place where you create new things or new stats. That's original research which is forbidden here. We are not a stat repository or stat creation district. It's obvious I'm much more a minimalist than you are and I'm sure other editors are all over the map. I'm fine with that. These are my opinions. Remember we are for the most part supposed to be adding charts that we see on multiple other websites, and charts that the average reader would need. We aren't supposed to have every nut and bolt... that's for a book or a tennis website, not for an encyclopedia. And a legend is the place to guide our readers. That's where the tier info should be, not in the tournament chart or the bottom of the article. If a player has none of the old tier we don't need it in the legend... if they have multiple tiers that's the best place to do it. We've always done it that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * What we have in our guidelines right now is what is required in articles. Yes the names of tiers/tournaments needs updating, and yes we missed a couple items like ITF charts. But all these charts should not be in the guidelines. Many of the charts are heavy overkill in stats or repeat info from the performance timelines. It's hard to control folks adding trivial charts to individual articles and then have it spread to other articles. This is Wikipedia and editors like to add things. But to include all of them in our guidelines is another matter entirely. Last year someone changed a consensus color scheme in an article and before we really noticed a hundred articles had changed. I had to change them all back. I'm sure there are some I missed. It happens and we deal with it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but in the same time there are so many contradictions. First of all, you say that we should not add new things because they aren't in the guidliness. But wait, aren't guidlines suposted to follow the current situation? You can't have guidlines from 20 years ago with no change – you need to adapt to the current situation. As soon as I remember you said in the past that if someone want to make new consesus about something, then should go there? Also, in the beggining of the year, you have problem with adding 'United Cup' row to the Performance timelines? Why? You said it was against guidlines, but United Cup hasn't been there before 2023. Ofcourse that the guidlines need to be updated. What is the problem? The main question is if so many tables are against guidlines, then why they exist? I have been doing this since 2018 and all the tables I edit were there already. If this is against guidlines, why you not remove it? We have consesus about new 'Record against top 10 players', so that's why I had removed the old one on some pages. I haven't seen you done any of this? Also, you talk about CONSESUS, where are all the administrators? Why you are the only one getting involed in the topics like this? If you are the only here, I want to know, because it gonna changed this debate a lot.
 * p.s. I haven't edited pages of ATP players so much, because they haven't needed so much change unlike WTA's. Still, many of these tables exist there and editors continue to work with them. Why? Why noone stop them? JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say we should not add things that aren't in our guidelines. I said the things in our guidelines are very specific and followed more strictly. The performance timelines being one. For that to change it would need consensus at Tennis Project. If you get that consensus it changes. Those tables we are talking about above are not against tennis project guidelines. They can actually be removed or added to any players page by consensus on that page as long as they can be sourced. But you are bringing them up on the guideline page as if to add them to guidelines. That's a huge deal and needs consensus at Tennis Project to add them. Something to consider would be if our guidelines article has two sections. One section for required charts on particular pages, like the two performance charts for the main bio and career stats bio. Then another section for charts that are not required under any circumstances. Charts that are not required, but if they happen to gain consensus to add, must follow the rules in our guideline. Perhaps that is what you are looking for here? A section for these charts that are never required but should always be the same if we decide to use them? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate any effort to improve article guidelines but this particular setup of the discussion makes it very difficult to contribute. Have no idea how the discussion above is going and who is commenting. See a list that starts at 9 followed by a response that starts at 3 which has comments without signatures. Impossible to follow. Would suggest to restructure it so that the discussion of specific elements take place below the element itself. This section can then be limited to generic comments and suggestions. When that is done a notification of this discussion can be placed on the tennis project talk page. --Wolbo (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , So, how can I "try" to make consesus? Should I do it here or ...? I'm asking because I want to do it for multiple things, doesn't matter will it be in my favor or others? e.g. I want 'United Cup' to be part of the Performance timelines ... btw, I will do it part by part, because it will be more readable. JamesAndersoon (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's probably the best idea... to do it part by part. I'm wondering if first we should determine if we would like a subsection of the guidelines to include charts that aren't required but must have a certain structure if used? Then determine chart by chart which if any should be included in that section? I would support such a section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree! JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

New comments
I have been keeping my eye on this discussion from the getgo, but finally have the time to get to it. I am eager to discuss Article guidelines for BLP career statistics quasi-subpages in the upcoming days. Have a busy schedule, but will role up my sleeves and get to it. My plan is to ensure our readers are served the most pertinent and up to date info without going into excessive detail. Discuss with you later this weekend. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! JamesAndersoon (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I overhauled the entire comment section to best follow a logical narrative., is this satisfactory enough so we can notify the Project's talk page there is a dicussion on progress on article guidelines, namely BLP's career statistics articles. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I invited others to chip in on the discussion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Replied to most of the subsections and gave my proposals what should be kept, added or removed. More discussion to follow, I am sure. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Problems with the timeline
The full timeline and the extended timeline are actully textbook failure of MOS:COLHEAD, which we need to sort out in the guideline. Loads of extended timelines are used in GA and FA tennis biopage, and that is concerning in terms of accessibility. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * What do you propose would be the first step that the community needs to make to get this issue sorted out? Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The first thing is that avoid to use the extended timelines in the biopages, instead using the GS only timeline, which would resolve the issue. Then, given there are no more aricles using the extended timeline, the examples in the guideline should also be removed. Regarding the full timeline, given it is covered in the career statistics pages, so it may be tolerable to leave as it is. Of course, it would be better to have a fix to sort out the issue. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For the full timelines, break it down into smaller chunks, i.e. tables? Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. One for GS, one for YEC, one for 1000 events, one for national representaion, and the final one for career statistics. Ideally, two tables would work. Just let me propose for one minute and a half... Unnamelessness (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Timeline
Iga Świątek career statistics

I removed SR column as it is redundant and Guadalajara Open (defunct as of 2024) row with a 0–0 record.. Categories column should be replaced with footnotes. Moved 2nd chart's caption as the 1st column header "Career statistics". I propose using twl2c instead of twp for the last 2 columns. Create a "NMS", "DNQ", "NH" (minimum AA-WCAG compliant) template similar to NA. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC) finals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * SR redundant? I don't see the totals listed anywhere else in the chart. There are a lot of folks who like that column that could be very disappointed it's been removed. I'm not one of them since the only time in tennis encyclopedias or almanacs or magazines that I have ever heard of the term "strike rate" is here on Wikipedia. But others may be quite upset of a decades existing column being removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed SR to reduce width with less columns. Readers visiting our page/articles can count themselves the number of times a title was won out of how many times it was played. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But it's not redundant. People can also easily figure out for themselves the win percentage by division. People can also figure out for themselves the overall w-l by counting. Or the number of finals and titles by counting. It is an arbitrary removal based on your likes/dislikes vs someone elses likes/dislikes. Actually, for me, the most useless column is win% but people seem to like it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let us vote on which columns to keep then. I vote for win%, but against S/R. What say you? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd probably do the same, but it could come down to dozens of others willing to use your new chart but only if SR is kept. Or perhaps most will want no part of a new chart at all. We'll see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The community will decide what's best. After all, it's a group project not an individual's one. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I made some modifications. Still unsure on whether to create a NA-equivalent template for NH, NMS, DNQ and A or just use raw text without the background param. First passes WCAG-AA, second one AAA contrast levels. Thoughts? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of its value, there are some errors. The section titles are Grand Slam tournaments, Year-end championships (with no win-loss), National representation (no win-loss), WTA 1000 is fine. Wrong bolding on table 2 which I can fix. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit my sandbox. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why apply to the entire chart: style="background:#efefef? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It was there to set it off from the rest of the table as agreed to years ago. However, in a separate table I guess that could be avoided.... maybe just the first column. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But you left off the year end championship section. This is the trouble with table 1... it really looks wonky and why we dismissed it years ago. Plus some people have issues of reading 90 degree wording. I think it creates problems where none existed before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose retitling the YEC, Olymp. row headers, because they vertically clutter table 1. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * While that can work for YEC it won't for National representation because it includes Davis Cup, Billie Jean Kings Cup, Hopman Cup, etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What if we used abbrev? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You might be able to get by with "Team events" but I'd really hate to change it. I look at the chart we have as a tremendous collaborative effort between Project Tennis, and accessibility editors. It's one of our crowning achievements that I wouldn't want to mess with at all. I can sort of close my eyes if it gets split into two charts which makes it much worse to eyeball down columns to see exactly what was done in a season, but to change a very easy to see chart into a worse rendition for no real reason is beyond me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also add all the Cups, in our example, Iga Swiatek has played in. Also, we can always merge the tables back into 1. This is only a prototype. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Elite Trophy is the other YEC event and the United Cup is one of the team events. Moreover, both events distribute points, so they could earn a place in the table. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Those events were left out for a very good reason... worthiness. We don't have 500 and 250 level events either. People were adding them left and right and the tables were ridiculously large. The event type needed some sort of pedigree and Olympic/DavisCup/FedCup were decided on. The YEC are the main year end event(events in the 70s-80s), not the 250 level event that will never have the best 8 players in the world. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do ATP/HOPMAN/UNITED CUP belong in the table, i.e. are notable as a national representation? I added United Cup because it is sponsored by both Tours. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Career or Career total? Does BJK Cup have different levels of qualifiers, Q1, Q2 or is it all 1 level? Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And by using a full scope row you have introduced incorrect bolding to table two column one. Not all should be bolded. Is there a parameter to unbold specific items? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Remove font-weight for a specific row and then   the data cell you need bolding. See WTA 1000 Series singles records and statistics, for example, the 2021 season row, in particular. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Or add a new line after the scoped datacell. Either one works. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed the font-weight. Bold what you feel needs bolding in the chart. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I must be missing things. In the first column under "career statistics", hard win–loss, grass win–loss, clay win–loss, should not be bolded. Can you remove it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just remove the ! scope I added for the aforementioned rows. See example. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel a table should either have all rows highlighted with the gray background ! does or not have any at all. Combining them makes the tables look inconsistently colored. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I second that. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In table 2 the entire career statistics column is now bolded. We don't want them all bolded. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I merged both tables back into 1. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it "Win-loss" or "Win–loss"? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Win–loss per WP:DASH. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Resolved bolding with plainrowheaders and custom   where needed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Either way worked. I have an issue with a footnote for YEC on every single chart on every player page. If we have to do that we didn't create it correctly in the first place. That footnote should be for exceptional circumstance like a weird tournament being switched out, not a permanent fixture for the table. It either needs to go in the performance key, or it needs to be spelled out as Year-end
 * I purposely used an abbreviation to not elongate the table with "Year-end finals". The footnote helps explain what YEC stands for. I avoided using tooltip/abbreviation template because those do not display on mobile devices. Footnotes, on the other hand, do. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Or move the notelist to the notes section at the bottom of the page instead of having it immediately below the table. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But look at the performance key that is required with every one of these tables. I placed one above your chart. It can have a YEC explanation, just like every other explanation, so no need for a note at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. That old legend. Well, that settles that. Footnotes no more. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we update the key a bit? Becasuse NMS is "not a Masters tournament", which specifically refers to the ATP 1000 series, and NTI is "not a Tier I tournament", which is stale and has been replaced by WTA 1000 tournaments. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But aren't those terms still used in older player events? Players from 70s 80s 90s would have a lot of those terms. No idea how to write it today where it would only be two or three letters. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Three solutions:
 * Adding additional cells.
 * Extending abbr. explaination.
 * Create a new key copy that suits the current tournament format.
 * Unnamelessness (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So as can be seen in the sandbox key above, I added a (N1T) for not 1000 tournament. That should cover both mens and womens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Unnamelessness, WTA and ATP retconed the categories when they introduced 1000 Masters as a category way back when in 2009 (WTA 1000 overshadowed Tier 90-2000 and Premier Mandatory/5 2010-2021 by calling them all WTA 1000 1990-present).
 * There used to be Tier I events. I wouldn't remove TI and NMS. You AGAIN would need project-wide consensus from the community as this covers a lot of BLP's and career stats pages (not all older BLP's have career stats pages).
 * My proposal: leave the abbreviations as they are. But edit performance key if you feel will benefit the timeline. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I like your N1K much better and changed the sandbox key to reflect that. But no matter, this performance timeline would absolutely need project-wide consensus. It affects almost every single modern player bio we have. It would need a month of visibility on the project talk page, the goods and bads, and see if others agree or disagree with the proposed change. The key addition of N1K wouldn't need that. It would be boldly changed to correspond to new ATP/WTA tournament names, but of course the project talk page would be informed to allow for revert and dissent. That would be standard practice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We shall see what happens. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is how we process right now. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I replaced twl2c with a newly created twl2c2 because the former would display % followed by W-L. The latter does the opposite (W-L followed by %). I filed a request at WP:VPT if they could create a param that would reverse the order of % and W-L instead of having to create a new "reversed" win percentage template, but haven't gotten any response. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I bit missing here, but what's the difference between twl2c/twl2c2 and the commonly used twp? Unnamelessness (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Vertical wording is always not the first option. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is the path. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am actually thinking of rotating the table for 90 degrees to produce a table something like the WTA Rankings section if the width is really a concern, i.e. instead of one row, one line per season. This is also something done in the motorsport community, for instance, Charles Leclerc. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I cannot picture it. Can you provide an example? (You want to swap the columns and rows, I presume). Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

ALT solution
Something like this. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Use "div style="overflow-x:auto"> for it. Isn't the goal to reduce on width not increase it? Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For 99% of players this would be wider, plus it missed Billie Jean King Cup and the occasional changes of additional 1000 events. But for some like Federer or Serena it would be less wide. It brings in many many abbreviations which makes it harder for readers to understand what the events are. I guess I'd have to see a 10 year chart to make better sense of how it would look for most players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You need ! with scopes and col-/rowgroups id's for the col-/row headers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It also creates issues with w-l rows at the bottom. We never use them for Olympics and Davis Cup. It's why they placed where they are now as a good separator between the Majors and the 1000 events. It seems a bit strange to have the Year-end championships after the 1000 events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The idea of this format is to limit the width to make sure it won't be made way too wide. Yes, for most of the players, it is wider, but for those whose career spanning across 20+ years, which usually have the width concern, its width is now limited. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Move YEC and OLY after the WTA 1000s like in List of ATP Big Titles singles champions. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The more I look at this chart, the more it is rubbing me the wrong way. Abbreviations without a legend or a footnote/tooltip something, no col-/row group id per WCAG for grouped headers. Plus, it is a complete remake from what we currently have. And even the OG performance timeline chart has been going through some extensive editing. This one would need project wide discussion and consensus on the Tennis project's talk page which frankly, I do not wish to be part of. I am up for new stuff but not this new. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Continued discussion
I am thinking of something like this. Citing sources below the tables to complete WP:V. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I like your approach but I'll wait for others to chip in before I give my two cents. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Grand Slam only timeline is all we are supposed to use if a player also has a career stats page. As for changing the full timeline I would be against it. Accessibility has absolutely no issues with it at all! It has been vetted and tested multiple times by those who are sight challenged... we had those using special browsers and they had no issues at all. This was discussed multiple times at Tennis Project. Don't fix what ain't broke. We have so many other items that actually need discussing and this isn't one of them. And it doesn't violate MOS:COLHEAD as that is specific to the use of an actual column header (!). Our tables specifically do not use them for that reason. What is more concerning is with player's careers extending you would be adding an extra width to the table that we cannot afford in the least. They are often already too wide. Now if the only thing we wanted to change was to split the career stats out of the full table but keep everything else intact, that is at least doable but not necessary. Right now it is easy to scroll down with eyes to correlate titles won and rankings without skipping a beat. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter if it is actually a column header (!) or not. The fact is that colspaned cells are indeed column header visually, regardless of wiki-wise. The trouble is that the current full timeline layout contains multiple headers, and for those random readers who are not familiar with the tennis category could lead to the question of which header apply to what – You have 1000 tournaments header below GS tournaments header: does that mean the Miami Open is not only a GS event, but also a 1000 event? This is what the accessibility of MOS:COLHEAD all about. That is not the WP:AINTBROKE case. And the width should not be the issue, the  would do the trick. The only WP:IAR here is we boldly assume all readers to which access the career subpage are familiar with the tennis category, which is why I said it may be tolerable to leave as it is. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Nowrap" combined with "div style:overflow-x:auto". Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Width is a huge concern. Scrolling off the screen is a big headache for laptops and phones. The MOS:COLHEAD is very specific about the use of ! and this was already discussed at Tennis Project as ok. We had readers use screen readers and they said all is well. Why would we make it worse for sighted people when it works just fine on screen readers? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fyunck(click), ! with scope is bear minimum for any header, row or column, in tables. And wrapping a table in a "div style:overflow-x:auto" solves the width issue with/without "nowrap". Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Right now we have no ! at all mid table... there is nothing wrong with that html or accessibility wise. If we add ! we must add scope row. And width is a concern and always has been. Scrolling to the right is always something to be avoided if at all possible. In this case adding 150–200 width pixels is quite bad when we don't have to do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Margin: auto" is what we should try to avoid. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * true... Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

And one thing. We would never go through a wholesale change of one format to a flawed format. It would need to be shown (again) that this new creation has zero issues with Wikipedia/mos/accessibility. It would need to be presented that this new table creation is a shining star of perfection. We would never want to go through it again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RFC is probrably the next step. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually I would think not. You dont want to put it up to rfc unless you can prove it is unassailable. Otherwise why would anyone want to change from 15 years of perfectly working long-term consensus? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * First step would be at least a month long discussion about the chart, followed by possibly an RFC (RFC is a maybe not a definitely). Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you two want to make any further changes to the chart or do we call it a wrap here and take it to the project's talk page? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am good with the layout. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fyunck(click), you? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't see it getting much better than what you have created. It's certainly the best proposal thus far. I wouldn't present it as up or down yet. I would post the consideration and ask some accessibility folks to vet it. You might even do that here before posting it at WT:TENNIS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone like Primefac, Redrose84, Graham87 Jonesey95? Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion on the project's talk page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Given what is happening out there, I guess that thread is required to be pinned? Unnamelessness (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Notability on doubles discussion on main talk page
Discussion on notability of doubles players is in progress on the Project's talk page. Your feedback is highly appreciated. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Tournament Question
I'm a new editor and I'm not sure exactly where to ask this question so please forgive me if I'm in the wrong place. I've searched the Wiki and I can't find the answer. I'm noticing that ATP Tour Finals & ATP Next Gen events are sometimes counted as part of a player's yearly tournament totals and sometimes not. For instance, Daniil Medvedev's career statistics page for 2023 seems to include Tour Finals as a tournament but Jannick Sinner's 2023 tournament total does not (I'm using Tennis Abstract to count tournaments). Can someone please clarify what is included in yearly tournament totals for statistics and what doesn't? Again, if I'm in the wrong place please re-direct me. Thank you Bsimmer (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)