Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines/Archive 4

Men's singles
Current record in bold.
 * Weeks as No. 1 leaders timeline

Men's doubles
Current record in bold.
 * Weeks as No. 1 leaders timeline

Women's singles
Current record in bold.
 * Weeks as No. 1 leaders timeline

Women's doubles
Current record in bold.
 * Weeks as No. 1 leaders timeline

No. 1 leaders timeline
Do the following charts meet the tennis article guidelines? Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Tables good. Datacharts need to answer the question of whether they are accessible for readers across every platform (i.e. mobile readers). Unnamelessness (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Unnamelessness, both work as intended in the wiki app, on desktop and mobile browsers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then I would say both are good to go. I would slightly prefer the datacharts, because I see the potential of automation, though the only concern here is it could be affected by random techinical issue. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. had to take down a malfunctioning graph from ATP no.1 singles page, the one with oldest number ones graph, because of a security bug in Phabricator. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , do your screen readers clearly describe the graphs in this section? Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The HTML tables work fine but the timelines do not; the output of the timeline tag is not (and never has been) accessible to screen readers. Graham87 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Graham87, how do you propose this gets fixed? Report it to Phabricator? Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It won't ever be fixed with that particular extension. See this discussion from 2011, which references bugs from 2006 (Phabricator was at Bugzilla back in 2006/2011). EasyTimeline was supposed to be replaced with the graph extension, but that doesn't work right now. Graham87 (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Graham87, do you then propose we remove the charts for the foreseeable future if/when the graph bug gets resolved? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably a good idea. Graham87 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , do we remove them? Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have never been a fan of these particular timeline charts. Kinda foo foo to me. But we have to remember something. If possible we should try and accommodate accessibility issues. It's only right to do the best we can. If a chart is quite useful to sighted viewers and we can't figure out a way to make them better, we don't just remove them and hammer 90% of readers that find them very useful. These particular timelines I find frivolous but many of our millions of readers may not agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How are we to know that the millions of readers will disagree with their removal? I created them a few days ago using the men's singles one as a template. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean these particular charts, just that we don't automatically remove something useful just because it has issues with accessibility. Sorry about the confusion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In other words, keep them until somebody complaints and removes them. In which case we start a convo on a talk page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really. There is not always a reason to remove them. If they aren't useful, of course we should remove them. If they are useful to 90% of readers we don't remove them at all, no matter if someone complains. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is the path. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Unnamelessness, meaning? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change." Unnamelessness (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)