Talk:ATP Masters 1000 singles records and statistics/Archive 1

How to deal with changes in the tournament order

I added a note (Note: Rome and Hamburg were held in reversed order from 1990–1995. Rome and Madrid were held in reversed order from 2011–ongoing.). This may not be the best solution. Perhaps it would be better to insert a new table row with the tournament names (cities) each time a change occurs, whether this is a change in the order, or a replacement (Stuttgart, Essen etc.) But then this is confusing because right now a row with tournament names indicates the start of a new tour or at least a new tour name. So these rows would have to look different somehow. The present situation is confusing because people can easily think that the current Rome champion is actually the Madrid champion (right now this in fact is the case with Djokovic, but in general this is not true). If the present order is kept, it may be better to switch the Rome and Madrid columns and change the note to Rome and Madrid were held in reversed order from 2009–2010. Compliments to 03md and Navops47 for your hard work! Gap9551 (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it handled well enough in the following table?...Majors-Masters-Olympic Champions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the situation in that table isn't great either, but at least there no cumulative total is kept track of in the cells. In the table in this article, it may happen that a player has for example (5/6) behind his name in one cell, and (4/6) in the cell to the right of it, if that tournament was held earlier, which I think looks a bit weird. Gap9551 (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Maybe we should scrap the (5/6) type totals in these tables so as not to have that problem? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I would prefer to keep those. But anyway, I think I'm the exception in this regard, so let's go with the majority here. If it were up to me, I would prefer adding a 5th column in the main table in List of Grand Slam men's singles champions, only for the Australian Open 1977-1985, and remove these 9 fields in the first column. Same goes for the player's timelines. It would make the order in which the slams were held much clearer, but since I assume most wouldn't like it, I won't even propose it seriously. ;) Gap9551 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

More than 5 title in doubles

I think that the rule have to change to 6 or more titles, i have counted all the titles for doubles and there is 49 people that won 5 or more titles, i think that 49 is a lot for that stat, and people that won 6 or more titles are 36 i think that is enough for this. So i will to remove the people that dont have 6 or more titles, if you think that is necessary add that the people so there are the people that were won 5 Laver, John Alexander, Phil Dent, Stefan Edberg, Sergio Casal, Todd Witsken, Rick Leach, Patrick Galbraith, Byron Black, Alex O`Brien, Wayne Black, Kevin Ullyett, Hans Gildemeister, Heinz Gunthardt. Bry17may (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nadal

How come Nadal's image is not in this article? And what is lleyton hewitt doing here! This article is a mess. even in the sections it has so many sections which has the titles "MOST" and has all the lower numbers as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.81.206 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Should London be an event listed from 1972 to 1975? Should it not be Canada instead Montreal/Toronto (varied according to year)

In the Wikipedia site for Wembley it says that the tournament wasn't played between 1972 to 1975. So the tournament winners for London that you have for those years Winners Năstase 1972, Okker 1973, Connors 1974, Dibbs 1975 - were at some other London tournament. Did it have the prestige of Wembley in those years? If you look at another very similar site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_P...ries_1970-1989

They have Canada listed in those years rather than London.

What are you thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmartin prof (talk • contribs) 00:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

More Info

There are much controversy about the pre and post 1990 events. It would be very usefull to have the main draws of the tournaments before 1990 so the statistics about amount of semi finals, match wins, different titles and differents finals can be merge with the post 1990 tornaments. If anyone has that information would be very so good to share it. Thanks. --Tommy The Wise (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

Given the discussions at Grand Prix Super Series, dealing mainly with the naming and composition of the top tier of Grand Prix tennis tournaments below the Grand Slams, this article also needs to be tagged for disputed factual accuracy.--Wolbo (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of Fastest To section?

Either the section is grossly inacurate, or I have completely failed to understand what record it's attempting to show. For example, under "fastest to 5 titles in 1 year", we have entry for Federer from Miami 2005 to Miami 2006, but that's 2 years, not one; in 2005 and 2006 Federrer achieved 4 titles, not 5. Then fastest to 15 titles in 4 years, we have Djokovic listing tournament spanning 5 years, not 4. What is this section actually meant to show? When does the count start and finish? Anyone? Tennispompom (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Goodness this article is bloated with trivia

I hadn't been to this article in awhile, or perhaps I just didn't keep scrolling down. WOW! Once you get to most tournaments won in a season it's just ridiculous. Successful title defenses? Really? Most different tournaments won, most different tournaments played? triples, hard doubles, clay doubles? North American series, four continents? All countrymen in finals? top 4 seeds in the semifinals? top 8 seeds in the quarterfinals? Cumulative title leaders? Winners of the 3 European series tournaments on clay? Oh my gosh. This article needs pruning so badly to cut out the bogus meaningful events. I'd do it, but I'm sure it would be reverted on the spot. We really need an RfC on what stays and what goes to make this article informative to readers but not a pile of fan-cruft and trivial details.. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Legitimacy of 'Championship Series'

The 'championship series' from 1970-1989 didn't exist. I haven't found any existence of it elsewhere and it's even been exposed for not existing on the Grand Prix Super Series page in the talk section. To list a bunch of tournaments purely for the continuity of Masters Series events before 1990 is spreading false information. The Grand Prix Super Series is the closest thing to Masters Series events but the structure of that category of events is different from the top 9 tournaments outside of the slams that forms the ATP Masters Series. Removing this category of events from this period seems logical before more people look on here and believe the tournament category to be legit.

With that, what is the point of this page?. It is essentially the same as the ATP Tour Masters 1000 page. All the extra trivia on this article needs to be on there. --Xc4TNS (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Have again removed the pre-1990 part of the table. You are correct, there was no such thing as a Grand Prix Championship Series. The Grand Prix Super Series covered part of the 1970-1989 period but those years had widely different number of tournaments in the Super Series tier. Retrospectively selecting 9 Super Series tournaments just to match the number from the post-1990 period is misleading and violates WP:NOR.--Wolbo (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Winners by year

The user ForzaUV removed the chronological order of the winners, stating that "most recent years should stay at the top as they have the information that most readers are looking for"... I am sorry but this is a very weak argument and it does not justify the change.

All sorts of events, and in particular sports events are ALWAYS listed in chronological order, from the first or less recent to the last or most recent. This is a matter of common sense and logical approach, and it allows the readers to appreciate and understand the evolution of the tournaments.

So the chronological order of the winners of the Masters 1000 should be restored.--Oluclen (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done You are correct. All charts at tennis project are done chronologically if possible. I couldn't undo just that part so ForzaUV will need to fix any of his other edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you guys sure about this? I know that chronological order makes sense but I feel going from most recent to oldest in such cases make even more sense. The most relevant info should be at the top and more accessible to the readers if you get what I mean. Most people are interested in the players of their time so top of such lists should be dynamic. To have it fixed until the end of times - unless it’s necessary (wars events or something) - is not a good practice imho. Even ATP and ITF do it this way

ATP: https://i.imgur.com/028uk26.png

ITF: https://i.imgur.com/bazljhY.jpg --ForzaUV (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

100% sure. Tennis project consensus for years. All our charts are done chronologically. Also, many times we put a notation of wins in a chart such as at List of Grand Slam men's singles champions. Those numbers would be backwards if it wasn't chronological. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I see. I wish I could change such guideline but it is what it is, I guess. As for the notation of wins being backwards, I don’t see a problem. For example, Federer (20/20) as his most recent and current personal record and if you want to see his first, second or tenth win, you should go a bit back in time. It makes sense, I feel. At least, I hope you understand where I’m coming from. Thanks! ForzaUV (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

15 of Top-16 seeds in R16

I believe the section 15 of Top-16 seeds in R16 is unnecessary. The other similar lists in its section are:

• Top 2 seeds in final
• Top 4 seeds in semifinals
• Top 8 seeds in quarterfinals

A section for R16 would be warranted in the events that ALL OF THE TOP 16 SEEDS make it to the R16. These would be special occasions worthy of a section to list them, similar to the lists preceding it for finals, semifinals and quarterfinals respectively.

In this case, "15 of the top 16 seeds" making it to R16 is nothing special, doesn't follow the format of the sections preceding it and bloats the article with unnecessary, unimportant trivia.

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I will go ahead and remove the section.

If you believe this is an important section to have in this article, please discuss it here and let us reach consensus and not get into an edit war. I'm open to hearing valid counter-arguments.

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, the only one that isn't ridiculously trivial is top two seeds in the final. The rest is just chewing gum and unsourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The section is about seeds stats and the subsection you removed is about a notable seeds stat, the page is also about records and the subsection you removed is about a record (most seeds in R16). I would understand if they were 8,9, or 10 seeds but that's 15. 15 out of 16 is almost perfect and subsection worthy. Self-revert your edit please and change it to "Most seeds in R16" or keep it as it is, both fine with me. --ForzaUV (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel it would only be subsection worthy if all of the top 16 seeds make it to R16. That follows in the format of top 2 (finals), top 4 (SF) and top 8 (QF) in the preceding subsections. We don't have subsections for "7 seeds in QF" or "3 seeds in SF", etc for the same reason.

Therefore, for now the section isn't notable enough to be included in this article.

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ForzaUV that it is, in fact, a near-perfect line-up of the top 16 seeds and, therefore, should be included in the list, in its subcategory. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Request to keep notes in No sets dropped subsection

I am proposing a consensus to keep the notes contained in this subsection, which can be found in an earlier version of the article. I am for these notes. I suggest they be merged into a table, grouped footnotes or other forms of references. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for doing it this way. My problem is not with expanding the stats but with sets/games stats in specific, tennis is about match wins, titles or even rivalries, that's why I had no problem with 'Most finals contested between two players' you've added recently. We also agreed before about the 15 Top 16 seeds section. It's just that If we start to go in details on sets/games stats, next there will be total sets won, consecutive sets per tournaments, games win %, a mess and trivia that doesn't even matter. They really should be kept to a minimum and I think we have it perfect as it is now. If others disagree, we might keep the first and second notes, those are fine I guess. Two more things, 1. QFs stats are not included because top seeds usually need to win only two matches to make the QFs so it kinda made the stat not worthy of inclusion but I won't stop you if you find such info interesting even though I don't. 2. I noticed you changed {{Legend}} to {{color box}}, I understand why you did it but the legend boxes had the same sizes, the color boxes look a bit weird now so if you can find a way to fix that, it would be great. Thanks! ForzaUV (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the more I look at the added footnotes below the no sets dropped sections, the more they seem obsolete to me. As for the color box templates. Their size is dependant on the letters' dimensions. Trying to unify the templates, so, they're all the same size will require additional tinkering with the parameters thereof, which is frankly tedious. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Masters Doubles page and this one into one

Hey, there. I am proposing a merger between Tennis Masters records and statistics page and List of Tennis Masters Series doubles champions tennis page, whose creator is @ForzaUV: There used to be a single tennis page listing Masters-related records and statistics for both singles and doubles. Then the doubles sections got removed and the page refurbished aka 'overhauled' as stated then in the history revision. So, I was thinking, since a doubles masters stats page exists separately. Why not unite them as one, because they both represent the same thing just in different categories/disciplines? Tell me what you think of the idea. Looking forward to hearing from the fellow editors on this page and the doubles one. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree the pages should be merged. I was confused why the 'overhaul' happened in the first place. I support this.

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The article would be too long and harder to navigate, especially if someone decides to add doubles records. We have two articles for singles and doubles No.1s and two articles for Grand Slam winners, no reason to merge any of them imho. ForzaUV (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I meant combining the Masters singles and doubles records tennis pages. Not the grand slams and no.1's pages. Those I am fine with staying on separate page articles. I hope you understand what I was trying to convey here, @ForzaUV:. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Date series commenced

For reasons off clarity the date this series commenced should be in the introductory comments section. Antipodenz (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Italic notes and footnotes dilemma

ForzaUV What do you think about the italic alignment of the notes and footnotes strewn about in the entire article? I was thinking to:
1. make them all EITHER italic OR normal.
2. Keep the notes, which are usually accompanying the subsections for further explanations, normal, and footnotes beneath the various tables italic.
Any ideas? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure making them all italic is not an option per WP:MOS so let's keep them normal. ForzaUV (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Made all italic notes and footnotes non-italic, normal again. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not to merge. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

---

@Fyunck(click) and ForzaUV: I am proposing to merge List of Tennis Masters Series doubles champions (A) into Tennis Masters Series records and statistics (B). I think the content in the doubles page (A) complements the context in the singles page (A), and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems on this page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm against it because as I've said it before the article would be too long and harder to navigate, especially if someone decides to add the doubles records. It's better to keep them separated articles. ForzaUV (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Man, you caught me with the merger in the crossfire. Noone was against it. So, I went through with the merger. Will revert......Oh, well. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I saw the proposal yesterday and wanted to comment but I got sidetracked and forgot about it until now lol. Fyunck saw it for sure but probably didn't care. ForzaUV (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I did the merger and all the procedures with tags and blanking the doubles page and then I saw your archive revert and comment and I was, like, 1 vote against is all it takes to undo the merger, so, I went through with reversing it. P.S. I know you got sidetracked, you can't keep up with everything. I waited for a full week, for just in case...but, hey...at the end of the day, it is what it is. You live and you learn. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)}}}}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 16 March 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus was reached to move nor rename this article. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Tennis Masters Series records and statistics → ATP Tour Masters 1000 records and statistics – Current name: this series of tournaments (ATP Tour Masters 1000) hasn't been known as the "ATP Masters Series" or "Tennis Masters Series" since 2008 according ATP Tour Masters 1000#Historic names. The "ATP Masters Series" article doesn't covers the post-2009 tournament, so it is incongruent to have this article include the results from since then. Wolbo attempted this move in 2018 but was reverted without reason, so I thought a full discussion would be in order. Letcord (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Suggestion: the article accommodates the series from the very beginning and in the past the winners weren't awarded a 1000 points. Something like ATP Masters series records and statistics with "series" in lowercase should be good enough I think. ForzaUV (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree to a point with ForzaUV since it encompasses several name iterations. Except shouldn't it be "Tennis ATP Masters Series records and statistics"? If we don't capitalize Series then why would we capitalize Masters? Masters is only part of the name. Another issue could be that it's nice to see the actual sport in the title. Maybe it could be "Tennis ATP Masters level records and statistics." Since 500 and 250 are not Masters level events it could also work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why we need "tennis" in the title when the article for the tournament series itself, ATP Tour Masters 1000 (or ATP Masters Series), doesn't have it in it. I've just had a second idea however - despite "ATP Masters Series" only being the name for the series from 2004 to 2008, that article contains all the 1990–2008 results, whereas ATP Tour Masters 1000 only has the results since the series was last renamed in 2009. Would it be better to merge those two articles so that all the results since 1990 are in the one article, which would also eliminate the problem this article currently has of its title being subordinate to an article that doesn't cover the full span of the series' history? (We could still rename to the current name if that was preferred). Letcord (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Letcord...appreciate your move. Yes, the articles' names are not only justifying their period but also content sometimes. I agree to change the name of this article (also merger with ATP Tour Masters 1000). As the idea is to keep the title simple, shouldn't be "ATP MASTERS records and statistics" or like ATP Super 9, it can be "ATP Masters 9 records and statistics"....Krmohan (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the name change, since this encompasses all Masters since 1990, ATP Tour's inception, and not before. This article's predecessor included all Masters from ATP's inception back in 1733, (Note: ATP not to be confused with ATP Tour.), however because of lack of reliable sources was overhauled and truncated into the current version today. Besides the ATP seasons 1973-1989 contained Grand Prix and Masters series, which contained way more than 9 Masters in a series, sometimes even 16. So, to avoid clutter and confusion, the then article with singles AND doubles stats, albeit unsourced, were removed and shortened to fit the article's scope. That is my take on the page rename proposal. And, besides,...WHY fix if it ain't broken? Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought since "series" in not part of the official name anymore then it'd be better to not capitalize it but I don't mind it if it's left capitalized. Tennis in the title might be unnecessary but I understand why you like to have it, makes it easier for the readers and casual fans to figure out what the article is about just from reading the title. ForzaUV (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with @Letcord: here. Per WP:SIZERULE, the readable prose size for ATP Masters Series and ATP Tour Masters 1000 being 2252 B and 5722 B, respectively, equating to roughly 8kB, which justifies Letcord's proposal and we should, in fact, go through with the merger by finding a common name, that includes both tennis, ATP Tour and possibly even merge both pages' edit histories if needed be. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Since "Tennis Masters Series" was from 2000-03 only and no more "series" after "1000", both articles may be merged with "ATP Tour Masters records and statistics".. Krmohan (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Krmohan: I would keep Yearly masters articles separate or merged, but would not combine it, the "List of ATP Masters 1000 tournament champions", when we come up with a name, that is, with this page, with the purpose to have the stats and list of champions by year (1990-Present) be 2 individual articles, instead of all 3 in 1. The newly fused page would surpass the 50kB readable prose limit per WP:SIZERULE, thereby needing separating again, which is what we don't want. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty, It is fully agreed. Krmohan (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was thinking, too - have the prose from ATP Masters Series and ATP Tour Masters 1000 be one article, along with perhaps this year's result table, and have all the the 1990–present result tables be in a separate article called "List of ATP Masters Series results" or similar (if ATP Masters Series is chosen as the generic name). Letcord (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Letcord So, you are suggesting we rearrange the two articles, not merge them or am I missing something here? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's do the merge first, and then if the merged article is deemed too long (from all the tables), the tables can be split off to a separate article. I've started a vote on the merge here. Everybody please go vote there. This discussion can be put on hold till then. Letcord (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Now that those articles have been merged, I am Neutral on this move. It is still a viable option (with different benefits and drawbacks to the current title), so I will not withdraw the discussion in case others support the move. If there are no further comments in a week or so, feel free someone to close the discussion as "No consensus". Letcord (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Will do. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USA Hard Triple and Different Master tournaments

Three– and two–title verified combinations were retained, the rest were removed. No other changes were made to the article, despite the discussion branching out into 2 separate topics. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
15:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)~~ Hi.. It is seen that you undid my addition in the "Triples" considering that they IW-MI-CI are not back-to-back master tournaments. The triple is named "USA Hard Triple" ....They are back to back tournaments held in one specific country (USA). There is no other triple parallel to this. ....Federer is the only player to achieve this triple back-to-back (after skipping Canada masters in 2005, but even participating Canada Masters does not matter like for Hard X Clay X Indoors triple, the tournaments mentioned are not exactly back-to-back but specifically back-to-back with the kind of achievement in the triples). USA Hard Triple is also in line with this. ....The fact that this triple is very hard (Indian wells of draw size 92, Miami of draw size 92 and Cincinnati of draw size 56 is a triple very hard to achieve in one specific country back to back).. This would be a unique achievement held by only one person in the history so far, so is also worth mentioning record if any other player achieves this in future.Hope you agree on this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.178.62.5 (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC) You are stating IW, MI and CIN back-to-back tournaments by country, which are not back-to-back aka consecutive chronologically. I disagree with you adding the trio to the Triples subsection. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Not convinced with the logic in the article. We are also mentioning "Hard X Clay X Indoors" in the same Triples table, which are not exactly back-to-back tournaments as such. But they are sequentially put in the table by surface. USA Hard triple is also falling in the same sort of category (if not by surface but by one surface-one country). As you know, Different Masters tournaments are played on different surfaces (hard/clay/indoors), depending on the country. All these three big tournaments (draw size 92,92,56) are in one specific country played on one specific surface (Hardcourt) back-to-back. This is one of the unique records in Masters tournaments as IW-MI-Cincy are very big and old tournaments in the tennis world (without changing surface, country and time schedule in the season right from the beginning). We will add this. Otherwise, I recommend not to mention back-to-back on the top as such. Each one is just series of Triples in its own way. Thx.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.178.62.5 (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Frankly, the different surface triples list does not belong in this subsection technically, because it does not comply with back-to-back note, positioned below the section header. Removing said note would imply inclusion of other instances of tourn. combinations, which would ultimately lead to unwanted clutter and disorganized tables/list, which is not what Wikipedia is about. The aforementioned 3 tournaments being the oldest and draw size is irrelevant info and has no place on this page. Plus, there are many other instances of doubles and triplets of Masters combinations not included here with the sole purpose to avoid clutter. And, the more I think about it, the surface triplet table should be removed. If you wish to despite my advice contribute to making more tables in Masters combinations section, feel free to do so, but I doubt other editors would agree with it. P.S. And don't forget to sign your comments using ~~~~ Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Hi....These are specific triples and unique records achieved by few players only. If you wish to add more unique triples, you can do with comfort. But no more triples in the history of tennis master series I guess. Nadal achieved quadruple in 2013 (Madrid-Rome-Canada-Cincy) but all these go to another section as you are well aware of...Cheers...223.178.58.206 (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Nadal's quadruple coincides with Djokovic's (2015 Shanghai and Paris-2016 Indian Wells and Miami), albeit across 2 seasons. I am sure you have noticed, that many of the quadruple and triple combinations include 2-title combinations, the majority thereof being listed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC) @Qwerty284651 - Nadal's quadruple is in a single season (i.e. calendar master combination) whereas Djokovic's is across two seasons. Both are different. So, Nadal's quadruple is equal to two triples ideally in a single season. How this unique record is missed out in the article. Most of the doubles mentioned in the article are already subset of triples (Federer 2006, Djokovic's 2011, 2016's Sunshine double etc and there are some more); these are just duplicated without value addition. My point is to make it consistent. If anybody achieves IW-MI-Canda-Cincy (North Americal quardaple) in a season (calendar master combination even if it is not back to back), how can you miss this unique record in Masters records and statistics. It is worth considering than two doubles (IW-MI and Canada-Cincy) in a single season. USA Hard triple is also referred in the same context. Hope it is in order and looking forward to refinements in the article..Cheers223.178.58.4 (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Hi...Regarding Nadal's Quadruple, this is in a season and specific combination of Masters is not indicated as a record but as a statistics in the consecutive masters in the table. As a unique record this is added. Tomorrow, one may achieve North America Quadruple as well. In the triples, IW-MI-Canada are not back-to-back Masters. But they are by Hardcourt. So, both these records are added in the footnotes, which is agreed by Qwerty284651... Krmohan (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan: There is also the 2 instances when Djokovic won Shanghai and Paris, then the following year Indian Wells and Miami, which are technically back-to-back tournaments, albeit in 2 consecutive different seasons. And yet, I personally agree, that they should NOT be stated in the Masters combination section, the consecutive titles table which mentions said records is sufficient. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Hi....I am not denying yr statement. But Nadal's Clay triple in 2010 and Djokovic's Season first triple in 2015 are also indicated in the consecutive records table as well as calendar master combinations. Now, there is no harm in adding these two unique records in the foot notes as you agreed already... Krmohan (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC) This is not how it works, you can't add what you want then force other editors to accept them. You need to seek consensus first. Check out WP:BRD to see how it's done. Regarding your edit, all I can say is those country-based "achievements" are just nonsense. What's next, North America quadruple? French-speaking countries Double for Monte Carlo and Paris winners? ForzaUV (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Frankly, you are not making any sense by simply deleting without applying thinking. The section talked about Masters back-to-back tournaments in a season (not across seasons) where you have edited so called surface triple, which is absurd. Of course, that was deleted later on by one of the editors. Thx. As you know all doubles are subset of triples and all triples are not exactly subset of quadruple, if not back to back in a single season. In this case, all doubles achievements are also nonsense as per your thinking. So, please remove them the way surface triple is removed. Still, USA Hard triple is a achievement happened in a single season, may be never before and ever after 2005. North America quadruple etc. in a single season achieved by any player ???? Talking about triples, quadruples in a single season (season first, season end triples etc.). What is absurd is adding long list of doubles which can happen many times. So do discuss before deleting. One may add "Madrid-Rome-canada-cincy" quadruple in a single season as a unique achievement (not across years or career). It is neither appearing in Triples also (season middle triple ??). If we can not maintain consistency and recognize unique records and statistics in Masters, better remove "Doubles" and "Triples" and unique achievements may be added in "Miscellaneous" section. It is my suggestion. Just simply deleting unique Masters records from the page is not making any sense, if not nonsense.223.178.58.4 (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC) @ ForzaUV...It is also noted that "Different tournaments won" is removed without discussions. As you know, Different Masters tournaments are played on different surfaces (hard/clay/indoors), depending on the country. Over a period of time, most of the Masters are changed to different surface or moved to different country; making them different. You can observe and count this from "Champions List" in the article (X - Not played by player). This indicates how many different masters played by a player in his career and how many different tournaments won in his winning span. Tennis Masters are not consistent right from the beginning, as all are aware. They are changed to different surfaces, moved to different countries, played from 5 sets to 3 sets, draw sizes are different, mandatory/non-mandatory participation, duration of one week to two weeks etc..etc......This may be subjected to changes in future also (unlike Grandslams). Players played different tournaments and won, may be noted (this of no relevance to this but Ivan Lendl won 11 different Grandprix tournaments in his winning span). The fact that Cincy is played for many years in Cincinnati but played in New York City in 2020 does not make it different, the same way Canada Masters. But if the Madrid Hard Indoors changed to Madrid Clay surface certainly makes it different....223.178.58.4 (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC) So you're telling me when a tournament changes its surface it becomes a different tournament? How does that exactly work. Australian Open has been played on different surfaces over the years and it's still counted as one tournament. A player who won the AO once on grass and once hard is not a winner of two different tournaments. He's a two-time champion of one tournament. ForzaUV (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC) @ForzaUV...Not exactly, but I gave an example or a reference. As you know, it is governed by ATP, ATP whenever it changes Masters by surface or country, it is positioned as a different tournament in the system. Many of us are aware of this. But how can you compare Grandslams with Masters...Comparing apples (crop) with oranges (crop).. Do not even know whether these kind of comparisons make sense or allowed in Wikipedia. This article deals only Masters of certain period (I already mentioned, Lendl won the career (9) masters and won 11 different Grandprix Master tournaments in the History). These are there in the Wikipedia records and as Master Slot titles in other tennis records). Coming to the point, Masters are different in their own way to Slams. No comparison at all. When I published this statistics, it was there for more than a certain period and some of the editors have bettered this with their inputs. In that way, I do not agree to your straightway removal after this without discussions. If it is not agreed by majority of the editors, this may be removed. With this, most of the readers/editors, it is a important statistics in Masters to keep it. Request that it should be there unless it is accepted by majority of the editors with a logic for removal. Also propose an alternate solution. In the champions list, apart from Masters S/R, one may indicate different Tournament S/R and its winning span (first and last tournament). So it is there for your kind consideration...Cheers 223.178.58.4 (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Hi.....I did not get what u are referring to AO open...No. of titles are same. It is just a different tournament in Masters. If 1000 Masters is downgraded to 500 series, both are different. Right as per ATP ? These are same kind of statistics. Otherwise, are you saying that the champions list table is wrongly indicated ? eg. Murray and Federer have won two different indoor masters tournaments..One is Madrid Hard Indoors and other Paris Hard Indoor whereas Nadal and Djokovic one which is Madrid Hard Indoors and Paris Hard Indoors respectively. Simply these are the statistics he is referring to. Absolutely, this is not unnecessary if u indicate in the Champions list in my opinion...U can refer the data of overall Grandslams by Surface wise also (Laver, Djokovic etc) in the Wikipedia Grandslam statistics. That's why there is no redundancy. It is simply statistics.... Krmohan (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC) I have said it before and I will say it again. The most different tournaments won table is redundant and just adds unnecessary ballast to the article. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Hi...Got into this late I guess. Nevertheless, I agree with the originator of this thread (needs registration it seems). The stuff in the thread is about unique records and important statistics. ATP Masters system is dynamic and the players who played the different tournaments are also active. I do not see any redundancy. Who knows there may be Masters on Grass or more Masters in Asian countries...Anyhow, I am not opposed to the idea of indicating S/R of Different tournaments on Champions list itself atleast or otherwise to keep it as it is... Krmohan (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan...You got it right.. Thanks for adding the statistics and records appropriately in the article..122.172.230.2 (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan:I agree with your second edit using footnotes, instead of a table in Masters combination section, but I disagree with the Tournament strike rate edit. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC) The claim that a tournament is considered different when it changes its surface is bold and wrong anyways. As I mentioned before a player winning AO on grass and hard doesn't make him a winner of two "different" tournaments or titles. He's a two-time winner of one single tournament. ForzaUV (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan, I'm against those "by country" and "by continents" stats, I don't think such thing belongs to tennis. As for the different titles, let me give you an example, Nadal won Acapulco on hard and clay and you want to make it about him winning two different titles/tournaments but that's just unheard of. Nadal won the same tournament (one tournament) twice and that's it. ForzaUV (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan and ForzaUV: If ForzaUV wants to remove the footnotes, than that's fine by me. I just stated I am not against them being there. I am indifferent about them. That's all. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Hi....It is not about who likes or dislikes..It is about statistics of history. It is also about improving Wikipedia stuff with consistent application, as we all are aware of. Nadal won two titles but not the same as they were on two different surfaces. It's fine by me if u leave as it is or if some one else edits. As I already said, I am not opposed to the idea of adding important statistics and unique records specifically in the Wikipedia. Krmohan (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC) @ForzaUV....By continents etc, it was very much there in the history. Previously used to edit the master series article with North America Continent Masters in a player's career etc. Different Masters was also there in the previous articles...If someone achieves in a single season even once, it is worth adding. Krmohan (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan, Nadal won two titles but not the same as they were on two different surfaces that's where I disagree with you, Nadal won Acapulco on different surfaces but they don't considered to be two different tournaments. Never. They are two titles for the same tournament. "By country" and "by continents" are no standard stats in tennis. ForzaUV (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Regarding Champions list, the last two columns are two different stats from the same table. Regarding calendar master combinations, triples mentioned are already part of consecutive statistics tables. So, consistent application of the statistics and records in the article. Requested all of you to keep them in the history. Cheers... 122.172.230.2 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC) I highly disagree with you on the last 2 columns there in the Champions list. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Failed to understand from you guys, what is agreed and not agreed. It is consistent application of the records/stats data for the Wikipedia. If not agreed, then one may remove both the last two columns of champions list. If not agreed, correct the data of calendar master combinations (quadruple, triples, doubles data) from the consecutive records table consistently. Not making a sense out of the data is not expected from the editors/administrators...Hope I am right...If agreed to your data, keep both the sections as it is done by one of you.. I already mentioned in the thread regarding inconsistency in the article and if other editors/readers do not agree, why it is being removed. Requested to keep it for some period....122.172.230.2 (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC) You've already been told once about BOLD, revert, discuss cycle so I hope you read it again and comply with the rule. Your edits are bold with wrong claims and you should seek consensus first. ForzaUV (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Hello....BRD cycle is already followed and discussed enough by all of you. It is indicated that article is inconsistent with its statistics and records, if it is left as it is. In order to correct this, enough references already shown and indicated in the article correctly. Most of you agreed but without answering the references, coming up with likes/ dislikes (i.e. irrelevant stuff), which is against wikipedia policy and guidelines....I do not recommend edit warring further...Can close the thread with the last version reverted...That's all. Thank you...122.172.230.2 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC) It's not followed at all, you want to force your bold edit and wrong claim with no consensus. Two editors already reverted your edits so you really need to stop. ForzaUV (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Hello everybody....BRD cycle is already followed and discussed enough by all of you. All the data of statistics and records are verifiable from this article itself. Most of you agreed in principle and now it is ok to close the discussions with the last version reverted. Good contributions... Thanks in advance.122.172.230.2 (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC) We're still discussing and in disagreement. ForzaUV (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC) As far as my discussions to this thread, I have agreed for the following and my consolidated point of view is as follows. Regarding different Masters, we cannot compare ATP Masters Series with Slams or 500 Series. This is not correct. As part of ATP Masters system, Madrid Masters was indicated as 4th Masters on Clay and 8th Masters on Hard Indoor. These two Masters are different as far as ATP Masters Series is concerned. I also mentioned I do not see any redundancy. This is historical data. If anyone says it is redundant, this ATP Masters Series page should have been divided into four periods (1990-94, 1995-2001, 2002-08, 2009-present) with four separate articles, which is not the case in this article. So, statistics are not redundant. Nadal and Murray have won two different Indoor Masters (Madrid and Paris). So, I have agreed for the same in the thread to indicate statistics. As far as calendar master combinations are concerned, they are unique records. Tomorrow, if anyone achieves Canada-Cincy-Shanghai-Paris, we should definitely open quadruple table rather than hiding it in consecutive records. In that sense, I am strongly in favor of indicating them under footnotes (especially other Clay/Season first triples are appearing in part of calendar master combinations as well as consecutive records). In the Tennis Masters Series history, these were achieved only once. Definitely, it deserves mention in the article. We are not trying to save space in the article but capturing important statistics and unique records. This is valuable contribution to the Wikipedia. That is why, I have strongly agreed for these points. Hope It is clear to the originator of the thread and to other editors.Krmohan (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Regarding different Masters, we cannot compare ATP Masters Series with Slams or 500 Series can you tell me where you got that from? Maybe you have a source stating that or something but I don't see how they can be different than any other tournament. I'm not much against Nadal's footnote, but sources usually talk about his Canada-Cincy double not a quadruple and we need to take that into consideration. ForzaUV (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan and ForzaUV: We could add a quadruple table, if ForzaUV is okay with this, under the condition we include also Djokovic's 4 consecutive titles across two seasons, i.e. the Shanghai-Paris-Indian Wells-Miami combination between 2014 and 2016, along Nadal's 2013 feat: Madrid through Cincinnati. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC) I'm against the idea because I've never heard or read about a Masters quadruple, and to be honest with you I'm starting to think that the whole section except for the Sunshine Double is nothing but bloat. The article has another section for the consecutive records. So how about we just remove the section and move only the notable Sunshine Double which can be easily sourced to the miscellaneous section? ForzaUV (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC) @ForzaUV: I am against this proposal, because these records have stood on this page for a long time and removing them would be against this article's scope and that is Masters and statistics. My proposal is. We keep things as they are. No quadruples. Only update the current records in said section per need basis and leave it at that. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Two separate topics - Different Masters: Slams, Masters and 500 are evolved as per their governing mechanism by ITF/ATP. All three series are different in their own way. Statistics and records can be discussed in their respective pages only in my opinion (Surface-wise Slam statistics are in Slams page). Ultimately, can not compare apples with oranges. This sort of discussion was there in other articles too in the past.. I would better treat Master Series separately, as it has evolved in its system. Calendar Master combinations (CMC)- I agree with footnotes regarding Nadal quadruple but not adding across seasons (Calendar quadruple should not put in the same basket of Non-calendar quadruple). Both can not fit into CMC section anyway. The word back-to-back tournaments is also misleading. I propose to expand consecutive records with elaboration of specific combinations. Then, we can remove repetitive quadruples, triples and doubles in my opinion. Finally, I do not see any harm in keeping the changes as made of late. At least, it is not biased and confirming to the consistency/representation of stats/records. One should not limit the article by one's own understanding and reservations in my opinion. Ultimately like to capture statistics and records in the page..Krmohan (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan, I'd like to ask you a question, how many different Masters titles do you think Nadal has won? ForzaUV (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC) @ForzaUV, Good question!!! It was already there in the history of Wikipedia Tennis Maters Series statistics and records of a decade back (Djokovic did not win career golden masters that time). Most Different Master Slot Titles: Djokovic 9, Federer 7, Nadal 7, Ivan Lendl 9 ; Most Different Master Titles: Djokovic 9, Federer 9, Nadal 8, Ivan Lendl 11. I hope these two different statistics of history in the players career answers your question completely. Cheers ...Krmohan (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC) For Nadal I count only 7. Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Madrid, Rome, Canada and Cincy. 7 different titles. Where did the 8th title come from? ForzaUV (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC) For Nadal, your statistics were wrong. He did not win Miami in his career. DMST: 7 (including Madrid Indoor Masters) DMT: 8 (including Hamburg). It was there in the Champions List table. Adding last two columns make the statistics clear to the readers. Hope this is in order..Krmohan (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC) My bad, it's Hamburg instead of Miami but It's still 7 tournaments. 1. Indian Wells, 2. Monte Carlo, 3. Hamburg, 4. Madrid, 5. Rome, 6. Canada and 7. Cincy. Where is the 8th different title?? ForzaUV (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC) @ ForzaUV, Again, you got it wrong for Nadal. You missed Madrid Indoors. It only makes him of 7/9 career masters (Not Hamburg). Hamburg makes him 8/11. Let us respect the way Masters Series is organized by ATP. In the different Master Slot Titles, Madrid / Hamburg on Clay makes it 4th Master Slot. Madrid Indoors is part of 8th Masters Slot by ATP. Let us put the stats in a better way. The Champions List made in the page is highly perfect. Hats-off to the person(s) made it. For me, adding two columns is only the solution in the champ list for correct representation of Stats, to understand better it seems. @Qwerty284651, Regarding CMC, i agree with not doing too many changes in the page. They have been there for a long time. We can add these as footnotes. If any further achievements over a period of time, tables/footnotes may be added as per the need. Again, the current footnotes wording is not correct. It is better to go with Quadruple instead of two consecutive doubles and also other unique record of IW-MI-Cincy (as all the triples in the CMC section are not back-to-back/consecutive anyway but by a specific reason). Let us put the stats and records in a objective way and this will definitely improve the page. Hope this is in order to close the discussion thread for now.....Krmohan (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Not true, I didn’t miss Madid. I’ve already mentioned it but you want to count Madrid as two different titles and that’s just absurd. Every different tournament is unique, it has its own history, champions and venues. Every tournament has its own article in Wikipedia. If you care that much about the removed section, it could be added to the miscellaneous section as an additional entry but don't make up numbers. Nadal has won the following 7 titles Indian Wells Masters Monte-Carlo Masters Hamburg European Open Madrid Open (tennis) Italian Open (tennis) Canadian Open (tennis) Cincinnati Masters Now, please link the 8th unique tournament you think Nadal has won and I'd agree with you. As for the those doubles and triples combinations, sorry but they have to be back to back, have you read anywhere about Indian-Wills & Paris double? Monte Carlo & Cincy double? Never seen it. It's always back to back titles. Indian-Wells & Miami double, Canada & Cincy double etc. ForzaUV (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC) @ ForzaUV, Still, you did not get the concept of "9 Masters Series" right as per ATP governance. I sincerely hope this would be my last try. Otherwise, others can help you out how the Nine Masters Series is organized by ATP. You can simply follow the Champions List Table of this page itself to understand this. Indian Wells Masters Monte-Carlo Masters Hamburg European Open / Madrid Open (Clay) Madrid Open (Hard Indoors) / Shanghai Open Italian Open (tennis) Canadian Open (tennis) Cincinnati Masters Miami Masters Paris Masters Now, above are the 9 current Masters Series Tournaments (obviously, Hamburg-Clay and Madrid-Indoors were to be replaced in the respective Master Slots as per ATP organization. Otherwise 3rd Master Slot will be vacant in the ATP calendar as per your logic). Under the 4th slot, My simple question is Madrid (Hard Indoors) and Shanghai Tournaments are different or single tournament ?? (or) under 3rd Masters, Hamburg (Clay) is same as Madrid (Clay) or different ??. As far as different 9 Master Slot Titles are concerned, Nadal is 7/9 but different master tournament titles are concerned , he is 8/11 ( total #11 different tournaments played). As per Federer is concerned, Master Slot titles are 7/9 but different master tournament titles are 9 / 12 (he won Hamburg, Madrid Indoors, Madrid Clay, Shanghai and played Stuttgart Indoors as well in his career making it total 12 different tournaments played). You may get these statistics from the Champion List table itself, if you count cells data. We are not showing it as records but as stats from the table. Regarding CMC triples, how come IW-MI-Canada have become back-to-back tournaments when three masters MC-MAD-ROME played in between?? These Federer-Djokovic achievements appearing in Triples is absurd ?? It was achieved thrice by two players in a decade and IW-MI-Cincy achieved only once in the history. Which record you choose as unique record ?? Let us not limit the article by one's own understanding and reservations. I repeat these are important stats and unique records. It must be captured in the article in my opinion. They are neither absurd nor redundant, but very relevant in the history of tennis masters series.Krmohan (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC) I understand what the slots of Masters are about, the whole Champions list section is about them but you're talking about the tournaments themselves. Just because Madrid was played in two different slots doesn't mean it's two different tournaments, it's still one. The links you provided for Madrid "tournaments" are in red because they do NOT exist. There is only one Madrid tournament which is linked above so here I'm still hoping you can provide a valid wikilink to Nadal's eighth different tournament. Just one clear valid link is needed, nothing more. The doubles and triples can't be random, as I told you it's been always about back-to-back tournaments by sources not by me, if there are a couple of instances which are not back-to-back, they can be removed. ForzaUV (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC) I have not provided wikilinks, just added in your table for explanation of the concept. By the way, all the tournaments are different. They were there in the same wikipedia pages of a decade back. Need to retrieve those pages. They referred as "Different Masters Slot Titles (7/9)" and "Different Masters Titles" (8/11). Each Masters is different and each title counts in the player stats/records. I am sorry, I have now removed the word "Tournament" to remove the confusion. I am done...Krmohan (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC) @ ForzaUV, As per the discussions in this thread regarding different Masters, following is my understanding for your consensus. Titles Player Different Masters Slot Titles S/R Different Masters Series Titles S/R Different Masters Tournament Titles S/R 37 Novak Djokovic 9/9 10/12 9/10 36 Rafael Nadal 7/9 9/12 7/10 28 Roger Federer 7/9 9/13 8/11 1) Masters considering the Nine slots in the yearly calendar of ATP 2) Masters considering the players participation in one after another in the series (e.g.Hamburg, Madrid Clay, Madrid Indoors, Montreal, Toronto, Shanghai) 3) Masters considering the organization of tournaments (e.g. Hamburg, Madrid, Canada, Stuttgart, Shanghai) One may verify the above data (as players active). However, it is also understood that the "Strike Rate" in the statistics of Champions list is misleading. Cheers...Krmohan (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan, you can't just claim that Madrid played on hard and clay as two different tournaments because of different time slots. That's absurd, nonsensical. I am still against the addition of that Masters column in the Calendar Masters Combination section. Hence, why as @ForzaUV has said. There is only one tennis wiki page per Masters tournament, not two. Yes, said tournament was contested on 2 different surfaces, yet is is mentioned on the tournament's page, but there are NOT two different pages for it. Do you understand where I am going with this? Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC) I do not have to understand where you are going with this. Especially, I am addressing the consistency in this whole article and its relevance with the other articles, players stats and records from 1990. Simply, you are thinking about just one of the Masters tournaments and just one unique record in CMC rather than the big picture of this page. No stats are absurd and nonsensical and be aware of this. Do you know how many pages are there for this ATP Masters records and stats ?? Note that the title of this article itself is wrong "Tennis Masters Series" and it was played from "2000 to 2003" only. You refer other articles ATP Masters. If we have the article from 1990, one should know what are the stats involved in it. Otherwise, if some thing is absurd/nonsensical, why everyone is keep on editing/adding as per one's own understanding in this page. I already mentioned, you simply indicated Strike Rate in the Champions List, which is misleading. I have given above example, how many strike rates, you can infer from this article beginning from 1990. Based on Masters Slot Titles, Masters Series Titles and Masters Tournament Titles. You can confirm to one of them and indicate in the Champions List what you are referring to. What I mentioned in this thread is verify and add some important stats. This can be redundant for the article ATP Masters but for this article, it is history of data. I also said word "back-to-back" is misleading. Both of you can not decide what is to be removed or what is to be kept when CMC data is not confirming to the title itself. One wants to remove IW-MI-Canada and the other wants to keep it as it is for saving space ??. Whatever u are telling can be done on the other page ATP Masters starting from 2009 but not in this, as page capturing the data from 1990. Now, you must have understood where I am coming from ??. I will also answer other comments separately in the below. This is only about the consistency of the article (TMSRS) and not about specifically USA Hard triple and Different Masters...Krmohan (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Hi.. Just forgot about CMCs, I do not agree for the removal of IW-MI-Canada triples as suggested. In fact, I propose to remove the word "Back-to-Back" tournaments which is misleading. In that way, it is better to keep Surface Triples table (which was removed earlier). Further, IW-MI-Cincy triple and Nadal's quadruple to be kept as footnotes to show the consistency with the title "Calendar Master Combinations". Any other combinations in the doubles must be removed, if not back-to-back or also if they are part of triples/quadruple in my opinion for improvements..Cheers..Krmohan (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan Removing the "back-to-back" note in the beginning of the CMC section would add up more cluster in the section, which in turn would make it more redundant. Also, removal of the IW-MI-Cincy triples is unadvisable, because, this way, an important part of the section of the section would be removed. Furthermore, I disagree with your Strike rate table suggestion, because it provides redundant, repeating data. The current format of the table is sufficient. Moreover, the footnotes provided at the moment, I am okay with. That would be all from me for now. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC) In your stats table of Champions List, when you have indicated Federer's strike rate as 7/9, are you considering Madrid and Hamburg two differnt tournaments as single tournament in 7/9. Is Madrid is half-tournament in your stat of 7/9 as far as the logic of Masters tournaments are concerned ?? If you answer this stat, I will answer how Madrid can be counted as two Masters when it played on two different surfaces as two different Masters. Noone ever in the history of ATP Tennis Masters has achieved quadruple like Nadal in a single season. How can you undermine the unique records of Nadal and Federer in this great page by means of so called undue comparision ?? Krmohan (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan I get that you want to count Madrid as two different tournaments but that’s just not possible, maybe you should seek consensus on splitting Madrid Open article into two articles (one for Madrid on clay and one for Madrid on hard) but I doubt very much that other editors would agree with you. Everyone sees them as one tournament. I see now that you also want to count Toronto and Montreal as two different titles but even that is not possible. Toronto and Montreal are different venues for the same tournament (Canadian Open). A simple note in the miscellaneous section about the different cities could be added but that's pretty much it, nothing more. I’m against it btw because I think it's trivial. Back-to-back titles for the double and triples are a must. We would have a 100 combinations if they’re not back-to-back. We would make 9 different title double combinations out of Indian Wells alone. IW/Miami, IW/Monte Carlo, IW/Madrid, IW/Rome, IW/Cincy, IW/Canada, IW/Shangahi, IW/Paris etc etc. A mess. ForzaUV (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC) New comments Replying to both of you in the order of comments. What do you mean by more Cluster..Are you concerned with the space and comfort (or) important stats and unique records in this page ??. One may decide on this obviously, there is no choice. Why removal of IW-MI-Cincy is unadvisable..It is already not there in the page ?? Do you want to maintain the difference in Consecutive records and CMC records ?? I never suggested to incorporate Masters Strike rate table in this thread. This is for your understanding and explanation. I have explained you that there are more stats attached to "Strike Rate" mentioned in the Champions list. It is contribution to the article, if you decide to add one column, two columns or three columns or no column at all in the champions list. My concern is to confirm the word "Strike Rate". If you confirm you mean by "Different Masters Slot Titles Strike Rate", it is fine. What I also mentioned is you can add any one of the other columns also (of-course, provided the data is correct and verifiable; whether Madrid is single title as per tournament organization or two titles based on the players participation on two surfaces. Strike Rates vary accordingly). Regarding doubles, I already mentioned that it should be back-to-back combination only. I do not understand why u are referring to so many combinations in the doubles. I have also suggested one more point, if doubles are subset of triples or quadruple, you can also remove them with a footnote to avoid repetition. The word "combinations" is correct either they can be consecutive (quadruple and doubles are back to back in a season) (or) by a specific reason (to capture unique records in that sense like surface triple, USA hard triple, IW-MI-Canada hardcourt triple, Season first triple, Season-end triple, Clay triple in a single season). It brings more consistency and adds value/contribution to the article and section title. I strongly recommend shifting "back-to-back" to the section "Doubles" only. Add Nadal's record in footnotes as quadruple in a single season. Add all sorts of triples (as done previously) in the triples section. When all is said and done, one is at perfect liberty to take advice from whomsoever one wishes....I do not recommend contradicting each other but a consensus on improving the pageKrmohan (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC) We can't have back-to-back titles for double combos but not for triples, it's either back-to-back titles for all or not and since they can only be back-to-back in sources we have to follow that. ForzaUV (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Then, convince other editors to remove Federer and Djokovic's IW-MI-Canada triples from the page...One more question pl. Is it appropriate consider Nadal's quadruple as two doubles or two triples when all are back-to-back ??? Is it better to mention simply Quadruple in CMC ?? Confirm Strike Rate word in the Champions list.. Request to close the thread with appropriate edits in the page. Do not leave as it is (not confirming to its title of the section in the page)... Krmohan (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Personally I've already said it, I have no problem if the whole section gets removed except for the Sunshine Double. Nadal's note is good as it is I think, the concept of Masters Quadruple doesn't get mentioned in sources like the his Canada-Cincy double for example. It could be 4 titles in a row if you don't like the two consecutive doubles. I'm not sure what you mean by confirming strike rate.. ForzaUV (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC) @ForzaUV@Krmohan Well, I am highly against the CMC section getting removed, the IW-MI-Canada triple included. It should stay the way it is. Maybe add a few footnotes here and there. But definitely not remove it. As for strike rate, care to elaborate on what you meant by confirming it? Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC) He probably wants it to be labeled Masters Strike Rate instead of just Strike Rate, not sure. You two can decide what you want to do with what we've already have in the section. I'm fine with removing them or keeping them as they are, just against adding some made up fluff. ForzaUV (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Well, to be fair, Masters Strike Rate is self-indicative that it relates to the Masters tournaments since this article is about Masters, thereby making the "Masters" part of the title redundant. Maybe @Krmohan:, name the column "Masters Slot Titles SR", omitting the "Different" part, because it is obvious that they are different tournaments/time slots, as seen in the table itself. That is my proposal. Cheers, Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Fine. But I do not agree for leaving the stuff as it is (not confirming to the structure of CMC). One may decide what wording to be deleted/added. Otherwise, better see how best unique records can also be accommodated separately without compromising the structure......Krmohan (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC) It is done just now in CMC itself, as the objective is to capture all important stats and unique records. Verify the data and revise/revert if necessary...You can do some formatting here and there but the data seem to be fitting to Calendar Master Combos title in my opinion.CheersKrmohan (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC) @ForzaUV @Qwerty284651, Calendar Masters combinations indicated and Masters strike rate are not fine. They are not confirming to its title. IW-MI-CANADA are not back-to-back titles. So it should be removed. Word Masters Slot Strike Rate is must to remove confusion to the readers/editors. If u want to keep back-to-back by any specific reason, then all surface triples. Not agreed to leave the stuff as it is. Pl change to one of the CMCs at the earliest.... Krmohan (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Listen here, @Krmohan:. As I've said before, the "Masters Slot Strike Rate" word, I am fine with. IW-MI-CANADA falls under the Hardcourt triple, which by surface are back-to-back tournaments. Come to think of it, didn't you yourself add Fed's and Novak's IW-MI-Toronto and IW-MI-Montreal feats to the list, which fall under the IW-MI-CANADA combo? I will add Nadal's 2013 MI-CANADA-CINCINNATI combo, but don't know what ForzaUV is gonna think of it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC) @ Yes, you are fine with "Masters Slot Strike Rate" word, hence I have added back (as someone removed). Regarding other combos, yes, I have added Djokovic and Federer initially as u did not agree for back-to-back removal. But someone else removed it. But now u have added Nadal instead of Federer. As Nadal never won MI-CANADA-CINCINNATI combo, I have changed it for Federer as u agreed initially. Yaa..but don't know what ForzaUV is gonna think of it but previously he left it both of us I think. Hope everything is fine with you by now.. CheersKrmohan (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Krmohan. "Masters Slot Strike Rate" is too wordy for a simple column header especially when it's obvious what the data is all about. You have 1st Masters, 2nd, .. 9th Masters then a column with #/9. Anyone can understand it's about the 9 Masters unless you think readers are really dumb. "Strike Rate" is self explanatory, the table is designed in a way that makes it easily understandable. "Masters Strike Rate" is fine too maybe but I don't see why we need more than three words for a column header when the point is clear with two words. I agreed to trust you to decide what to keep and remove not to add but Krmohan decided to add THREE more combinations I couldn't find in any source yet. We didn't agree on that. Federer 2004 instance in particular is not about back-to-back tournaments and shouldn't be there. ForzaUV (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC) @ForzaUV...I had to make u understand about word "Strike Rate" in the third as some of them already pointed out. Especially, when the page is from 1990, it is necessary (you also got confused as per previous comments). I do not what is wrong with mentioning in the correct word, when it misled already and other editors have agreed.. Krmohan (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC) As I said why the need for three or more words for a simple column header when the point is clear with two words? I doubt any reader would find the data confusing with how the tables is designed. Readers are not dumb, man. ForzaUV (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC) @ForzaUV, The word back-to-back is also not confirming to any of the North America Hardcourt triples. So, real combinations are Season First, Clay triple, Season Middle and Nadal's Quadruple. It is agreed with other editors to include NA tournaments in back-to-back. If u do not agree, then one may remove all Hardcourt triples in NA (First) or one may add all combos in NA (Second). Please note that it was agreed by me and other editors to include the second option. But we were not sure of your option. Let us know your choice (First or Second) so that it can be done suitably.. Thx.... Krmohan (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC) The best course of action here is to start looking for sources for the combination listed in the section, the ones which can be sourced stay, the others removed. I'll see what I can find in the next couple of days. ForzaUV (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Dear Sir, It has already misled in this thread itself. I told you what is wrong in mentioning the correct word. When it comes to Different Masters titles in this page (Misc Records), Federer is 8 whereas Strike Rate indicates 7. Hope we are not reinventing the wheels again... Krmohan (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC) The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 9 Masters headers and the usage of /9 in the column makes it clear it's about those 9 Masters events in the table. That's how I see it but I'm fine with "Masters Strike Rate" if "Strike Rate" is not sufficient for you. ForzaUV (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC) @ ForzaUV, I am fine with the "Masters Slot Strike Rate", especially when Federer's Masters count is "7" (refer 2. Champions list in the page) and the same count is 8 (refer 8. Miscellaneous Records in the same page). So, want to be sure and consistent with the usage in the page....CheersKrmohan (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Yes, we have already done in this thread itself. Only Nadal's Quadruple, Season First, Clay triple, Season middle triples are only confirming back to bacck in the history (apart from doubles). U r welcome to see and revise as necessary at the earliest. My request once again is not to leave the page as it is not confirming at present. Krmohan (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC) I'll revise it based on sources this week, by the end of the week at the latest. ForzaUV (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC) @ ForzaUV, @Qwerty284651 - Hope you have gone through the sources and data. As far as "back-to-back" tournaments are considered, following calendar masters combinations are only meeting the criteria. [Madrid, Rome, Canada, Cincinnati], Rafael Nadal, 2013 (Quadruple) [Indian Wells, Miami, Monte-Carlo], Novak Djokovic, 2015 (Season First Triple) [Madrid, Rome, Canada], Novak Djokovic, 2011 (Season Middle Triple) [Montecarlo, Madrid, Rome], Rafael Nadal, 2010 (Clay triple) As far as other combinations are concerned in the hardcourt triples before US open, which are not back-to-back are as follows. [Indian Wells, Miami, Canada], Novak Djokovic, 2016 - Yes [Indian Wells, Canada, Cincinnati], Rafael Nadal, 2013 (Canada, Cincinnati Masters are already part of Quadruple 2013) [Indian Wells, Miami, Canada], Novak Djokovic, 2011 (Canada Masters is already part of Season Middle Triple 2011) [Indian Wells, Miami, Canada], Roger Federer, 2006 - Yes [Indian Wells, Miami, Cincinnati], Roger Federer, 2005 [Miami, Canada, Cincinnati], Andre Agassi, 1995 (do not know why missing in the current Hard court triple) - Yes Now, we have following options [Include only back-to-back Masters in the CMC section Quadruple/Triples and remove other Hard court triples] - Confirms to structure [Add back-to-back Masters + relevant hardcourt triples in NA] - Not confirming to the structure + One Masters in two CMCs not justifying [Add back-to-back Masters in the CMC and all other hardcourt triples in NA in Other Misc Triples separately ] - O.k. with footnotes. Strictly speaking, we need to go by option (1) only as per the title, but if other combinations stats and records to be captured, need to go for option (3). Request either of the options, as current CMCs are not exactly matching the criteria/structure of the page. Hope this is in order..Krmohan (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan You are complicating too much with this ridiculous combinations. Give it a rest already. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC) @Qwerty284651, This kind of comments is not expected from you. What do u mean by complication?? First of all, the data is not verifiable as per Wikipedia guidelines. Discussed enough in this thread for the points raised by others. Still u mention ridiculous combos on what is sourced from the history of same page. That means the data in the current page is ridiculous as mentioned, since the data is not verifiable from the same page. It is agreed to keep Option 1 back-to-back tournaments in principle as per verifiability. If ForzaUV and other editors agree, one may mention other Hardcourt triple combos (back-to-back by Surface) only - which are Agassi's 1995, Federer'2006 and Djokovic's 2016 with a footnote. That's all. What is ridiculous is to miss key combos from the history and add One Masters in several combos too..Hope u agree on this now to revise..Thx... Krmohan (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan, Agassi does indeed have a back-to-back by surface in 1995 but I agree with Qwerty284651 that you're complicating a bit too much. Anyways, going through the sources – which will be cited when the edit is submitted – these are the combinations I've found so far IW, Miami, MC (season first) MC, Madrid, Rome (clay) IW, Miami Madrid, Rome Canada, Cincy Shangahi, Paris I'm still trying to find more but most likely those are the only ones we're gonna have to keep by the end of the week. ForzaUV (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan I meant the additional combinations you want to add in CMC, not the ones who are already there. The options you suggested... Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC) @ ForzaUV, As far as triples are concerned, you are correct for the Season first, Season Middle and Clay triples as they are back-to-back Masters. It does not require this much time from the data verifiability point of view. As of now, the only Hard court triples confirming back-to-back CMCs are "Canada-Cincy-Shanghai" and "Cincy-Shanghai-Paris (Season end triple)". These CMCs have never been achieved in the history by any player. So, we will remove the rest of the hard court triple combos to put an end to this topic. This data is verifiable from anybody at any point of time.Krmohan (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC) @ Qwerty28465 I must say I am not complicating anything. Just simplifying from the Wikipedia verifiability point of view. Regarding other hard court triples considering the North American Tournaments, you may like to add them in section 8. Miscellaneous records or section 11. Statistics, if other editors agree by the end of this week (without cherry picking). Even then, Agassi's 1995, Federer's 2006, Djokovic's 2016 are only qualifying. Other combos are here and there in the article (either in sections 9. CMCs or 6.Consecutive records), except Federer's 2005 hard triple. Other editors may look into these combos as already explained in the above thread. Cheers.Krmohan (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC) New comments 2 Hi...Last week, I have closely looked at the "Doubles" combos. The data is verified as per a) Back-to-back tournament titles and b) Currently active combinations in bold. The following stats / records data is not verifiable from "Doubles" combos. Need revision accordingly. Monte Carlo - Rome were back-to-back tournaments for achievements in the years 2005,2006,2007,2009 (not to be bold as not active combination now) Monte Carlo - Rome not back-to-back for the years 1996 & 1999 (Hamburg In-between won by others), 2012,2015,2018 (Madrid In-between won by others). To be removed. Monte Carlo - Hamburg were not back-to-back for the year 2008 achievement (Rome In-between and won by other player). Therefore to be removed Miami - Canada are not back-to-back tournament titles. Therefore, to be removed. Madrid - Paris achievement for the year 2007 (by Nalbandian) was there but missing for the year 2004 (Marat Safin). Other discontinued and achieved back-to-back combos of Hamburg-Canada missing. Hope this is in order to do the necessary edits. Krmohan (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan, I am fine with your choice of deciding to remove the non-consecutive combinations, for Hamburg/Madrid-Rome combos switched a lot over the years. However, I would not include doubles, which are already included in triples and the quadruple to avoid clutter and repetitive information for the same thing. For instance, Nadal's quadruple contains 2 triples and 3 doubles, which is just not needed. Furthermore, I suggest you include the Rome-Canada combo alongside the Hamburg/Madrid/Rome-Canada combos, depending on which tournament preceded the Canada Masters for a given year and have in a separate table underneath the clay double, titled "Other doubles", which would contain said 2 combos. That is all from me for now. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC) @ Qwerty284651 - As discussed, data not verifiable is removed. Doubles part of Triple/Quadruple not considered. Madrid Hard(i)-Paris Carpet(i) Combo shifted to others...You may like to verify and any footnotes may be added accordingly..Krmohan (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan Footnotes are necessary to explain the changes of the events' time slots changes. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Got it...Well arranged... Krmohan (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC) @Krmohan Anytime. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)