Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Post dating rankings

Something has come up with a persistent editor and I wanted to know some thoughts. Our general guideline and consensus is we do not post date any rankings. We go by the official WTA rankings (or ATP) which come out on Mondays. It makes it easy and sourcable. Even we know a player can't really lose a particular ranking we go by the WTA. And considering we are an encyclopedia, not a tennis website, we need sure things to publish. Justine Henin retired and her ranking was removed the next day. No extra weeks of being ranked No. 1 even though it would have continued for awhile. Li Na retired yet her ranking is actually still listed. Maureen Connolly had her leg crushed between a horse and truck and never played again. Things happen. Now Serena Williams is No. 1 and was just given the trophy for year end No. 1. The season is over for her, though Fed Cup is still going where players get points. The WTA website has rankings as of October but it has also issued a press release of the number of weeks Williams will hold the No. 1 ranking as of Dec 28th. We know from the past that this is not 100% guaranteed but we do have this WTA source. I have to say it would be nice to not have to update every week in the off-season from a wikipedia bookkeeping standpoint. The trouble is we are an encyclopedia and I worry about legitimacy about weeks that haven't happened yet.

We also run into problems like this edit, where we always use "start date-present" for total weeks. This edit gives it an "end date" which may or may not be the actual end date when we get there, WP:Crystalball. Wolbo and I have tried to keep the post dating in check but this situation is a little different at the end of the season... though as I said there are actually events still going on. Should we allow post dating of rankings at season end? It would have to be for all players, not just Serena. Do we keep the rankings as per the WTA site? Do we keep the ranking as per the wta site but allow a sourced note on the appropriate page that acknowledges Serena will in all likelihood maintain her ranking till Dec 28 (barring retirement, injury, etc)? Here year end WTA title I have no issue with... she's won it regardless (though I don't think the ITF has announced there champion yet). Last season the men's ITF and ATP did not have the same champion. Just wondering what others think about this issue, if you might have a better solution to what we now do. I can live with either outcome, but I wanted to express my concerns. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

WTA's year-end no. 1 for Serena is not a projection about the end of December but her ranking now. WTA defines year-end ranking as the ranking after the last WTA tournament, i.e. today. See for example http://www.wtatennis.com/press-center where "Year-End Singles Rankings - 2013" links to the rankings from 4 November 2013. All ranked players are included even though lots of them were still playing 2013 ITF Women's Circuit (October–December) and changed rankings there. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. She is the WTA year-end number 1. That can be plastered everywhere. But her weekly rankings cumulatively adding up is a different beast. You'll note that press release page you linked to, at the bottom, shows weeks at number 1 with Serena at 221 for Dec 29. Should we post date that total and date everywhere we can? Should we keep it at November, should we use whatever the WTA uses at it rankings website? For all I know, tomorrow the WTA rankings website will also post date to Dec 29. Just wondering what's the best to use at this encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The year end world #1 ranking is set in stone after the last tournament of the year by the WTA. For all other weeks of the year, the WTA issues a weekly PDF. However, they do not do this after (usually) the beginning of November when the last tournament is played and when all is said and done for the tennis season. Like this year, they issue a statement about year end #1 and update the career stats. Please review the "Stats - Career" section of the WTA website following this link. http://www.wtatennis.com/press-center There, you can clearly see that they have already factored in Serena Williams' total weeks at #1 as 221 (through the end of the year). Articles here still list on a weekly basis which is not necessary at the end of the year. Also, please refer to their press release from October 25th stating the same thing along with consecutive weeks at #1. http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/PressReleases/2014/1026_Williams_Errani_Vinci_Year_End_No1s.pdf These stats articles are a reflection of WTA statistics. If the WTA states something as fact, then it is so. In addition, the rankings aren't actually updated after the last tournament in the beginning of November. The year end #1 rankings are subsequently issued at that time. Anyone can check the year end #1 data sheets on the WTA's website to view all the past year end rankings from 1975 including this years. You can view all the year end rankings in the Career Stats - Rankings section here. http://www.wtatennis.com/press-center. The 2014 Year End Rankings are dated November 3, 2014. http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Rankings_Stats/Singles_Numeric_2014.pdf It is stated that the year end and FINAL rankings have been memorialized on November 3, 2014. There is no reason why #1 tally cannot be post-dated especially when the tally is listed on the WTA website as an official press release. I hope that folks realize that when it comes to year end totals after the last tournament is played, these stats articles will be technically incorrect for the remainder of the year and every future year it does not update totals when as WTA does.Kube8 (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So you post here and yet go back to your old ways of simply post-dating against consensus? Why would you do this after your last blocks and warnings? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this not where you said to have this conversation?????? Fyunck(click)... PLEASE STOP.Kube8 (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is where it can get talked about and bantered back and forth, and where others will chime in if they think we need some changes to our protocol. Post things here. But don't go back to the same post dating while posting here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you PrimeHunter for your response. I do understand that the ITF is incorporated into the WTA point distribution. Though the "WTA" season is technically complete, the ITF season still adds points to the WTA rankings for the lesser players through the remainder of the year. That rationale makes it understandable as to why post dating would not be appropriate (even though the current #1 tally would be unaffected). In theory, it could. It still doesn't factor in the WTA's stated determination of year end and their subsequent tallies, but your rationale makes sense. I'll let you wiki junkies hash it out and come to a consensus, but I think my point is clear. I still hold firm to the statement that if the WTA says it's so, it is so, but I understand your rationale. I appreciate that response as opposed to Justine Henin submitting a formal letter to remove herself from the rankings or other "unusual circumstances." Thanks so much!Kube8 (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Longest match winning streaks during the Open Era

There has been dispute among some users what are the longest match winning streaks during the Open Era. According to the ATP these are the Top 10 streaks

1. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
2. Ivan Lendl 44 1981-82
3. Novak Djokovic 43 2011
4. John McEnroe 42 1984
5. Bjorn Borg 41 1979-80
6. Roger Federer 41 2006-07
7. Bjorn Borg 35 1978
8. Roger Federer 35 2005
9. Thomas Muster 35 1995
10. Rafael Nadal 32 2008

Here is the source http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/05/19/Shark-Bites-Big-Three.aspx 195.89.49.249 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see you made an error. The article you are referring to is List of Open Era tennis records... that is not a list of ATP sponsored records. That is a list of "Open Era" records. The ATP doesn't include Davis Cup in any of their totals. The Open Era does! If you check Borgs profile at here and here you'll see his record is 48 straight (walkover never included of course) in 79-80 and 49 straight in 1978. That's where you made the error. If fact, in the source of the revert you did, it even mentions that streak. You should have noticed that, but I fixed it so no problems. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Fyunck, how many reliable sources state that Borg holds the record for longest match winning streak in Open Era? If you go to Google you will everywhere see just one name and that's Guillermo Vilas. BoDu (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure... mine was easily pulled from the ATP website. It shows a list of Borg's matches and all one has to do is count. The thing is most places will show the ATP record... it's what they're fed by the ATP. By the way the ITF site shows the same 50 matches. And in looking at the list above, the Borg streak in 1978 was 43, not 35, per both the ATP and ITF archives. And it turns to 49 instead of 43 because because both websites forget to include Davis Cup during the win streak. They include it in other parts of their websites but simply missed it in 1978. Of course none of these records are historical records, but the page is question in an Open Era record article, not a complete historical record article. Nor is it an ATP record article. The ATP misses many events between 1968 and 1973 also, so we always have to recheck numbers from that time period. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to remind you what's the Wikipedia policy. We must put information based on viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. You have not provided proof what is the majority view. BoDu (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what policy you're talking about. The ATP and ITF websites clearly list the victories. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about this Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. I quote: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)". As I've already said, if you go to Google, it's clear that only tiny minority of sources say Borg holds the record in the Open Era. BoDu (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Google isn't the best for those things, especially when we are talking events from the 1970s. It's not like you can't look up an old newspaper and find Borgs 49 match win streak snapped. I will agree that there are more sources that when talking of win streaks talk of Vilas 46 win streak. But there are plenty of sources that tell of Borgs 49 streak in 1978, and 48 streak in 1979-80 seasons. The problem is the ATP site misses many davis cup events from that time period, or makes errors on walkovers. Then other places like CBS Sports look at the ATP site and makes the same error over and over. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen plenty of sources that tell of Borg 49 streak in 1978 and 48 streak in 1979-80. You've provided only one source. BoDu (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well you can always count his victories... but I'll add a couple more. Here's one and here's another. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You've provided 3 sources in total. That's not plenty but a few. BoDu (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to keep digging up newspaper articles for your whining. The facts are there for all to see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you do not provide enough of sources that tell what you claim, I will file a request for a moderated discussion Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/DRN. BoDu (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with whatever you decide to do. There are sources each way so putting both sets of info in the articles is probably the best compromise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources which say that Borg holds the record are heavily outnumbered by the sources which state that Vilas holds the record. Therefore, there can not be compromise here. BoDu (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That's too bad. Then moderation should work really well, and I'm sure they will jump at the chance knowing your feelings that "there can not be compromise here." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Tennis World Magazine source here TWM states 49 match win streak. News Day source here states 49 match win streak here All time streak winners. Laura Davis of the Liverpool Daily Post newspaper UK article at the Free Libarary states 49 match win streak record here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/, the ATP Barcelona Opens websites states his 49 match streak record here: http://www.barcelonaopenbancsabadell.com--Navops47 (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... You're preaching to the choir with me. I know there are plenty of sources, especially old newspapers if we want to take the time to go to libraries and search for them. There are also lots of sources that, for whatever reason, don't acknowledge Borg's record and they go with Vilas. We have conflicting sources and we just have to find ways to make sure our readers understand that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Country heading in the infobox

There is a discussion going on at Template_talk:Infobox_tennis_biography#Country_represented_field on whether having just the word "country" in the infobox is confusing to readers as opposed to "country represented" or some other such term. Opinions welcome. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Grand Prix tennis circuit

Hi! There are some problems in the Grand Prix tennis circuit articles:

1. 1971 Grand Prix (tennis) and 1971 Men's Grand Prix (tennis) are the same the article. The first is more completed and the second has to be deleted.
2. 1972 Grand Prix (tennis) and 1972 Men's Grand Prix (tennis) idem. The second has to be deleted.
3. 1973 Grand Prix (tennis) and 1973 Men's Grand Prix (tennis) idem. But in this case the first contains wrong information just like the WCT tournaments (tournaments played in other circuit) and the other tournaments are uncategorised. The second one is almost corrected.--Matlab1985 (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. However it isn't just which one is better. It's which one has the longer history. All the newer ones should be deleted or merged into the originals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

See this previous discussion for some background info on how these articles came to be.--Wolbo (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Grand Prix Super Series and 1977 Grand Prix (tennis)

In the article 1977 Grand Prix (tennis) there are only 2 six-star events: 1977 American Airlines Tennis Games and U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships but in this one in this section Grand Prix Super Series#1977_Grand_Prix_.E2.80.93_6_Star there are 7 six-star tournaments (plus 2 WCT ones).--Matlab1985 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The 1977 Grand Prix (tennis) is correct; there were indeed only two six-star tournaments. The Grand Prix Super Series article is not yet fully updated following the outcome of the article move. The years 1970–1974 have been updated, the remaining years still largely need to be done so that they only show the Grand Prix tournaments that were classified directly below the Grand Slams. Identifying which tournaments were part of the 'Super Series' at the end of the 70s is a bit tricky. The WCT tournaments have now been removed. Hope that helps. --Wolbo (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Wolbo, always precious.--Matlab1985 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Walkovers and the WTA

I just reverted an editor on the Andrea Petkovic article because he was adding walkover results as win totals in her performance timeline. The articles I have noticed and worked on don't include those as wins or losses in our totals. The ATP has stated many times in the press that walkovers don't count... especially during Djokovic's long winning streak. Federer had a walkover in his Wimbledon win streak and it counted as nothing by the ATP. The ITF specifically uses an "o" instead of a "W" or "L" for walkovers. I assumed the same for the WTA site... and I was wrong. The WTA stats include walkovers as wins or losses in player totals. Quite perplexing. I did a cursory archive check and found nothing on this topic. Are we to use different walkover stat definitions for the Ladies and the Men? Do we go with the ITF for both. I'm wondering if the WTA rules say they agree with the ITF but their site is simply in error with their actual words? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

My first thought would be to stick to what the ITF says, because, after all, the Grand Slams are organised by them and not the WTA. The ITF's tabs on stats/scores are better anyway. Jared Preston (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm the editor whose work on the Andrea Petkovic article was reverted, last month, by Fyunck(click). I now more fully understand how walkovers are treated on the WTA website, and I endorse Fyunck(click)'s action. The confusion arose because, in the WTA's "GRAND SLAM HISTORY" tables, the WTA treats walkovers differently than the WTA's own walkover policy (and the walkover policy throughout men's and women's tennis). This agreed-on policy is: (a) a walkover beneficiary does not count the walkover as a Win, and (b) a walkover conceeder does not count the walkover as a Loss. The WTA does the opposite in it's "GRAND SLAM HISTORY" tables. And, unfortunately, this is also how many women's tennis articles in Wikipedia treat walkovers (also, quite a few men's tennis articles). I agree with the above, that these should be corrected in Wikipedia.Free2brag (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to see this solved. It seems the only sensible way to treat walkovers but if a reliable and authoritative source like the WTA deviates from it, at least on a section of its website, it becomes problematic. Perhaps we should add a bullet point on walkovers in the article guidelines (section 'Player performance timelines')? Does anyone have links to ATP or ITF info on dealing with walkovers? --Wolbo (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As we all seem to agree that (1) counting a walkover as neither win nor loss is the sensible thing to do, and (2) the only (partial) source deviating from that rule is the WTA Stats Grand Slam History W/L count, I might wonder whether any Wikipedian has entry to some WTA employee to point this out, and have that source of error possibly corrected? Vinkje83 (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What to put in the infobox if the tournament was not held last year?

What should be put in infobox instead of champion, runner up etc. if the tournament was not played last year. For example, I did not know how to fill in the infobox in 2015 Morocco Tennis Tour – Casablanca – Doubles. (BTW I was not sure whether to ask this here or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tournament task force. But since that talk page is empty, I thought that better place to ask this is here.) --Kompik (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If you leave those 3 fields blank, that part of the infobox should not show up. —PC-XT+ 14:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you are referring to the previous year, |defchamp= is used for the defending champion. It also doesn't show up if it is left blank. —PC-XT+ 14:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kompik (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

One more question related to this. If a tournament was held in 2013 and 2015, but in 2014, links to the non-existent 2014 editions are automatically added in the infobox in both 2013 and 2015 edition. Example: 2013 Morocco Tennis Tour – Casablanca. Is there some way to change this? --Kompik (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You should be able to override an automatic year using |before_year= or |after_year=, depending on which year you want to change. I should add those to the documentation... —PC-XT+ 14:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This seems to work for TennisEventInfo (see 2013 Morocco Tennis Tour – Casablanca). But not for TennisEvents2, which seems to be often used in the articles with draws (see 2013 Morocco Tennis Tour – Casablanca – Singles). --Kompik (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I'm in the process of merging TennisEvents2 into {{Tennis events}}, and I forgot to allow for those parameters in the TennisEvents2 redirect. {{Tennis events}} also requires a |type= parameter. For TennisEvents2 conversion, this is usually set to men or women. All other parameters are the same. I replaced it in 2013 Morocco Tennis Tour – Casablanca – Singles to show how, but I'll fix it so the parameters are available for the TennisEvents2 redirect soon, since it is still in use... —PC-XT+ 15:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

TennisEvents2 should support the new parameters, now. Sorry about that. —PC-XT+ 15:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I will use Tennis events from now on. Thanks for the explanation. But I should mention that TennisEvents2 behaves strangely now. Check this page where I copied infobox from the current revision of 2015 BNP Paribas de Nouvelle-Calédonie – Singles. In any case, thanks for your work on templates. --Kompik (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm having trouble with the edit I made to add those parameters to TennisEvents2, and had to revert it. The templates should update and correct the pages, soon, but if the new parameters are required, {{Tennis events}} is currently the only one that has them. —PC-XT+ 17:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships now defunct?

It looks like the U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships is now a defunct tournament. See my comments on the talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:KIS/WPTennis MfD

This user label is part of a userbox alternative (WP:KIS) created for this project years ago, and now has 4 users. It is being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:KIS/WPTennis. Comments are welcome. —PC-XT+ 05:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

ITF Men's / Women's Circuit

Because of the sheer volume of tournaments present in the list, should define a criteria for inclusion, I hope Mick Lescure goes onto have a successful career and maybe one day win a major, but is it necessary to include the tournament on 2015 ITF Men's Circuit? I put forth a suggestion to only include the top tier tournament category on the list, as well as the addition of tournaments that include notable players, and maybe cut down the list to just the finals, because on average it seems like the players knocked out prior to finals tend to be non-notable. YellowStahh (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox country

Novak Djokovic (and Ana Ivanovic) was represented Serbia and Montenegro from 2003 to 2006 in Davis Cup, Grand Slams and ATP Tour. For example: [1],[2],[3],[4], [5]. As we use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth, in the infobox should write the names of all the countries for which he was competed. Serbia and Montenegro did not change name and flag, Serbia is a new and different country.

I think this is the most appropriate solution for infobox:

Serbia and Montenegro (2003–2006)
Serbia (2006–)

That's the way it is done on many other pages. Hypothetically, imagine that Scotland voted for independence and Andy Murray is competing for them from this year, would we put in his infobox only Scotland or something like this:

Great Britain (2005–2014)
Scotland (2015–)

I'm sorry if someone feels offended by this example. Obviously, it would not be the same country (or national team) and situation. Also, Natasha Zvereva (from Belarus), Larisa Neiland (from Latvia) and Leila Meskhi (from Georgia) played for their independent countries, but before that they played for Soviet Union and reach together to final of 1990 Federation Cup. It would be wrong to not put in infobox both countries. Novak also won futures tournaments in Serbia and Montenegro, for example: [6]. Before that he played for FR Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) national team in 2001 ITF World Junior Tennis Competition: [7] --Aca Srbin (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2015 (UCT)

We should mention all the countries that the player has represented. So we should do as in the example above. --Stryn (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There are probably even more of this Serbian players in that situation. Jelena Jankovic has represented Serbia&Montenegro and Serbia, while Nenad Zimonjic has represented Yugoslavia, Serbia&Montenegro and Serbia in both Olympics and the Davis Cup. Tvx1 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Overall Tennis Records – Women's Singles (drafting)

I am currently compiling this article to compliment the men's version and is found here: User:Navops47/sandbox3 I would appreciate any feedback from project members and please feel free to edit the draft itself if you find error's or want to add new information.--Navops47 (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I found one error: Billie Jean King semifinals Grand Slam 27 instead are 26. I suppose... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matlab1985 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Another one: Doris Hart semifinals Grand Slam are 25 not 26.--Matlab1985 (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting them have you altered them? also have you seen the new section two down can you help with this?--Navops47 (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

have now changed them in the main article.--Navops47 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi anyone the article Overall tennis records - Womens's Singles is now created however an editor User talk:Bgwhite has recently altered the article which has now left it with lots of table's missing or just whole blank sections his edit summary was about not mixing and matching with AWB if he wasn't happy about it OK alter the article but keep it's appearance looking right I have tried to put it back correctly but I can't do it can any other project editor take a look at it and hopefully reverse it correctly it looks a real mess now.--Navops47 (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Undid revision seems to have resolved it--Navops47 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Federer/Djokovic Rivalry Rfc

An Rfc has been started to determine the merit of an additional chart to Talk:Djokovic–Federer rivalry. I'm not sure why it's an Rfc rather than an informal discussion, but there you have it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 WTA Tour

This article could do with an expansion on the Statistical Information section. The areas of expansion include: 1. Aces 2. First Service Percentage 3. First Service Points won 4. Service Games won 5. Break points saved 6. Break points converted 7. Return games won — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.10.82 (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

In other words, add most or all of http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Rankings_Stats/match_stats_2015.pdf to 2015 WTA Tour, similarly to 2014 WTA Tour#Statistics leaders. I don't want to spend time adding and maintaining it but others are welcome. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that this could be at least partially automated. I have created some sed scripts here: User:Kompik/scripts/sed#WTA statistics. At the moment I do not have much time to continue with this. If somebody wants to do so, you can try whether they can be useful when trying to create these stats. Or I can try to get back to this in a month or so. --Kompik (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:8TeamBracket-Tennis3-v2

Can anyone fix this template, to improve view of filled bracket? Look at 2015 Australian Open – Men's Doubles#Finals for example, it's not equal for all teams, only second and fourth quarterfinal looks alright, teams on lines 2, 6 in QF and 2, 4 in SF have some spaces around, so those cells are too high TheLightBlue (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I fixed it, but let me know/revert if not. I removed the numeric heights, because they seemed problematic, and I see other similar bracket templates without them. —PC-XT+ 11:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your "fix" is appropriate for doubles, but not for singles. Make sure you look at all pages being affected by the template. 108.213.242.122 (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I knew I should have made a testcases page... I reverted, and made a sandbox and testcases, instead. (By the way, I have tried a couple fixes leaving the numeric heights in, but they were still not uniform. I saved one in the sandbox history.) If the sandbox versions in Template:8TeamBracket-Tennis3-v2/testcases seem appropriate, we can sync it. It should only expand boxes larger than others if text wraps, such as when the browser window is scrunched. —PC-XT+ 14:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC) 14:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is this even being used when {{8TeamBracket-Tennis3}} is available? 108.213.242.122 (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'd like to wrap or redirect it, myself. I replied to the comment on Template talk:8TeamBracket-Tennis3-v2. —PC-XT+ 08:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I wrapped it for now. —PC-XT+ 14:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I also created {{8TeamBracket-Tennis3/sandbox}} and {{8TeamBracket-Tennis3/testcases}} for the original problem, which still seems to affect both templates. —PC-XT+ 15:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The wrapping was reverted because I made a mistake in the process, which messed up both sides of the testcases. (See my talk page.) {{8TeamBracket-Tennis3-v2/testcases}} looks right to me, now, but I'm waiting a day or so for others to make sure, just in case. If there are no objections, we can apply the corrected code. —PC-XT+ 21:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Template:2015UCIProTeams

Could someone take a look at this please? If it's liked, I think the best procedure would just be to move it to template space, DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It could possibly be useful in List of 2015 UCI ProTeams and riders#Teams overview and 2015 in men's road cycling#UCI ProTeams, but I'm not sure how it would fit into UCI World Tour. WT:WikiProject Cycling might be the place to ask. —PC-XT+ 21:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I copied this over there. —PC-XT+ 21:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Slims of Akron and Virginia Slims of Fort Lauderdale tournaments

It's been suggested in this TfD that one article per tournament would be sufficient for these, since there are only 4 years. Summaries wouldn't be needed, since details would be presented directly. This would be an exception to the usual. Would it be possible to present all of that information in one article without confusing readers? Assessment of whether we should have 3 articles per year, as in other tournaments, (one for the tournament, and one for each event,) or merge some of these together, or other comments at the TfD would be welcome. I haven't yet looked into this enough to form an opinion, myself. —PC-XT+ 19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The templates were userfied to User:Wolbo/Virginia Slims of Akron tournaments and User:Wolbo/Virginia Slims of Fort Lauderdale tournaments. —PC-XT+ 12:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bjorn Borg reverts on his statistics

Hi I reverted an edit on the article here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bj%C3%B6rn_Borg&diff=647899540&oldid=647865536. plus another one and stated that rounding up the statistic's or rounding down is incorrect at official sources shown here: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Performance-Zone/Performance-Zone-Landing.aspx. I mentioned that changing his figures also affects all tennis record and statistic articles here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tennis_records_and_statistics meaning he could move up or down record tables. A second editor The Rambling Man reverted the figures again and in the edit summary said "not a science article, if you wish to continue edit warring, please find yourself blocked, better still let's discuss this at the talk page or at the project". A point I take exception too I was not edit warring and threatening me with a block is not helpful either, had he read and digested my comments on my talk page I suggested that the first editor take it talk if he objection to my revert. I am merely following this point here: Accuracy_of_sourcing. Also stating that readers of tennis articles are probably not interested in statistics maybe true if your not interested in tennis much but maybe interesting to tennis readers however if a stat is for example 89.91% rounding it up to 90% or down to 89% is wrong thoughts anyone else? thank you.--Navops47 (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A further comment left on my talk page "I've removed the ridiculous "accuracy". It's now down to you to discuss it". Do we state source data on tennis articles accurately or not, thoughts anyone?. --Navops47 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... I never really thought about it. I guess if it were me, I'd retain the decimals in charts like articles on Open Era records, but round off in prose. Just like we don't have scores written in prose I'm not sure we need percentages out to the hundredths spot. In that one section that says "Borg won 41% of the Grand Slam singles tournaments he entered (11 of 27) and 90% (141–16) of the Grand Slam singles matches he played"... I'd probably not even have the (11 of 27) and (141-16) parts listed in prose. We are supposed to summarize though I realize that doesn't happen much on Serena Williams or Novak Djokovic articles these days. One thing though... it was sitting at those hundredths place settings for awhile. If someone changed them and you changed them back, THEY are the ones who should stop and bring it to talk, not you. On a quick glance I have no idea why anyone would warn you for edit warring... it looks like one set of changes to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It was one individual revert each see your point about prose as for bringing it to talk before reverting again that's my understanding and left a comment on my talk page for the first editor about it which rambling man reverted it again and instructed me to bring here. And yes its been sitting there as it was for about the last two years.--Navops47 (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

When you're reading prose, a stastic with two decimal places of accuracy is clunky and ridiculous. Which of these entirely fictional statements reads better?

Recent research shows that 45.72% of American high school teachers have read Middlemarch and 79.34% have read The Jungle Book.

Recent research shows that 46% of American high school teachers have read Middlemarch and 79% have read The Jungle Book.

The loss of accuracy is negligible and irrelevant and more than compensated for by improved flow. Keep that level of accuracy for statistical records sections if you must, but help the reader read and comprehend prose. Besides, why stop at two decimal places? Your argument could equally apply to twelve. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The argument was to use the same accuracy as ATP. But I agree with others that an integer percentage is better in prose, and simple rounding is allowed by WP:CALC. One or two decimals is OK in tabulated statistics. More than 1000 matches is very rare so one decimal is nearly always enough to ensure that a different number of wins will give a different winning percentage, but if official sources use two decimals then that is also OK. More than two would be silly. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Martina Navratilova infobox says: "Career record 1,442–219 (86.8%)". A win less would have been "Career record 1,441–220 (86.8%)". Not a big deal but I wouldn't mind two decimals there, like in Chris Evert. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Before my intervention, the second paragraph of the Lead in Bjorn Borg read as follows:

During his relatively brief pro career, Borg won 41% of the Grand Slam singles tournaments he entered (11 of 27) and 89.81% (141–16) of the Grand Slam singles matches he played. His winning rate across all surfaces (carpet, clay, hard, and grass) was 82.74% (609–127), and his winning percentage at Wimbledon was 92.73% (51–4); all are records.

I repeat, I have no problem with decimal places in stats sections. --Dweller (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

For prose, rounding is fine to improve readability, as others have said. I agree with PrimeHunter regarding parts of articles where accuracy is more important. —PC-XT+ 14:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In all the statistical page about a tennis player or tennis records is used 2 decimals approximation just like in our pages: Overall tennis records – Women's Singles and Overall tennis records – Men's Singles.--Matlab1985 (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Strike rate

How do you get the total strike rate, like here. Where do you get the 105 for hardcourt? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 08:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The strike rate is the number of tournaments won divided by the number of tournaments played. In the case of Sharapova she won 19 hardcourt tournaments and competed in 105. The source is not specifically indicated but undoubtedly the stats are derived from her WTA profile page.--Wolbo (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

1975 U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships

If we see this table we can read in 1975 row: Jimmy Connors defeated Vitas Gerulaitis 5–7, 7–5, 6–1, 3–6, 6–0. Reading the ATP page about the Memphis tournmament [8] in the section "Past Results" there's written: 1975 S|D Harold Solomon Dick Stockton / Erik Van Dillen: is there a mistake in our wiki page? If we see the completed table at this url we can see the Solomon's victor and not the Connors one.--Matlab1985 (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Two different events in the strange world of tennis. The U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships, which has been around since 1898, occasionally switched venues. You'll not from 1964 to 1975 it was held in Salisbury... the event Connors won in 1975. In 1975 the U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships moved to Memphis and was held there till 2014. However prior to 1976 there was a different Memphis Open event. That is the event that Stockton won. If you see the new event's webpage of past champions, it starts in 1976.... not even acknowledging that the prior Memphis Open existed. Tennis history is littered with these weird things and it's kind of tough to make accurate articles because of it. Anyway that's the story. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, but if you write an article about the 1975 U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships you have to consider the Solomon victory and not the Connors one. Connors won the title of Salisbury when the U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships was just moved to Memphis at Mid-South Coliseum (in 1976 at Racquet Club of Memphis) that is the tournament reported in our wiki page. If you create an article called 1975 U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships and talk about Connors Salisbury victory there's a wrong. The 1975 Salisbury tournament is another one and not ad edition of the most famous U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships.--Matlab1985 (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, per sources and news accounts, the US National Indoor didn't move to Memphis until 1977...so this article has a different error. We have Connors winning in 1975 (also listed here), and Nastase winning in 1976. Those events won by Solomon and Amritraj were simply the Memphis Open. There is a 1976 Illinois paper that calls the event the "World Championship of Tennis' $60,000 Memphis Racquet Club Classic.". Also another 1976 paper here and Sports Illustrated here. So what needs correcting is the 1976 row that has Amritraj winning... that was a different event and needs to be removed in favor of Nastase winning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, @Fyunck:. Your deductions are correct, thanks, but there's another problem the ATP website: why does it talk about the 1975 and 1976 tournaments and not begin from 1977, and why do we call this tournament U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships from this year (1977)? If you could find an article about the 1977 Memphis tournament called 1977 U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships we could solve the enigma.--Matlab1985 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I found two quickly. Borgs win at the National Indoors in 1977 by a Bakersfield paper and an interesting 2003 Memphis paper that says 1977 was it first year hosting the US National Indoor after two events were held there in 1975 and 1976. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Had a look at the World of Tennis annuals from these years. The 1975 (Solomon) and 1976 (Amritraj) Memphis tournaments were WCT events while the 1975 (Connors) and 1976 (Năstase) US Indoor tournaments were not Grand Prix events but part of the USTA Indoor Circuit organized by Riordan. As of 1977 the US Indoor Championship was played at Memphis and was first part of the Grand Prix circuit and later the ATP Tour. It is odd that the Memphis tournament website starts in 1976 instead of 1975. No idea why that is. --Wolbo (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Unidentified players

Hi, Does anybody know who are these players — women and man, within tournament at the 2015 Sydney? Thank you.--Misbeliever 02:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know for 100%, to be honest, but having looked at the hundreds (or thousands?) of files you've uploaded to Commons, I can only ask, pretty please, if you could at least categorise the other tennis players (which were already titled), on behalf of this project, otherwise they (the files) are going to be useless hanging around there if nobody can locate them. I'm sure someone else can help identify the players in question, but in the meantime, you could be categorising some, if not all of the files you've uploaded. It would have been easier had you done this in the first place with the "Flickr2Commons" tool... Jared Preston (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies, @Misbeliever:. This message was obviously meant for the original uploader at Commons, @Puramyun31:. Jared Preston (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, yes, as you can see on Commons, I create categories for all my uploads as well as on another uncategorized images. I will ask him.--Misbeliever 06:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

World Series Free Week ?

Hello,

I'm a member of the french Wikipedia, particularly of the Tennis project on the french Wikipedia.

I've asked on the French version the following question, but at the moment nobody can answer me. That's why I'm coming there, to get a larger "specialised" audience.

If we look at the ITF website, (There or on this link), there is the tournament category "World Series Free Week". This appellation is also present on the english article 1990 Volvo San Francisco. However, does someone can explain me what is more precisely this category ?

Thank you. A.Gust14 (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found a definition but based on examining some of the tournaments with the designation at itftennis.com, I guess it's a term used on the 1990 ATP Tour, 1991 ATP Tour and 1992 ATP Tour for World Series tournaments in weeks without any larger ATP tournament. The ATP World Series became the ATP International Series in 2000, and the ATP World Tour 250 series in 2009. You can check more results at "World Series Free Week" site:itftennis.com if you want to see how well it matches my theory. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Given your observations, you are surely right. Maybe a sentence to precise it on the article ATP World Series/ATP International Series would be wise, isn't it ? A.Gust14 (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It was just a guess based on limited observations. It would need a reliable source but more checks shows it fails. Hongkong 1990 has "Free Week" the same week as the larger Monte Carlo. There are probably other fails but I'm not examining all cases. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Scope of ATP World Tour records article

A proposal to change the scope of the ATP World Tour records article can be found on its talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

My comments have been added will other project members and non members please look at Wolbo's proposal.--Navops47 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

1977 ATP Ranking

During these days the ATP would to recalculate his 1977 year-end ranking and to assign to Vilas ([9], [10]) the first place of this one. I wanna ask you, where source did you use to fill this table? In the ATP website there isn't any year-end table as well as in ITF website. Thanks.--Matlab1985 (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is: John Barrett, ed. (1978). World of Tennis 1978 : a BP yearbook. London: Macdonald and Janes. p. 265 --Wolbo (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, in the same book the World Rankings by Lance Tingay lists (1) Borg, (2) Vilas and (3) Connors while Rino Tommasi's World Rankings showed (1) Borg: .936, (2) Connors: .915 and (3) Vilas: .912. I don't think the debate on who was the true no.1 that year will ever end.--Wolbo (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

See also Why Guillermo Vilas still tops Rafael Nadal on clay - and may finally become World No. 1.--Wolbo (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Template merge

Tennis events

This section relates to this TfD. —PC-XT+ 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm merging templates into {{Tennis events}}, and would like to make sure it is ok before it goes live. You can see example testcases here. Please ignore #3 merge test, as I stopped the merge due to a new TfD. I do note, however, that it uses different colors from the others. In case I do merge it, should the colors be changed to match the others, or do they mean something different in this context? —PC-XT+ 08:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure which version is which, but the live version of the "2008 WTA Tour Championships" is terrible in the foreground background colors. Same thing with "2000 Tennis Masters Cup." Almost unreadable. The white lettering is much better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You can ignore the live version. It will be replaced by the sandbox version. I plan to replace all variations, except possibly {{Tennis events 3}}, with the sandbox version. I tried to make the sandbox version close to each variation, except for the addition of the footer. I plan to convert {{Tennis events 4}} by hand, and redirect it, since it is only used by two articles. I'll wrap the others, so you can continue using the old names as usual, if you prefer. If this does not work well for one of the variations, the wrap can then be reverted to restore the current functionality until the problem is fixed. —PC-XT+ 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The new {{Tennis events}} is now live. I'll update the doc page in a bit. I tested in many articles, but if you find something wrong, please let me know. I replaced and redirected {{Tennis events 4}}, but none of the other templates have been changed, yet. I want to further test each wrapper before I apply it. —PC-XT+ 09:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I've applied the wrapper for the Grand Slam infobox in this edit. If you see an infobox problem on one of these pages, please give me a link to the page, and describe the problem. If it's bad, feel free to revert my wrapper edit. Thanks. —PC-XT+ 09:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@PC-XT: quick question, does the line |type=grand slam in {{Tennis events}} have any additional functionality beyond adding the boys, girls, legends, WC singles and WC doubles events to the infobox? If not, then we can leave that line out for the older Grand Slam editions which did not have these events. To illustrate, see difference between 1938 U.S. National Championships – Men's Singles and 1939 U.S. National Championships – Men's Singles.--Wolbo (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If the type is omitted, it should display singles and doubles for men and women, and for Miami Masters, boys and girls, as well. |type=grand slam doesn't have any other purpose than to display the extra events. I think it should work to omit the type for old grand slams without those events. I'll try to do that in those I'm replacing, from now on. —PC-XT+ 21:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Without |type=grand slam, mixed doubles won't appear, but I could probably add that feature, if needed. —PC-XT+ 21:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Grand Slam editions do need the mixed doubles event to be visible in the infobox (at least from 1887 U.S. Championships onward) but it doesn't make sense to have the mixed doubles event appear for regular tournaments (with the exception of the Hopman Cup and perhaps some exhibitions). I would still like to have an option to be able to leave out the 'Other events' infobox section for older Grand Slam editions. Any ideas?--Wolbo (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wolbo, the sandbox now supports mixed doubles if |type=grand slam is omitted. You can check Template:Tennis events/testcases, and if everything looks ok, I'll move it to the template. It shouldn't show if a page for that event doesn't exist. I'm thinking of adding a check for grand slams right in the template, so that type would only be needed if an override is necessary. I'd make it check the tournament name and the year. Do you know the years the events other than men/women singles, men/women doubles and mixed doubles were introduced into each Grand Slam? —PC-XT+ 22:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know when the Legends events were introduced but we have list for the other events (wheelchair, boys' singles, girl's singles, boys' doubles, girl's doubles).--Wolbo (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Per current grand slam calendar order AO-FO-W-USO. mens singles 1905, 1925, 1877, 1881. womens singles 1922, 1925, 1884, 1887. mens doubles 1905, 1925, 1884, 1881. womens doubles 1922, 1925, 1913, 1889. mixed doubles 1922, 1925, 1913, 1887. Boys singles 1922, 1947, 1947, 1973. Boys doubles 1981, 1981, 1982, 1982. girls singles 1930, 1953, 1948, 1974. girls doubles 1981, 1981, 1982, 1982. wheelchair mens singles AO 2002, FO 2007, USO 1991, no wimbledon. wheelchair womens singles AO 2002, FO 2007, USO 1991, no wimbledon. wheelchair mens doubles AO 2007, FO 2007, W 2006, USO 2006. Wheelchair womens doubles AO 2004, FO 2007, W 2009, USO 2005. No mixed. I think that's all of the disiplines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have most of those years in the template. I currently have it always display men/women singles/doubles, but I'm thinking of adding year switches to those, as well. The events that I don't have years for are handled as follows, for now: WC quads basically just follow the other WC events, and Legend links display if articles exist. The "Other events" section doesn't display if it would be empty, unless |type=grand slam is set. To force that section to disappear, but still display all above events, you can use |type=old grand slam.

Also, I have another change: The year links at the bottom were linking to the edition articles for the Grand Slams, before, but most of the uses were overriding it to link to events, so I changed the sandbox to link to events by default, as long as the page title contains the event name. It can still be overridden, if necessary. If nobody sees any problems with this year link change, I'll make it live, soon. —PC-XT+ 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I will try to have a look at it over the weekend.--Wolbo (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Template merge part 2

This section relates to this other TfD on the same page. —PC-XT+ 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering, we also use Template:Infobox tennis tournament. I assume no changes there? Why are all these being merged by the way? I assume to give us one template that when we plug in the info (or not) that everything appears (or not). Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Infobox tennis tournament}} will be kept but a number of variations on it, including the version for defunct tournaments {{Infobox defunct tennis tournament}} and the joint tournament version {{Infobox joint Tennis Tournament}} have been or are being merged into it. These mergers are a follow up to the TfD discussion from April last year. As the nominator mentioned at the time all these different template versions are 'A clear case of redundancy, and an unnecessary need to duplicate work when making updates.'. Before the mergers can be completed and the redundant versions deleted their specific functionality must first be added to the remaining 'master' versions and that is what PC-XT is working on (great job by the way!).--Wolbo (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I vaguely recall the TfD. I wish it was mentioned and linked to at the beginning of this discussion. It's always best to have one template do it all (if possible)... redundancy is not what we want. I do want defunct things like Wembley Championships to look the same. I know this is a tough undertaking so that all the variations still work as they always did, and it may take some trial and error to get it perfect. So long that, in the end, everything pretty much looks pretty the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I should have provided a direct link. I am specifically working on the Tennis events TfD on that page, at the moment. I haven't looked at the other merge, yet, but I may tackle that after this one is done. —PC-XT+ 09:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 09:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of Lua modules?

I'm starting to think it might be good to do some migrating to Lua modules. Lua would do the same thing more efficiently and less repetitively. I might start one to include parts common to tennis templates in general, such as the footer. Let me know if you have an opinion on which parts/how much of the merging templates to keep in wiki code, or which parts/how much to convert to Lua, or if you think other tennis templates may or may not benefit from such a conversion. —PC-XT+ 13:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Lua would allow data structures like Module:Tennis events/data, instead of building them into template code. —PC-XT+ 08:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone managed to do one for a tennis tournament (e.g showing the draws), I think it's on the talk of this Module:RoundN if not it's on footballs talk. It is so much easier to use and is a step that the project should go into and does not need a load of different templates. 80.42.84.146 (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this (link) is the discussion you mention? It uses 2014 US Open – Men's Singles as an example, but that page currently uses Module:TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis, instead. I didn't think Module:RoundN handled seeds, but that conversation has examples with seeds, so I might give it a try. I also asked at Module talk:TeamBracket about using it for tennis, which might be another possibility, if it doesn't need much of a hack. —PC-XT+ 23:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I received an answer from SocietyBox. The discussion at Template talk:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3#Convert to lua version shows there may be some resistance to using modules, or which to use, so I would like to wait in case we can find more input. If I eventually try a conversion, I would start with a template having few transclusions, like Template:4TeamBracket-Compact, so I could preview all transclusions relatively easily before saving my edit. I'm pinging User:Fyunck(click) and User:Nullzero from the linked discussion, as well as User:80.42.84.146. (I think IPs can be pinged?) —PC-XT+ 20:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Original Lua discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 14#Proposing deployment of Module:TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis. The main objections were already addressed. I just couldn't be bothered campaigning for the module at the time. I don't think you'll have any trouble deploying the Lua module across all the Compact templates but there are subtle variations in some of them, if I remember correctly. I could also make a non-Compact version of the module if you like. --SocietyBox (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Tennis events 5

This is a bit off-topic, but I noticed {{Tennis events 5}} is actually a very close variant of {{Tennis event}}, and nominated them for merge at TfD. Comments there are welcome. —PC-XT+ 11:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Turan Akalın = Turan Akalin?

Hello, I'm working at wheelchair tennis players on wikidata at the moment. Now I'm not sure if I'm right. I came to the wikidata item of Turan Akalın where I've seen that the exact date of bith was missing. I wanted to type in the date from the ITF-Profile when I noticed that the ITF-Profile has 23 May 1980 as the date of birth and in the english wiki-article is only the year 1984 given. Do you have any idea which date is the correct one or could it be that this are two different people? --Korrektor123 (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure. He's not notable as a tennis player... I guess curling is his notable sport. Per the ITF website, their Turan Akalin hasn't won a single event, so this may be a different person. (Or the info is incorrect). I don't read Turkish to check the sources but this could be an entry that should be deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

New changes in templates

Just curious to know what people here in Tennis project think about changes like this, it made a mess in this page for example 2015 Australian Open – Men's Doubles. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What mess? The only thing I see is the flags and names not lining up by I suspect that is because of another bit of coding and nothing to do with module. 80.42.86.175 (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Fed Cup Rankings

Could someone add ranking tables for 2014 Fed Cup like in 2013 Fed Cup? Also, where can I obtain the book Fed Cup Nations Ranking History? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Tournament director and attendance fields

On the Talk page of the {{Infobox tennis event}} template I have made a proposal to add two fields to the template: 1) tournament director and 2) attendance. Both fields would provide useful information to our readers and sources are available for at least the current editions of the tournaments. Because historical information will be more difficult to obtain or not be available at all both fields would be optional. Please add any comments to the Template Talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The World of Tennis only began in 1990 there were no high category tour events syndrome

Will people please please please stop with this mindset as for constantly justifying the removal of of players achievement prior to this date as with Talk:WTA_Tier_I_tournaments#1988-89_Tournaments_Removal my reply "That does not mean a super category did not exist prior to 1990 it pisses me off constantly with people believing the world of tennis only began in 1990 in order to justify and inflate players achievements after this period: (case in point Steffi Graf's notable 8 Major, 2 Tour Finals, 3 Category 6/5 Tier One equivalents and 1 Olympic titles won 1988-1990 just because the internet was not around for immediate sourcing does not mean notable players achievements should be simply ignored and completely whitewashed by this ridiculous mind set how convenient). Whether they were called Category 6 or 5 is irrelevant they were equivalent to Tier 1/Premier. Had the articles been properly thought out and planned correctly from the beginning by someone with knowledge of the game before 1990 and access to sources we wouldn't have issues like me getting upset by this 1990 ongoing Obsessive mind set, women's tennis had already been around 106 years before 1990 there have always been high category tour tournaments whether for points when they came into force or prize money or just generally accepted prestige known by both players and tennis journalists. The internet launched really in only the last 20 years of and of course makes it sometimes easier to find sources certainly from 2000 onwards and the reason you can't find extensive sources is no one perceived the internet was going to happen during the 1970's and 1980's when I was university it was not around which meant any historical research information you needed involved traveling to sitting in libraries for hours on end scrolling through micfrofilm scanners and reading books to obtain sources if I had the time to restore the respect for players records and achievements before 1990 through research on here I would do so if not just to stop the constant The world of tennis only began in 1990 Syndrome".--Navops47 (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I have the utmost respect for those editors who have updated the tour articles before 1990 when I viewed Wikipedia in 2010 they did not exist which was a travesty to the history of tennis a former editor User:Wales63 started a lot of those Grand Prix tour yearly articles clearly they felt the same as myself why are they not there.--Navops47 (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't life feel better after a good rant? I am very sympathetic to your plea that we should not pretend tennis is a recent invention that started with the open era in 1968 or in even later years such as 1972 (ATP), 1973 (WTA) or 1990 (ATP Tour). My desire to learn more about the history of tennis in the period before the founding of the current ATP/WTA tours and the open era is largely what brought me here and it has been fascinating to find out more about these 'good old days'. The good news is that compared to just a few years ago Wikipedia tennis articles have become more historically balanced and suffer less from recentism but some bad examples still exist. Having said all that we always need to follow sources and in this particular case it seems that WTA Tier I category of tournaments indeed started in 1990 and therefore the article should not contain tournaments from before that date. Perhaps we need a WTA equivalent of the Grand Prix Super Series article? --Wolbo (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to the graphics for Template: Medal

There is a template talk page discussion regarding the graphics used for medalists in infobox medals tables occurring at Template talk:Medal#‎Changing from gold/silver/bronze to 1/2/3. As this discussion is within the scope of WP:Tennis, you are invited to make your comments on the recent graphics changes there. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Tennis at multi-sport events infoboxes TfM

Hello. I've nominated Template:Infobox tennis at multi sports events and Template:Infobox tennis at biannual multi sports events for merging with Template:Infobox tennis event; please comment at the TfD. Alakzi (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tennis events template

On the Talk page of the {{tennis events}} template, used on articles like 2015 Brisbane International – Men's Singles, a proposal has been made to add a couple of fields to provide readers with more context on the articles. The template currently looks as follows:

WikiProject Tennis/Archive 15 2015 Brisbane International Champion Roger Federer Runner-up Milos Raonic Score 6–4, 6–7(2–7), 6–4

Please give your feedback at the Template Talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Some more feedback on this discussion would be helpful.--Wolbo (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lists of tennis players - shortening and conformity

Wolbo suggested moving this from Talk:List of female tennis players because it could affect two articles and I concurred. Right now we have a List of male tennis players and a List of female tennis players. The men's list with it's current criteria, is quite long and I'm sure it's missing hundreds of players. It's criteria are to include every male player that 1) has been ranked in the top 25 in singles in the "Open Era", or 2) been ranked in the top 5 prior to the Open Era, or 3) has been a singles quarterfinalist or better at a Grand Slam tournament, or 4) has reached the finals of any year end event, or 5) has been a singles medalist at the Olympics, or 6) a team has won a Grand Slam or Olympic doubles title or have been ranked world No. 1 in doubles. I don't have a big problem with this except it favors recent-ism by allowing top 25 now but only top 5 before the Open Era.

My bigger concern is the women's article. It is bloat and trivia and recent-ism to the extreme and is probably missing thousands of players. It's criteria is 1) WTA Top 200 world rankings on or after January 1, 2000, or 2) WTA Top 100 world rankings before January 1, 2000, or 3) she must have reached at least the quarterfinals of a Grand Slam tournament before the inception of the WTA world rankings system. For doubles, she must have won at least one WTA Tour event.

I find the ladies ridiculously long and favoring the post Open Era and really favoring post 2000. It should at the very least be shortened to the same criteria as the men. I would actually suggest the following for both. Singles - any of the following

• Top 25 since official WTA/ATP rankings were kept.
• Top 10 of semi-official almanac/magazines/other players lists prior to official rankings.
• Quarterfinals or better in any Grand Slam tournament
• Reached the finals of any year-end event
• Earn any medal at the Olympics

Doubles - any of the following

• A player/team has won an Grand Slam tournament or Olympic doubles title.
• A player/team has been ranked No. 1

These could be worded differently or tweaked a bit, but I think this would cover what we need without forgetting players of the past or bloating things with players ranked in the top 200. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree that we should harmonize the inclusion criteria for the lists of male and female players. There does not seem to be a valid reason to justify their difference, the current setup must surely be confusing to our readers. The criteria suggested by Fyunck(click) are fine with me. The women's list's criteria are historically unbalanced, a clear case of recentism, and therefore it makes sense to use the men's criteria instead. It also addresses the unbalance between open era and pre-ope era by changing the ranking criteria from top 5 to top 10.--Wolbo (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We should also consider changing the names of these articles; they are after all not generic, comprehensive lists of all players, but a selection of leading players. Problem is that using adjectives like 'leading', 'world-class' or 'top' in the title might come into conflict with original research guidelines.--Wolbo (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

While we are updating we might as well homogenize the layouts and field names, there is no reason for them to be different. The women's list in my view has a more logical field order and naming but we probably don't need a separate field for 'Grand Slam singles titles'. How about we replace that field with 'Hall of Fame' (which would list the year of induction) and move the highest ranking from the notes to a separate field so it becomes sortable?--Wolbo (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Season article creations (again)

We have an editor who keeps creating 2015 Kei Nishikori tennis season... against the consensus we all compromised on. I nominated it for speedy deletion as has been done with others but apparently it's a non-starter this time. It has already been deleted before (perhaps more than once) so I'm not sure as to why it can't be speedy deleted. Place your comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Kei_Nishikori_tennis_season. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Tennis HOF ID should be updated!

Just a heads up the "tennishofid" needs to be updated as it's sending users to a broken link at the tennisfame.com page.

For example, on Martina Hingis, currently it sends users to: https://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/martina-hingis which is a broken page. The current format should now be: http://www.tennisfame.com/First Name-Last Name In the provided example, the current page is now: https://www.tennisfame.com/martina-hingis

Thanks, Dov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovaleh (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you did it on the template doc... thanks for the info. I corrected the main template so it should work now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

NOTE - I have reverted myself and your document entry. It seems the Hall of Fame has not really changed. All the older HoF members use the hall-of-famers/ location. New ones like Hingis skip that addition. So it's more complicated than a simple change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Tennis HoF has just launched a redesigned website. Looks good and it seems that all inductees now again share a common url: www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/inductees/<player name>. If we can confirm this it should be straightforward to update the infobox tennis biography and external link templates. Hopefully a bot can take care of all other link updates in e.g. references and non-template external links.--Wolbo (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Lucky loser : more precisely...

Hello,

On the article Lucky loser, it is written:

It is rare for a lucky loser to win an Association of Tennis Professionals tournament. [...] In total, seven men have done it from 1978 through 2010.

Could somebody precise who are these 7 men (besides Clavet, Miniussi, Stakhovsky and Ram ; 3 are missing). We have indeed a problem on the french article where only 6 players are indicated, and we would like to complete this list with the 7th.

Thanks. A.Gust14 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I added two of the others, plus the only female to do it. The 7th is elusive or doesn't exist. The ATP Tour is quoted as saying when Ram won he was the 7th male to do so (I listed the source). The ATP could have been wrong or misquoted. There have been none since Rajeev Ram won in 2009, so it's from before 2009. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. But if the 7th eventually doesn't exist, why letting "In total, seven men have done it from 1978 through 2010." ? A.Gust14 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

We have reliable sources that say there are 7 male winners and 1 female winner. What I may think makes little difference if the sources tell us otherwise. I added another source that says there are eight total men and women lucky loser winners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A few edits ago there were two references, but they were removed (link rot). When I mentioned this issue on Talk:Lucky_loser, I have added link to Internet Archive version of one of the links from older revisions. --Kompik (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh I didn't have seen your discussion on Talk:Lucky_loser. We have the same problem at the same time on fr.wiki and en.wiki...

So I would precise that there are 7 male winners but that the 7th's name is unknown. Thanks for your help.
Another problem : sources don't precise if Andrea Jaeger won Las Vegas in January or in September 1980. In fact, she won both tournaments : in January, this source indicates that she was qualifier (not lucky loser) and in September, ITF website proves that she was seeded. So where is the lucky loser status...? A.Gust14 (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Two things... 1) the January Vegas event was an ITF futures tournament, not a WTA tournament, so I don't think that one counts. And 2) what does seeding have to do with qualifying? Players sometimes have to go through qualifiers to make a tournament roster even if they are ranked. In 1981 Borg wanted to play a reduced schedule because of burn-out and the tour told him no, if he didn't play enough he'd have to go through qualifiers to play each event. He retired instead. My recollection on the Vegas event (which might be hazy) was that Andrea Jaeger was only like 14 or 15 and zooming up the rankings and wasn't on many original tournament rosters. She had to qualify (even at that earlier futures event in January). Come September and the Vegas event is full except for qualifiers. Jaeger lost in qualifiers so she didn't make the roster. But I think Chris Evert got sick or injured at the last moment so they took the highest ranked losing qualifier.... Jaeger. She was given a 6 seed in the event. Anyway that's what I remember reading way back when. But the WTA and ESPN agree that she was a Lucky Loser in Vegas. They just don't say why. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Another thing. Some other guides have listed that player Kay McDaniel won a tournament as a lucky loser. It was the Atlanta Avon event of March 1980 where she beat Renee Richards in the final. But that was also a Futures ITF event that shouldn't count as a WTA event. I think the WTA media guide mixed up that tournament with the official WTA Atlanta event, the Davison's Tennis Classic, where McDaniel was obliterated in the first round. It's also possible that I'm remembering things wrong with Jaeger in Vegas and that the WTA media guide has been spewing out an error for years, which everyone under the sun picks up and reports. You never know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I trust you when you say the January Vegas event was an ITF futures tournaments. But do you have any source which could prove that futures were ITF tournaments at this time ? A.Gust14 (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, is there an article on en.wikipedia on the categorisation of tennis tournaments since the beginnings of ATP and WTA ? A.Gust14 (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually your source above shows it was a futures event. And we have articles on each year of the WTA tours. 1980 is right here with a box at the bottom that links to each years WTA events. Here is a link that tells of that Vegas tournament. What's amazing about that minor tournament is that Jaeger had no points at all to enter it, so she had to go through pre-qualifying just to get to qualifying. 5 matches in pre-qualifying, 3 in qualifying and then 5 in the main event. She had to win 13 straight matches. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I put 2 sources, but I don't understand how they prove that Futures were ITF tournaments at this time. If you mean this source, it is actually common to get WTA tournaments' results published on ITF website. See this current one for instance. Could you precise how it proves that Futures tournaments were part of ITF and not of WTA ? I'm sorry, it is because we have a controversy with that on fr.wikipedia and maybe you could help to solve it. A.Gust14 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That event was not part of the WTA Avon or Colgate tour. Whether the WTA recognizes those Avon futures as WTA wins is their own business I guess. The 70's and 80s were the dark ages as far as competing tours, players being banned from events because they were part of the wrong tour, etc... The Avon Futures were absolutely a separate Circuit from the main tour... probably closer to the men's Challenger tour today. The mens Challenger today is part of the ATP but it's their minor league and not part of the main tour records. The 1980 Ladies Futures were something similar... sponsored by the WTA as their training ground lesser circuit. Remember the ladies even today don't really have tour like the men's Challenger tour. The ITF events for men end at the $25,000 level. From there you leave the ITF events and move to the ATP Challenger circuit with all kinds of levels of pay scale and payouts. Then the really good ones move on to the ATP main tour. The ladies today have the ITF events that pay from $15,000 to $100,000...no real Challenger Circuit (although they do now have the WTA 125 events. The WTA 125 events are WTA sponsored and are similar to the highest level men's Challenger events. But back then the ATP Tour or WTA Tour didn't really exist. They were unions the players belonged to while the Tours were sponsored by the likes of Avon or Colgate or Virginia Slims. Very blurry as far as ITF or WTA when using hindsight. But they were different circuits for sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Another article about it is on page 24 in this Idaho newspaper. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Another article with way too much detail

I do congratulate the editors who put so much effort into tennis-related articles, but the near match-by-match narration of players' careers, such as is found in Eugenie Bouchard, for example, is just way too much detail for an encyclopedia article. If it is thought desirable to document match-by-match results within Wikipedia, these should be hived off to a big table somewhere. The "Career" section of the player's article should give readers a more accessible and digestible overview of the important events in the player's career, not this huge and virtually unreadable mass of minute detail. 109.145.19.122 (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE: Persondata has been officially deprecated

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of tennis players and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve accurate data. Here are three examples of Wikidata for notable swimmers: Ryan Lochte, Mary Wayte and Dara Torres. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Prize money WTA

On 2015 Topshelf Open or 2015 Aegon Open Nottingham, it is written 250,000 $ as prize money. But WTA rather indicates 226,750 $ if I'm not wrong, isn't it ? A.Gust14 (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

$226,750 is the pure prize money currently listed at [11] and [12]. $250,000 is the "Minimum TFC" listed in the next column at [13] which says: "Ω Total Financial Commitment (TFC) Draft MINIMUM LISTED - To Be Finalized - is the Tournament's investment in the event, including Tour Fees, Bonus Pool contributions and on-site prize money". WTA is inconsistent about which number to show. [14] from May 25 says $250,000 on page 1 but [15] from June 15 says $226,750 for similar events, although page 3 still says $250,000. This Google search currently says $250,000 in the undated Google blurb from a WTA page but $226,750 when the link is clicked. It's possible WTA is transitioning from displaying the TFC to the pure prize money but for the time being I suggest we keep the TFC and don't rush to update a lot of articles. If WTA becomes more consistent then we may decide to follow their convention later. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

New ATP website

The ATP launched a new website today. Haven't yet had the chance to look at it in detail but my first impression is positive, a nice and fresh visual design and it is easier to navigate than the new French and Australian Open websites. But of course for us Wikipedians the most important question by far is do the references and external links still work? The answer seems to be a resounding 'no'. The links to the player profiles, tournament profiles and tournament results archive all result in a 404-error page. The few news articles I have tested so far go to the wrong news item. Hopefully all links can be updated via an automated bot otherwise we have a repeat of the atptennis.com > atpworldtour.com disaster. FYI we currently have 18,804 (!) wikilinks to the ATP website.--Wolbo (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, all player profile links are now broken. I didn't find any way to make {{ATP}} work with the new profiles. For example http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/SF36.aspx is now http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/igor-sijsling/sf36/overview. And if you remove the player name or anything else in the address you get an error. --Stryn (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You can actually write whatever you want instead of the name, the only thing that matter is the ATP code (1 & 2) for the {{ATP}} is it possible to add the PAGENAMEE variable like this http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/{{PAGENAMEE}}/{{Trim|{{{1|{{{id|}}}}}}}}/overview

In it.wiki seems to work fine. --Asdalol (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Asdalol for that info. Funny to see that www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/cristiano-ronaldo/sf36/overview actually works. We should though, before we start updating any templates, make sure we have a complete mapping overview of the situation. It does seem that the tournament draw pdfs (e.g. www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2008/741/mds.pdf) still work properly but that is the only type of functioning ATP link I can find so far.--Wolbo (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No solution ? It looks very difficult... A.Gust14 (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Tennis sidebar template - additions with no project input

I'm having a disagreement with an editor on proper procedure to create templates that will be used by multiple articles. This concerns the template at Template:ATP sidebar navbox. This is newly created. The original situation was that there was no template, that it was written as individual coding into each article... such as at [16]. No one complained about the coding, and it's size was pretty good, though it's use was actually pretty limited since we often have bottom navbars. Nonetheless he was bold and created a template that saved a little space and requires less work. It looked pretty good and since it was mostly identical to the original coding I let it be as a good addition to tennis articles (again even though the use was very limited). But then it was changed even more, making it wider, centered, and longer with all 4 Majors added. With that I reverted and asked the editor on their talk page, and the template talk page, to bring it here to discuss before re-adding any of those things. I was reverted back and it appears the editor has no intention of following wiki protocol in bringing it here to discuss. I think the addition of the 4 Majors simply makes it unnecessarily longer since those items will be found in the grand slam tournament link. We don't list the Master 1000 events or 500 events. I feel it makes the sidebar longer and more obtrusive than needed. That said I didn't bring this here because I'm right and they are wrong. Heck tennis project members may agree with the added length. What I objected to was the editor forcing the template on us BEFORE we can discuss it. All I want is to move it back to the editor's original version and discuss it here or there about what additions or subtractions would be appropriate. I don't like it forced upon us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing at Template talk:ATP sidebar navbox. I have explained my reasons for making the changes, without the WP:POINTY and destructive revert. The version is simply better from a technical standpoint. As for any layout issues, those vary so much between monitor and browser differences, that frankly I don't think one person's opinion of "too wide" can be objectively used without a broad survey. Blatantly reverting to a technically inferior version that does not use the standard templates for creating these things because one person has concerns about appearance is a mistake.

Also, remember that projects don't own pages. I hate to pull that one, because I think projects are a wonderful thing, but the idea that anything has to be pre-cleared with a project is wrong. oknazevad (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If you start making major changes to something that will be on multiple articles (and it's questioned) you bet it needs other editor's approval, whether at the project level or wikipedia level. You are not following wiki etiquette with your edit warring. Put it back (I really don't care if it's with the VTE choice at the bottom or not). But if someone questions a new addition you do not keep adding it to ram it down our throats whether we like it or not. That's not working together as a team. You discuss and then change it, not the other way around with the cart before the horse. I see you reverted it again <sigh>. Wikipedia tells us "Making bold edits may sometimes draw a response from an interested editor – someone who may have the article on their watchlist. If no one responds, you have silent consensus to continue editing. If your edit is reverted, the BRD cycle has been initiated by the reverting editor. After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version and/or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page." That is being ignored here. You want your changes now and discussion afterwards and that's not the way it works at wikipedia. You should have long ago learned this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Two articles for Milan challenger

I started creating 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Singles (I have also started the article for doubles. I created those articles because they were redlinks in 2015 ATP Challenger Tour#June. Only then I found out that there already is an article 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI, which contains the draw for singles. Which of the two names be kept? --Kompik (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

By Which I mean: Should the names of the articles for this tournament be 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI, 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI – Singles and 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI – Doubles or 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup, 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Singles and 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Doubles? --Kompik (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yours are the more proper titles. The main article is "Aspiria Tennis Cup" and the singles and doubles should come from that title. Dump the Trofeo CDI ending. We try not to use any sponsored names in our titles but sometimes there's no way around it. All the sources I quickly found such as this one, use the Aspiria Tennis Cup title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I will add that the article for last edition was called 2014 Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI. When I tried to move 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI to 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Singles, I got an error message: "a page of that name already exists". (Which is not unexpected.) So I will leave this to some users which are more experienced with renaming/moving articles. (I should perhaps mention that 2015 Aspria Tennis Cup – Trofeo CDI contains draw for singles which is more complete that the one I have created. It contains also seeds and results. I did not continue with editing the article I created after I found out that a duplicate exists.) --Kompik (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

yours has to be deleted first to make the move. I'll start the process. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest. --Lucas559 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Photography of the UK Grasscourt season

Hi WikiProject Tennis people. I just wanted to let you know, both as a courtesy and because it might be useful to you, that I've recently been photographing the grasscourt tennis season here in London and spent a busy four days covering the Wimbledon Qualification Tournament. Next week, I plan to visit Wimbledon for at least a few of the days to get even more images for Commons. I've been shooting with a high end camera and lens so the quality of the images should be (I hope) approaching professional level. I'm in the process of uploading all my photos to Commons over the next few days. There's about 600-800 photos to upload, covering almost 180 different players. Many of these lower ranked players have either no infobox image at all, or a fairly poor or old image, so I'm also updating the infobox as I go along. I tried to get a nice zoomed in potrait style photo of each of the players in addition to some action photos so they are more easily identifiable. If there's already a better image in the infobox, I won't necessarily update it, but that isn't the case for most articles. Some existing infobox images are good photos, but either quite out of date, or not ideal for identification purposes, and would be better suited to the body of the article if there's room for it so I'll move them down if appropriate. Anyway, I hope I don't step on people's toes with this fairly mass updating of articles with new images. Let me know if there's anything you want me to do differently. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

My only thoughts is that I'd rather have great out-of-date photos than fair new ones. IMHO the photos in the infobox should be from the prime of the player's career, not from the beginning and not from the later years. Take Bjorn Borg. The ideal photo in the infobox would from 1979. One doesn't happen to exist, but that would be perfect. Federer should be from 2007... his last prime year. Now if the photo from 2007 is iffy and one from 2014 is sensational then certainly use the sensational 2014 version. I think it actually stinks that the infobox photo we have of Martina Navratilova is from 2006 and not from 1985. But so many players don't have photos at all so your picks will be very very welcome for them. Thanks for doing this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't plan to replace great photos with only fair ones. Given the fairly average photography currently in use on Wikipedia, I'd like to think that most of my photos will be improvements on the existing ones. I think it's only arguable that an infobox photo of Bjorn Borg should be from his peak tennis years. There's a strong case both for an old or a new photo being his infobox image IMO. His article is long enough that there is plenty of space for historical photos from his career if an up-to-date image was used in his infox. This is just my opinion, but I think an infobox image should identify the person as they are (ideally their face clearly shown) and shouldn't necessarily be an action shot of them playing (not saying it can't be action, but not at the expense of identification). But I understand what you mean, I suppose in balance the infobox image should show what they are notable for, and Bjorn Borg isn't really as notable as a retired player as he was as an active player. An interesting one is Justin Gimelstob who now coaches John Isner. He was probably more notable as a player than he is now as a coach, but I added a recent photo of him in his coaching role to the infobox. It wasn't a very contentious change as his previous infobox image was very very poor in terms of identifying him (tiny and he wasn't facing the camera) and there aren't any better images on Commons either. Anyway, I'm mainly talking about current players with this photography work, not retired players. I'm happy to discuss individual cases where you think I've made the wrong decision though. These articles (particularly for the fringe players in the challenger and qualification tournaments) just don't get enough foot traffic to justify a pre-emptive request for comments prior to every update, so I'll be bold and see what issues if any stem from it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I had a brief look this morning at the first few files you had uploaded, they're great! Thanks a lot! Jared Preston (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Diliff, many thanks for taking all these (excellent) photos and uploading them to Commons! It is always good to get more tennis photos added to our articles. In the past two or three years we have been able to add a substantial amount of public domain tennis photos but there are unfortunately still big gaps in our portfolio, mainly from the 1970–1995 period.--Wolbo (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. Unfortunately I can't help you with the historic photos though. Although I'd be happy to use a time machine if you can provide it. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Just in case a miracle happens...

The Garbiñe Muguruza is fairly cleaned up and linked properly. I see editor JayJ47 has just created her "career statistics" article too. Not really sure it was warranted yet since that is only supposed to happen after the main article is full, but no worries... I kept the basic charts on the main page so it didn't look sparse. It was actually pretty well sourced, but the personal life is a bit thin.... I guess expected from 21 year old. Today would be the time to do any last minute tweaks (just in case a major upset happens). Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes

It seems recently some mergers happened across tennis tournament infoboxes by Alakzi. This has corrupted the infoboxes in older articles on the tennis tournaments as the infobox has been replaced by a redirect notice, as you can see for instance here, here or here. Tvx1 13:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry about that. Alakzi (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

1877 Wimbledon Championship

Last month the article on the inaugural 1877 Wimbledon Championship was promoted to featured status (FA). It is the first featured article on a tennis topic (if we ignore two FA's on tennis video games), so in that sense it is somewhat of a milestone for our tennis project. On Sunday, 12 July (the day of the Wimbledon men's final) an abstract of the article, basically the lead section, will be displayed on Wikipedia's homepage as today's featured article. Last week's Signpost also made a brief mention of the article. Now that we finally have a tennis FA hopefully more will follow.--Wolbo (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty cool! Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's on the homepage now.--Wolbo (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Woo hoo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox country designation

There was some questioning going on at the Bob Hewitt article that was actually brought to dispute resolution. It's really only one person having problems. It seems the old South Africa flag being used is confusing to him since it is only preceded by the word "Country". I tried to explain that it represents the international sports nationality at the time the player played tennis, which is almost always the only reason the person is notable. We don't use flags for any other purpose such as residence, citizenship, birthplace, tombstones, etc... in fact we can't per MoS. He still is confused and if he is there may be a few others. We aren't going to remove flags or they way we have always done things, but we could modify the descriptor.

Instead of "Country" we could use "Sports country" or perhaps "Country (sports)". It can't be too long since it will crush the wording in the infobox. "Sporting Nationality" would be way too long I think. Maybe "Int'l Sports" using the standard abbreviation for international. Since it would affect every single tennis infobox I thought it best to bring it here for debate on what we should do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick check and it looks like "Country (sports)" just barely fits. It can't be any longer and would actually be better if it was one character shorter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

If "Country (Sports)" is too long, "Played under" could work? From the information you have given me, "Sports" is not a good choice, since flag icon is used for tennis players specifically. Just a note as the "one person" getting "confused" - My main argument is that this practice is non-intuitive for people who are not part of the Tennis project, and "we've always done it that way" is not, to me, valid reasoning to continue a problematic practice. So far, this is the gist of the argument to keep using a flag with the label "country", for tennis players, representing specifically the flag they played under:

1. flags are only allowed for tennis players
2. tennis player flags in infobox represent always represent flags played under, not country of residence.
3. current, or other, nationality is never represented with a flag
4. we've always done it this way, and it's in MoS
5. therefore, when seeing a flag in a person's infobox, general wikipedia users should magically acquire knowledge of the above points, and know what the flag icon represents, despite it not even being labelled properly.

"We are using a picture, and not words, therefore ...tennis." Seems unsatisfying to me. I'm going to leave this matter now, as I'm sensing a lot of conservative protectiveness from this sub-community for which I don't think I have the energy (nor ability) to tackle - but special practices in projects like these are ultimately not best practice for wikipedia in general. Tennis Project will not really suffer just by following a more standard format, or properly labelling that which deviates from a greater standard. Autumnox (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Input is welcome from anyone, so no problem at all. One thing though, the flag is not used for only tennis. Soccer and Auto Racing, and the Olympics, also use the flag for the same purpose. They can be used for all sports that compete internationally where sourcing often uses them to represent the player nationality. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Ashe infobox

Hello, WP:TENNIS. I added an infobox to Arthur Ashe's article though I know nothing about tennis, so I'm leaving this notification so someone who does can fill out his infobox some more. Take care. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 05:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Digging back in to the article's revision history, I noticed that an IP wiped the lead, I restored the lead as it stood at 4:39pm (EDT) on June 26, 2015‎. Have a good day! TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 05:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Jr. results in infobox

At Jarmere Jenkins there is some disagreement as to whether junior results should be removed before he has reached the main draws of any of the Grand Slams. I am not a very knowledgeable editor in terms of Tennis so advice is welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of grey area in the infobox. We didn't used to show qualifying in the majors so it wouldn't have been a problem. The general rule we use is once they start getting results in the majors the jrs are removed as being too minor and trivial to include. But failing in qualifying is not being in a major. Borg lost in a special qualifying round of the US Open in 1972... no acknowledgement that he played in the '72 US Open by the ATP or newspapers. I would say it's certainly ok to include jr slam results and standard Q results in the same infobox. The jr results will probably be removed soon enough. Obviously if you read it verbatim "once any pro result is recorded in the infobox" then that is a pro result and it's been recorded, so if you are being a stickler, then no don't add jrs. It's not ideal and this is something that consensus on a case by case basis is probably fine. Those are my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Recalling our August 2014 discussion on how to handle Jenkins' infobox, that is what I was thinking was correct. However, Asmazif is insisting that qualifying rounds in the majors count as majors in a way that negates the need for jr. results in the infobox. We have been warring on this issue. Maybe he could comment here to help me understand his side.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Good thing my thoughts haven't changed since then... except I know he's a he. :-)

Sure thing, no worries. Maybe we should slightly edit the note in the infobox template on qualies just to verify this/make it less of a grey area? i.e. once any "main draw pro results". Asmazif (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2015 (GMT)

Asmazif, I am not sure if "any" is appropriate either. Even Cici Bellis seems to still have her junior results.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think she should have the junior results displayed once that US Open result was posted, but again, would be great to get a set in stone confirmation on this. Following this format, Guillermo Pérez Roldán, former French Open quarterfinalist and World No. 13, would have junior results displayed as he never played the AO or Wimbledon. Asmazif (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2015 (GMT)

Serena Williams' Rivalries

I would like to start adding a list of rivalries to the page to make it more complete. She has had several but I of course don't want to add them all. Her rivalry with Venus is already noted, which others are noteworthy? I think Henin, Capriati, and Hingis would all be good additions? Thoughts?

Williams vs. Hingis

Williams leads series 7-6. (1) One of William’s first rivalries was with Martina Hingis, who turned pro less than one year before her (Hingis in October 1994, Williams in 1995) They first played each other at the 1998 Miami Open where Hingis won in three sets {6-3, 1-6, 7-6(4)}. All but one of their matches was played on a hard court with the exception being a contest on clay in Rome 1999, which Hingis won in straight sets. Their last match took place at the 2002 Miami Open with Williams winning (6-4, 6-0). (2) Hingis was forced to briefly leave the sport citing ankle injuries. (3)

1. http://www.wtatennis.com/head2head/player1/3491/player2/9044 2. http://www.wtatennis.com/players/player/3491/title/martina-hingis 3. http://www.biography.com/people/martina-hingis-9339702

Williams vs. Capriati

Williams leads series 10-7. (1) Once considered one of the best rivalries in women’s tennis (2), the competition between Williams and Capriati was stiff with 12 out of their 17 meetings going to three sets. The rivalry, starting in 1999, started off one sided with Capriati winning four of their first five matches. Serena would then go on to win the next eight. (1) Williams and Capriati played with similar styles, both known for using their power and athleticism to gain quick advantages in points. (3)

1. http://www.wtatennis.com/head2head/player1/1325/player2/9044 2. http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/jen-serena-hot-stuff-respect-power-match-article-1.554433 3. http://tennis-buzz.com/jennifer-capriati-too-little-too-late/ 4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14758-2004Jun29.html

Williams vs. Henin

Williams leads series 8-6. Henin and Williams met 14 times, 5 of which were in tournament finals. In grand slams they have faced each other 7 times with Justine leading 4-3. (1) Opposite personalities and styles of play are often cited as what made their rivalry entertaining. (2)(3) In the semifinals of the 2003 French Open, when at 4-2, 30-0 on Williams' serve in the third set, Henin raised her hand to indicate she was not ready to receive and Williams then put her serve into the net. The umpire did not see Henin raise her head and thus did not allow Williams a first serve. Williams lost the game and would go on to lose the match 6-2, 4-6, 7-5. Their last match took place in the final of the 2010 Austrailian Open where Williams won in three sets, earning her 12th Grand Slam title. (1)

1. http://www.wtatennis.com/head2head/player1/9044/player2/3541 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/sports/tennis-a-potential-rivalry-of-opposites-arises.html 3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wtatour/2296127/Serena-Williams-breaks-her-Justine-Henin-habit.html --TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:1968 US Open Series to 2003 nominated for deletion

I have nominated 36 categories for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 3#Category:1968 US Open Series. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Flags

FYI, there's a discussion at Talk:List of Wimbledon Open Era champions#Flag icons regarding the use of flag icons in that article. Tvx1 13:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What date should be given in list of finals?

For many players we have in the article list of ATP/WTA tour finals, (junior) Grand Slam finals (sometimes also Challenger/ITF/Futures finals). In this table there is also a column name date. What date should be given here? The date when the final is actually played or the date when the tournament starts. (I believe I have seen both. If needed, I can try to find some examples.) --Kompik (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Iv'e seen both too, and I'm not sure which to use either. I guess for me, if it's talking about the round-robin ATP Tour finals, I want the start date or date range. If it's talking about the actual final of the event, I want the end date of those finals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Grand Slam infobox

I recently developed 2015 US Open (tennis) article. I would like to create further pages about all singles/doubles events, etc, but the current infobox is scandalous s**t. Look for 2014 US Open – Men's Singles, it looks terrible, "Mixed Legends"???!!!!! What?!!!!! There are NO legends comeptition at the USO.

We should revert to [THIS] and simply do not show red legends links. TheLightBlue (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The links are made by Module:Tennis events nav. I don't know Lua so I cannot edit it. You could try making a specific request to its author. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There are legends competitions at the US Open. Here is the 2014 mens' draw and here is the 2014 womens' draw. Tvx1 14:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

But Legends? AnymoreTheLightBlue (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Legends would be a big no from me. But it's more than that. If you look at the 2014 US Open (tennis) article it shows all that stuff in the infobox... as it should since it's an article on the 2014 tournament. But the 2014 US Open – Men's Singles is about men's singles only. What the heck is an infobox doing on the page that shows more than singles? It seems very weird and repetitive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I consider it a combined infobox and sidebar. The "Events" part corresponds to a sidebar which would usually be a separate box like on Badminton at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's singles or Swimming at the 2015 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 50 metre freestyle. I'm OK with combining them in sections of the same box. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fair enough. But legends are really an exhibition and don't belong in that box at all. And it should be extremely rare to have a red link in that box, like mixed. That should only happen if it is very likely that the red link will become a functional link in the near future. That will not happen here. Those should be gone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Serena Williams and her battle of the Sexes - editor problem

For awhile now we have had a separate section at Serena Williams titled Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters. It has worked fine and has a link to the tennis Battle of the Sexes article. There was some discussion on that talk page from 2 months ago and started by an editor who had 18 edits under his belt. It disappeared with more wanting it to stay. Now we have another brand new editor who blindly moved it. I moved it back and he moved it again. It's getting tiresome for me but maybe he doesn't know the ropes of wikipedia very well. He doesn't like it in it's own section. I tried to compromise and put it in a subsection of 1998, but that doesn't work for him either. He insisted it be blended in to Serena's regular events in 1998 (or eliminated). That can't happen with a Battle of the Sexes exhibition. Not sure what else to do without getting an administrator involved or without me getting hit with some 3RR stuff. As this article will be more and more important over the next week I need some help here. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to give my thoughts on this just to give both sides of the argument. I have the following issues with this section being included.

1. The section is poorly written and has a bias edge to it. Another editor commented in talk and said that it's written as if to take a jab at Serena.

2. For a exhibition match from when she was 16, although it is BOTS, its rather lengthy. This match does not ring in our memories like the King vs Riggs match does and certainly did not garner as much attention. So I don't see why it's mention should be longer than even her most monumental professional matches. This article is rather long as it is.

3. There is an entire article dedicated to BOTS in which Williams vs Braasch is listed. Why not simply briefly mention the match with a link to the BOTS article in order to help "it stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and use summary style."

4. Fyunck stated that it shouldn't be mixed in her normal WTA events. I get that. So maybe instead of giving it a subsection we could simply place it under her professional career and make it clear that it was a BOTS exhibition match. I think something like the following would suffice.

"During the 1998 Australian Open, Williams decided to take part in a Battle of the Sexes (include link to article) match against 203rd ranked Karsten Braasch. Despite being much older and a known smoker, Braasch was able to best the 16 year old 6-1."

Fyunck and I have had a rough time working with each over this but I hope there can still be a compromise.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts are this. It is not too short... it could actually have another sentence or two. But it certainly should be better written. Right now the section at Battle of the Sexes says the same thing. Ideally, the section at the BotS should be tripled in size but keep what is already written. What is at Serena's article should be less negative but more informative and make a reader want to go to the BotS article to find out more. As was explained at Serena Williams talk page, Billie Jean's BotS has it's own subsection, just like Serena's. Margaret Court's BotS doesn't have it's own subsection, but it has it's own paragraph and it takes up 1/4 of her career biography. 1/4 of Serena's career biography would probably be 10 paragraphs or a page and a half. Do I think we need it to be 1/4 of Serena's bio? Not in the least. But it is important. There are zillions of exhibitions, but very few Battle of the Sexes in tennis history. It should stay where it is or perhaps be put in a subsection of 1998 when it took place (where I tried to move it) with the wording tweaked. Burying it in her 1998 WTA tennis events is unacceptable for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd go more like:

• ==1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters==
• main|Battle of the Sexes (tennis)

• A young Serena competed in a tennis "Battle of the Sexes", along with her sister Venus Williams, against Karsten Braasch at the 1998 Australian Open. At the time Braasch was ranked 203rd. The Williams sisters had claimed they could beat any man outside the top 200, and he accepted the challenge. Not known for having an ideal training regimen, Braasch nonetheless defeated both Williams' sisters, playing a single set against each. The score vs Serena was 6–1, and vs Venus 6–2. Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance." The girls later tweaked the number to beating men outside the top 350.

A little more neutral in tone for Serena's own wikipedia article, and readers can find out more detail if they want to click the link. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Your wording is much better than what's in either article currently. If you're willing to make it a subsection again, I can certainly agree to that for now. Especially now that I've seen that Billie Jean's article also has one. Let me know. --TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, right this second it's a subsection of "On-court activities"... just not a subsection of "1995–98: Professional debut". You're saying you'd rather it be a subsection of "1995–98: Professional debut?" It's a compromise I think most would go for. I just tweaked a period in the above item I wrote since sentence one ran on a little too long. The paragraph isn't as detailed as some would probably like, but that (and any negative aspects) are best left to the Battle of the Sexes article rather than the Serena Williams article. At least in my opinion. So I'd go for it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I personally believe it would fit better under the 1995-98: Professional Debut because the On-Court Activities section is just weird and should just be "Controversies" for now.--TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just did the change to the more neutrally worded version. I added Battle of the Sexes to the sub-section title as that seemed a little more neutral too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Australian Open 1977-1986

The tables used currently to describe the Australian Open when it was held in December are confusing. I am proposing that we change this:

	Czechoslovakia			United States
Tournament	1973	1974	1975	1976	1977		1978	1979	1980	1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988	1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995–2003	2004	WR	W–L
Australian Open	A	A	F	A	A	A	A	A	SF	W	F	W	SF	W	–	F	SF	QF	A	A	A	A	A	A	A	3 / 10	46–7
French Open	QF	QF	F	A	A		A	A	A	QF	W	4R	W	F	F	F	4R	A	A	A	A	A	1R	A	1R	2 / 13	51–11
Wimbledon	3R	1R	QF	SF	QF		W	W	SF	SF	W	W	W	W	W	W	F	F	W	QF	SF	SF	F	A	2R	9 / 23	120–14
US Open	1R	3R	SF	1R	SF		SF	SF	4R	F	QF	W	W	F	W	W	QF	F	4R	F	2R	4R	A	A	A	4 / 21	89–17
WR	0 / 3	0 / 3	0 / 4	0 / 2	0 / 2		1 / 2	1 / 2	0 / 3	1 / 4	2 / 4	3 / 4	3 / 4	2 / 4	2 / 3	2 / 4	0 / 4	0 / 3	1 / 2	0 / 2	0 / 2	0 / 2	0 / 2	0 / 0	0 / 2	18 / 67	–
Win–Loss	5–3	5–3	17–4	5–2	9–2		11–1	11–1	11–3	19–3	20–2	23–1	25–1	25–2	20–1	25–2	18–4	16–3	10–1	10–2	6–2	8–2	6–2	0–0	1–2	–	306–49
Year End Rank		9*	3	4	3		2	1	3	3	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	3	4	5	3	8		376	-	-

to this:

	Czechoslovakia			United States
Tournament	1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980	1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988	1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	95–03	2004	WR	W–L
Australian Open (Jan)	A	A	F	A	A	Not Held									F	SF	QF	A	A	A	A	A	A	A	0 / 4	21–4
French Open	QF	QF	F	A	A	A	A	A	QF	W	4R	W	F	F	F	4R	A	A	A	A	A	1R	A	1R	2 / 13	51–11
Wimbledon	3R	1R	QF	SF	QF	W	W	SF	SF	W	W	W	W	W	W	F	F	W	QF	SF	SF	F	A	2R	9 / 23	120–14
US Open	1R	3R	SF	1R	SF	SF	SF	4R	F	QF	W	W	F	W	W	QF	F	4R	F	2R	4R	A	A	A	4 / 21	89–17
Australian Open (Dec)	Not Held				A	A	A	SF	W	F	W	SF	W	Not Held											3 / 6	39–3
WR	0 / 3	0 / 3	0 / 4	0 / 2	0 / 2	1 / 2	1 / 2	0 / 3	1 / 4	2 / 4	3 / 4	3 / 4	2 / 4	2 / 3	2 / 4	0 / 4	0 / 3	1 / 2	0 / 2	0 / 2	0 / 2	0 / 2	0 / 0	0 / 2	18 / 67	–
Win–Loss	5–3	5–3	17–4	5–2	9–2	11–1	11–1	11–3	19–3	20–2	23–1	25–1	25–2	20–1	25–2	18–4	16–3	10–1	10–2	6–2	8–2	6–2	0–0	1–2	–	306–49
Year End Rank		9*	3	4	3	2	1	3	3	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	3	4	5	3	8		376	-	-

It conveys the chronological nature of what the boxes represent better. Now I can easily tell that Martina won 6 majors in a row in 1983 and 1984. 2602:306:CD5F:27A0:1D13:363C:896C:1BB9 (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not a bad idea. If it helps our readers even a little bit, it's a good thing. And it really will have no affect on newer players. However... I got rid of the flag icons as they are not proper in those charts. Any thoughts from some heavy editors around here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the flags satisfy the nationality guideline since that is what is being indicated here rather than location. 2602:306:CD5F:27A0:1D13:363C:896C:1BB9 (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support this change. I've been thinking about this in the past too, and it makes a lot of sense. The table intends to display the Grand Slams in chronological order per year, so the December AO really should be listed on the bottom. It's much clearer; I have seen several times that fans discussing stats on forums make mistakes when it comes to e.g. Ivan Lendl's semifinal streak, just because they either don't know the AO was held in December for a while, or weren't able to read the table properly due to its confusing structure. One extra row wouldn't take up much space in articles and I can't see any other potential downsides to this change. A similar change could be made in articles like List of Grand Slam women's singles champions and other historical overviews, by adding an extra column for the December AO in the table with champions. Gap9551 (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Something to consider is what to do with the two columns on the right (WR and W-L). I think these stats should be listed just once for all AO tournaments combined (like in the current tables), since there is no real difference in the Jan and Dec versions that justifies two separate WR records as in the example above (0/4 and 3/6). Maybe keep the combined stats in the January row, and leave the Dec row empty in the last two columns, or add a short note. The 'Not Held' in the rows could be replaced by 'Held in December' and 'Held in January', respectively. Gap9551 (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a trade-off between readability and accuracy. The extra row, the two rows for one tournament and the split (or merged) tournament totals do make the proposed table harder to read but it is undoubtedly more accurate and in my view that should carry more weight than readability. Incorporating Gap9551's comments and adding 'NH' (Not Held) for 1986 gives the following table:

	Czechoslovakia			United States
Tournament	1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980	1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988	1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	95–03	2004	WR	W–L
Australian Open (Jan)	A	A	F	A	A	Held in December								NH	F	SF	QF	A	A	A	A	A	A	A	3 / 10	46–7
French Open	QF	QF	F	A	A	A	A	A	QF	W	4R	W	F	F	F	4R	A	A	A	A	A	1R	A	1R	2 / 13	51–11
Wimbledon	3R	1R	QF	SF	QF	W	W	SF	SF	W	W	W	W	W	W	F	F	W	QF	SF	SF	F	A	2R	9 / 23	120–14
US Open	1R	3R	SF	1R	SF	SF	SF	4R	F	QF	W	W	F	W	W	QF	F	4R	F	2R	4R	A	A	A	4 / 21	89–17
Australian Open (Dec)	Held in January				A	A	A	SF	W	F	W	SF	W	NH	Held in January										Note	Note
WR	0 / 3	0 / 3	0 / 4	0 / 2	0 / 2	1 / 2	1 / 2	0 / 3	1 / 4	2 / 4	3 / 4	3 / 4	2 / 4	2 / 3	2 / 4	0 / 4	0 / 3	1 / 2	0 / 2	0 / 2	0 / 2	0 / 2	0 / 0	0 / 2	18 / 67	–
Win–Loss	5–3	5–3	17–4	5–2	9–2	11–1	11–1	11–3	19–3	20–2	23–1	25–1	25–2	20–1	25–2	18–4	16–3	10–1	10–2	6–2	8–2	6–2	0–0	1–2	–	306–49
Year End Rank		9*	3	4	3	2	1	3	3	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	3	4	5	3	8		376	-	-

We could also add an {{efn}} note for the January totals to state that they include the December data.--Wolbo (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I like this chart by Wolbo. It's only going to affect those few players who played over that particular 9-year period in the 130+ year history of the sport. One comment though. This change, because it's north south, takes up little room in it's application, yet helps new readers understand when these events were played. But I disagree with Gap9551 that it can be successfully applied to List of Grand Slam women's singles champions. That would be an east/west addition and the chart is already really wide. Another column means extra scrolling for those with smaller screens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There was also the calendar swap between the French Championships and Wimbledon in 1946 and 1947 but in terms of the handful of affected timelines (e.g. Doris Hart, Margaret Osborne duPont, Nancye Wynne Bolton) it is probably best to let that one be.--Wolbo (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If the tables become too wide, then that's a good reason to leave them alone. The personal boxes are more important when it comes to chronology. Good point Wolbo, we should probably indicate that swap in the tables with a symbol. Gap9551 (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Gallery Section

good to see Nadal in the Gallery section. Shouldnt we also have Federer and Djokovic as well since they are in almost every singles record table.Perhaps Murray deserves a mention too sometime in future. We should reorganize this section with these changes, possibly arranged chronologically (acc to some criteria like first/last title) 121.242.176.7 (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Article guidelines discussion

On the article guidelines talk page there is a discussion on tournament tables, specifically regarding referencing and linking. If you have any comments or feedback please add it at the talk page. --Wolbo (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI: 2016 Citi Open creation debate

I noticed that there is a discussion about re-creating the 2016 Citi Open article. Right now it is a redirect because it doesn't happen until August of 2016. The discussion is at Restore the 2016 Citi Open. An FYI in case any are interested. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fed Cup

I am proposing a change to Template:Fed Cup, namely which teams are included in the "Former World Group teams" list. Considering it's a widely used template, I didn't want to change it without notification. Please see the template talk page for more details. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ana Ivanovic move attempt

FYI, there is a request to move Ana Ivanovic to Ana Ivanović. Comment if you wish. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new Wikiproject masthead/logo

I took it upon myself to be bold and swapped in my new creation on the Wikiproject page, since reverted, sob. Why don't you like it? It has Wikipedia ball in it. ;)

In case some of you think better of it, I would be willing to make other versions of it with other players. Perhaps we could even engineer a mechanism where different players' versions would periodically replace themselves. Just a thought. I can also easily make other versions for Wikipedias where tennis is spelled differently ("tenis", "teniso"). Regards, --Mareklug ^talk 17:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for making that logo. I think it looks great, and wouldn't mind using it. Gap9551 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the wikipedia/tennis ball idea a lot. I don't know about showing one specific player, especially a current one who's still in the dawn of her career. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate the effort of making a logo for our Tennis Wikiproject but I'm not convinced this is what we are looking for. It's a nice, creative idea to use the Wikipedia globe but if we do use it, it should in my view be recognizable as a tennis ball, i.e. have a yellow color and the characteristic seam pattern. My main objection is to use a particular and recognizable tennis player, in this instance Garbiñe Muguruza, for what should be a generic logo. Finally the font type and kerning for the title should ideally match the one used in the Wikipedia logo.--Wolbo (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Take 2 per Wolbo

Could we compromise on Garbiñe Muguruza? She represents the bright young future of the best in women's tennis. I carried out all other suggested improvements (albeit the SVG version of my work, File:Wikipedia-Tennis-logo-v3-Garbiñe.svg, failed to display as upload correctly from my Mac; downloading it back retrieves correct-looking file; PNG shown here). --Mareklug ^talk 03:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Wolbo, the logo should not have a recognizable player such as Muguruza. The picture on the current logo is neutral and that's what I believe we should keep. SOAD KoRn (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Take 3 per Wolbo, SOAD KoRn, Hermionedidallthework

I hope this version works for you. --Mareklug ^talk 15:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I like this one. It strikes a balance between being bold and being consistent with the established aesthetic of the encyclopedia. Thanks for your diligent work, Mareklug. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Me too. I can see it as the new logo. Thanks for the effort, Mareklug! SOAD KoRn (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it up some, and in the process, the SVG became correct, here it is:

I agree with others that neutrality should prevail over including a nice picture of a player, even though the latter might give a better impression of what the sport of tennis is about. Maybe a player that is not well known would be an option. This logo is very impressive, good job. Gap9551 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Kyle Edmund career chart

What does the column headed "No." refer to? It's far from clear. Kyle_Edmund#Career_finals --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

At João Sousa career statistics, you may find in the Keys section a series of explanations for tennis tables, including "No.". Feel free to copy it. SOAD KoRn (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That's quite an answer. How many articles have tables without explanations and why do you think this is helping the reader? --Dweller (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That column isn't standard so I removed it. As for the key, I just added the standard key that is required of all performance timelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ta --Dweller (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Women and Pro tennis

Before the Open Era, occasionally (some) women played professional tennis. According to History of tennis (section Women's professional tennis near the bottom), there were women's pro tours in or around 1926-27, 1941, 1947, 1950-51, 1958, and 1967, but it seems these were a lot smaller than the men's pro circuit. Also, I don't see any information about whether women played the three Pro Slams.

Articles and sections such as

• Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era
• U.S. Pro Tennis Championships
• French Pro Championship
• Wembley Championships
• Grand Slam (tennis)#Pro Slam
• History of tennis#Open Era

list only men's results, but never state clearly that pre-Open Era professional tournaments were for men only (unless I'm overlooking it). One of these two things needs to be done:

• If it is true that women barely participated in pre-Open Era pro tournaments, this should be clearly stated in the lead of each of these (and possibly more) articles, especially in the Pro Slam articles. Then readers will know why no women's results are listed.
• If women did play, then their results need to be listed too in these articles.

I'd like to hear what others who know more about the history of tennis think about this. Thanks! Gap9551 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The history of women's professional tennis was very different compared to the men. The main reason is that far fewer women players turned pro and their numbers were simply never high enough to organize a pro championship tournament with an actual draw. Most of the women pros played head-to-head matches on the infamous barnstorming pro tours (Lenglen–Browne, Marble–Hardwick, Betz–Moran). Often this was as the 'opening act' for the men's match. They did sometimes participate in a (men's) pro tournament but that was normally only a single match, i.e. the women's final. Mixed doubles were also played but to my knowledge never as part of a draw in a tournament event. We should at least make that distinction clear in the History of tennis article, if it isn't currently.--Wolbo (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make a few notes in the relevant articles. Gap9551 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, if women barely played pro tournaments, that raises the question why we need separate articles such as Tennis records of the Open Era – Women's Singles? In this article, as well as in History of tennis#Open Era, it should be explained what the difference was for women's tennis between the Open Era and the period before. Gap9551 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is a distinction in the women being paid with the start of the open era. It brought more gals into the game. But as far as there being a noticeable difference from 1967 to 1968... there really wasn't any for the women. Open era records and historical records blend pretty seamlessly. But we do have one thing... notable sources such as newspapers, tv and books often talk only of Open Era records, even for the women. So readers will come here looking for those Open Era records and not find them if we dumped them. That's not too good. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point about following sources. And also, if the level of competition went up significantly then at least there is an intrinsic difference. Gap9551 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing the level of competition didn't go up for many years. They got paid but not all that much. That's why Billie Jean and the original 9 rebelled in 1970. The gals were only getting a couple hundred dollars if they won a bloody event... $1000-$2000 if it was a Major. That's not gonna bring about changes in competition. But it did pave the way. If it was up to me I'd lump them in altogether as you suggested. But the sources being as they are, it would probably be a detriment to our readers looking for the Open Era stuff. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I see. Not all women's statistics in the Open Era articles are also covered in the overall tennis history articles, but then some statistics are hard to find further back in time. Gap9551 (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Bojan Bozovic

Dear tennis experts: Is this a notable player? Or should the page be deleted as a stale draft?—Anne Delong (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: For tennis, he is not notable. No main draw appearances on the ATP tour, no tournament wins in the minor league of tennis (the ATP Challenger tour), no participation in Davis Cup, no grand slam wins or top 3 ranking as a junior. As a coach, none of his players that I can tell have won a Masters event or reached the top 10. So for tennis he's out. I guess it's possible he could have reached general notability guidelines in his native country, but if so it's probably only because he practiced a few times with Novak Djokovic. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Fyunck(click). If nobody edits it in the next few days, it will be eligible for deletion under db-g13 and I will delete it then.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Performance key

I just noticed that undiscussed edits were made recently at Template:Performance key, a template widely used in tennis-related articles. I invite you all to visit the discussion page. SOAD KoRn (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

The articles 2014 Australian Open – Legends Men's Doubles and 2014 Australian Open – Men Legends' Doubles are found to be duplicate articles. Kindly do the needful.

Also, check the article 2014 Australian Open – Men's Legends Doubles which needs to be deleted. - Ninney (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"2014 Australian Open – Men Legends' Doubles" was created first so it should stay and the other should be redirected. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say we should keep the article that has the correct title of the event. And that seems to be Men's Legend's Doubles— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 2016-01-12T20:12:46

I thought wikipedia had a protocol that the earliest article takes precedence? Plus for consistency all our others have been at "Australian Open – Men Legends' Doubles" . Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And what about the third article 2014 Australian Open – Men's Legends Doubles ? - Ninney (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Great.... must have been a good year for legends doubles. But you can see it was the same person who created the one we should keep. Just minutes apart. He obviously saw he erred in titling it and immediately created one with the standard title. The wrong way to do it mind you, and it was never updated except for a tag. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Some protocol should not lead us to use a title that contains bad grammar. After all, we don't write Men Singles (or Gentlemen Singles for Wimbledon). If you want keep the first article that was created that's no problem. Have the two subsequent articles deleted and then move the original article to the title that uses the correct grammar. There are only three other Legends' articles (2013, 2015 and 2016) so it's not much work to fix those titles as well. Tvx1 21:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

From what I'm reading here, this is a plural possesive... it should be Legends' Doubles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Tvx1 23:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It does make me wonder how many other duplicate articles we may have lurking in the corners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Return Nickname to Infobox

Hello!??? Any programmers/Wiki gurus present here, or not? Are there any plans to bring back the nicknames to Infobox template for tennis players? Maybe we can do a fund-raiser to gather money to do this? Seems not possible without this, or am I mistaken? This sucks major bawls and has done so for several years. This is not good. Naki (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Usually if someone makes use of a nickname extensively it gets mentioned in prose (as we do with Jimmy Connors or Bunny Austin). We really don't need a nickname slot in the infobox. It was removed in 2010 when "Full Name" was added. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This does not mean it should not be added back. As I recall, it was removed in error?? Naki (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Early article creation?

I know many like to start articles a couple months in advance and we sometimes argue over whether it should be 30 days or 60 days before a tournament starts. And it sometimes depends on whether some info comes in a little bit early or not. But now someone has started the 2017 ATP World Tour article a year ahead of schedule. Comments welcome at the deletion nomination page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics

We have an article on the qualification for the tennis tournament at the 2016 Olympics. The article has an issue though. Colors are being used as the sole means of conveying information in the tables. This is an issue for two reasons. Firstly, this is discouraged by WP:Color simply because there are people who can't even see colors and secondly the use of colors in cases like this prevents us from denoting players that actually are currently ineligible for qualification through more than one criteria. Tvx1 18:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

We can mix colors to combine multiple criteria. Seriously, I agree with your concern, and we could solve this by adding a narrow column (between Rank and Player, or maybe at the end) with a symbol or letter denoting each of the four options (or multiple). Gap9551 (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely horrible as it now stands... as is the main article it sprang from. Colors are not tennis appropriate at all. It should look like Tennis at the 2012 Summer Olympics and Tennis at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Qualification. Even that 2012 qualifying article should not be using only color, but this version is even more terrible for color choice and accessibility issues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The 2012 articles aren't much better if you ask me. The same usage of colors with accessibly issues. It's not really necessary to color the entire rows of the medal winning players at all. The same can be achieved like this:

Seed	Rank	Player	Status
1	1	Roger Federer (SUI)	Finals lost to  Andy Murray (GBR) [3]
2	2	Novak Djokovic (SRB)	Semifinals lost to  Andy Murray (GBR) [3] Bronze medal lost to  Juan Martín del Potro (ARG) [8]
3	4	Andy Murray (GBR)	Finals defeated  Roger Federer (SUI) [1]
4	5	David Ferrer (ESP)	Third Round lost to  Kei Nishikori (JPN) [15]
5	6	Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA)	Quarterfinals lost to  Novak Djokovic (SRB) [2]
6	7	Tomáš Berdych (CZE)	First Round lost to  Steve Darcis (BEL)
7	8	Janko Tipsarević (SRB)	Third Round lost to  John Isner (USA) [10]
8	9	Juan Martín del Potro (ARG)	Semifinals lost to  Roger Federer (SUI) [1] Bronze medal defeated  Novak Djokovic (SRB) [2]
9	10	Juan Mónaco (ARG)	Second Round lost to  Feliciano López (ESP)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 2016-01-06T02:58:32

I think the 2012 articles are much better than 2016, but your chart looks to take it even 1 step better. Though I have never really liked "flagIOCathlete" or "flagathlete." "Flagicon" works well enough as long as it's first use in an article is "Flag." Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding a narrow column for Medal Icons would be more readable - Ninney (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The trouble with the extra column is that 90% of the players would have no need for it. I made the two 2012 articles at least compliant with WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Maybe not perfect, but it gets the job done with minimal effort. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to the 2012 olympics tennis article are very good. Your changes to the qualification articles made them a little bit better, but they're still not good enough. The letters are really small and the issue with players failing more than one criteria not being labeled as such still remains. Tvx1 17:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your extra concerns are a content issue. Colors were not being used to convey multiple failings so it didn't need fixing per accessibility issues. As to what letter or symbols or the size, that's for the editors of that article to argue about. I simply got it fixed so color wasn't the only way to convey information. We also don't want it so "in your face" that it looks ugly. Remember that sub-text and sup-text is standard nomenclature at wikipedia... they are in every article we write with no problems. So using them in this case is simply an extension of what is standard practice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Tvx1 & Gap9551: OK, in my opinion, the possibility of a player being ineligible due to multiple criteria is not a real issue. If a player has not met their Davis/Fed Cup requirements, then it doesn't really matter how many other players from their country are eligible to play. They are ineligible due to Davis/Fed Cup requirements, period. They could shoot up to ATP or WTA #1 and it wouldn't make a difference. I don't see a need to start counting the number of players until a player has met their Davis/Fed requirements and four of their higher-ranked compatriots have met their Davis/Fed Cup requirements. For some reason, even though only two American women have met their Fed Cup requirements, someone recently marked a bunch of the other women as ineligible due to too many other players from their country. That doesn't make any sense to me. As far as the accessibility issues though, I'm in total agreement with the changes that Fyunck made. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that makes sense. Gap9551 (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

2000 ATP tour

I noticed when I was doing some red link fixing on 2000 ATP Tour that some tournaments seem to have articles for almost every year EXCEPT 2000, which seemed curious – examples are the Japan Open, the Kroger St. Jude Championship, the Swedish Open and Mexican Open. Robina Fox (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's more just about what editors have gotten around to editing/creating, I was working on the 1998 ATP/WTA Tours a while back because they were so incomplete, and even though I've stalled big time intend to hopefully finish the 1999 tours sometime. YellowStahh (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Davis Cup template

Can someone try and help fix this Template:Davis Cup season which will hopefully be on all of the Davis Cup pages as I can't get it to work. Matt294069 is coming 05:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding Grand Slam Results

I know this is being picky, but can people edit the person grand slam results on their page and with the 2016 Australian Open going on, this is a perfect time to do it. Matt294069 is coming 05:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Matt294069:. It depends where you are talking about. You cannot change the singles performance timeline if the player is still participating in singles. Same with doubles. Once they are out it's perfectly fine to do so. If you are talking about the infobox, I wait, but I know many don't. Does that help? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I say, do it after they get eliminated from the singles draw. Matt294069 is coming 05:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but if they are out of singles but still in doubles, don't update the doubles results... just the singles. Good luck and have fun. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Johanna Konta

Hi. There's loads of great stats at her article, but I was expecting to see a chart showing her annual progression in world rankings, but couldn't see one. I'm used to seeing them on snooker player bios. Does the Tennis WikiProject normally do such charts for tennis players? --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dweller, most of the higher-ranked players have separate career statistics articles which show the player's year-end ranking at the bottom of the performance timeline table (e.g. Federer, Murray, Halep). The performance timelines in the player's article are usually limited to showing the results at the Grand Slam tournaments, as is the case with Johanna Konta. However, it raises a good point, and a case can be made that the year-end ranking should always be added to the performance timeline in the player's article. That would be fairly easy to do.--Wolbo (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. You can see an example that works exactly like that in the second row of the chart at Stuart_Bingham#Performance_and_rankings_timeline --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Those snooker timelines and career finals sure do look familiar (who borrowed from whom?). One point to consider is that the performance timeline usually starts in the year a player first participated in a Grand Slam (or tried to qualify) while the ranking starts when they turn pro. In Konta's case, she turned pro in 2008 but the performance timeline only starts in 2012. So either the timeline needs to be expanded or, alternatively, the year-end rankings are added to the career statistics section as a separate table.--Wolbo (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Lol. On the main issue, I see your point. Because the players are beginning to earn ranking points before they participate in world ranking events, I guess. I'd just add it to the performance timeline, without expanding the timeline back in time. Another table would make the proliferation of tables even worse. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess we could also just put in a link under external links that says Johanna Konta Rankings History. The work's been done for us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There's also a big difference in the way Snooker and Tennis rankings work. The Snooker rankings are not changed as frequently as the Tennis rankings. Up to 2010 they were only changed once per season. Nowadays it has actually been changed to a prize money list. Tennis rankings are actually updated every week and this means sometimes during the middle of a tournament. This would mean we would have to update the timeline of every player article every week if we include this information. Tvx1 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Tvx1, not really, in the context of the tennis articles we are talking about year-end ranking, as is shown in the many career statistics articles. As a test case the year-end rankings have been added to Konta's performance timeline. Seems a straightforward solution. Thoughts? --Wolbo (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

<- The addition of the year-end rankings is a good idea and adds usefully to Konta's article. Thanks. If you don't mind an observation from an outsider, there do seem to be a huge number of tables in the article of someone who until very recently indeed was a pretty obscure tennis player... --Dweller (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

So what are we going to do with the 2016 rank in her timeline then? Leave it blank all the way to the end of this year? That's not really quality editing. Tvx1 00:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would be an issue. The row label clearly states it is a year-end ranking and the setup is exactly the same as we already use for a considerable time on the career statistics pages (e.g. Federer, Murray, Halep). As the event, the 2016 year-end, has not yet happened the field is empty, just as it (currently) is for the 2016 French, Wimbledon and US Open.--Wolbo (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"there do seem to be a huge number of tables in the article of someone who until very recently indeed was a pretty obscure tennis player" - what we need is her to make a WTA level final (tomorrow??). Then all the ITF final info can be junked, or maybe hidden. That will make it seem less cluttered.Janik17B (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've got a question on round name styling. Wolbo came in and swapped all references to QF in the Konta article to read 'quarterfinal' (thanks, btw, consistency is the most important thing here), but at the moment SF is rendered as both 'semifinal' and 'semi-final', and these were left unchanged. Which is the form we should be using? Janik17B (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Janik17B, we have standardized within the tennis project on the non-hyphenated spelling, so it should be semifinal(s) and quarterfinal(s).--Wolbo (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Pressure Situations section ATP World Tour Records article

Hi I updated this sectionATP_World_Tour_records#Pressure_situations the deciding set table according to this table http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/performance-zone/win-loss-index/career/finalset/all/ Kei Nishikori tops this table with 78% (85-24). This editor 82.137.9.233 keeps reverting it I have reverted it twice so cant revert again 3RR. Their reason is its 100 wins minimum which is not applied by the ATP I mentioned this in my edit summaries the data at the official site http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/performance-zone is used mainly to update ATP records for this article setting an arbitrary 100 win match limit completely removes the Japanese player from the table altogether which is ridiculous can some please investigate and change this back. --Navops47 (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC proposed deletion/redirecting or renaming of the ATP World Tour Records article

I have posted a formal RFC request at Talk:ATP_World_Tour_records#RFC_proposed_deletion.2Fredirecting_or_renaming_of_the_ATP_World_Tour_Records_article per previous discussions on this subject this is an important discussion and would appreciate if project members and other editors share their thoughts on the subject.--Navops47 (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ranking templates

Although nothing new, I just wanted to re-ignite the discussion about the ranking templates, such as those at Category:WTA Tour navigational boxes. I like them a lot and they are useful as navboxes, but I'm getting sick at the thought of having to update them nigh-on every Monday. There are other things to do here. I feel I'm wasting my time, and am happy that a few colleagues help out every now and then and do a few, but it really isn't enough. I don't really know what to suggest, since getting rid of them all seems a bit drastic. We could, however, choose to delete some. Let me make an example of {{Top African female tennis players}}, the first one on the list. It hasn't been updated in over four months, and before that nearly five. What purpose does it serve? Another, {{Top Portuguese female tennis players}}, I have updated regularly since it was created last year, but there are (as of today) only five players with a world ranking, two of which aren't even notable. This really should be another candidate for deletion. Jared Preston (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A bot would be great but I once made a request with no takers at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 58#Tennis ranking navboxes. Maybe it sounded too hard and a request with simpler wishes would have a better chance. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there some place where ATP rankings are downloadable in some reasonable format (text file or spreadsheet; ideally including movement from the last edition of ranking so that it has all information needed in this template). I think it would not be very difficult to create a few scripts using grep and sed or some similar programs to format the template. Some disadvantages: There would be redlinks. (I do not really know how to check whether there is a Wikipedia article on some player.) We would have to compile manually some list of players where simply using the name would lead to disambiguation page; for example Sergei Bubka (tennis). I don't think that sed is good at handling Unicode. And after creating them, it would still be necessary to put the templates on Wikipedia manually and check them. Probably somebody who is better in programming than me would be able to improve this reasonably or even make a bot; this is the best I could - hopefully - able to do. --Kompik (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder about any of them, as they are all maintenance nightmares, and some are just of questionable value as being entirely too narrowly defined. The national ones definitely should go. It's a trivial intersection of loosely related things. The top 10 lists, maybe they can say, but I still don't relish the idea of updating them. oknazevad (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think many templates can still serve their purpose (i.e. give a general idea of the best players in a country) even if they are updated only once every 2 months or so. In that case the order can be a bit off but the template should still list most of the relevant players. For those templates that are consistently updated too infrequently, we could either delete them or decide that they are important. In the latter case more editors should become involved in updating them. I would certainly get rid of the green, red, and blue symbols indicating change in the templates that are updated too rarely. That makes the updates quicker, but also the change relative to the previous week doesn't have much meaning if updates happen only once every few weeks or months. Gap9551 (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)