Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Grand Slam Project

Below is a copy of the discussion from Portal Talk:Tennis.

Really, Legend drawsheets level of importance on the Grand Slam project page?

The Grand Slam project is here to make sure our most important tennis events are complete. But really... the exhibition legends draws mean nothing, and I don't think they should be here at all. At the very least not until every single official event is completely done. Most exhibition events don't even get articles but in the four majors certainly they are fun. But not to the extent that it's important they are complete. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I put it somewhat grudgingly back, but separated the events into three tiers. The exhibition legends event is at the very bottom tier of what we should be working on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(started writing before your comment) Fyunck(click): "The Grand Slam project" is hardly worthy of that title given that its page had gone virtually unchanged in the 14 years before I started editing it yesterday, so let's not act as though it's some thoroughly vetted page. I've been adding navboxes for every event because they give us a complete picture of our Grand Slam coverage, unlike the tables before, and are automatically updated by editors when each new tournament comes along, so yearly maintenance of the page is no longer needed. I created the missing navboxes without prejudice towards those events in order to obtain that complete picture; now we have it we can make fully informed decisions.

Re the legends events, they are linked to on each and every draw's infobox, so it was worth taking stock of them. Yes they mean nothing. I personally think they could be consolidated into one article for each slam (4 articles instead of ≈80), similar to what has been done in Grand Slam Cup#Draws, especially given a lot of them are tiny (ex.).

Another category is the pre Open Era qualification draws. You can view the navboxes with them here. They could just be added to the bottom of the main draws in my opinion. If not, those navboxes will replace the current ones.

Also, why did you create e.g. these redirects? They misleadingly make it look like we have draws for those events when we don't.

--Somnifuguist (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't create all of them but if it would be natural for a reader to go to that article then there should be a redirect to the general page if a specific page doesn't exist. I didn't take into consideration that people coming to this project page would think them complete. As for the qualification draws, why would pre-Open Era Q-draws be treated differently than Open Era q-draws? The problem I have with legends is that opposed to every other category, they are exhibition events, and I don't really think they have any business taking up the same space as regulation events. I put them back after some consideration but I grumbled a bit as I did so. As for the work you've done, it's great. This page needed some help. The Legends were and are my only gripe. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough about the redirects, but I think they should be deleted. If you go to e.g. 1925 French Championships (tennis) and look at the infobox, the link to the women's doubles redirects back to the article, which is confusing to readers. Also, the same logic could be used to justify making thousands of redirects for every not-yet-existent draw. Personally, the red links in one of the navboxes prompted me to create many qualification draws. If those links had been blue, I might never have known the articles did not actually exist. W.r.t. the pre-Open Era qualification draws, there's no reason to treat them differently, I just wanted to check before adding them to the current navboxes as our guidelines aren't clear on tournaments dating back to before the ATP/WTA tours began.

On another note, I changed the 1972 + 1968 French Open draws per our discussion from a while back. I added the "Preliminary Rounds", which was your suggestion for the naming of the extra round. For the 1968 draw, I chose to use the larger template for only the sections with the extra round. A prior version with the larger template for all sections is here. If there are no objections, I'll extend those changes to the player timelines/best results in infoboxes where applicable, and the performance key template, for which I've drafted the change here. Somnifuguist (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I like those preliminary rounds you made. Those were a couple weird years and it's tough to figure out how to incorporate them into a well established mold. If you want to delete those redirects I won't stand in your way. I guess the best way to do it would be to tag it with speedy delete under "G6 - Housekeeping and non-controversial cleanup." If no one objects they'll be gone in a week. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I think we've arrived at the best solution for those events. I tagged the redirects, but was immediately reverted, so started the deletion discussion which I notified you about. Somnifuguist (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 French Open

Hi, I nominated the 2021 French Open for the Wikipedia:In the news. Is there any chance of someone with knowledge in the area helping to update the article? Regards.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 03:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)