Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

New finals chart proposal

Please give some thoughts at our project guideline page on a new finals chart proposal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any disagreement on the compromise chart proposal with added number column. I was still going to leave it going for a full month though. Comment on the guideline page with any other suggestions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Coach(es) in infobox out of control

This has bothered me for awhile. The infobox is supposed to be a place where the most pertinent of facts are at our readers fingertips. It is nice to know who is coaching a particular player. It is ridiculous to see the entire coaching history listed in the infobox. Journeyman player Dan Evans has 13 coaches listed, taking up half the infobox! That has to go. It should be the current coach (possibly current coaches) but not a coaching history lesson. That has to be what was intended for coach(es). This should go for every player we have. If it's important enough to keep, do it in prose in the article body. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say that the coach parameter is meant to include only the present coach. I am not sure if the coaching history of a player is that important. In terms of the top-ten players, or at least Nadal, Federer etc., the coaches are important. But for players outside the top 30 and lower, including a list of every coach they had is unnecessary. If it is included, at least put it somewhere else, not in the infobox. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, infobox should only show current coach. Sellyme^Talk 21:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Andy Murray's infobox is not a lot better. I too agree that only the current coach should be visible in the infobox but, if technically possible, would not object to a collapsible list of previous coaches in the infobox provided the default state of that list is 'collapsed'. Would like to look into that option before we start deleting info. The mechanism would be something similar to what can be seen in Federer's German article where it says 'Ausklappen'. --Wolbo (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the entire list belongs in the infobox rather than a separate table in his career stats article, but anything is better than what I'm seing now. I have no idea how we would even add that collapsed list in an infobox. Interesting concept though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that if something is unimportant enough to be hidden by default in a collapsed list, then it's probably not important to be in the infobox in the first place. I agree 100% that we should not be deleting notable information and that no-one should be removing coach lists without making sure they're actually in the prose of the article, but I definitely don't think collapsible lists as a middle step are a good way to go about it. Additionally, collapsing article content by default (as opposed to navboxes) is pretty clearly against MOS:COLLAPSE. Having it in an infobox probably compounds that issue. I strongly recommend that we just create a to-do list subpage of this project somewhere and add articles that break formatting consensus on this and other topics to it, incentivising people to go fix them properly one by one, so we don't have to implement any quick half measures that can be easily implemented on the same pageview that we find the error. I've been doing something similar on my userpage, but because that's a personal thing I haven't really been putting much effort into it. Sellyme^Talk 02:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

One thing is to do that with our most popular articles. Federer does not have coaches listed in his infobox while Nadal and Murray do. What we should be doing is to make a coaches table or coaches section and move those coaches into that. If we do it to our most visible articles perhaps editors will see it done properly and at least create no more lengthy coach lists in the infobox. Maybe they'll even help change other articles. The thing is someone like Dan Evans isn't the most notable dude himself. He has won 5 minor league titles and 13 minor/minor league titles. I'm not convinced that a list of his 13 coaches belongs in his article at all. I doubt any reader but his most ardent fans would care about it one iota. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

WTA website overhauled

The WTA website is completely different as of to-day. All existing links now run into a 404 error.

Player profile pages now have a different ID number than before. I started changing their wikidata items' WTA ID property. Fortunately, on the Dutch wiki (my home wiki) most players no longer specify the hard WTA ID, but go through wikidata.

The following player profile information that used to be available, is not present any more:

• weight
• career high ranking (and date) in singles and doubles
• number of ITF titles in singles and doubles
• year-end ranking table in singles and doubles
• result history table for the grand slam tournaments in singles and doubles
• on the matches played: date, prize money, ranking points earned (and more)

Other information that is missing:

• WTA ranking lists for previous weeks (and years) in singles and doubles
• tournament archive

For tournaments: the draw PDF's are no longer there (nor in a different place).

Vinkje83 (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Going to any women's player's article and clicking their WTA profile link leads to a player search page. All of the IDs were changed. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Another major tennis website redesign and it's another disaster from our point of view. The ID's have changed, breaking all our player and tournament links to the website. And what happened to all the historic data on players and tournaments? No tournament archive? No player activity history? No historic H2H information? According to the WTA website Navratilova never played a match against Evert! Hopefully this info will soon reappear, otherwise the level of incompetence and disregard for the history of the women's game would be baffling.--Wolbo (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Holy christ that's a nightmare. They've removed about half of the site's content entirely (pdf draws seem to no longer exist at all!) and the content that they did replace straight up doesn't work. Nearly all of the anchor links are undefined so we can't link to specific parts of javascript-segmented pages, and as Wolbo points out, a lot of the info they do have there is comically wrong. If they don't completely revert these changes we'll have to almost completely abandon the WTA as a source, that's broken to an extent that we can't fix at all. Even the "Contact Us" button that I attempted to use to tell them how disastrous this was is broken. Sellyme^Talk 12:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we should wait a week to see if they are intelligent enough to fix these bugs they are having. Then we can start from there. But they literally changed EVERYTHING. PDF draws for tournaments this week that were working on Monday are no longer working now. I have been trying to find a PDF draw for this week's tournaments on the WTA website, but I haven't found anything yet. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There is literally nothing there at all, except some basic personal data, not even matches. I don't believe this is the final version, they must have plans to restore missing info, otherwise the website is going to be totally useless not only to Wikipedia but to a random reader as well. --Deinocheirus (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The new design is obviously oriented toward these silly smartphones and the superficial 'hot news' interest of their users. I've seen the same happening with the Australian Open website – that too lost its draw history. The presentation of the information has become more important than its depth and comprehensiveness. Web designers' intentions have recently moved towards amusing the swiping masses rather than informing the serious Internet worker. Screen space that is not taken by pictures, is predominantly white. A screen lay-out which (presumably) looks fine on a smartphone, looks ridiculously empty on a conventional computer screen. Vinkje83 (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else has seen this, but there is a lot of information contained at http://www.wtatennis.com/press-center. nihlus kryik (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

First of all: the page you are pointing at, covers current affairs only. We are lacking the whole of womens' tennis history!

Secondly: some links on that 'press center' page are bad: Stuttgart singles draw link is broken, and so was the Istanbul doubles draw link (I notice that this one has been repaired now). None of the newly added Rabat links works. Vinkje83 (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The whole WTA change is depressing. I sure hope this isn't the final tally of changes because it looks useless now. And I'm guessing that the ATP and ITF are warming up in the bullpen. Has anyone emailed them with the main concerns? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

WARNING! The 'matches' tab of the new players' profile contains incorrect information. All qualification matches are shown as if they were main draw matches. Vinkje83 (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

What does it say instead...just a round without the fact it's a qualifier? Can you link to an example? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Just an example: Tatjana Maria. Click the MATCHES tab and page down until Australian Open 2017. It looks like she reached 2R. In reality, she didn't qualify for the main draw, but lost in the second round of qualifying. Vinkje83 (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And while you are at it, go down to 2016 Wimbledon. She had two R128 matches. The WTA has made quite a mess. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The site is almost useless now. In the past we could change id numbers and formatting, now I'm not sure we'd want to link to that site. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yikes. Others hate it too. 73% say horrible and 15% poor in a forum poll at [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you even surprised? I personally didn't like it before they changed it. I always found the ATP website more accessible and found it way easier to find information on there than I did with the WTA. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And not just the WTA. We have used thetennisbase as a source for articles too... it's now a pay site so we can't check if data is accurate unless we throw in $85/year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of its current usability, most of the links that have been broken should be recoverable using the Web Archive.Tvx1 12:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

They have a contact address now: [email protected] – I have sent them messages explaining the problems that Wikipedia (world-wide, not just the English wiki) have with their website situation. But if I am the only Wikipedian doing that, they will probably not start taking us seriously. Therefore I call upon my tennis colleagues over here to send them messages too. Ping User:Adamtt9 User:Frietjes User:Fyunck(click) User:Jared Preston User:Sellyme User:Wolbo User:Yimingbao, to mention but a few.

I propose that we put at least the following suggestions to them:

• Put all the tournament PDF's back to their old URL:
  1. http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/yyyy/nnn.pdf
  2. http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/posting/yyyy/nnn/MDS.pdf and MDD.pdf and QS.pdf
• Make the old website available as old.wtatennis.com (like they did a few years ago when they were doing major surgery on their website).

These measures should be possible for them, because they are not getting in the way of their new development. And it will make the existing information available to us for the near future, so we can go on and do our job.

As a next step, we can start pointing to information to be included in their new website. As 95% (98%?) is currently missing, we might give them a few weeks to include further information by themselves, as long as we have short-term access to the old site (number 2 above) and the article links to the tournament PDF's are valid again (number 1 above).

Concerning the new ID assigned to players: I started to update these on Wikidata. I did the current top 150. Notice that the straight-digit number is no longer sufficient. The addition of /title/player-name has now become mandatory. In their old website they added this extension some time ago, but apparently provided some sort of redirect where we used the digit number only. In the new website, not only the number is different, but unfortunately there is no redirect. This forces us to specify not only the (new) number but also the /title/player-name extension. I noticed that they sometimes have a further extension -0 which for some players turns out to be mandatory, and for others optional, and again others inapplicable. I asked them about the -0 extension, but as yet received no reply.

Vinkje83 (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Query for wikidata

select ?item ?wtaID where {?item wdt:P21 wd:Q6581072 . ?item wdt:P597 ?wtaID} order by strlen(?wtaID)

This query can list all female players, sorted by lenght of their WTA-id. The ones with an old ID should be listed first. I'll try to fix a few a day from now on. Edoderoo (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Clickable query. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

With clickable google search. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

+sitelinks --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

+year_of_birth ... though i would like to add the date of birth in the WTA-search parameter (preceded by a space). Edoderoo (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Status

Now 1111 to go, we did about half of them... All players from Belgium and The Netherlands have been processed, and for many I've added a P2121 (prize money) as a bonus. Edoderoo (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Draw PDFs have returned at http://wtafiles.wtatennis.com/pdf/draws/yyyy/nnnn/MDS.pdf (or MDD/QS/QD) rather than the original http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/posting/yyyy/nnnn/MDS.pdf. Unfortunately it seems like they can no longer be viewed in-line, and rather force a download. I can quite easily patch all URLs to point towards the new path, but I'm not sure if that's desired considering the forced downloads. Thoughts? Sellyme^Talk 00:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Some of them can be viewed in-line, such as Prague singles. I guess that the WTA technicians need to add a specific blob to the pdf to make it viewable. I hope they will make those additions when they're ready for it. For now, it's better to have a downloadable pdf rather than nothing at all. Vinkje83 (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing at all is not the only alternative to the downloadble pdfs. I'm pretty certain we can recover all of those draws linked before the WTA site overhaul using the Web Archive. In fact if we had used it preemptively this massive link rot could have been prevented.Tvx1 21:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have just salvaged a WTA draw from before the WTA site overhaul using the Web archive at 2005 US Open - Mixed Doubles. So I'm certain we can deal with these rotten links. Using properly archived links will also shield use against future website overhauls.Tvx1 17:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tennis performance timeline

The first time I saw a performance timeline table, I thought, wow, a lot of work must have been put into decorating the table and making updates to the table easy. Then, I looked at the source code for the table, only to find out that the whole table is hardcoded, and updating the table is painstaking like this, where many cells need to be changed. Even worse, when the next year arrives, the whole table needs to be revisited so that a new column is added, like this. But most of the cells in these updates can be computed from other cells. What if we can update the table by adding a line or two, and let those computable cells update themselves?

For the past week, I have been coding up a template that does exactly that. Let's look at an example of how a performance timeline table can now be written:

Wikitext

Output

{{tennis performance timeline |country=SUI |year|2012 |GS Australian Open|SF|4|1 |Davis Cup|1R|2|1 |1000 Indian Wells|W|6|0 |1000 Miami|3R|1|1 |1000 Madrid|W|5|0 |1000 Rome|SF|3|1 |GS Roland Garros|SF|5|1 |GS Wimbledon|W|7|0 |Summer Olympics|F-S|5|1 |1000 Cincinnati|W|5|0 |GS US Open|QF|3|1 |1000 Shanghai|SF|3|1 |World Tour Finals|F|3|2 |outdoor|hard|8|30|4|3|0 |outdoor|clay|3|15|2|1|0 |outdoor|grass|3|15|2|1|2 |indoor|hard|3|11|3|1|2 |indoor|clay|0|0|1|0|0 |rank|2 |year|2013 |GS Australian Open|SF|5|1 |1000 Indian Wells|QF|3|1 |1000 Madrid|3R|1|1 |1000 Rome|F|4|1 |GS Roland Garros|QF|4|1 |GS Wimbledon|2R|1|1 |1000 Cincinnati|QF|2|1 |GS US Open|4R|3|1 |1000 Shanghai|3R|1|1 |1000 Paris|SF|3|1 |World Tour Finals|SF|2|2 |outdoor|hard|6|17|6|0|0 |outdoor|clay|5|12|5|0|1 |outdoor|grass|2|5|1|1|0 |indoor|hard|4|11|5|0|1 |rank|6 }}

Template:Tennis performance timeline

We only need to specify the "principal" input to the table, like |outdoor|hard|8|30|4|3|0, which means, out of 8 tournaments that use outdoor hard courts, this player has won 30 times, lost 4 times, won 3 titles, and was a runner-up 0 times. Then, after the conclusion of the next outdoor hard-court tournament, only this line needs to be updated, and the rest of the table takes care of updating itself.

For tournaments that matter like a Grand Slam, we need another cell to display the outcome, so we need another line, but only one more, like |GS Australian Open|SF|4|1, which means, in this Australian Open, the player reaches the semifinal, and won 4 matches and lost one match. These numbers are then tallied and displayed elsewhere in the table, and this line doesn't need to be touched again.

I hope I am convincing that it is much easier to code performance timeline tables this way. I have worked up a few examples here. So far, the template works only with male players, with some coverage of older seasons before the ATP, but should be able to represent stats in the last ten years. The "data" part for this template, like definitions of various tournaments, still needs some work, but the machinery for generating the table is there.

Now, you might notice slight differences in the table layout from the guideline. Most notably, the series heading (e.g., Grand Slam) is no longer a row, but rather the leftmost column. This is to comply with accessibility requirements. There are other changes which might be worth a discussion. For example, the overall win percentage is shown only once instead of twice, which might have confused readers. If you have concerns about them, feel free to bring them up.

More details about the template usage can be found in its documentation, but I would like to keep this initial post short for now. I hope this template can be put into good use. Questions, comments, and suggestions welcome. Cheers, Chinissai (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to think on this a spell. One minor thing would be to change instances of "Roland Garros" to "French Open." Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

GS Roland Garros is how a French Open tournament is coded up in wikitext. I chose that because the ATP uses that term. It's still displayed as "French Open" in the table. Chinissai (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It just looks strange because in English and wikipedia we refer to it as the French Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said, that's only used in coding, so it won't "look" strange to readers. Chinissai (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks strange if I have to create it, so it should also work with "French Open" to go with those who work on the articles and prefer to use that term. I see you also made it Rome as opposed to Italian. I'm not sure it flows as nicely as our current rendition and a lot of the accessibility issue is old news (I was told current screen readers work well with our tables). It would also have to have a counterpart to our simplified Grand Slam only tables, so they look the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you spend some time reading the template documentation? There is a way to code this table once and pass an option to show only part of it. As for accessibility, the current tables as shown in the guideline have the same setup as the bad example in the accessibility guide. The "Grand Slam" row is a column header, because it applies to the four rows that follows: screen readers should read one of these four rows as, "Tournament, Grand Slam, Australian Open, 2012, semifinal, ..." Even if you might have tricked screen readers by not making the "Grand Slam" row a column header, I don't think this is the right way to represent data. If you believe accessibility issues are old news, please raise them at the MOS page; I am in no position to call that. Chinissai (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There are other issues at stake. These tables as they stand now, can get quite wide (as with Roger Federer). You have now made an extra column which is fairly wide. That is also tough with small screens and so might hinder our many readers. You'll note that the tables in the bad/good examples are not continually growing wider. They have a set number of columns where we don't. The year Federer's career stats table comes up twice to make it easier to look from top to bottom without losing track of the year. So that might have to get added to the bottom of your rendition. Another thing I see with the "good example" is they have to finagle the width of the table and then make each of the columns a certain width... otherwise the two tables wouldn't line up properly. We have found that different browsers handle widths differently. One may try to wrap a line, while others leave extra white space. I like the idea of not having to hardcode each and every table. All I'm saying is there's lots to consider. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand the desire to keep everything lined up nicely in columns; otherwise I would have split the table as in the "good example" on the MOS page. Is a table too wide a real issue? These tables won't fit a mobile screen anyway, so trying to minimize the number of columns or reduce the font size wouldn't fully solve the problem. I do agree with you, however, that when the table gets too long, one can lose track of the year in the career summary, so a compromise should be made without sacrificing accessibility. I think it is possible to repeat the header row as the last row of the table, after year-end rankings, without confusing screen readers. But we have to check with accessibility people to see if that would actually work. Chinissai (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it can certainly be tweaked to assess your concerns. Regarding your request for a separate Grand Slam only version. It appears already to provide for that. If you code the propose table to only display GS tournaments you get:

This table includes results through the conclusion of the 2017 Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters.

Tournament	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	SR	W–L	Win %
Australian Open	A	A	Q1	1R	3R	0 / 2	2–2	50.00%
French Open	A	A	Q2	3R		0 / 1	2–1	66.67%
Wimbledon	A	A	2R	3R		0 / 2	3–2	60.00%
US Open	A	Q2	1R	2R		0 / 2	1–2	33.33%
Win–Loss	–	–	1–2	5–4	2–1	0 / 7	8–7	53.33%

It looks nearly identical to the one we have currently. It would tweak it in two ways though. I would make the bottom row use header cell like in the existing tables and I would ditch the tooltips. The legend these tables are accompanied with are sufficient to explain the codes and colors if you ask me.Tvx1 12:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for trying out the template! To comment on your suggestions:

• To comply with accessibility MOS, we can't make a cell a header unless it actually is a header, or screen readers would be confused on how to read a regular cell. I think the boldface is already enough as a visual cue to readers.
• The idea of including tooltips in the table is to again provide accessibility (as claimed in {{abbr}}). Without tooltips, screen readers wouldn't be able to interpret the meaning of "A" or "4R". An unintended consequence of including tooltips in the table is that we don't need to include {{performance key}}, as all abbreviations used in the table are accompanied with their meanings. Chinissai (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree the tool tips is not a good thing over and over and over. They can be included in the key so that we don't have to be annoyed by it in the chart. "Grand Slam" should say "Tournamant, and should be the same size as the year fonts... otherwise it looks comical. The win/loss row should be grey. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why having a bunch of tooltips is a bad thing. They don't seem to be an annoyance, at least to me. Not having them, on the other hand, makes the table inaccessible. I also don't understand why the win-loss row needs to be gray. Font size is consistent throughout the table, nothing comical here; not sure why you see different sizes. The top-left cell says "Grand Slam" because this particular table talks only about Grand Slam tournaments, so we can be specific here. Chinissai (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Many things don't have to be done a certain way, but by consensus we arrived at the best way we could. So the best thing is to try under your system to make the tables look as close to the originals as possible. The bottom was grey so it should remain grey. Tool tips are annoying to many (me included). If they are few and far between they are fine, but if they are covering a table they become intrusive. Even the dots below the abbreviations make a table look busier. The term Grand Slam looks bolder and bigger than the years in the same row. That should not be. And Tournament is preferable. Actually it does not need to be linked at all nor do the years. Our guidelines do not show linkage in these terms. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The small table should look like the following:

Key

W

F

SF

QF

#R

RR

Q#

DNQ

A

NH

(W) winner; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; (RR) round-robin stage; (Q#) qualification round; (DNQ) did not qualify; (A) absent; (NH) not held; (SR) strike rate (events won / competed); (W–L) win–loss record.

To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated at the conclusion of a tournament or when the player's participation has ended.

Tournament	1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980	1981	SR	W–L	Win %
Australian Open	A	3R	A	A	A	A	A	A	A	0 / 1	1–1	50.00
French Open	4R	W	W	QF	A	W	W	W	W	6 / 8	49–2	96.08
Wimbledon	QF	3R	QF	W	W	W	W	W	F	5 / 9	51–4	92.73
US Open	4R	2R	SF	F	4R	F	QF	F	F	0 / 9	40–9	81.63
Win–Loss	10–3	11–3	16–2	17–2	10–1	20–1	18–1	20–1	19–2	11 / 27	141–16	89.81

If that can be done in an easy to fill in manner, great! The spacing on yours looks way too cramped for some reason. And the events should not be grey. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. So far, all I have heard is, something should be done this way, another thing should not be done that way, but I am not given a reason why they need to be the way they are. Have I tried looking for these reasons? Yes, but I couldn't find any discussion anywhere about consensus, so I would appreciate pointers to those discussions. I hope you have noticed that I tried to mimic the current tables as much as possible, and, yes, I have looked at a bunch of existing performance timeline tables and how they are presented, so I am aware of them; no need to reproduce them here. I was trying not to sound too intrusive, hoping my awareness was clear from the get-go, but I guess it wasn't. Where I see change would bring improvements, I incorporated them into the new implementation, and I have explained here why I did them the way I did them. I hope you can convince me why previous consensus gave the current layout, so I can ponder whether it is appropriate to challenge the consensus. I hope I am being clear that I am looking for something other than, "that's the way it's been done," or, "it wouldn't be consistent with what we already have," because we can always keep things consistent by either using this template, or not. Let's be constructive, shall we?

The timeline table in the guideline has links for years. So, do we actually have a consensus on this? I continue to wonder.

On the spacing issue, I was experimenting with padding reduction to see if it helps narrow the table. It seems you (one person!) don't like it; fine, I just removed that (that's a huge favor!). Simple. Chinissai (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, consensus does need to be achieved before we can implement something new. I am not sure that complaining about people having their doubts on this new template will lead to anything productive. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Believe me, there are many other, more productive things for me to do than venting. I felt the discussion got stuck because one person (so far) did not want change, and we seemed to be focusing on minor formatting things rather than how to make the template handle a majority of players. But it seems from below the discussion might be heading in that direction. Fingers crossed. Chinissai (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, the links for years is there for the men, not for the ladies. We are flexible in certain aspects. It would probably be best to give us a table that is not hardcoded but pretty much exactly as our guidelines have it. And how will this work with all the tournament changes and name changes through the years? We have to take those items into consideration also. They were not always Masters 1000 events. We have a lot of flexibility in hardcoding and we need to maintain that flexibility in a template. You say it would be great to have a template for this, and I agree. You say we need to change certain looks, and we disagree. That's what this discussion is about. The template needs to be very flexible because tennis is very flexible. As long as we have lots of possible parameters it might work. This is certainly not going to be something we add to the guidelines overnight. It might take months and months of wrangling and fine tuning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, it has become clear that you were not aware of several examples that demonstrate how flexible the template is, so far. I invite you to take a look at them. Of course, how data are represented in these examples are subject to discussion, but they are represented that way because I couldn't find a consistent way they are currently being represented. I hope these examples are convincing enough that links on years, etc., will not be a setback. Chinissai (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

On that note, I am looking to code more tables for male players to expand coverage, so a list of players to look at will be helpful to me. Let's do the men's side for now and move to the women's side when I feel we are ready. Appreciate it! Chinissai (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

On "easy to fill in," I'm not sure if my following demonstration will address that, but let me try anyway. It will take a lot of space, so I will keep them collapsed; feel free to expand.

Let's see how to include Federer's performance tables in two places, the main article, and the career stats article. The idea is to code the table once, so I did that in Template:Tennis performance timeline/Roger Federer. Then, to use this table, we transclude it on appropriate pages. For the career stats page, we just invoke the template without passing any option:

Extended content
Wikitext Output {{tennis performance timeline/Roger Federer}} Template:Tennis performance timeline/Roger Federer

For the main article, we pass an option to display only the Grand Slam tournaments:

Extended content
Wikitext Output {{tennis performance timeline/Roger Federer|types=GS}} Template:Tennis performance timeline/Roger Federer

So, code the table once, use it everywhere. Chinissai (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

So would we be able to change the preference of the font size for larger tables? Right now your example of Jimmy Connors is unusable. On his actual article we have it at 85% to make it work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

To call my example "unusable" is downright offensive; it represents the same data as the current table, so it can be used. It might have gone off your screen because your screen is too small for that table, but it fits on mine. This brings us back to the fundamental question of whether a table too wide is a real issue, because these tables won't fit a mobile screen anyway. Chinissai (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it stands now, no reasonable person would leave that Connors chart the way you show it. It is unusable in this encyclopedia without changes. I'm asking, how do we change the fonts (and therefore table size) easily on these tables if they are coded into a template as you suggest? We need to be able to do that. So my question still stands... how do we do it using your template? We need to have that flexibility to change it to 85%. I'm glad you are attempting this as a template that does all the figuring is a good thing. But it has to be the right template. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now you are being more offensive to me by calling me an unreasonable person. Great. And I'm still left with wonder why my table is "unusable." You need to give me specifics on why it is non-encyclopedic. Without reasons, I don't see the need to do what you asked, to reduce the font size. I need to truly understand the problem you are having before I can fix it. So, until I do, I am not going to answer your question. I hope this is fair. On the flip side, my earlier question to you still stands. Over. Chinissai (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's put it another way. You have to convince many many editors here at Tennis Project the we need this change to our charts. The coding as it's done today is understood well by many article creators. they are comfortable with it and change isn't easy. If a better new template was created and the charts remained identical to how they are today (just more easily added to articles), with the same abilities as before, it would probably be an easy sell. I'd be in line to buy. However, if the charts are different or look worse and are inflexible in what we can do with them, that is a difficult sell. If we can't easily change the font size, like we do today, that is a deal breaker for myself. I adjust those things all the time. 100% size is what we tend to use for 1-10 year veterans. After that tweaks sometimes have to be done. If those tools tips remain I will be extremely hesitant to agree also. The extra column doesn't look as good as the charts today but if the sight challenged have no way of reading it then we have to look at that.

This is also being done in LUA isn't it? Most here have problems understanding that coding as opposed to standard templates, so every time we would want a change we have to call in a an expert to change it. It also needs to be flexible on multiple tournament names throughout history since it will need to work for 150 years of tennis. You started out of the gate with me not being able to write French Open when I add data. You said I would have to use Roland Garros. That is an inflexible chart since French Open is the preferred name in English. They should both work if typed in as opposed to getting an error. So no, you don't have to do anything different to the chart, but then good luck getting it accepted. These are my own opinions so its mileage may vary with others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand Fyunck though. You're not really up for season. So far you have not been willing to consider any of the proposed tweaks. You keep seeing them as criticism instead of the constructive suggestions they are. I'm getting the impression that you didn't came here to make your template into a visually identical but easier to edit and maintain way of our timelines but merely to seek approval to enroll your template as is. We should really start working together to improve your basis instead of criticizing each other. For instance, I guess the font size can be set like this:Tvx1 10:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended content
Template:Tennis performance timeline/Roger Federer</nowiki>}}

Thanks for that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

To be fair though, I did consider your two suggestions, and I explained above why they wouldn't make the table accessible. And I still don't quite understand the font size issue and what's the fundamental need to reduce the font size. Is it because tables are going off screen? If so, how do you deal with smaller screens like a cellphone screen? Understanding the fundamental need will allow me to consider the best way forward, and if that really means reducing the font size, so be it, but I need to be able to weigh in also that there is no other better way. Chinissai (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

edit break

I also asked administrator Graham how his screen reader worked on the current Roger Federer Career stats chart and he said it seems to work fine. So we might be trying to create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. So my question is, can we create a template chart that emulates our current manually created charts? That would be without the new column, exactly as they are now. I'd like to see how that would work. We'd need some flexibility in tournament names. I guess to think a template will work 100% of the time is an unreal expectation, so we could always hard-code those exceptions. Perhaps @Frietjes: and you could knock heads to come up with a working example? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

AH... I knew this conversation had come up before. Check the bottom of this conversation from 2 years ago. Those examples given for bad header examples are very specific. BAD Headers. That would be using the "!" to create a bad header in the middle of a table. Our guidelines do not do that, which is why screen readers have no problems with our charts. They work as they should. So I'm going through all this again for nothing. I knew I had sent out emails before to these companies to ask this same question and they all worked fine. They're going to think I'm a idiot for emailing them again. My own fault for having a crummy memory. So we don't have to change our charts at all since they work and look great as they are. The only question is can we make them easier to fill in with a template? That I can't do but it would be nice if we could. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers! Continues below. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Tooltips

While not having too much of an opinion on the final format, I would just like to throw out a reminder that tool tips don't work on mobile, and that they shouldn't be the sole way used to explain the meaning of an abbreviation. A link might be a better choice. (Of course, I still think that it's annoying that draws in tournament infoboxes always use abbreviations without explaining them, so my opinion may be shaded by that.) oknazevad (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This is helpful. It looks like we need a legend section to list these abbreviations, but we still need tooltips inside the table to make it accessible. Chinissai (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No, if we have a legend we certainly don't need tooltips inside the table. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I have said. Without a tooltip accompanying each cell, screen readers have no idea how to interpret and read the meaning of the abbreviation in that cell. Chinissai (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not? If you have a legend that says 1R means out in the first round, SF means semifinalist, F means finalist, etc., then how are the tooltips necessary? Readers just look at the chart for the abbreviation, and if they don't know what it means, look at the legend. It can't be that confusing. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about screen readers for visually impaired users. See WP:DTT. Chinissai (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

So you are saying that screen readers are only capable of interpreting tool tips but can't interpret a legend or a key. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I would think that. Legends are not associated with each instance of abbreviations that appears in the table, so screen readers can't link the two. Our eyes and brains can do that, god blessed! Chinissai (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No they don't but I don't think it's necessary either. If the screen reader simply reads to full list of different codes before it reads the tables that surely enough. I think virtually anyone will remember that SF means semifinal and F final.Tvx1 18:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Goodness, you'd have to require a tooltip for every instance of an abbreviation at Wikipedia. That is not what our guidelines tell us. I have also contacted several major screen-reading companies to find out if the charts we have now truly still are any concern... including JAWS. I thought I did this before but maybe not. They may not get back to me over the weekend but we'll know if it's an issue. If it's not I would suggest that we keep the charts exactly as they are now and find someone who will make a template based on that. But the tooltips in a template have to go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting those companies. One thing to keep in mind: Wikipedia's Manual of Styles supersedes WikiProject guidelines. I think this is a good time to have accessibility experts weigh in on this issue. Chinissai (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

However guidelines are guidelines... they are not policy nor absolute. There are projects whose nuances don't fit well with wiki guidelines so they must adjust to cover their own foibles. If those major companies have no problems with screen readers, then those guidelines would be outdated and wrong. Tennis uses a flagicon in the infobox because it fits the world of tennis better than the standard wikipedia guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

As a screen reader user myself, I primarily use JAWS but also have a bit of experience with NVDA; those two screen readers are the most commonly used on Windows. Neither of them process abbr tooltips by default – they have to be told to do so by the user – and neither of them give any indication that a particular piece of text has an associated tooltip. Therefore, there's no need to have them if they cause great inconvenience for sighted users. Graham87 11:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. Looks like tooltips do more harm than good, so I'll consider removing them. There is a way for tooltips to appear without cluttering visually, so I'll try that. Chinissai (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Update 1

Since my original post, the template has been tweaked to reflect recent discussions. I also added several enhancements. All transclusions of the template should already illustrate these changes. Notable changes are as follows:

• Added support for pre-Open-Era headers. (See Template:Tennis performance timeline/Rod Laver.) This feature is not yet documented in the template documentation, but the idea is to indicate that the player started in an amateur career, and transitioned to a professional career in a certain year. Then, 1968 came the Open Era.
• Added a hatnote reflecting "current as of" information, as specified by |last= tournament.
• Removed <abbr> tags from cells to eliminate dotted underline beneath each result. Tooltips still appear at the cell level.
• Added legend chart at the bottom of the table. Only abbreviations used in the table are listed.
• Added support for sortability on win/loss, win %, and strike rates. Try sorting in the examples above.

There were still lingering discussions, addressed itemwise below. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Header issues

I'm not a fan of abusing HTML syntax to fulfill aesthetic desire. The colspan fake-header row is still a header row that happens not to be coded as such. I would be able to tolerate this abuse in a very short term, but my goal is to do away with incorrect coding to ensure template quality, so I would like to revisit this issue in a near future, if not now.

Another issue with the colspan header rows is that they make the table unsortable. I think sortability adds some benefits to the representation of data, so avoiding colspan (fake-or-not)-header rows not only eliminates accessibility issues, but also represents data better. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The header issue is not an issue. It should absolutely remain as the tables are today as opposed to the wider change suggested. It is much cleaner and easier to read and creates no issues with accessibility. And change to that structure is not needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It is, technically. Different HTML tags have different meanings. We have a row such as Grand Slam that is not a data cell (the td tag or the wiki's bar (|) cell). Technically, any cell that is not a data cell is a header cell (the th tag or the wiki's bang (!) cell). (See an explanation.) We should use the right kinds of tags for the right kinds of contents. Obviously, Grand Slam is not data, but it is related to other cells that represent results from the Grand Slam. So, it needs to be designated as a header cell.

At any rate, I think I might have a way to restore the header row, making that a true header, while maintaining accessibility. I will need to try this, but will also need time. Of course, we will lose the sortability that the current setup has now, as mentioned originally above, but this doesn't seem important to the tennis community (one editor so far) at the moment. Chinissai (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

We seem to have zero issues with the structure of the performance table as it stands today. None at all. It looks good and works well. The only thing that would be nice and convenient would be if we didn't have to keep writing the code for the table structure, and only had to concern ourselves with entering the data on the player's page. Hence a template that you have the ability to create. That would be great for the project! Other changes not so much. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Cell coloring

Cell background colors, except for those associated with tournament results, are default of appropriate HTML tags. Header cells are grayer than regular cells. As Bgwhite mentioned in the previous discussion on headers, coloring a regular cell with the header color can confuse readers and editors as to which is which. So, unless we have non-aesthetic reasons for coloring cells otherwise, I would suggest refraining from doing so. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Tournament names

Aliasing of tournament names is supported, but I would like to refrain from adding unnecessary aliases for now. A short-term goal of this template is to support a variety of tournaments, so aliases are secondary. I think, in a long run, additions of aliasing should follow the usual consensus protocol, as having multiple names for one tournament can confuse editors and increase overhead for template maintenance. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Template coverage

A primary goal of this template is to minimize the maintenance overhead of these tables. Therefore, the template is most useful for active players, whose tables are constantly updated. The template does work, however, with retired players, as shown in examples above, but the coverage can be hit-or-miss. Historical coverage is primarily need-based, but I believe the template can and will eventually handle every table we need.

That said, I think there will need to be a transition period where tables are rewritten to use the template, starting from active players and then going back in time. If we need to maintain consistency between hardcoded and template layouts, an interim version of the template that mocks the hardcoded version can be used on a temporary basis. In a long run, however, I suggest that we use correct HTML coding, so I would like to keep issues I raised above on the table. Chinissai (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Which is exactly what we need permanently... a template that mocks the hard-coded version. Nothing more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus and guidelines can change. Nothing is permanent. Chinissai (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Update 2

Notable changes since last update:

• Added support for men's doubles stats and women's singles stats (see Template:Tennis performance timeline/Serena Williams).
• Added support for country change, e.g., Template:Tennis performance timeline/Dustin Brown. The idea is to specify country within seasonal statistics instead of using |country=. This mostly affects Davis Cup/Fed Cup zones, but otherwise not displayed as header columns. Header columns can be added if desired, but exact formatting requires a discussion.
• Coded timeline tables for the top ~100 active ATP players (see Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Tennis performance timeline/).

Some of these changes warrant a documentation, but I haven't had time to get to that yet. Chinissai (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

How do we do the font change again, since the Federer chart is too wide and too small. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific of where this occurs? And can you give a specification of what you need? Chinissai (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

For the entire table. The font is often to large or too small, and the table width can often be too wide. What is the best way to add flexibility to this. This was brought up before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and what I would like to hear is the exact specification on how to make it happen. Desired widths? Desired font sizes? Never heard those back. I hope I'm being clear that these customizations should be made by the template itself, not by editors. Otherwise we are never going to have any consistency on how these tables look. Chinissai (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see what the point of the template is. You could easily have the table set up on the article where any editor would just update tournament results after each tournament ended without any problems. What does this template do that wasn't covered before? And we can't just create hundreds of these templates for every single Grand Slam participant. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have edited these tables, you would know how many cells you have to edit to get the right results, all those total win-loss, etc. I am not going to repeat myself here; please visit the very beginning of this big section, where I have laid out the rationales. You might also be interested in the source codes of these per-player templates; they are not hardcoded tables. Chinissai (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

But I saw you created hundreds of templates which were nominated for deletion recently. What are you going to do, create hundreds more of them? Adamtt9 (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a separate issue. I don't plan on doing too many more of these new templates. I feel I need to provide adequate examples to show that the main template works, to at least have a chance of something new being accepted from the tennis community. And yet it doesn't appear they are enough. Exactly how we use the main template to code these tables for real is of course up for discussions, but for now I believe I have shown that we can use the main template for a vast majority of players. Chinissai (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Adamtt9 here. We don't need thousands of these templates. We can easily invoke the module within the articles. It would still leave us with much less work than we have right now because it automatically calculates totals and averages. I have even noticed it takes into account that tournaments have had different number of rounds though the years. And testing should not be done with live templates but with sandboxes and user pages.Tvx1 00:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Having a bunch of templates is not something I prefer either. My rationale for creating these example templates where they are is that they are subpages of the template being proposed and implemented, namely, Template:Tennis performance timeline, so I thought they are the right place to do so. These subtemplates are not live per se, because they are not used in articles, and therefore I see no harm for them being in the template namespace. (As an aside, I am not sure how the template takes different number of rounds into account. I am guessing you meant, when we write "SF", it figures out there are this many wins and that many losses. That is in fact part of the input to the template, where you specify the round reached, and the number of wins and losses along the way. Please correct me if I misunderstood. I would like to make sure I read correctly.) Chinissai (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Table width and font size

Since this seems to be a big deal for some editors (one so far, at my last count), I am dedicating this section to flush out any issues regarding the width of the table and its font size. Otherwise I suspect we will keep arguing on this forever to no avail.

The argument for desiring the ability to shrink the table seems to be as follows: the table is too wide to fit a screen. I have raised this before, but whose screen are we talking about? If it's just one person's screen, it's not our problem to fix; that person simply needs a bigger screen. We cannot speak for other readers that the table is too wide for them; we need to hear from them directly. If several editors have a consensus here that we need to deal with table widths, then I am open to discussion. Otherwise, the problem is isolated and does not warrant attention from the entire tennis community. Chinissai (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

There is aesthetics also. The last change made to Federer looked bad when compared to the original in the identical size window. I also look at major changes differently than you. Before making them you need the support of the body. You just don't blow off concerns just because you happen to disagree. The charts are long-standing and work fine the way they are right now. Can they be better... I'm sure they can. It would be great to require less effort to make them and less effort to maintain them. But if the cost is to require the charts to be inflexible to multiple browsers, or look poorly in comparison to what we have, then that cost might be too high. You have already tried to force us to change the charts based on faulty information so excuse me if I'm now extra careful in making sure things work just right before giving you a thumbs up from my end. We've been working on other types of charts for literately years before rolling them out. This may be the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what faulty information are you talking about? I would prefer that we keep conversations on distinct topics separate, so we can hash them out one at a time. If that faulty thing has nothing to do with table width and font size, please start a new subsection so we can dedicate it to that. Chinissai (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, your example Federer chart has nothing to do with this template. Again, please try not to digress! Chinissai (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You tried to force a change to adding extra columns because of screen reader issues.... issues that never existed. That was the faulty information. The chart styling we have is perfectly fine. So all we need is a template that keeps it the same (or nearly the same) while making it easier to add data to each player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed the header issues above. I believe other accessibility issues have been resolved from prior discussions. If you still have issues with headers, please comment in that section. Thanks. Chinissai (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And I absolutely do have issues with any change to the header structure as I have said from day one. I have commented above. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red online editathon on sports

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2017 worldwide online editathon. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Sports"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-guideline Sharapova season article up for deletion

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Maria Sharapova tennis season

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Tennis.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Tennis, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

NTENNIS

You all may want to take a look at this. Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it and commented. Not sure what that particular editor is really doing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent confusing rankings changes?

I notice that a user listed as 2605:E000:91D8:1F00:1045:10E6:2AF4:EF55 has recently made a number of changes of players' rankings. In many cases the changes are quite large, and seem questionable. (Right now, the two most recent changes are in the articles about Carina Witthöft and Ekaterina Alexandrova, although I notice that the Alexandrova change has already been undone). Is this the place to raise this question? Thanks Free2brag (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Player rankings in articles always have to follow the official WTA and ATP lists, after they have been published by these organizations on their websites. This normally happens on Mondays. So currently the May 29th rankings are the most recent. May 31st rankings are unofficial projections and should be reverted. Gap9551 (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

What he said. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD

There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park – Doubles which you may be interested in participating in. Adamtt9 (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Message

Hi, can someone please do something about this. Two articles were created yesterday Claire Holbert-Darling (a player of this name does not exist as far as I can find) and this page 2007 Saginaw Women's Open (a tournament that does not exist/never took place)... both were created by the same user User:Harry.booth who appears to be nothing but a troll account. I don't really know the process here so I thought I'd leave a message on this page to alert someone else to deal with it. 86.17.57.21 (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Reported to administration. Thanks for the information. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

William Blumberg

There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Blumberg which you may be interested in participating in. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Player nicknames

A few (or maybe many?) years ago, some moron removed this from the Tennis player template. So, even if nickname(s) exist, this is never shown. Back then, I asked about this, and another moron user replied that this would be "hard to bring back". Okay, many years passed - can we have this back now? I really do not care how hard it is. Bring this back! Also, when a mindless moron changes templates this way, there should be a patrolling Wiki member seeing that and fixing it (by reverting), and not saying "it cannot be reverted now" after 3-4 months or an year has passed. Does no one here patrol/check any such wide-effect template changes at all? That is a pity. Thank you. Naki (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It was removed in January 2010 [2] after a post at Template talk:Infobox tennis biography#Tragic and infantile, and then restored and removed a few times that year with no posts to the talk page. The only post supporting it is a 2006 request to add it. According to the search hastemplate:"Infobox tennis biography" insource:nickname insource:/nickname *=/ the parameter is not currently used. Old uses must have been removed like in [3]. It's easy to add infobox parameters and I don't know who told you it's hard. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 15#Return Nickname to Infobox the only reply opposed restoring it. I'm not a fan of the parameter either. It easily attracts non-notable nicknames. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with PrimeHunter. Far too likely to become a magnet for non-notable trivia. oknazevad (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the two above as well. Player nicknames aren't necessary and there will always be someone to add a nickname that they pretty much made up. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Some players will have very prominent nicknames but that will be talked about in the article proper. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Tournament notability creep

Per our Tennis Project guidelines the tournaments in the minor league ATP Challenger tour are notable. Most are kind of borderline but since we can find out bits of info we accept that minor league event and create an article on it. I personally think it works out fine. But some at Wikipedia Notability have grumbled we have taken things too far and several recent deletions have now confirmed this. The separate doubles and singles draws of this minor league event have been brought to the forefront by an administrator and then deleted, and I think that was for the best. The season article 2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park barely has any info on it and we do not break articles into smaller articles just because we can. I'm not convinced we need the draws at all, but if we do they can be included in some way on the main page, not have their atoms scattered across 3 separate articles. I'm a bit worried that if non-tennis editors really start digging in they may determine that the entire minor league schedule could mostly be unworthy of articles. They will surely think that separate draw articles are bloat.

I bring this here because since the last deletion I noticed that more of the draws page have appeared, I proposed deletion, and the prod tag was removed. The editor removing the tag thought it best to bring this to Tennis Project's attention. So here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just forget the recent singles/doubles Challenger draw removal as a one time thing that won't happen again? I'm fine with that if everyone else is (though if I had a choice I would always side with one medium sized article rather than 3 tiny ones). Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's save to "forget it", but I feel like the AfD was way too underpopulated for something that would affect thousands of articles, and didn't have a large enough discussion to merit a permanent change in how we handle Challenger tournaments. Sellyme^Talk 03:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

And that's why it's good thing to have a more thorough discussion here. I agree that those "minor league" should not have separate draw articles and the recently created ones should be AFD'd. Everything worth mentioning can provided in the tournaments' main article for the given year.Tvx1 13:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)