User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 14

"Other Entrants"

I hope this isn't another "proper phrase in tennis", since I'm about half way through fixing about a thousand of these. I hope you approve. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: "Other Entrants" to "Other entrants" is fine. But "Women's Singles" to "Women's singles" and "Mixed Doubles" to "Mixed doubles" and "Gentlemen's Invitational Doubles" to "Gentlemen's invitational doubles" has not been discussed at Tennis Project. It looks like that was being changed also and should remain. This is part of the issues when sources like Wimbledon, or TennisGrandstand or TennisGuru use "Gentlemen's Invitational Doubles" as the proper name of the event in question. I see it all the time. It may not be the most prevalent way, but it's common and what Tennis project has always used. before we change things it should be brought to the project so it can be discussed. I'm not particular one way or the other, but longstanding mass changes without discussion at the Tennis project bothers me a great deal. You should not be making these changes and I urge you to stop and discuss before doing more. Most tennis editors did not even appear at the RFC so perhaps they would all agree to you proposed changes. But perhaps not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Wimbledon has "the gentlemen's invitational doubles champions". And tennisgrandstand.com doesn't use this term at all except in headings (though they do have "the senior invitational doubles"), so provides no clue as to whether they'd treat it as a proper name. Same with tennisguru.net. Nothing there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I do a lot of style fixes, including capitalization fixes. WP:BRD serves well here; if there's an objection or a revert, then discussion is in order. I don't see that as likely here. I had nothing but cooperation and thanks on my case fixing of "Singles" and such in badminton, bowls, table tennis, and such. You are the only one pushing back in tennis, so it's odd that you say you're not particular one way or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

And the fact that about a thousand tennis articles had "Other Entrants" tells me that there's an awful lot of copy&paste error going on, and that these articles have not previously been looked at for capitalization issues. They're quite a mess, really, as you can see by what I've been fixing. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon:I've said all along it's gets handled many ways. You provide a Wimbledon source one way and I provide a Wimbledon source another. Tennis Project chose one of those ways long ago and it should be mass changed without discussion at Tennis Project. Of course the page template gets copied and pasted with new items filled in. We go around all the time fixing capitalization to lower case. I've had to do it in player performance timelines to match MOS. But event names like Men's Singles is open to interpretation in tennis and should not be mass changed. I can't speak to those other sports since I don't know how the press or their organizations do things. Perhaps some people don't care or perhaps they are scared of your edits. I do care and I try to make sure everyone gets to see things that are longstanding and potentially controversial before some mass edit. I've made plenty of bold edits to important items, but I then let folks know at Tennis Project Talk exactly what I did and why and whether any have issues. Sometimes I'm surprised they do but then it gets discussed and it either stands or I get overruled. Or perhaps someone comes up with an alternate way. Then we move on. Forced mass changes, and changes you know I may have issues with seems pretty low to me. I'm surprised I'm seeing them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You have not shown any Wimbledon source using this phrase in a sentence. Have you read WP:TITLEFORMAT, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS? You seem to think that capped headings tell us something about how we should cap; they don't. Nobody else but you showed up to say "it's a proper name" for any of these things; they aren't. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Bullpucky. The first source I gave you was Wimbledon.com using Gentlemen's Invitational Doubles in a sentence. So knock it off. I've given you others as well and I'm really getting tired of this. I've been pretty cordial even though we disagree on this LONGSTANDING CONBSENSUS. I told you what I think and how it should be handled so take it to Tennis Project talk and plead your case. I said maybe they will agree with you... I have no idea. I don't agree with this way of handling it and I think I can say we won't settle it on my talk page when Tennis Project is the place to go. I'm quite disappointed you started changing hundreds to thousands of articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I got that wrong. The point is merely that these are not "consistently" capped, even at those tennis specialist sites. And my rapid widespread changes across badminton, bowls, table tennis, tennis, and lots of others are aligned with broad consensus. It seems unlikely that Wikiproject Tennis is going to come up with a new reason to go a different direction than the rest of WP, especially given the inconsistency with WP:WikiProject Multi-sport events. If you'd stopped claiming these are proper names, we could get all this fixed up pretty quickly. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed would mean that it's broken. It's not broken. Tennis Project simply followed one particular set of sources. You would like it changed and that's fine and dandy. Perhaps the Tennis Project will listen, but it's not broken. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Following one particular set of sources is broken, especially if what you say is true that the tennis project negotiated a special exception to the rules with the Multi-sport events project, instead of following WP guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Guidelines get tweaked by WikiProjects all the time and become Guidelines in their own right. Even the recent RFC said as much. I'm not sure what angle your driving for. I'm not so much against the changes as I am against you skipping the process. If you bring it to a Project and everyone agrees, then it changes. No issue from me at all. If you simply start changing 1000s of articles in a matter of hours without that ok then we have a problem. Especially if even one person disagrees. There is a process and I intend to follow it. Tennis Project did not negotiate a special multi-sport exception to rules. No one discussed broken rules... People were noticing that Olympic articles used lower case and Tennis articles used upper case. When it came to Olympic Tennis we had half the articles done one way a half the other. That was not good so it was discussed with Olympic editors that Tennis Project would stipulate lower case for Olympic Tennis articles. That way the projects wouldn't step on each others toes. Things can be done amicably if you stick to a process. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Guidelines can't be contradictory across projects or contradictory to central guidelines. By insisting on keeping it inconsistent, you're obstructing the process. Just say OK, let's follow MOS:CAPS, and we'll fix it (at least to the first level, what we called option B, which will resolve the project contradictions). Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course they can. That's why they are guidelines. MOS guidelines can't possibly cover everything so projects take up the slack. If a week goes by and I'm the only dissension then you can go ahead and do those prose changes. Standard practice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CONLEVEL? Guidelines are by consensus; centralized consensus can't be overridden by project consensus. And you really want to obstruct progress for another week, fighting MOS:CAPS, hoping someone will take your side? Why? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I've seen it many times in my 16 years here. Are you really saying you haven't seen WikiProject consensus override MOS? Strange. And I absolutely want to hold up changes for a week. We aren't on some time schedule here. It's a standard thing. And please keep it to the Tennis Talk page as we won't get anywhere here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Runners up

Let's start with your first message. "lease be careful . . " is how you started. I presume you mean please, but to avoid embarrassing yourself when trying to make a point, it would be wise if you proofread your own editing in future, which you should do anyway. In the first place, I am ONLY a constructive editor, and to suggest otherwise is grossly irresponsible and not supported by the evidence in my time with Wikipedia. As for the subject at hand, I see no evidence to support your argument, in fact quite the reverse. Do a Google search for the plural of runner up and see what comes up. As far as I can tell, there is no qualification of the plural meaning, and quite frankly the English language doesn't work like that. You don't spell the same term different ways, if it has different meanings. It doesn't make sense, and would make the English language more complicated than it already is. Editrite! (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Editrite!: Sorry but you are incorrect. Runners is the plural when talking about multiple runners. That is the reason it is runners-up in that context. When you are talking about the multiplication of the term "runner-up" it's a completely different matter. Now you are talking about the whole term, not just several runners. It is runner-ups in that context. Oxford said it is unusual to use in that manner but when it is it should be runner-ups. This has been discussed at Wikipedia in the past. Runners-up and runner-ups is not the same term, that's the point. Yes the English language is complicated. And I'm not embarrassed at all by a typo but you should be for even mentioning it here. Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It's difficult to know where to start. Let's talk constructive . . . NOT. Suffice to say that you shouldn't be editing, because you don't know what you're doing. You were in such a hurry to indiscriminately revert several of my edits, that you didn't notice that some of what you were restoring are wrong anyway, whichever way you look at it. Oh dear. For example, "3 runner up", "2 runners ups" and "1 runner ups". Don't worry if you can't see what's wrong, just know that they are. Look before you leap. As I've said before I see no evidence to support your argument. The vast majority of online dictionaries say otherwise. Now we have the ridiculous claim that there are two different types of runner up (which is a general term, by the way, that can apply to any sport). Let me get this right. You're saying that runners up only literally applies to runners (which is the way it reads), and it's different for other things. What next, swimmer up, golfer up etc? Seriously. Your appalling and lamentable attitude (it's only a typo), I have to say, goes to the heart of your credibility, which decreases with each post. Editrite! (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Editrite!: If something is wrong and you change it to something equally wrong, then oh well. Once you start making multiple incorrect changes all bets are off. You are being nasty towards me and if all you can do is bitch and whine about things I feel sorry for you. Please find some other talk page to attack people. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Date formatting

Just an FYI but American/Canadian tennis players date format is always in the form of MDY, not DMY. Please keep that in mind when updating stats on those articles. Thank You. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this does not make sense, what about the Australian players or the Asian players. I think the universal format should be “Day Month Year” for all dates. Sashona (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

What we think doesn't really matter. Per longstanding Tennis Project consensus we use MDY on the countries that use MDY... US and Canada. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Your answer is quite pompous but most of all misleading, Canada actually uses the two different conventions, check in Wikipedia. Both 1 February 2022 and February 1, 2022 are valid.(talk) 6:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

French Canadians quite often use DMY, but otherwise it's almost universal MDY. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking further at your reverted versions and notes, which by the way deleted some of my contributions, you redirected me to take it up with the Tennis Project. I would but I was not part of it nor was I present when decisions were made, so I do not know how to go about asking. If you can assist on who, how and where to address I would definitely make my suggestions. (talk) 6:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sashona: If it changed too many dates in the same edit, then yes all was reverted. Every tennis article today is formatted the same way for Americans except for a few that escaped notice. As to where to ask it would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. You wouldn't direct it at anyone since we work as a team. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Different Masters Titles

Hello, You have been asked to contribute to the subject in the larger forum Talk:Tennis Masters Series records and statistics. Your contribution is important in improving the article. Please make your comments at your convenience. Thanks in advance. 122.162.198.233 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts and inquiries

Hello!
We've not interacted before but I wanted to stop by and introduce myself as I've observed that you're a prolific and dedicated editor in the tennis space here on Wikipedia. I've loved editing on tennis-related articles over the past almost-a-year or so, but I've quickly realized how combative the entire community is and wonder how you've come around to negotiating so many different compromises. I am not implying you're a gatekeeper at all, by any means, but in general, there just seems to be a very strong gatekeeper vibe in the tennis community here in general, which is usually not rare in all spaces on Wikipedia anyways, but is just unpleasant. C'est la vie.

Anyways, my main inquiry is about a very specific thing on tennis tournament articles (such is the nitty-gritty nature of Tennis Wikipedia). Almost all Grand Slam articles begin the article formatted as:
"[Winner] defeated [Finalist] in the final, [score], to win the "2022 __ Open" [gender]'s singles tennis title."

I appreciate that kind of format, as I personally believe the actual tournament's champion should be the main point of the article and is much more memorable than invoking the defending champion first. We would essentially be burying the lead if we don't mention the actual winner from the start, and Grand Slam articles kind of make that point. But I have observed this format very sporadically applied to other tennis tournament articles, because there seem to be most editors that prefer the following format, and even use the reason or excuse of "customary order" or something like that:
"[Defending champion] was the defending champion, but lost in the [round] to [Who they lost to]. [Winner] won the title, defeating [Finalist] in the final, [score]."

So, given that I'm comparably new to the tennis community on Wikipedia, I wanted to hear from you your thoughts and if there was ever a consensus that was decided long ago when it came to this specific issue. We may disagree on this, but I would love to discuss and look forward to hearing your insights. I appreciate your time!Tunestoons (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tunestoons: Welcome and thanks. It's not easy creating compromises here, and I've had my share of times that things just didn't work. But more often than not I can get some sort of compromise on things. I do it in real life so perhaps in translates here too. Things to keep in mind. You can be bold in a change and simply do it, but if even one person objects then don't change it back and instead bring it to either the article talk page or, if it's more broad in complexity, bring it to Tennis Project talk. There many good minds that may be able to come up with something everyone can semi-agree to or explain why your idea is not a good one.

My mantra is usually, what is best for our readers within the context of an encyclopedia that summarizes facts? I recently failed to convince others on the bad use of using lower case rather than what I thought was best, upper case for certain titles and sub titles. That happens. I still know in my heart it's wrong, but I'm a team player and there are thousands of other things that need fixing. I move on to work on other things. You also have to be willing to walk away from repeated verbal abuse. It's not worth it to converse with those nasty editors when there are so many good editors here you can gain a rapport with.

Now specifically to your point of "[Winner] defeated [Finalist] in the final, [score], to win the "2022 __ Open" [gender]'s singles tennis title." That was brought about at Tennis Project by several new readers and administrator queries. We needed the most important item first and foremost... winner/loser/score. It was also pointed out that these are stand-alone articles and readers didn't know what the event was or even what the sport was! We fixed that by changing all the major tournaments to the aforementioned format. That is the defacto standard for all tournaments now. The wording can be changed a bit so it's not a cookie-cutter experience, but we need winner/loser/score/tennis/event in the lead sentence. There are hundreds of events that have not been changed yet, but I fix them when I edit them for other reasons. They should never start with a defending champion's loss unless it is before the tournament has completed and other info isn't available yet.

I hope that helps a little and welcome onboard. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Thank you so much for getting back to me and for sharing some of your wisdom as a veteran editor in the tennis space here. I relate to and will try to continue to live by what you said about needing to just maintain the teamplayer atmosphere and trying to forego the smallest of things for the greater good.

Now, as for how you answered my question about the article format starting with the "[Winner] defeated...", I'm happy to see we are on the same page. In early-January, I had been begun modifying some of the articles for smaller tournaments in this fashion, because I share the exact same thought process as you when it comes to introducing each tournament article with "winner/loser/score/tennis/event" in the lead. The biggest thing for me is that by starting the article this way, it frames the rest of the article more organically, because the new champion's achievements or records would be better contextualized or emphasized.

However, many of my edits to bring it to this format have been reverted in the past, simply because the excuse was "customary order" or "this is how it's always been done" (meaning -- the other way, with the article beginning by stating the loss of the defending champion). Since I didn't want to create an active edit war with the person reverting those edits, I just let them be. What are your thoughts on actively making these edits to these tournaments (the 250s or lesser-known 500s are most neglected in this regard)? I do want to edit, but again, it's the edit warring aspect I really feel like avoiding. Thanks for sparing your time in getting back to me.Tunestoons (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tunestoons: One thing I would do is not change a bunch of 2022 articles since an editor will see all the prior ones and say its not consistent. Start with the oldest of a tournament and work your way to the present... then do the same with other tournaments. All the four majors are already fixed (mostly by me), it's the lesser events that need work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Thanks again. Do you recall when the discussion took place at the Tennis Project when it came time to making the consensus for the tournament article word ordering? I want to have something handy to cite in response to claims otherwise. I really appreciate the guidance. Tunestoons (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tunestoons:I cant recall all the talk. It may have first been brought up back in 2016. Many got fixed by me and listed per this edit. There were more discussions but it was set by 2019. Also, no need to put replyto on my own talk page. I get notified regardless. Cheers.Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) can you give me the link to the discussion on the WP:Tennis about said topic. I noticed in the current tournaments' draws, editors are still reverting to the old format of listing defending champions first and then "winner/loser/score/tennis/event", instead of vice versa as it had been discussed on the Tennis Project, so I can use it as a reference for persistent editors, sticking to the old format. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Beginning of decades quandary

Hey, @Fyunck(click). I have been looking at the different decade-related stats on tennis pages. And just can't understand why are decades considered as beginning from ###0 and not ###1 and the many, well, all incorrect records statistics therein. That would mean changing and consequently correcting ALL decade records accordingly so they fit the format. This would in turn affect many articles, which are pertinent to records spanning multiple decades, for instance, Nadal being No. 1 in 3 different decades, Serena winning a title in 3 different decades, etc.

Do you think it's worth to start this kind of discussion on the WP:Tennis project, or not? You think others would just disregard this proposal as ludacris or it may actually gain traction? We are talking about a lot of records and statistics, spanning not just across tennis' history but also sports' history, in general. I hope this makes sense. Looking forward to hearing from you. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: It's one of those things I guess. In life whenever you watch things on tv such as CNN's "The 80s", it's always 1980-1989, not 1981-1990. Even the change of the millennium was debated in newspapers as whether it started on January 1, 2000 or January 1, 2001. I think 99% of people would say that Jan 1 thru Dec 31 1980 was part of the decade of the 80s. I'm not particularly partial either way but my guess is that it would be an avalanche in favor of 1980-1989. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

If you were in Nadal's or Serena's shoes and someone called out that they were actually No. 1 in 2 decades or won a title in 2 different decades, instead of 3, and it got ratified and accepted, would you object such claim or would you disregard it as something menial, not important and moved on with your life? I am asking, because I will be making said section on this very topic in tennis articles, where none are present as of now. And I am with the whole 21th century began on 1 Jan, 2001, not 2000, which, as you've guessed it by now, goes against my beliefs....not that this particular belief is of some big relevance, or anything. It's just that I want to make sure, I am siding with the majority here, make sure I am on the same page with the masses...you catch my drift...So, yeah. That is my thought process on this decennial quandary, so to speak. Thanks for putting your 2 cents on the matter. Cheers, Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: You can always put it up at Tennis Project and see what you get. I'm thinking it'll be overwhelming 80-89 as being a decade. Plus wikipedia itself has an article on the 1980s that says the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) Thanks for the article link. Had no idea there was an entire article on said topic. Cheers, Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility issues

@Fyunck(click) I know you are well educated in the Accessibility department on Wiki, so I was wondering is align=center accessibility friendly or is the style="text-align:center" parameter/function a more common way of editing, that would not pause the screen reader, that the impaired use. The latter being used in modifying data cells, not styles that set the rule for an entire table. Just making sure, all the table I make/change meet the Accessibility criteria. What is your opinion on this? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: I was under the impression that "align" was deprecated in html4 and obsolete in html5 and that it should usually be done as td style="text-align: center;". Not just for accessibility but all html. It may still work in many instances but soon enough it will just come back with an error.Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Luckily it does not give out any Linter errors. So, at least that's something. As for HTML compatibility, that is beyond me. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: It may not give errors but align should never be used anymore when writing new code as shown right here, and also right here. Sort of like "bgcolor" will still work but should not be used in new coding. I think they still work in accessibility because of backwards compatibility with screen readers... but that's right now. What happens in a couple years when a new screen reader comes out that doesn't understand bgcolor or align? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) Revamp the Lint Error recognition system, so it marks also, align and bgcolor as obsolete markups, and start using style="text-align:XYZ" style="background:XYZ" from that point forwards? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess that could work. As long as old coding keeps working in articles that haven't been touched in years, and new articles work but get a lint error. That way it hopefully gets fixed as soon as it's created. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, hopefully. It's the little things that count. Scope=row, scope=col,...and so on and so forth, that make the screen readers' impaired users' lives a little bit easier and does stop abruptly after every mising scope parameter, or whatever.. come to think of it. Have you been in contact with any visually impaired here on Wiki, to hear what screen readers they use? I would like to test out a few for myself just to see what they look/sound like. Do you have any in mind, any proposals for one? Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's been awhile since had conversations with a couple resident screen reader users but there is a tennis editor who uses one. I'll have to check my talk page history or search the tennis project talk history. I think JAWS and NVDA are still the dominant screen readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

But there is a tennis editor who uses one. Yes, please do. I know there is this blind admin on the Wiki, that specializes in tennis, if I am not mistaking. He has a fully fledged user page with photo and everything. Cannot remember his name for the life of me. Do you, by any chance, know what his name is? Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: Administrator User:Graham87 has checked tennis charts of ours from time to time. He used to use JAWS but that may have changed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Him. I am gonna contact him to see what are his thoughts on the align markup compatibility with screen readers, scope=row,...etc. Thanks, @Fyunck(click) Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Any vertical table resorters?

@Fyunck(click), do you know if there is a tool that rearranges tables' columns (vertically) from ascending to descending other and vice versa, the same way the current resorter is used for horizontal rearrangement. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: I do not know of any but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Would be cool if I could find one. Not skilled in Java scripts to attempt in making one. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

How do you clean typographical errors?

Hey there, @Fyunck(click):. I have noticed that you've been fixing en- and em-dashes, i.e. typographical errors, on various different pages. Tell me, which tool/software do you use to fix the errors in Wikipedia articles? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: My gosh, I've used that script for so long I had completely forgotten how or where to find it. It always shows a "-" sign at the top of every wikipedia page I go to (right next to history) and I simply click it to fix all the dashes. I found it the same way you did when I noticed and editor always using it to fix things. It's a script found right here. You simply insert the script into your javascript common.js page and away you go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) I have both AutoEd and the dashes script in my common.js page, which are, unfortunately, not independent from each other, so I will have to turn one off, before using the other. But still, thanks for the link to the script. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Peng Shuai

How do you see this? Do I ask them to seek dispute resolution or just partial block somebody? Are there any MOS or BLP violations in either contending version? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I didn't follow every single change that was going back and forth but I was getting sick and tired of content changing every day for months. It wasn't vandalism per say, it is a content dispute. There are multiple players but the key players are FobTown and CurryCity. They need a timeout from that article to work on their difference only on the talk page. Whenever a page gets locked there is always disgruntleness on the timing. I've been on the wrong end in the past, but that's the way it goes.

My own thought on the article is there are no massive MOS or BLP violations; the lead where you locked it is about right in length but they should be able to come to an agreement in talk or dispute resolution to exact wording. The section on "Sexual assault allegation and disappearance" is ridiculously long and trivial. Had I written it, it would probably be 1/3 the size. Readers can get finer details by following the outside sources.

This all said, I hate blocks without every chance. I think a dispute resolution or 3rd party could help. I would make it clear that whenever the lock is lifted anymore shenanigans and the hammer will come down. Those are my thoughts for what it's worth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Worth a lot. One of the editors I see around, so I value your insight. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

NSports

Hey, I know you disagree with the outcome of the sports RfC, but constantly asking why things are being changed even after it's been explained to you and continuing to advocate for presumed notability when you know the consensus is against it [1][2][3][4] is beginning to become disruptive. Please stop. Consensus is to change "presumed notable" to "significant coverage is likely to exist" and to remove any sport-specific criteria based on mere participation. If you have any questions about how that was decided or why we are changing a long-standing guideline, you might consider reaching out to the editor who closed the RfC, one of us who are working on implementation, or asking at the Teahouse, but do not raise these questions in the middle of a discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 12:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

There are administrators also advocating for Presumed Notable. That it's inherent with guidelines. All I'm saying is that if it's not presumed notable then it is ridiculous to also remove participation. I will continue to advocate for one or the other. I'm flexible but will not go to the side of craziness no matter how it was closed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tennis tournament records and statistics

The article Tennis tournament records and statistics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:NLIST and WP:REDUNDANT. See men's and women's records articles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thefamouspeople as a reference

Hi Fyunck(click). I noticed that you recently used thefamouspeople.com as a source for biographical information in Natalie Dormer. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.--Hipal (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Survivor Tables

Thank you for your adjustments to the contestants table on Survivor: Winners at War. I could not for the life of me figure out how to "unbold" data in that first column, and I really didn't want to create a separate column for the players' previous seasons. The table is already too wide as it is. Bgsu98 (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bgsu98:Yeah I'm not happy with how wide the table is now, but I can't figure out how to do it any better with the odd game play that season. The unbolding was tricky to remember how to do it. Easy if left as |scope but not when left as !scope. Perhaps the first column could be set as pixels and narrower... but not too narrow as to cause three lines of text? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There's only the two seasons with the Edge of Extinction, but there are a few seasons with Redemption Island that I haven't gotten to yet, and those are going to cause the table to swell outward. Check out the edits someone just made to Survivor: All-Stars. I'm not sure I like having a separate column for players' previous seasons, especially with a season like Survivor: Winners at War where the table is already overly wide. Bgsu98 (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bgsu98:And you beat me to it on All-stars.... I was going to fix it the same way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The † symbol means that the contestant has died. Bgsu98 (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bgsu98:There is no key for that and I'm not sure that info is relevant to the episode. Do we start adding that symbol to tables of Wimbledon winners to show who has died? Or to the list of List of Olympic medalists in mens water polo. That seems out of place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I was just answering your question. There probably should be a key if that information is going to be listed. Bgsu98 (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bgsu98:I understand, thanks. I had no idea what it was. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it may be inappropriate to each season article. Bgsu98 (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your edit. I didn't know how to fix it. CABF45 (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fake rfc

Hi, I got notified by your rfc. Since it was in sandbox space I nowikid the rfc tag. Were you trying to test something or what? You can test this stuff on https://test.wikipedia.org/. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 00:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: Oops. I worked on it in the sandbox and didnt delete when I moved to mainspace. The actual RfC is at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Republic of China is not simply Taiwan.

You disagree with me on this. Elaborate. 84.26.190.194 (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Everyone disagrees with you. Read the talk page archives of Taiwan and convince people there.... not just me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

A1750501587

thinks I'm stupid. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: LOL... as I am just now reading the dialog...yeah. I'm guessing you deal with a lot of difficult "grey areas" but this was a slam dunk. They'll probably just create a new account, but thanks for the help here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Performance timelines

I'm in the process of creating a tool that automatically generates performance timelines tables for players. The manual updating is painful at best because you never know if the counts are accurate.

I have a couple of questions:

1) Team events (Davis Cup, ATP Cup, etc.) are excluded from the tournament count (tournaments played, SR), right?
2) Next Gen Finals results do count, yes?

Rubyaxles (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe you are correct on both. Someone tried this before but they couldn't make them look exactly like our tables. Make sure you keep the tennis project talk page informed so members can see the finished form. As far as the counts being accurate, we would still need to insert the correct info so if someone put in garbage we would still get garbage. One of the tough things is tournaments names change so we need to have flexibility. And sometimes ATP/WTA numbers are wrong so we need to be able to over-ride. I also assume you are talking about the big charts on the career statistics pages, not the smaller Grand Slam tournament charts on the player's main page? Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I realize it's a huge undertaking but I think it will be worth it in the end. The idea is the tool would be able to generate both the big charts and the GS summaries. Thanks!

Rubyaxles (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of SIGNY for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SIGNY is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SIGNY until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Please allow me finish my edit

You are surprisingly quick removing my edits. Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Xx236: It should be finished before you post. If I'm online and I see a poor post I tend to remove it. There was no query, no recommendation, no nothing. And on a talk page that has had issues with trolling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Need input on the WTA Tour sidebar restructuring proposal

Hey there, @Fyunck(click):. I was going to post this in the Tennis wikiproject talk page, but wanted to get your opinion first on the matter to see, whether it's even worth proposing such a drastic re-design, in the first place, or will it be a fruitless endeavour.

I would like to restructure the current WTA Tour sidebar so it closely mimics/matches the ATP Tour one. The problem is, the many WTA tournament categories are divided by eras: 1990–2008, 2009–2020,.., per name change, rather than just by categories: WTA 1000, 500, 250, etc. In 2021, the WTA followed in ATP Tour's footsteps of the naming conventions for their tournament categories, matching the aforementioned categories with the ATP ones, wherein it even updated the old tourn. categories with the newest names on its website. (example: 1990 WTA Tour)
The steps needed to execute this change are:

1. Merge Tier I and Premier Mandatory/5 tournaments in the Premier tourn. page in WTA 1000;

2. Merge Tier II and Premier tournaments in the Premier tourn. page in WTA 500;

3. Move WTA Premier Mandatory/5 contents to WTA 1000, redirect Premier tournaments page to WTA 500,

4. Merge Tiers III, IV and V and International tourn. into WTA 250.

5. Reorganize WTA sidebar similar to the ATP one (using text alignment left or center).

WTA Tour sidebar
Current version Proposed version Category:WTA Tour navigational boxes For reference

My question is: Do you think this will be a better improvement, practically and aesthetically, for the WTA Tour's sidebar? Will other editors be on board with this? The end goal is to make the sidebar more convenient for future readers, so it's more user-friendly and less jumbled up, straight to the point. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: I like the cleaner look very much, and with the Grand Slam tournaments on top. I guess my concern would be about the few articles that use the template (I think this only affects 12 articles). Wouldn't they each require a rewrite? I look at a page like WTA Tier IV tournaments where it talks all about Tier IV events with no correlation in the proposed chart. In the current chart we see that it was part of five tiers, but not so in the new chart. So while the prose talks about it merging, we don't see it in relation to other contemporary events. We also permanently lose links to the older aspect of the WTA tour. It makes it much more difficult to ever find WTA Tier IV tournaments or WTA International tournaments. I'm wondering if your new chart should be the main chart we see for ease of use, but that we may need a separate chart only for defunct aspects of the WTA Tour. If we did that the articles wouldn't need a rewrite. Or perhaps we use something like your new charts for current aspects of the tour and give it a new template name? Then use the old template on pages such as WTA Tier IV tournaments? The other thing about both charts. The ITF, Davis Cup, and Billie Jean King Cup aren't part of the WTA yet we keep them in the charts for convenience. I have no issue with that. But then why is the Hopman Cup missing? It seems like it should be part of both charts until it is defunct. Those are my quick musings for the moment. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) I copied our opening dialog to the project's talk page to reach a consensus from the other editors. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Your username

Dammit, I know I've read the book it comes from, but I'm blanking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: LOL, it's spelled a hair differently but it's from "The Mote in God's Eye." Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Right. It's been decades since I last read it, so that's why I couldn't pull it up. "On one hand, on the other hand, on the gripping hand..." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Europe administrative ruling in effect notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GizzyCatBella🍁 11:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This is pure bias. Another editor is disrupting multiple other editors and long-standing passages, to the point of edit warring and potential blocking, and he is ignored and I get this curtesy message? Incredible and stunning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sedna

If you have RS's that Sedna is not a DP, please provide. Otherwise the refs we have in the article are sufficient to characterize it as one. — kwami (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:I supplied two on the talk page right off the bat. That should be sufficient for us to write a more balanced sentence. I didn't say we had to remove it, but at least inform our readers that it is more potential than reality. Are there more RS's.... sure are! We have Discover Magazine, and we have Physics.org. What I'm saying is there are enough sources that do not call it a dwarf planet that we should not sit there in the first sentence and call it one. This is one of those half-truths that make Wikipedia a problem for classroom usage. It stretches definitions to what we like rather than what actually is. Some call it a dwarf planet and some do not so we should not take sides but rather call it as it is. We can say the some say it is dwarf planet, that it is likely a dwarf planet, that it is potentially a dwarf planet, etc. But we should not use the definite "it is a dwarf planet." Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

We may have sources that don't mention that people are mammals, but that doesn't mean we're going to say that there's some doubt about that. Unless you have a RS that people aren't mammals, there's nothing to balance. — kwami (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to working backwards on this. Sources don't say "this isn't a dwarf planet", that's not the way sources work. We have sources that are telling us Sedna is a "potential Dwarf planet" or a "likely dwarf planet." That is all that's required. Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

No, what we have are sources saying that while contradicting themselves on what objects are or are not dwarf planets, or which seem to be under the impression that the IAU is in the business of recognising dwarf planets when it is not. Sources that make false statements are clearly not reliable. Double sharp (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Woo hoo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Need your opinion

What are your thoughts on the following 2 tables? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Tables

Outdoor hardcourt   Clay   Indoor hardcourt   Defunct IND (Indian Wells) MIA (Miami) MON (Monte Carlo) MAD (Madrid) ROM (Rome) CAN (Canada) CIN (Cincinnati) SHA (Shanghai) GER (Stuttgart) STO (Stockholm) PAR (Paris) Titles Player 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th Years Strike rate IND MIA MON MAD HAM ROM CAN CIN SHA MAD GER STO PAR 38 Novak Djokovic 5 6 2 3 - 6 4 2 4 - - - 6 2007–2022 9/9 36 Rafael Nadal 3 - 11 4 1 10 5 1 - 1 - - - 2005–2021 7/9 28 Roger Federer 5 4 - 2 4 - 2 7 2 1 - - 1 2002–2019 17 Andre Agassi 1 6 - - - 1 3 3 - 1 - - 2 1990–2004 14 Andy Murray - 2 - 1 - 1 3 2 3 1 - - 1 2008–2016 11 Pete Sampras 2 3 - - - 1 - 3 - - - - 2 1992–2000 5/9 8 Thomas Muster - 1 3 - - 3 - - - - 1 - - 1990–1997 4/9 7 Michael Chang 3 1 - - - - 1 2 - - - - - 1990–1997 5 Marcelo Ríos 1 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - - - - 1997–1999 5/9 Gustavo Kuerten - - 2 - 1 1 - 1 - - - - - 1999–2001 4/9 Boris Becker - - - - - - - - - - 1 3 1 1990–1996 2/9 Jim Courier 2 1 - - - 2 - - - - - - - 1991–1993 3/9 Marat Safin - - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - 3 2000–2004 Andy Roddick - 2 - - - - 1 2 - - - - - 2003–2010 Alexander Zverev - - - 2 - 1 1 1 - - - - - 2017–2021 4/9 4 Stefan Edberg 1 - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - 1 1990–1992 Andriy Medvedev - - 1 - 3 - - - - - - - - 1994–1997 2/9 Juan Carlos Ferrero - - 2 - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 2001–2003 3/9 Daniil Medvedev - - - - - - 1 1 1 - - - 1 2019–2021 4/9 77 champions in 289 events as of the 2022 Paris Masters. Masters' time slots indicated with 1st–9th column names. }}

Hard         Clay         Carpet BOC (Boca Raton) DUB (Dubai) DOH (Doha) IND (Indian Wells) MIA (Miami) CHA (Charleston) MAD (Madrid) BER (Berlin) ROM (Rome) CAN (Canada) SAN (San Diego) CIN (Cincinnati) PHI (Philadelphia) MOS (Moscow) TOK (Tokyo) WUH (Wuhan) ZUR (Zürich) BEI (Beijing) Titles Player BOC DUB DOH IND MIA CHA MAD BER ROM CAN SAN CIN PHI MOS TOK WUH ZÜR BEI Years 23 Serena Williams - - - 2 8 1 2 - 4 3 - 2 - - - - - 1 1999–2016 17 Martina Hingis - - - 1 2 2 - 1 2 2 - - - 1 5 - 1 - 1997–2007 15 Steffi Graf 1 - - 1 3 1 - 5 - 2 - - 1 - 1 - - - 1990–1996 14 Maria Sharapova - - 1 2 - - 1 - 3 - 2 1 - - 2 - 1 1 2005–2015 11 Lindsay Davenport - - - 2 - - - - - - 1 - - - 4 - 4 - 1997–2005 10 Justine Henin - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - 2 - - - - - - 2 - 2002–2007 Victoria Azarenka - - 2 2 3 - - - - - - 2 - - - - - 1 2009–2020 9 Conchita Martínez - - - - - 2 - 2 4 - - - 1 - - - - - 1993–2000 Monica Seles - - - - 2 - - 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - 1990–2000 Venus Williams - 2 - - 3 1 - - 1 - - - - - - 1 1 - 1998–2015 Simona Halep - 1 1 1 - - 2 - 1 3 - - - - - - - - 2014–2022 8 Petra Kvitová - - 1 - - - 3 - - 1 - - - - 1 2 - - 2011–2018 7 Kim Clijsters - - - 2 2 - - - 1 1 - 1 - - - - - - 2003–2010 6 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario - - - - 2 1 - - 1 2 - - - - - - - - 1992–1996 Amélie Mauresmo - - - - - - - 2 2 2 - - - - - - - - 2001–2005 Jelena Janković - - - 1 - 1 - - 2 - - 1 - 1 - - - - 2007–2010 Caroline Wozniacki - 1 - 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - 2 2010–2018 5 Gabriela Sabatini 1 - - - - 2 - - 2 - - - - - - - - - 1991–1992 Mary Pierce - - - - - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - 2 - - - - 1997–2005 Dinara Safina - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - - - 1 - - - 2008–2009 Agnieszka Radwańska - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - 2 2011–2016 Iga Świątek - - 1 1 1 - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - 2021–2022 Titles Player BOC DUB DOH IND MIA CHA MAD BER ROM CAN SAN CIN PHI MOS TOK WUH ZUR BEI Years Players with 5+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in bold. 67 champions in 279 events as of the 2022 Guadalajara Open. }}.

References

@Qwerty284651: Overall, fine. Two things stand out to me as improper. I'm not a fan of anything all caps so I would change all the three letter events to only having the first letter capitalized (along with the key). The keys also have color as the only descriptor for the court type, which goes against Wikipedia accessibility guidelines. Also, the ladies' table has a weird second row of only sorting arrows. That may be fine per MOS (I don't know) but I've never seen it done that way before. I'm guessing it's to help keep the table narrower. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I know you are a proponent of WCAG-friendly colored headers which should have either symbols or by bolding/italicizing the text in the headers. Given they are headers, they are automatically bolded, which leaves with only 1 option, symbols. Adding those would expand the table, though. Lets say we went for symbols. Which ones would you use for the court legends? Also, the "Defunct" legend has a white background. Do we leave the inactive tourn. without symbols since it's blank, literally white, or do we add a symbol regardless of the color?

You prefer the initial letter being capitalized ONLY in abbreviations instead of having them all caps (which is pretty much a stylistic individual's choice). I usually have abbr. capitalized so they stand out more, are easily caught by readers skimming through the article. I will try out your proposal and see how that pans out.

As for the "weird row of sorting arrows", you were a part of the convo on the Projects talkpage, but you've obviously forgotten about it. PrimeHunter actually suggested I try out the separate sorting row thing for the very same table, I am asking for an opinion here, back when I was still asking for suggestions BEFORE I even created the singles/doubles articles. And, yes, the main purpose was to make the table sortable, while also retaining its width. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: As I said, the column sort as it's own row just looks a bit weird, but not that there's anything wrong with that. I don't recall saying I like a row with only sorting. I'd rather there be no sorting but if you prefer it I'll digress to your judgement. In this particular case I would dump the headers colors completely rather than burden the boxes with symbols. I might put a note section below that mentioned which events were played on clay/grass/hard court/indoors. But yes, when it comes to the colorblind and screen-readers, I always try to err on the side of helping all our readers understand our charts as best as possible, even if sometimes it's a little worse for us sighted folk. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), I applied proposals to both tables.

I added 3 options for the tournaments' surfaces and decided they best belong in the Men's Masters article's lead — which could go for some more info — to not clutter up the footnotes list. Among the 3 options I am leaning towards C. How about you? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Updated versions

ATP Option A:   Outdoor hardcourt: Indian Wells, Miami, Canada, Cincinnati, Shanghai   Indoor hardcourt: Stuttgart, Madrid (2002–08), Paris   Clay: Hamburg, Monte Carlo, Madrid, Rome   Carpet: Stockholm, Stuttgart (1995–97) Option B: Since ATP Tour's inception in 1990, twelve tournaments have been held so far on three different surfaces: Hard:   a. outdoor: Indian Wells, Miami, Canada, Cincinnati and Shanghai;   b. indoor: Stuttgart, Madrid (2002–08) and Paris; Clay: Hamburg, Monte Carlo, Madrid and Rome; Carpet: Stockholm and Stuttgart (1995–97). Option C: Since ATP Tour's inception in 1990, twelve tournaments have been held so far on three different surfaces: Hard outdoors: (Indian Wells, Miami, Canada, Cincinnati and Shanghai); indoors: (Stuttgart, Madrid (2002–08) and Paris). Clay: (Hamburg, Monte Carlo, Madrid and Rome). Carpet: (Stockholm and Stuttgart (1995–97)). Ind (Indian Wells) Mia (Miami) Mon (Monte Carlo) Mad (Madrid) Rom (Rome) Can (Canada) Cin (Cincinnati) Sha (Shanghai) Ger (Stuttgart) Sto (Stockholm) Par (Paris) Titles Player 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th Years Strike rate Ind Mia Mon Mad Ham Rom Can Cin Sha Mad Ger Sto Par 38 Novak Djokovic 5 6 2 3 - 6 4 2 4 - - - 6 2007–2022 9/9 36 Rafael Nadal 3 - 11 4 1 10 5 1 - 1 - - - 2005–2021 7/9 28 Roger Federer 5 4 - 2 4 - 2 7 2 1 - - 1 2002–2019 17 Andre Agassi 1 6 - - - 1 3 3 - 1 - - 2 1990–2004 14 Andy Murray - 2 - 1 - 1 3 2 3 1 - - 1 2008–2016 11 Pete Sampras 2 3 - - - 1 - 3 - - - - 2 1992–2000 5/9 8 Thomas Muster - 1 3 - - 3 - - - - 1 - - 1990–1997 4/9 7 Michael Chang 3 1 - - - - 1 2 - - - - - 1990–1997 5 Marcelo Ríos 1 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - - - - 1997–1999 5/9 Gustavo Kuerten - - 2 - 1 1 - 1 - - - - - 1999–2001 4/9 Boris Becker - - - - - - - - - - 1 3 1 1990–1996 2/9 Jim Courier 2 1 - - - 2 - - - - - - - 1991–1993 3/9 Marat Safin - - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - 3 2000–2004 Andy Roddick - 2 - - - - 1 2 - - - - - 2003–2010 Alexander Zverev - - - 2 - 1 1 1 - - - - - 2017–2021 4/9 4 Stefan Edberg 1 - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - 1 1990–1992 Andriy Medvedev - - 1 - 3 - - - - - - - - 1994–1997 2/9 Juan Carlos Ferrero - - 2 - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 2001–2003 3/9 Daniil Medvedev - - - - - - 1 1 1 - - - 1 2019–2021 4/9 Titles Player Ind Mia Mon Mad Ham Rom Can Cin Sha Mad Ger Sto Par Years S/R Players with 4+ titles listed. Active players and records are denoted in bold. 77 champions in 289 events as of the 2022 Paris Masters. Masters' time slots indicated with 1st–9th column names. WTA Boc (Boca Raton) Dub (Dubai) Doh (Doha) Ind (Indian Wells) Mia (Miami) Cha (Charleston) Mad (Madrid) Ber (Berlin) Rom (Rome) Can (Canada) San (San Diego) Cin (Cincinnati) Phi (Philadelphia) Mos (Moscow) Tok (Tokyo) Wuh (Wuhan) Zur (Zürich) Bei (Beijing) Titles Player Boc Dub Doh Ind Mia Cha Mad Ber Rom Can San Cin Phi Mos Tok Wuh Zur Bei Years 23 Serena Williams - - - 2 8 1 2 - 4 3 - 2 - - - - - 1 1999–2016 17 Martina Hingis - - - 1 2 2 - 1 2 2 - - - 1 5 - 1 - 1997–2007 15 Steffi Graf 1 - - 1 3 1 - 5 - 2 - - 1 - 1 - - - 1990–1996 14 Maria Sharapova - - 1 2 - - 1 - 3 - 2 1 - - 2 - 1 1 2005–2015 11 Lindsay Davenport - - - 2 - - - - - - 1 - - - 4 - 4 - 1997–2005 10 Justine Henin - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - 2 - - - - - - 2 - 2002–2007 Victoria Azarenka - - 2 2 3 - - - - - - 2 - - - - - 1 2009–2020 9 Conchita Martínez - - - - - 2 - 2 4 - - - 1 - - - - - 1993–2000 Monica Seles - - - - 2 - - 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - 1990–2000 Venus Williams - 2 - - 3 1 - - 1 - - - - - - 1 1 - 1998–2015 Simona Halep - 1 1 1 - - 2 - 1 3 - - - - - - - - 2014–2022 8 Petra Kvitová - - 1 - - - 3 - - 1 - - - - 1 2 - - 2011–2018 7 Kim Clijsters - - - 2 2 - - - 1 1 - 1 - - - - - - 2003–2010 6 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario - - - - 2 1 - - 1 2 - - - - - - - - 1992–1996 Amélie Mauresmo - - - - - - - 2 2 2 - - - - - - - - 2001–2005 Jelena Janković - - - 1 - 1 - - 2 - - 1 - 1 - - - - 2007–2010 Caroline Wozniacki - 1 - 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - 2 2010–2018 5 Gabriela Sabatini 1 - - - - 2 - - 2 - - - - - - - - - 1991–1992 Mary Pierce - - - - - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - 2 - - - - 1997–2005 Dinara Safina - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - - - 1 - - - 2008–2009 Agnieszka Radwańska - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - 2 2011–2016 Iga Świątek - - 1 1 1 - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - 2021–2022 Titles Player Boc Dub Doh Ind Mia Cha Mad Ber Rom Can San Cin Phi Mos Tok Wuh Zur Bei Years Players with 5+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in bold. 67 champions in 279 events as of the 2022 Guadalajara Open. }}

References

On first look I agree with your choice "c". Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

And what do you think about the tables? Looking better now? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

New comments

@ForzaUV:, I reverted your edit on Masters' page. This discussion is the reason why. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV:, read this discussion. Don't want to engage into edit wars over a table. Doensn't mean that if things've always been like this, that they can't be changed. If it doesn't meet MOS policy or otherwise obstructs the visually-impaired who use screen readers, then it needs to be changes so it meets those needs. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree completely with those edits, the chart was miles better and then utterly butchered. The chat made perfect sense and was more aesthetically pleasing and I see no improvements at all with the new version. ForzaUV (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, to quote Fyunck: "But yes, when it comes to the colorblind and screen-readers, I always try to err on the side of helping all our readers understand our charts as best as possible, even if sometimes it's a little worse for us sighted folk.". Some times you have to sacrifice aesthetics for the needs of others. That table isn't about us. It's about the readers, first and foremost; that includes the visually impaired, who are compelled to use screen readers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I even added a note in the lead to accommodate for the omitted info of the tournament's surfaces, defunct and not. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651, it was never a huge deal but even if it were it could easily be fixed. I'll make a small edit now to show you there was no need at all to change the whole structure of the section for such a minor info. Really, how can you think that the second chart here is an improvement over the original. It's beyond me.ForzaUV (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The edit is live now. Also, next time please start such discussions on the articles' talk pages not on the personal pages, especially when you want to make big changes like this one. ForzaUV (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I was asking about 2 similar tables from 2 different pages. Didn't want to open 2 discussions. Also, duly noted for next time about the article/personal talk page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Necessary sacrifices to accommodate to the visually-impaired. Even I was reluctant and very much against the changes, but after talking with Fyunck I realized it isn't all that bad, thereby accepting the new look. It's unpleasant to us with normal sight, but hey we can't disregard the ones who are less fortunate than us. Let's be honest here. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)