Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:TEN)
Latest comment: 7 days ago by Fyunck(click) in topic Example of one reason why Wikipedia increasingly loses respect
Shortcuts

1000 title leaders charts

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago81 comments4 people in discussion

I have been testing new versions in "Title leader" in women's singles to distinguish the active events from defunct. See below the original and 3 versions. Which one do you vote for?

I plan to implement this new design to the other 3 related articles once a consensus is reached:

1. men's singles

2. men's doubles and

3. women's doubles. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Original (events not categorized by active/defunct)

edit
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)
Player Titles Boc Dub Doh Ind Mia Cha Mad Ber Rom Can San Cin Phi Mos Tok Wuh Zur Bei Years
  Serena Williams 23 - - - 2 8 1 2 - 4 3 - 2 - - - - - 1 1999–2016
  Martina Hingis 17 - - - 1 2 2 - 1 2 2 - - - 1 5 - 1 - 1997–2007
  Steffi Graf 15 1 - - 1 3 1 - 5 - 2 - - 1 - 1 - - - 1990–1996
  Maria Sharapova 14 - - 1 2 - - 1 - 3 - 2 1 - - 2 - 1 1 2005–2015
  Lindsay Davenport 11 - - - 2 - - - - - - 1 - - - 4 - 4 - 1997–2005
  Justine Henin 10 - - - 1 - 2 - 3 - 2 - - - - - - 2 - 2002–2007
  Victoria Azarenka - - 2 2 3 - - - - - - 2 - - - - - 1 2009–2020
  Iga Świątek - - 2 2 1 - 1 - 3 - - - - - - - - 1 2021–2024
  Conchita Martínez 9 - - - - - 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
  Petra Kvitová - - 1 - 1 - 3 - - 1 - - - - 1 2 - - 2011–2023
  Kim Clijsters 7 - - - 2 2 - - - 1 1 - 1 - - - - - - 2003–2010
  Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 6 - - - - 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
  Gabriela Sabatini 5 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
  Aryna Sabalenka - - 1 - - - 2 - - - - - - - - 2 - - 2018–2023
Player Titles 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.
  • 73 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.

Version 1 (events listed in time slot chronological order)

edit
  Active tournaments
  Defunct tournaments
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)
Player Titles Boc Dub Doh Ind Mia Cha Mad Ber Rom Can San Cin Phi Mos Tok Wuh Zur Bei Years
  Serena Williams 23 - - - 2 8 1 2 - 4 3 - 2 - - - - - 1 1999–2016

Version 2 (active followed by defunct events)

edit
  Active tournaments
  Defunct tournaments
Dub (Dubai)
Doh (Doha)
Ind (Indian Wells)
Mia (Miami)
Mad (Madrid)
Rom (Rome)
Can (Canada)
Cin (Cincinnati)
Wuh (Wuhan)
Bei (Beijing)
Boc (Boca Raton)
Cha (Charleston)
Ber (Berlin)
San (San Diego)
Phi (Philadelphia)
Mos (Moscow)
Tok (Tokyo)
Zur (Zürich)
Player Titles Dub Doh Ind Mia Mad Rom Can Cin Wuh Bei Boc Cha Ber San Phi Mos Tok Zur Years
  Serena Williams 23 - - 2 8 2 4 3 2 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1999–2016

Version 3 (defunct followed by active events)

edit
  Active tournaments
  Defunct tournaments
Boc (Boca Raton)
Cha (Charleston)
Ber (Berlin)
San (San Diego)
Phi (Philadelphia)
Mos (Moscow)
Tok (Tokyo)
Zur (Zürich)
Dub (Dubai)
Doh (Doha)
Ind (Indian Wells)
Mia (Miami)
Mad (Madrid)
Rom (Rome)
Can (Canada)
Cin (Cincinnati)
Wuh (Wuhan)
Bei (Beijing)
Player Titles Boc Cha Ber San Phi Mos Tok Zur Dub Doh Ind Mia Mad Rom Can Cin Wuh Bei Years
  Serena Williams 23 - 1 - - - - - - - - 2 8 2 4 3 2 - 1 1999–2016

Timeshifter's table

edit
Note: I removed the table from the collapsible show/hide box. Horizontal sticky row headers do not work correctly inside the box in Firefox in Windows 10 Pro. Nor in Safari in my iphone SE 2020. See the table inside the box in this version of the page.
nowrap has been left in so that this table can be compared to Qwerty284651's table (without nowrap) in portrait view on cell phones. We both agree that nowrap should not be used. Nowrap messes up portrait view on mobile by making the location column take up too much width (see discussion). On desktop PC monitor (Windows 10 Pro) there appears to be a bug (in Firefox only) in dealing with nowrap that causes the table to be cut off slightly at the end of the row, and the horizontal scrollbar appears.

I edited version 2 (active followed by defunct events) to get the following table below. I lessened the height with this:

<div class="scroll-container" style="max-height:50vh;">

The article editors can decide what scrolling table height to use.

New readers: Sticky horizontal headers work. Lessen your browser window width to see. Also, feel free to start your own table section here, or in a user sandbox.

The table below (when nowrap is ignored or removed) is working perfectly on my desktop PC monitor in Windows 10 Pro. Also on my iphone SE 2020 (in portrait and landscape view). It has been tested in Safari, Firefox, Chrome, Edge, and Opera. The row and column headers are both sticky.

  Active tournaments
  Defunct tournaments
  • Bei (Beijing)
  • Ber (Berlin)
  • Boc (Boca Raton)
  • Can (Canada)
  • Cha (Charleston)
  • Cin (Cincinnati)
  • Doh (Doha)
  • Dub (Dubai)
  • Ind (Indian Wells)
  • Mad (Madrid)
  • Mia (Miami)
  • Mos (Moscow)
  • Phi (Philadelphia)
  • Rom (Rome)
  • San (San Diego)
  • Tok (Tokyo)
  • Wuh (Wuhan)
  • Zur (Zürich)
Player Titles Dub Doh Ind Mia Mad Rom Can Cin Wuh Bei Boc Cha Ber San Phi Mos Tok Zur Years
  Serena Williams 23 - - 2 8 2 4 3 2 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1999–2016
  Martina Hingis 17 - - 1 2 - 2 2 - - - - 2 1 - - 1 5 1 1997–2007
  Steffi Graf 15 - - 1 3 - - 2 - - - 1 1 5 - 1 - 1 - 1990–1996
  Maria Sharapova 14 - 1 2 - 1 3 - 1 - 1 - - - 2 - - 2 1 2005–2015
  Lindsay Davenport 11 - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 4 4 1997–2005
  Justine Henin 10 - - 1 - - - 2 - - - - 2 3 - - - - 2 2002–2007
  Victoria Azarenka - 2 2 3 - - - 2 - 1 - - - - - - - - 2009–2020
  Iga Świątek - 2 2 1 1 3 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 2021–2024
  Conchita Martínez 9 - - - - - 4 - - - - - 2 2 - 1 - - - 1993–2000
  Monica Seles - - - 2 - 2 4 - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1990–2000
  Venus Williams 2 - - 3 - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 1 1998–2015
  Simona Halep 1 1 1 - 2 1 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 2014–2022
  Petra Kvitová - 1 - 1 3 - 1 - 2 - - - - - - - 1 - 2011–2023
  Kim Clijsters 7 - - 2 2 - 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2003–2010
  Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 6 - - - 2 - 1 2 - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1992–1996
  Amélie Mauresmo - - - - - 2 2 - - - - - 2 - - - - - 2001–2005
  Jelena Janković - - 1 - - 2 - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - 2007–2010
  Caroline Wozniacki 1 - 1 - - - 1 - - 2 - - - - - - 1 - 2010–2018
  Gabriela Sabatini 5 - - - - - 2 - - - - 1 2 - - - - - - 1991–1992
  Mary Pierce - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1 - 1 - 2 - - 1997–2005
  Dinara Safina - - - - 1 1 1 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - 2008–2009
  Agnieszka Radwańska - - - 1 - - 1 - - 2 - - - - - - 1 - 2011–2016
  Aryna Sabalenka - 1 - - 2 - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - 2018–2023
Player Titles Dub Doh Ind Mia Mad Rom Can Cin Wuh Bei Boc Cha Ber San Phi Mos Tok Zur Years
  • Players with 5+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in bold.
  • 73 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.

--Timeshifter (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Qwerty284651's table

edit
  Active tournaments
  Defunct tournaments
  • Bei (Beijing)
  • Ber (Berlin)
  • Boc (Boca Raton)
  • Can (Canada)
  • Cha (Charleston)
  • Cin (Cincinnati)
  • Doh (Doha)
  • Dub (Dubai)
  • Ind (Indian Wells)
  • Mad (Madrid)
  • Mia (Miami)
  • Mos (Moscow)
  • Phi (Philadelphia)
  • Rom (Rome)
  • San (San Diego)
  • Tok (Tokyo)
  • Wuh (Wuhan)
  • Zur (Zürich)
Player Titles Dub Doh Ind Mia Mad Rom Can Cin Wuh Bei Boc Cha Ber San Phi Mos Tok Zur Years
  Serena Williams 23 - - 2 8 2 4 3 2 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1999–2016
  Martina Hingis 17 - - 1 2 - 2 2 - - - - 2 1 - - 1 5 1 1997–2007
  Steffi Graf 15 - - 1 3 - - 2 - - - 1 1 5 - 1 - 1 - 1990–1996
  Maria Sharapova 14 - 1 2 - 1 3 - 1 - 1 - - - 2 - - 2 1 2005–2015
  Lindsay Davenport 11 - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 4 4 1997–2005
  Justine Henin 10 - - 1 - - - 2 - - - - 2 3 - - - - 2 2002–2007
  Victoria Azarenka - 2 2 3 - - - 2 - 1 - - - - - - - - 2009–2020
  Iga Świątek - 2 2 1 1 3 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 2021–2024
  Conchita Martínez 9 - - - - - 4 - - - - - 2 2 - 1 - - - 1993–2000
  Monica Seles - - - 2 - 2 4 - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1990–2000
  Venus Williams 2 - - 3 - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 1 1998–2015
  Simona Halep 1 1 1 - 2 1 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 2014–2022
  Petra Kvitová - 1 - 1 3 - 1 - 2 - - - - - - - 1 - 2011–2023
  Kim Clijsters 7 - - 2 2 - 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2003–2010
  Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 6 - - - 2 - 1 2 - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1992–1996
  Amélie Mauresmo - - - - - 2 2 - - - - - 2 - - - - - 2001–2005
  Jelena Janković - - 1 - - 2 - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - 2007–2010
  Caroline Wozniacki 1 - 1 - - - 1 - - 2 - - - - - - 1 - 2010–2018
  Gabriela Sabatini 5 - - - - - 2 - - - - 1 2 - - - - - - 1991–1992
  Mary Pierce - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1 - 1 - 2 - - 1997–2005
  Dinara Safina - - - - 1 1 1 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - 2008–2009
  Agnieszka Radwańska - - - 1 - - 1 - - 2 - - - - - - 1 - 2011–2016
  Aryna Sabalenka - 1 - - 2 - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - 2018–2023
Player Titles Dub Doh Ind Mia Mad Rom Can Cin Wuh Bei Boc Cha Ber San Phi Mos Tok Zur Years
  • Players with 5+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in bold.
  • 73 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.

Added my version above. See current difference between your and my version. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

edit
Fixed sticky rows not working (sticky-Col1 -> sticky-col1). Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I prefer the chronological instead of the alphabetic order; it makes it easier to look for the event's name. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I leave that up to you. Though I don't understand what you mean by chronological order. I am not a tennis fan, and so I have no idea of the chronological order of events.
I prefer version 2. Since cell phone users will want to see active events first without having to scroll horizontally.
Also, it is nice to let the years sort too.
I removed any table formatting that did not seem to be needed. Or did not seem to be doing anything. Such as style="margin:o;"
What is that doing? And I think you meant to use a zero, and not the letter "o"
With the flat-list glossary it is not needed since the space between the glossary and table is not large. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The original order listed was the chronological before you changed it to alphabetic. The column order is the chronological order for the active and defunct events. Which is why I would like to see it in the legend above.
Added margin:0 to omit excess wrapping whitespace.
Agree: current events should be listed first.
Is the year column even necessary or can we do without it? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can change the flat-list glossary to chronological order. But alphabetical order is a lot more intuitive. Especially for casual tennis fans who may not know the chronological order of events. I assume that is what you mean by chronological order? And the flat list takes up less vertical space than {{Columns-list}}. That is important for cell phones.
I noticed that you have margin:0 within the table wikitext in your version 2 higher up. I removed it from my version 2. I don't see that it is doing anything at all.
On your version 2, the scrolling window stops prematurely in the horizontal direction. In my version 2 I can read all the columns. That is because I removed class=nowrap from the table.
I like having the year column. So I know what is the time period for each tennis player winning the titles. And I like it being sortable. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would leave nowrap and margin:0; I am using desktop version on mobile. It leaves a line of whitespace on my end (desktop version on mobile and regular desktop), which I bypass with margin:0 (without margin:0 vs. with margin:0). I agree with the glossary being in alphabetical order—more intuitive to the casual reader. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Replaced the plain flat-list glossary (• ''' -> * ''') with {{flatlist}}. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please do not edit my version 2 further. It is very confusing.
Edit your version 2 higher up. Then I can make comparisons.
{{flatlist}} is a good idea. I think I had a problem with it before. But now it is working. I will keep it in my version.
I removed margin:0 from my version 2 for comparison purposes.
Will be looking later in browsers on my cell phone.
--Timeshifter (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
In what way confusing? I feel a live update on the same table is faster and more efficient than each editing their own table.
Okay will not add margin:0 until further notice. I remembered sidebars/navboxes use html lists often so I looked into those. The best I could come up was flatlist. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking at the table's design and code, I am content with how it turned out, unless you have something else to add. nowrap and margin:0 are minor things and preferential. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am constantly tweaking. So I need to see what effect my changes are having. And I need to compare with your version 2. I can just scroll up and down this talk page to compare the 2. Plus WP:TALK requires not editing others' posts. I rarely do that except when it is something minor that I know they will appreciate. Like changing margin:o to margin:0 in your versions that still needed to be changed.

If margin:0 is of help to you, then I have no problem with you using it in your version 2, and in articles. I am just trying to see for myself what it is doing. Will do some cell phone work later. Same for nowrap. I think it causes problems sometimes on desktop screens. It may help on cell phones in this case.

I am using max-height. So the scrolling table window is less tall:

<div class="scroll-container" style="max-height:70vh;">

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I truncated version 1-3 to only display the notable changes and removed the rest (glossary flat-list and table's column headers) for better readibility. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
See:
User:Timeshifter/Sandbox255 - not scrolling.
User:Timeshifter/Sandbox256 - scrolling.
Margin:0 helps with the scrolling table. On my desktop monitor there is less space between the top of it and the section header when you push the scroll bar all the way to the top. That is all I have noticed so far. I haven't noticed any difference on my mobile browsers yet. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Exactly what I said. The difference can be noticed on desktop and the desktop mode on mobile browsers but not on mobile mode, because the latter defaults to Minerva skin which omits any stray whitespace. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Continued discussion

edit

I don't know if you noticed my note in my table section: "Note: I removed the table from the show/hide box. Horizontal sticky row headers do not work correctly inside the box in Firefox in Windows 10 Pro. Nor in Safari in my iphone SE 2020."

Look at your table in the show/hide box to see what I mean. I suggest removing the box so that others reading this thread can see that the horizontal row headers are sticky, and work correctly. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I get you. {{cot}}/{{cob}}, Collapse box, as you call it show/hide box, overrides disables overflow, thereby disabling and sticky headers (row and column). Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Btw, I propose we rename the tables to version 1 & 2, respectively, because with our names next to them sounds like we one the tables which goes against WP:OWN. We don't own anything on wiki, but rather share it with the rest of the community. You named them thusly to distinguish whose proposed design is but it may rub people the wrong way. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am not saying I own the table in the article, and so it doesn't go against WP:OWN. Saying "Timeshifter's table" in the heading just prevents others from editing the table in that section. And it allows me to continue editing it. Since the discussion is in another section it makes it easy. And it makes it simpler for others to follow the discussion. And others can come up with their own table ideas in their own sections if they want to. Or in a sandbox. I left a note to that effect in my table section. Going by table numbers alone could get very confusing.
I added back margin:0 to my table per discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with your request. It's just that I have been involved in a couple of table redesign discussions where we've gone through several versions and combinations for a result: all edits on 1 table or set of tables. But have it your way.
Imagine 10 editors, each with their own version. You would never reach a consensus that way. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I guess I could move my table to a sandbox. Maybe wait to see if more tables show up before consolidating on one here. I think we have the same table except for the height and nowrap. Amount of height is a decision of the article editors. So is nowrap. I prefer not using it, but I can live with it. Right now people can quickly compare our 2 tables on the same page to decide whether they want nowrap or not. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, I have changed my mind after looking at my cell phone again. Keep nowrap. I was torn between its effects on desktop PC screen versus mobile screen. Mobile wins out on this one. I am talking about mobile (not desktop) view on my iphone SE 2020. This iphone has a relatively smaller screen compared to other cell phones. And I use a larger text size. So if nowrap works on it, then it will also work fine on other cell phones. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Update: After additional testing on portrait mobile, I noticed that nowrap obstructs field of view of the table by 70% similar to tall column headers but for rows. (see with nowrap vs. without nowrap). Removed nowrap from my version. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
P.S. I am pretty much done on my end and I am happy with the version. I feel you and I are, sans margin:0, on the same page. I will give the new design a month to marinate until the next event from the list above. And, if noone objects will implement said design in all 4 pages. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's funny, I did not even think to look at such a wide table in portrait view on my cell. I just did, and since it is a smaller screen, and because I use a large font, I can only see one and a half data cells in the row. That is with nowrap on. I can see 4 and a half data cells without nowrap on. So nowrap can remain off as far as I am concerned.

Feel free to implement the changes now. Further discussion may make further improvements. But I see no reason to wait to implement these improvements. And we agree on keeping margin:0. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I primarily edit in desktop mode on mobile, so I always use portrait view. I doubt the majority of wiki visitors use landscape mode on mobile. 4 and a half cells is 9x more than half a data cell (on my end, goes from 5 to 8 cells) without nowrap. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
For me it is 3x more without nowrap in mobile mode in portrait view. 1.5 vs 4.5 data cells visible without horizontal scrolling.
You are right about the majority of wiki readers since most will have a larger cell phone than me.
I don't like to indent too many times. Messages end up being very long and narrow, and some occupy only a third of the width of the screen on my phone in portrait view.
I just noticed that {{outdent}} operates differently on my cell versus on desktop PC screen.
{{outdent|::::::}} - The colons are needed on my phone to get the outdent arrow to line up at all in portrait view. Unlike in desktop PC where they are not really needed. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
By the way, I left nowrap in my table so readers can compare our 2 tables in portrait view on cell phones. Your table does not have nowrap. That way readers can see why we both now oppose nowrap. I left a note about it before my table. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
{{od}} does behave differently on mobile vs. on desktop. Still, don't need to outdent every few comments. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have the smaller cell screen. So I think I would know when to do it. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Event name change discussion

edit

Comment - I'm not really into this whole chart so I have no say in how it's displayed. Whatever works for you two. I do have one complaint about these type of charts in general since you are in the process of fine-tuning this one. In almost all tennis articles we have had a big no-no to listing tournaments as only a city. They are the common tournament name, not a location. Why on earth would we retain the city here when it's being updated? It seems like the events could easily be two letter abbreviations. Indian Wells is the event name so it should be IW or IWO for Indian Wells Open. It should never be Rome since it's the Italian Open that everyone knows. So IT or IO or ITO. No Tokyo it's Pan Pacific Open. PP or PPO. No Beijing... it's the China Open. CO or CHO. And the key should not say the cities either but instead use the name of the event. Pretty much all our charts by consensus make sure we use the tournament name under tournaments. Why is this chart funky? I see Moscow and I have no idea what event that is... Kremlin Cup. Same with Berlin since it's the German Open. And the abbreviations should also link to the proper tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Event short names

edit

1. Bei (Beijing) - CH or CO or CN for China Open

2. Ber (Berlin) - GO or GR or GE for German Open

3. Boc (Boca Raton) - VF or FL for Virginia Slims of Florida

4. Can (Canada) - CO or CN or CA for Canadian Open

5. Cha (Charleston) - CL or CH or CO or CR for Charleston open

6. Chi (Chicago) - a tricky one....VC or AC or CI or CG for Virginia Slims of Chicago/Ameritech Cup

7. Cin (Cincinnati) - CI for Cincinnati Open

8. Doh (Doha) - QO or QA or QT for Qatar Open

9. Dub (Dubai) - DC or DU or DB for Dubai Championships

10. Ind (Indian Wells) - IW for Indian Wells Open

11. Mad (Madrid) - MA or MD for Madrid Open

12. Mia (Miami) - MI for Miami Open

13. Mon (Monte Carlo) - MO or MC for Monte-Carlo Masters

14. Mos (Moscow) - KC for Kremlin Cup

15. Gua (Guadalajara) - GU or GO or GD for Guadalajara

16. Par (Paris) - PA for Paris Masters

17. Phi (Philadelphia) - PH or VP for Virginia Slims of Philadelphia

18. Rom (Rome) - IT for Italian Open

19. San (San Diego) - SD or SC or SO for San Diego Open, Southern California Open

20. Sha (Shanghai) - SH for Shanghai Masters

21. Tok (Tokyo) - PP for Pan Pacific Open

22. Wuh (Wuhan) - WO or WU for Wuhan Open

23. Zur (Zurich) - ZU or ZO for Zurich Open

Note:
Added the missing Chicago and Guadalajara (now defunct) to the list. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
CH is proposed twice for China Open and Charleston Open. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Several are proposed twice as I didn't know what was best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Any other abbreviations you would like to propose or is that it? Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
If not, then let's vote on it. Which abbreviations do you opt for? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Added Monte Carlo, Shanghai and Paris. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Krmohan, Crows22, Wolbo, and Unnamelessness: to chip in. Which names and abbreviations would you replace them with? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not a tennis fan, so I don't have a clue about the column headers. 2-letter abbreviations would make the table less wide. That is a good thing. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I too am a proponent of narrow tables. The less horizontal scrolling the better. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
So if we do our best to make it two letters I added one set of choices above. And I think it should be Zurich since that is the English usage at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's not a big deal but in order I think I'd go with:

I propose the following abbr:
  1. CN
  2. GE
  3. FL
  4. CA
  5. CH
  6. VC
  7. CI
  8. QA
  9. DU
  10. IW
  11. MA
  12. MI
  13. MC
  14. KC
  15. GU
  16. PA
  17. PH
  18. IT
  19. SC
  20. SH
  21. PP
  22. WU
  23. ZU
Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Two items I was just looking at. China already has an official country code of CN, so I think more people would be familiar with equating China Open with CN, which leaves CH for Charleston. Likewise the country code for Qatar is QA so I will change my Qatar to QA also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I changed mine to CN and CH, respectively. Short names not yet decided upon:
6. VC or AC; 15. GD or GU; 19. SD or SC? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm fine with yours. Only question in looking at it is SC. Not because it doesn't work well with Southern California Open, but that article was recently changed to San Diego Open (tennis). The chart you have here is from 1990 onwards and the San Diego event was only a 1000 level from 2004-2007, and in that time it always had San Diego in the title. In fact from 1990 through today, only in 2013 was it called the Southern California Open. Because of the recent page move to San Diego Open (tennis) which these events will link to, it should probably be at SD or SO. I would personally stick with SD. Otherwise VC and GU are fine. I think I went with GD because some will not know how to spell Guadalajara and GD seemed to roll off the the tongue better for me. I had no clue what to do with the Virginia Slims of Chicago/ Ameritech Cup. I didn't want another "C" issue. VC I think works better now that I think of it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Let's stick with the events' current names and use abbreviations according to those. SD, GD (valid argument about others not knowing how to spell it - even though only contested twice; now defunct), AC...until they change again.
Because we are changing the names events, all 4 stat and record articles are using the event's names by city, I would leave the rest of the articles tables unchanged, maybe add something in lead along the lines of "The following is a list of the events played by sponsor name and city: <and then you list them of in one order or another> WTA German Open (Berlin),...Italian Open (Rome),..Virginia Slims of Florida (Boca Raton), etc." What do you think? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not my first choice, but yes we can also keep it as is. I would only put the sponsor name if we do at the main tournament page, which is almost never unless the sponsor name is the only name it ever had here. Also if you change to two letters, and all they are is the first two letters of a city name, the second letter should not be capitalized. CN sure, two word names like Indian Wells (IW) or San Diego (SD or Sa), but Rome would be Ro, Guadalahara would be GD or Gu. VC but Be. And what do we do with the Qatar Open? put it at Do for Doha? It is a bit strange that these are the only type of charts that do not use the tournament name. I find it confusing but I guess others don't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The 34 transcluded charts at WTA 1000 and ATP 1000 from the yearly pages and the 4x records and statistics pages all use the city name instead of the tournament, i.e. sponsorship name. I purposefully added the events' cities to save up on space in the charts — for conciseness, really.
The problem with the main 2 pages is that they contain 34 transcluded charts each. If we, let's say, change the city name to the current tournament's name, this would then require constant updating whenever a tournament changes its name in the future. That's I am hesitant on renaming them...it requires maintenance. With the current city names it's no problem. Even Cincy was once contested in a different city but still only Cincinnati is listed, for consistency and to avoid confusion.
If we use the name of the tournament at the time it was played, it would confuse everyone. So many events went through numerous sponsorship name changes over the years that listing them all for any tournament would be inefficient.
This is why I am fine with listing the full names in the lead of the 2 main and 4 records pages as a compromise. If that is okay with you? Otherwise, I am not getting involved in changing the event names. Plus, even atp/wta refer to them by their city names when listing records (Iga's Madrid-Rome double; Nadal's Canada-Cincinnati double, etc.).
With consensus you might get them to be renamed, but don't count my vote. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
As far as the abbreviations is concerned, I have concocted this prototype:
Thoughts? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Whatever on this one. However those cites initials should each absolutely link to the events so you have the same issue of events name changes. I don't know what the worry is though since every time an event name changes the old name is redirected. And I never said to use the event name at the time it was played with sponsorships. We would use the general common name. The Ameritech Cup is a sponsorship name that we try not to use... but that's really the only name we have for that event. Virginia Slims is also a sponsorship name but it is what it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
So, what do you propose then? We revert to the original version (wta singles (outdated) version below) or replace the current one with the one above, listing only events pertinent to the discipline or keep the glossary/legend as is? I wikilinked the above events.
  • Bei (Beijing)
  • Ber (Berlin)
  • Boc (Boca Raton)
  • Can (Canada)
  • Cha (Charleston)
  • Cin (Cincinnati)
  • Doh (Doha)
  • Dub (Dubai)
  • Ind (Indian Wells)
  • Mad (Madrid)
  • Mia (Miami)
  • Mos (Moscow)
  • Phi (Philadelphia)
  • Rom (Rome)
  • San (San Diego)
  • Tok (Tokyo)
  • Wuh (Wuhan)
  • Zur (Zürich)
Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You will certainly never see me advocate for a city name over an event name. If the column header says tournament or championship we would not do that. It is wrong to list a city under a tournament headers. We corrected many charts that did this long ago, like the performance timelines. These were so stewy, and to be honest a lot of original research, that they were ignored I guess. I just thought that if they were being be updated it would be a good time to fix the city names under the tournament header. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, event name it is. I just remembered the 3 defunct masters events: Stuttgart, Stockholm and Hamburg in men's. I assume we just use Eurocard Open, Stockholm Open and Hamburg European Open, respectively, correct? What about abbreviations for them? What do you propose? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hamburg European Open should be Hamburg Masters. During the time as a 1000 level it was German Open and Hamburg Masters. Then from '09 to '18 it was back to German Open. It's now at Hamburg again. The men's event has never been called the Hamburg European Open. Our article is broken with the Hamburg European Open title and needs some fixing. That's a women's 125 level event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
And for abbreviations? I suggest something like this: EU or EO for Eurocard Open, ST for Stockholm Open and HA for Hamburg Masters (at the time it was played). Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeppers. I'd go with EU. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Like so? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Boy that sure looks great! If we go with VC shouldn't it then be Virginia Slims of Chicago? Otherwise AC for Ameritech Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fixed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here is the final product: Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

ATP Singles
  Active tournaments – Events not played
  Defunct tournaments – Events not won
Player[a] Titles[1] IW MI MC MA IT CA CI SH PA ST EU HA MA[b] Years Strike
Rate[c]
  Novak Djokovic 40 5 6 2 3 6 4 3 4 7 – – – – 2007–2023 9/9
  Rafael Nadal 36 3 – 11 4 10 5 1 – – – – 1 1 2005–2021 7/9
  Roger Federer 28 5 4 – 2 – 2 7 2 1 – – 4 1 2002–2019
  Andre Agassi 17 1 6 – – 1 3 3 – 2 – – – 1 1990–2004
  Andy Murray 14 – 2 – 1 1 3 2 3 1 – – – 1 2008–2016
  Pete Sampras 11 2 3 – – 1 – 3 – 2 – – – – 1992–2000 5/9
  Thomas Muster 8 – 1 3 – 3 – – – – – 1 – – 1990–1997 4/9
  Michael Chang 7 3 1 – – – 1 2 – – – – – – 1990–1997
  Daniil Medvedev 6 – 1 – – 1 1 1 1 1 – – – – 2019–2023 6/9
  Alexander Zverev – – – 2 2 1 1 – – – – – – 2017–2024 4/9
  Boris Becker 5 – – – – – – – – 1 3 1 – – 1990–1996 2/9
  Jim Courier 2 1 – – 2 – – – – – – – – 1991–1993 3/9
  Marcelo Ríos 1 1 1 – 1 – – – – – – 1 – 1997–1999 5/9
  Gustavo Kuerten – – 2 – 1 – 1 – – – – 1 – 1999–2001 4/9
  Marat Safin – – – – – 1 – – 3 – – – 1 2000–2004 3/9
  Andy Roddick – 2 – – – 1 2 – – – – – – 2003–2010
  Carlos Alcaraz 2 1 – 2 – – – – – – – – – 2022–2024 3/9
  Stefan Edberg 4 1 – – – – – 1 – 1 – – 1 – 1990–1992 4/9
  Andrei Medvedev – – 1 – – – – – – – – 3 – 1994–1997 2/9
  Juan Carlos Ferrero – – 2 – 1 – – – – – – – 1 2001–2003 3/9
Player Titles IW MI MC MA IT CA CI SH PA ST EU HA MA Years SR

79 champions in 303 events as of 2024 Rome.

  1. ^ Players with 4+ titles listed. Active players and records are denoted in bold.
  2. ^ Madrid was held as the 8th event between 2002–08 before being replaced by Shanghai in 2009.
  3. ^ Player's best career strike rate of winning the Masters series events.

References

  1. ^ "Ultimate Tennis Statistics – Most Masters Titles". www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com. Archived from the original on 2022-11-01.
ATP Doubles
  Active tournaments
  Defunct tournaments
Player Titles IW MI MC MA IT CA CI SH PA ST EU HA Years Strike

Rate

  Bob Bryan 39 2 6 6 5 4 5 5 1 4 - - 1 2002–2019 9/9
  Mike Bryan 2 6 6 5 4 5 5 1 4 - - 1 2002–2019
  Daniel Nestor 28 4 1 2 5 4 2 5 1 1 - - 3 1996–2015
  Todd Woodbridge 18 1 4 2 - - - 4 - 1 3 1 2 1992–2003 7/9
  Mark Knowles 17 4 1 - 3 2 2 3 - - - - 2 1993–2009 6/9
  Max Mirnyi 16 - 4 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 - 1 1 2000–2011 8/9
  Mahesh Bhupathi - 1 1 1 2 5 2 - 3 - - 1 1997–2012 7/9
  Jonas Björkman 15 1 2 3 - - 1 3 - 2 - 1 2 1998–2008 8/9
  Nenad Zimonjić - - 5 2 3 2 1 - 1 - - 1 2004–2014 6/9
  Mark Woodforde 14 1 4 - - - - 4 - - 3 1 1 1989–2000 5/9
  Leander Paes 13 1 3 1 - 1 2 2 2 1 - - - 1997–2012 8/9
  Paul Haarhuis 10 - 1 2 - 1 1 - - 3 - 1 1 1993–1998 7/9
  Marcelo Melo 9 - 1 - 1 - 1 1 3 2 - - - 2013–2018 6/9
  Jacco Eltingh 8 - 1 2 - 1 - - - 3 - 1 - 1993–1998 5/9
  Nikola Mektić 2 1 2 1 2 - - - - - - - 2018–2024
  Marcel Granollers - - - 1 3 1 1 1 1 - - - 2012–2024 6/9
  Yevgeny Kafelnikov 7 2 - 1 - 2 1 - - - - - 1 1994–2003 5/9
  Pierre-Hugues Herbert 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - 1 - - - 2016–2019 7/9
  Nicolas Mahut 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - 1 - - - 2016–2019
  Horacio Zeballos 1 - - 1 2 1 1 1 - - - - 2019–2024 6/9
  Wayne Ferreira 6 2 1 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1 1991–2003 5/9
  Ivan Dodig - - 1 - - 1 2 1 1 - - - 2013–2023
  Rohan Bopanna 1 1 1 1 - - - - 2 - - - 2011–2024 5/9
Player Titles IW MI MC MA IT CA CI SH PA ST EU HA Years SR
  • Players with 6+ titles. Active players and tournament records indicated in bold.
  • 171 champions in 303 events as of 2024 Rome.
  • Masters' time slots indicated with 1st–9th column names.
WTA Singles
  Active tournaments
  Defunct tournaments
Player Titles DU QA IW MI MA IT CA CI WU CN FL CH GE SD PH KC PP ZU Years
  Serena Williams 23 - - 2 8 2 4 3 2 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1999–2016
  Martina Hingis 17 - - 1 2 - 2 2 - - - - 2 1 - - 1 5 1 1997–2007
  Steffi Graf 15 - - 1 3 - - 2 - - - 1 1 5 - 1 - 1 - 1990–1996
  Maria Sharapova 14 - 1 2 - 1 3 - 1 - 1 - - - 2 - - 2 1 2005–2015
  Lindsay Davenport 11 - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 4 4 1997–2005
  Justine Henin 10 - - 1 - - - 2 - - - - 2 3 - - - - 2 2002–2007
  Victoria Azarenka - 2 2 3 - - - 2 - 1 - - - - - - - - 2009–2020
  Iga Świątek - 2 2 1 1 3 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 2021–2024
  Conchita Martínez 9 - - - - - 4 - - - - - 2 2 - 1 - - - 1993–2000
  Monica Seles - - - 2 - 2 4 - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1990–2000
  Venus Williams 2 - - 3 - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 1 1998–2015
  Simona Halep 1 1 1 - 2 1 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 2014–2022
  Petra Kvitová - 1 - 1 3 - 1 - 2 - - - - - - - 1 - 2011–2023
  Kim Clijsters 7 - - 2 2 - 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2003–2010
  Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 6 - - - 2 - 1 2 - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1992–1996
  Amélie Mauresmo - - - - - 2 2 - - - - - 2 - - - - - 2001–2005
  Jelena Janković - - 1 - - 2 - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - 2007–2010
  Caroline Wozniacki 1 - 1 - - - 1 - - 2 - - - - - - 1 - 2010–2018
  Gabriela Sabatini 5 - - - - - 2 - - - - 1 2 - - - - - - 1991–1992
  Mary Pierce - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1 - 1 - 2 - - 1997–2005
  Dinara Safina - - - - 1 1 1 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - 2008–2009
  Agnieszka Radwańska - - - 1 - - 1 - - 2 - - - - - - 1 - 2011–2016
  Aryna Sabalenka - 1 - - 2 - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - 2018–2023
Player Titles DU QA IW MI MA IT CA CI WU CN FL CH GE SD PH KC PP ZU Years
  • Players with 5+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in bold.
  • 73 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.
WTA Doubles
  Active tournaments
  Defunct tournaments
Player Titles DU QA IW MI MA IT CA CI WU CN VC FL CH GE SD PH KC PP GD ZU Years
  Martina Hingis 26 - - 3 4 1 3 2 1 3 2 - - 1 - - - 1 2 - 3 1996–2017
  Lisa Raymond 24 - 1 5 3 - 1 - 1 - - - - 3 1 - - 2 5 - 2 1999–2012
  Natasha Zvereva 23 - - 2 2 - 2 1 - - - - 2 3 4 - 1 2 4 - - 1991–1999
  Rennae Stubbs 19 - 1 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - - 2 - 2 - 1 4 - 5 1992–2008
  Cara Black 17 1 - - - 1 2 1 1 - 1 - - - 1 3 - 1 2 - 3 2001–2013
  Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 16 - - - 5 - 2 2 - - - - - 4 1 - - 1 - - 1 1990–2001
  Jana Novotná 14 - - - 6 - 1 3 - - - - - 2 2 - - - - - - 1992–1999
  Liezel Huber 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 - - - - - 1 1 - 1 1 - - 2003–2012
  Hsieh Su-wei 13 1 2 4 - 1 3 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2009–2024
  Virginia Ruano Pascual 11 - - 2 - - 2 1 - - - - - 4 1 1 - - - - - 1998–2005
  Larisa Neiland 10 - - - 2 - - 3 - - - - 2 - 3 - - - - - - 1991–1996
  Samantha Stosur - - 2 2 - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - 1 2 - - 2005–2021
  Gigi Fernández 9 - - - 1 - 2 - - - - - - 1 2 - 1 - 2 - - 1993–1996
  Lindsay Davenport - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - 2 - 1 1997–2003
  Paola Suárez - - 2 - - 2 1 - - - - - 3 1 - - - - - - 1998–2005
  Martina Navratilova - - - - - 1 3 - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 - 2 1990–2006
  Ai Sugiyama - - 1 2 - 1 2 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - - 1 2000–2008
  Nadia Petrova - - - 3 - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 - - 2 1 - - 2003–2013
  Katarina Srebotnik - - 1 2 - 1 2 - - 1 - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 2007–2014
  Sania Mirza - - 2 1 - 1 - 1 1 2 - - - - - - - 1 - - 2011–2016
  Latisha Chan - 1 1 - 1 2 - 2 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2008–2017
  Peng Shuai 8 - 1 1 - - 3 - 1 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - 2009–2014
  Elena Vesnina 1 - 3 - 1 - 2 - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2008–2018
  Barbora Strýcová 1 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - 2010–2020
  Ekaterina Makarova 7 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2012–2018
  Květa Peschke - 1 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1 - - 1 2006–2020
  Elise Mertens - - 3 1 - 1 - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 - 2018–2024
  Bethanie Mattek-Sands - - 1 2 - - 1 - 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - 2015–2024
  Sara Errani 6 - 1 - - 2 2 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2012–2024
Player Titles DU QA IW MI MA IT CA CI WU CN VC FL CH GE SD PH KC PP GD ZU Years
  • Players with 6+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in bold.
  • 154 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.

Continued discussion 2

edit

Pinging @Timeshifter and Jroberson108: who sparked the idea for improvements.

In light of recent events the above tables, namely, the 2nd one: WTA 1000 Series singles records and statistics#Title leaders

  Active tournaments   Defunct tournaments

*  Active players and most titles won per tournament are denoted in bold.
Title leaders
Titles Player Active tournaments Defunct tournaments Years
DU QA IW MI MA IT CA CI WU CN FL CH GE SD PH KC PP ZU
23   Serena Williams - - 2 8 2 4 3 2 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1999–2016
17   Martina Hingis - - 1 2 - 2 2 - - - - 2 1 - - 1 5 1 1997–2007
15   Steffi Graf - - 1 3 - - 2 - - - 1 1 5 - 1 - 1 - 1990–1996
14   Maria Sharapova - 1 2 - 1 3 - 1 - 1 - - - 2 - - 2 1 2005–2015
11   Lindsay Davenport - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 4 4 1997–2005
10   Justine Henin - - 1 - - - 2 - - - - 2 3 - - - - 2 2002–2007
  Victoria Azarenka * - 2 2 3 - - - 2 - 1 - - - - - - - - 2009–2020
  Iga Świątek * - 2 2 1 1 3 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 2021–2024
9   Conchita Martínez - - - - - 4 - - - - - 2 2 - 1 - - - 1993–2000
  Monica Seles - - - 2 - 2 4 - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1990–2000
  Venus Williams * 2 - - 3 - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 1 1998–2015
  Simona Halep * 1 1 1 - 2 1 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 2014–2022
  Petra Kvitová * - 1 - 1 3 - 1 - 2 - - - - - - - 1 - 2011–2023
7   Kim Clijsters - - 2 2 - 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2003–2010
  Aryna Sabalenka * - 1 - - 2 - - 1 3 - - - - - - - - - 2018–2024
6   Arantxa Sánchez Vicario - - - 2 - 1 2 - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1992–1996
  Amélie Mauresmo - - - - - 2 2 - - - - - 2 - - - - - 2001–2005
  Jelena Janković - - 1 - - 2 - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - 2007–2010
  Caroline Wozniacki * 1 - 1 - - - 1 - - 2 - - - - - - 1 - 2010–2018
5   Gabriela Sabatini - - - - - 2 - - - - 1 2 - - - - - - 1991–1992
  Mary Pierce - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1 - 1 - 2 - - 1997–2005
  Dinara Safina - - - - 1 1 1 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - 2008–2009
  Agnieszka Radwańska - - - 1 - - 1 - - 2 - - - - - - 1 - 2011–2016

is going through a makeover and we cannot decide on what colors to use to distinguish between "Active" and "defunct tournaments" in the table's column headers. We are trying to make the table more accessible per MOS:COLOR and mobile user-friendly.

You are welcome to contribute. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

After some consultation at Template talk:Sticky table start#Table design discussion for a more mobile and screen reader user-friendly design of the above table, I am proposing new designs below for additional feedback from the tennis community.
The design focus is on table's header, currently located at WTA 1000 Series singles records and statistics#Title leaders, which I am later planning on implementing to the other 1000 records-related pages:
once consensus is reached.

With color scheme 1

edit
  Active tournaments   Defunct tournaments
*  Active players and most titles won per tournament are denoted in bold.
Title leaders
Titles Player Active tournaments Defunct tournaments Years
DU QA IW MI MA IT CA CI WU CN FL CH GE SD PH KC PP ZU
23   Serena Williams - - 2* 8* 2 4* 3 2* - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1999–2016
OR

With color scheme 2

edit
  Active tournaments   Defunct tournaments
*  Active players and most titles won per tournament are denoted in bold.
Title leaders
Titles Player Active tournaments Defunct tournaments Years
DU QA IW MI MA IT CA CI WU CN FL CH GE SD PH KC PP ZU
23   Serena Williams - - 2* 8* 2 4* 3 2* - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1999–2016
OR

Without color scheme

edit
*  Active players and most titles won per tournament are denoted in bold.
Title leaders
Titles Player Active tournaments Defunct tournaments Years
DU QA IW MI MA IT CA CI WU CN FL CH GE SD PH KC PP ZU
23   Serena Williams - - 2* 8* 2 4* 3 2* - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1999–2016
I have come up with the following designs: Leaning towards the 3rd option. Thoughts? Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Have you considered using Template:Vertical header for the tournament names? This would eliminate the need for Template:Abbr, which is not compatible with mobile browsing, and the legend for the abbreviations (it's not clear to me whether that is still a part of the proposal or not).
The player name should be row header, not the number of titles, because the data in each row relates to the player, not the number of titles. In the case of ties, you would also have rows without headers.
Would active players not be distinguished by an open range in the years column (e.g. "1992–")? If so, it would be redundant to bold active player names. When player names are the row headers, they will be bolded anyway, so this avoids a conflict. Otherwise, perhaps use an explanatory footnote or italic typeface?
I think bolding the highest number in each column is fairly self-evident and wouldn't need to be explained in a legend. I also think we can ditch the underlining and asterisk as redundant.
I prefer the third design, without color. With the column groups, the color is redundant.
Title leaders
Titles Player Active tournaments Defunct tournaments Years
Dubai Championship
23   Serena Williams - - 2 8 2 4 3 2 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1999–2016
--Bsherr (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
{{vertical header}} would impede the view on mobile due to the egregiously tall sticky column headers are used which would nullify the effect of the stickiness rendering vertical scrolling useless. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Using some simple abbreviations would shorten the height of the headers.
Title leaders
Titles Player Active tournaments Defunct tournaments Years
23   Serena Williams - - 2 8 2 4 3 2 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1999–2016
--Bsherr (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Turning the text sideways hurts my eyes... it is very difficult to read that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
843 other articles currently use vertical headers in their tables. --Bsherr (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
843 strained necks and sore eyes for our readers... great. Luckily we can afford to be kinder to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, I think the differentiated border between the active and defunct tournaments is redundant with the column groups and therefore unneeded. However, if you do keep it, you should probably extend it up a row to the border between the column groups. I also think you should use weight instead of color to differentiate. When you set the default color as black, it is black even when the user has dark mode set, rather than the default border color, and it actually minimizes, rather than emphasizes, the separation. --Bsherr (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Bsherr, the chart already has a key for the events' abbreviations (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Continued discussion 2). Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
So retaining the legend, this would be my suggestion:
Title leaders
Titles Player Active tournaments Defunct tournaments Years
DU QA IW MI MA IT CA CI WU CN FL CH GE SD PH KC PP ZU
23   Serena Williams — — 2 8 2 4 3 2 — 1 — 1 — — — — — — 1999–2016
Grey is the default color for {{n/a}}, but that can be changed if it's important. --Bsherr (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking closer, it looks like the chart is mistakenly using a hyphen for a null cell when an em-dash would be the correct symbol. You should consider using Template:N/a instead. --Bsherr (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- over — makes for a cleaner look. N/a just adds darkened cells which I really don't like and prefer the chart looked as simple as possible, color-wise. The above choice is pretty much option 3 above and symbols are needed per MOS:NOSYMBOLS when emphasizing text. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
On this I will only say that we would never use hypens (-)... either ndash (–) or mdash (—). I usually prefer ndash but it's no matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Using template: sticky table start

edit
Latest comment: 3 months ago8 comments2 people in discussion

@Qwerty284651 and Timeshifter: etc. I recently converted the usage of Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/styles.css to {{sticky table start}} on several pages. The changes were reverted with an edit summary indicating that my changes go against consensus and I should open a new topic on this talk page:

  • Tennis Masters Series doubles records and statistics revert
  • Tennis Masters Series singles records and statistics revert
  • WTA 1000 Series doubles records and statistics revert
  • WTA 1000 Series singles records and statistics revert

How do my changes go against consensus? Jroberson108 (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

See above discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#1000 title leaders charts on the design and markup of the tables. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
You also removed the max-height div scroll from the following pages:
  • List of Grand Slam men's singles champions [1]
  • List of Grand Slam men's doubles champions [2]
  • List of Grand Slam women's singles champions [3]
  • List of Grand Slam women's doubles champions [4]
  • List of Grand Slam mixed doubles champions [5]
  • List of Grand Slam and related tennis records [6]
claiming "it is too short for mobile landscape". I specifically enveloped the long tables with a scrolling list to save up on vertical scrolling in the aforementioned articles. I tried readding the div scroll back but the tables were all skewed up and overlapping. Can you add back the max height and shorten it to 70vh or similar so it does not display the scrolling list at 100% of viewpoint's viewport's height? Having them at 100% makes the pages too long and defeats the purpose of keeping them visually shortened. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Qwerty284651: I saw the section, which is a pretty massive discussion. Nothing stands out as my going against consensus. From that discussion, there is consensus on having sticky, then discussion on how to make it work without issue. Not necessarily that the covid CSS must be used, which was the only method at the time. The features found in the covid CSS are in the new template, just easier to use with more tests and fixes. There are additional features too.
You are welcome to test the "claim". I'm using a Galaxy S21 5G. "50vh" or 50% of the viewport height is too short for mobile landscape showing very little of the scrollable data. One page had "40vh" or 40%, which was worse. It might look nice on a large screen, but don't sacrifice mobile that makes up the majority of Wikipedia's traffic. See sites by os.
I didn't remove the scrolling from long tables, just changed to doing it through the new template. The scroll isn't 100%, but 75% (75vh) of the viewport height per the template styles. If you need to tweak the max-height or add other styles to the scrolling div, {{sticky table start}} has a "style" parameter mentioned in the documentation where you can pass in your own styles like so: {{sticky table start|style=max-height: 70vh;}}. I don't recommend changing it below that unless you also test on short screens (mobile landscape) to verify readability isn't sacrificed. Jroberson108 (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I see. The max-height is 75vh by default then, not 100vh/100%. That is good to know. I am glad the covid css templatestyle features got their own template {{sticky table start}} with customizable max-height. Does the style=max-height parameter support vh only or pt, em, %, etc. as well? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Qwerty284651: The "style" parameter just accepts the same inline styles that would normally be added to the div, just without the double-quotes that would normally surround the HTML "style" attribute's value. Other units can be used just like with inline styles. Since these are inline, they would override the template's styles if setting the same property like "max-height" since inline is closer to the content. Jroberson108 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the info and clarification. I restored your edits on the above 4 pages. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Jroberson108 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Olympic tennis article issue

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago17 comments5 people in discussion

The Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics is getting shoved around a bit by an editor Sportsfan 1234. If you look at all our Olympic Tennis articles we have maintained consistency every year at far as the winners table on top, and the medal table synopsis below. We have always done this. See Tennis at the 2004 Summer Olympics, Tennis at the 1996 Summer Olympics, Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics, etc... all of them!

Obviously the Olympic Project can have it's own guidelines too that from time to time we need to iron out. No big deal. But the Olympic Project guidelines on this issue are pretty clear with their examples that the order is not important, just the style of the tables. If you check their Olympics MOS on proper articles you find:

The charts are similar but the placement is obviously fine in multiple locations. No real cookie cutter guideline. But ours have been locked for a long time as what we consider a proper order with the more important event winners on top of the medal table synopsis. There was nothing to argue about since both projects have no issue.

But now we have an editor insisting, with no consensus, on the same order for all 2024 Olympic articles. He has changed many sports until I noticed him changing the tennis article to medal on top for 2024 only. He changed the standard order on 17 July. This will be out of whack for all our other articles and is based on nothing from the Olympic Project. I'm getting a bit tired of reverts on this dude alongside other fellow tennis editors such as @Qwerty284651:, and @Unnamelessness:. I'm not sure why he wants all Olympic articles to be exact but he does. Any other help would be appreciated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again for the 10th time, the Olympic article is a WP:OLYMPICS article first. Its called tennis at the X Olympics, not Olympics at tennis. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
And for the 11th time, baloney. And even if that were true the Olympic Guidelines say it's just fine... only you have an issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I feel during an Olympic event, it is useful for readers/visitors to have the schedule first to see who is playing when. The schedule information can be also found in the respective draw pages for each olympic sport's event/discipline.
HOWEVER, after the Olympic event is over it is only logical to list the "Medal summary" section (winners) first - for the readers to see first, followed below by schedule and all other sections.
Similar ongoing discussions on Olympic Wikiproject's talk page:
  1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Medal summary sections on sport at x Olympics format
  2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Medal Summary Order
Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. The schedule's importance dwindles after the event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. The medal table should be first like all other sport articles at the 2024 Olympics. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Tagging in @Nyoman Juniarta, @Svartner and @Siuuu0909 who have all reverted your edits to include the medal table below. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I had only changed the position of the medal summary to maintain the standard of other sports. I don't know if there is a rule apart from the tennis project, so much so that I didn't insisted. Svartner (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is no tule at Olympic Project. That project has examples of multiple styles. Someone took it on themselves personally to make only 2024 that way. It happens sometimes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sportsfan 1234, we can start an RFC if you still think Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics violates WP:OLYMPICS. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not sure a RFC is necessary. If tennis the only article not aligned with the other articles, its clear what the problem is. There is no consensus to deviate from the styles from the other pages, so don't. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe a consensus/discussion to get the format changed to your preferred version across all sports would be a good start. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Or perhaps your Olympic Project will come up with a consistent model like Tennis Project has. But your removal/blanking of required info is vandalism and will get you a visit from the wiki-police. Stop doing it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Will an RFC at WP:SPORT be a more appropriate place for this dispute or do we take it to WP:OLYMPICS? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
That "schedule table" started getting added to the 2016 Olympics. I see no discussion... some just started adding them. And they vary too. Looking at 2020 I see Surfing at the 2020 Summer Olympics, Basketball at the 2020 Summer Olympics, Golf at the 2020 Summer Olympics, Tennis at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Obviouslt the Olympic project prides itself on being flexible. Suddenly this Olympics we have a single editor claiming we are doing something against Olympic Project standards. That is 100% baloney! They have no standard. Even in 2024 we have Basketball at the 2024 Summer Olympics and Water polo at the 2024 Summer Olympics. there is no Olympic Project protocol on this and until they decide to hold some RfC on all their yearly Olympic articles we certainly have nothing to follow there. The Tennis Olympic articles all look the same and we should stick to it. Schedules tables are important when the games are ongoing, by they actually have trivial value once the games are over. I'd suggest we don't need then at all since no one cares about the actual dates of preliminary heats a year later. But if they remain they should be bottom dwellers in the importance context. Readers want to see who won first and foremost. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sportsfan 1234, knock your antics off with WP:OLYMPICS or you will get sanctioned. I am sick and tired of you. God. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Have you guys considered dispute resolution. Tvx1 18:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Ernie Johnson Jr.#Requested move 5 August 2024

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ernie Johnson Jr.#Requested move 5 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article reassessment for Laura Robson

edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Laura Robson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Template:5-set tennis

edit
  Moved to Template talk:5-set tennis § Borders missing in latest update

In The News discussion

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. LiamKorda 12:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply


Heavy discussion on Career Grand Slam tables that needs more eyes

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We are having a dickens of a time trying to come together on a Career Grand Slam chart for List of Grand Slam and related tennis records. There only three of us but I admit that the other two have spent much more quality time on it than I have. I just have some big issues on sorting and using keys when it comes to our readers than my fellow editors do. Input here or there would be much appreciated. The whole topic is at Talk:List of Grand Slam_and related tennis records#Career Grand Slam table but a lot of the recent conversation is at Talk:List of Grand Slam_and related tennis records#Continued discussion 5. Thanks all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The discussion has reached a conclusion. The final version is now live. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Laver Cup

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can the Laver Cup be considered an exhibition tournament? If not, why not?

It has the contradiction of having been added to the ATP circuit in 2019, but it is not an event that provides ranking points. Rafaelfdc (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's one of those iffy things. It's sort of like the Next Gen ATP Finals.... in limbo... more than exhibition though still wimpy. But no ranking points for Olympics either and it's not exhibition. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Example of one reason why Wikipedia increasingly loses respect

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion

This project is the quintessential example of why Wikipedia is increasingly losing respect. It seems unless you are a member of this Tennis Project clique, your work on tennis pages will immediately be altered or removed. There are dozens, if not more, tennis articles about obscure players with few or no citations. There are many noteworthy BLP articles filled with unsourced content and over the top stats like "Joe Bloggs won his third match at this tournament in 10 appearances" or nonsense like "Joe Bloggs made his Major debut at this Major and won his first match at a Major"...well if it's his debut and he wins a match of course it's his first win. It doesn't need saying! There is one particular editor (Sashona) in your project who puts so much tiny stat related detail in and either doesn't cite it or uses random Twitter accounts to back it up. They, and a few others, act as if the tennis pages on here are their own personal property, pouncing on every edit made outside their clique and changing it no matter how well cited it may be. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia for the world, edited in good faith by anyone, with everything appropriately sourced. Unfortunately when it comes to tennis pages, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the few, edited by a clique, packed full of unsourced trivia and clogged up by biographies of players who never made the top 300 or played a significant match in their entire careers. Oh, and one last thing, Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia so insisting everything be written in a certain way because "that's what we say in the US" is ridiculous. Wimbledon, French Open, US Open and Australian Open are in fact Grand Slam tournaments no matter how often Americans call them Majors and titleist is at best nonsense and at worst not even a word! I could give more examples but none of you Tennis Project clique members give too hoots so I will stop there. I got this off my chest and if it gets deleted immediately I don't care. Also if you want to hurl abuse at me on my talk page or in reply to this then enjoy. Shrug02 (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to reverse the decision to blanket remove this from the talk page. While I agree some of what's written might fall into WP:CIVIL. In your edit summary Fyunck, you said on removal that "some of what was written is true." It might be worth elaborating on your thoughts rather than removal, if it leads to the health of the information on Wikipedia then it merits a discussion. YellowStahh (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Some of this is true, but most is total baloney by an editor guilty of the same things he is ranting against and perhaps some ignorance in the world of tennis. Looking at them, many of his edits are just fine. Some have been unsourced pov or against Wikipedia standards. But he got it off his chest so that's a good thing. I looked at the post as grandstanding without an actual question, and I removed it, but another editor brought it back for comment.
  • "This project is the quintessential example of why Wikipedia is increasingly losing respect." - A load of crap with this. All you need to do is look at any political article and see where the respect is draining away.
  • "It seems unless you are a member of this Tennis Project clique, your work on tennis pages will immediately be altered or removed." - More baloney. Some editors do that to be sure but not most, and not some clique.
  • "There are dozens, if not more, tennis articles about obscure players with few or no citations. There are many noteworthy BLP articles filled with unsourced content and over the top stats." - No question this is true. I think we already knew this but many of our articles could be trimmed by 50%-75%.
  • "There is one particular editor (Sashona) in your project who puts so much tiny stat related detail in and either doesn't cite it or uses random Twitter accounts to back it up." - Some things are true and hard to argue with. That editor is a problem for me too. If it's not over-detail it's too lengthy of section headers that hammer the tables of contents for browsers or his refusal to obey wikipedia rules on capitalization.
  • "when it comes to tennis pages, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the few, edited by a clique, packed full of unsourced trivia and clogged up by biographies of players who never made the top 300 or played a significant match in their entire careers." - Partial truth here. It is packed full of trivia, and I wish it were not. But it's not edited by a clique. There are actually not all that many tennis editors so it may appear so. But in those few editors they disagree among themselves all the time... there is no clique.
  • The rest I'll attribute to ignorance of tennis.
So you got your response. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fyunck(click) Show me where I've used unsourced pov content? Shrug02 (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
As for not meeting Wikipedia standards. You told me in August not to use scoring in prose unless it's a record and I haven't done since. If welcome further examples so I can seek to improve. @Fyunck(click) Shrug02 (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fyunck(click) As for "ignorance of tennis" you know nothing about me and just because you write about tennis on Wikipedia doesn't make you an expert. I'm an informed, long time tennis fan and former low level player. I do the best I can and I learn from constructive advice such as detailed above but I'm certainly not ignorant and I resent the remark and ask you to retract it. Shrug02 (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You know something.... the pov edit was attributed to another editor. I was wrong on that. Sorry. I originally said "perhaps some ignorance." I had no idea your tennis background but the last part on tennis majors is simply wrong and I attribute ignorance (lack of knowledge on that matter.) There can be other reasons why you are wrong that I don't know about, but lack of knowledge on the terminology seemed to me the best reason at the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
And agreeing with @Shrug02:, editor Sashona continues to add long section headers that make table of contents too wide. Silly items like "top 60" to Renata Zarazúa or not adhering to the absolute biggest item of the period (like winning an event) and instead adding 3rd round or making their first appearance. This is an encyclopedia and them adding the trivia is a detraction. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis&oldid=1254871931"