Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

Add discussion
Active discussions

WikiProject Tennis (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Tennis To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template changes:WikiProject bannerEdit

Please stop by the conversation about implementing our pre-existing workgroups into the {{WikiProject Tennis}} template. Here. Mjquinn_id (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Bumping this to get more opinions. Mjquinn_id (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Player Templates?Edit

I don't understand the creation/usage/purpose of the many individual "Player" Navboxes being created? I am assuming there was a discussion that I missed, but it does not seem to be here in the archives? (Maybe I could see the top ten "GOAT" candidates or so, but we have drifted from that...)

@Mjquinn id: Top 10 GOAT candidates would be beyond subjective so a HUGE no to that. However to your larger point... I agree that these navboxes have become ridiculous in scope. It's as if there's a race to see how much clutter we can pile on the bottom of an article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mjquinn id: As you might have noticed, these templates of "common non-Big-3" used to look like Template:Eugenie Bouchard. My purpose in creating them was to ease the navigation (because it's only logical to surf the draws from the player's template), to check the draws (career statistics often list the wrong ones), and to list all the GS semifinalists. However, before my "evil touch" (lol) that has brought Karatsev and Bouchard into the same category, these templates seemed to be a kind of non-surfing vanity projects to generate traffic for the players' personal websites. Just to let you know. No offense. My usability-improving "job" was to make tennis tournaments (not only GSs) look easier considering all their rebrandings (that's why I've started with Navratilova and Graf, sorry to not being paid for the job, unlike the ones that track the "deleted URLs" to the players websites and erase my efforts from Federer and Djokovic templates). You can delete the people from Mordor and enjoy my touch on Template:Ashleigh Barty and other greats that nobody even has thought about creating before (because they're not playing, so nobody takes care of their traffic and legacy, imho). That's a vivid example of how little tennis is really followed compared to the other sports. No offense. Farewell. You can enjoy the templates that are made for the sake of existing, not for users. Sorry for the bitterness. Enjoy your phallometric competition. No offense, again. Sincerely, Orc from Mordor. Revolynka (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I have utterly no problem with someone's efforts to create the templates. Though I wish they would at least add the WP:Tennis banner...
  • I have no problem with these being on the Player's page (or even their most common doubles partner) (Mike Bryan on Bob's, Bob Bryan on Mike's)
  • I even do not mind them being at the bottom of tournament finals pages (but only when they won...)
  • But Template:Petr Korda on Andre Agassi's page because they won an ATP Doubles event, pretty early in his career(the 1st one)? Do you realize how many "other" players might end up at the bottom of his page? God forbid...Martina's? Listing all her doubles partners would have to be a separate PAGE!?
    • I could see Agassi on Graf's page, and Graf on his...but that would be an incredible rarity.
  • My only hope, with this thread, is to try to nail down some basic guidelines as the What goes Where and When/Why?
I propose the following for general consideration:
  1. ) Only if they have been a world #1 - not everybody. But, if you want to create your favorite player...You GO, girl!
  2. ) Only on their page,
    1. ) a tournament final (by event) that they won,
      (though the links to their player's pages should already be there... and the Tournament Event Predecessor/Successor should be first). "Tournament" above player on Tournament pages... Yearly Event, then Yearly Tournament, then Tour, then player that won?
    2. ) on their MOST FREQUENT doubles partner.
      Maybe at least 25% of their total doubles together? (See Martina Nav with Leander Paes? or Pam Shriver?)
    3. )  N on every page of every player that they ever played with.
  3. ) Maybe both players on certain "rivarly" pages?
  4. ) leaving room for other people's thoughts...
Mjquinn_id (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • BTW, Why the farewell? Has there been a kerfuffle that I am not aware of? Mjquinn_id (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll say this. While I think many are overkill, it is far easier to read the new templates rather than the old Eugenie Bouchard template. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    I have no issue with the look'n'feel... just trying to understand "placement" more than anything else? Mjquinn_id (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There is often too much overused color... makes them hard to read for me, and we always have to watch out for those with vision problems. The whole template for every player is way overkill for me. And we don't go placing other player templates on another article just because they were doubles partners a few times. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Template changes are getting out of control now. It's one thing to have a player template for the most renowned players but it's quite another to make the for everyone. Plus we have several "retired" editors who insist on making them non-accessible for sight challenged readers and are adding tiny little icons all over the place. They are changing the color backgrounds of players on their own set of rules of favorite playing surface too. Plus they are adding the templates of say, Serena Williams, to the bottoms of other player pages and draws just because she may have played doubles a few time or participated in an event. It's getting out of control. We need to take some control of this before I can't keep up anymore with reverts.

There are so many issues with Serena Williams it's hard to count. Colorblind issues, tiny icons, minor tournaments added, format change with no consensus, trivial court surface buttons everywhere, etc... Per Wikipedia Nvigation Templates: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects". These navigation templates are sort of an option instead of putting a player's name under the "See also" section. When a player is in the finals of a tournament we don't want their whole history template placed on the draw page. Their name and article is linked all over the draw so it become overkill. We may need to put this in our Project Guidelines if this gets anymore out of control. I'm doing the best I can in fixing or reverting them but it ain't easy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with reverting these / asking the editor making the changes to stop / asking that editor to revert their changes. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
It also seems clear that they are a sockpuppet of the previous editor who was working on these. They could potentially be blocked for that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Probably true. I just put up Samantha Stosur's template up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 September 10. There may be a small reason to have these for the top handful of players, but not for your average tennis player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The rowspaned NHs in the performance timeline tableEdit

I have founded several illogical performance timeline tables following the cancellations of China Open and Wuhan Open. This is an example that I copied from Aryna Sabalenka career statistics.

Tournament 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SR W–L Win %
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open A Q2 1R 3R 1R 4R 0 / 4 5–4 56%
French Open A Q1 1R 2R 3R 3R 0 / 4 5–4 56%
Wimbledon A 2R 1R 1R NH SF 0 / 4 6–4 60%
US Open Q2 Q1 4R 2R 2R 0 / 3 5–3 63%
Win–Loss 0–0 1–1 3–4 4–4 1–2 10–3 0 / 15 21–15 58%
Year-end championships
WTA Finals Did not qualify NH 0 / 0 0–0  – 
WTA Elite Trophy DNQ RR W NH 1 / 2 5–1 83%
National representation
Summer Olympics A Not Held 2R 0 / 1 1–1 50%
Billie Jean King Cup PO F 1R SF Finals 0 / 3 10–6 63%
WTA 1000
Dubai / Qatar Open A 1R A 3R W QF 1 / 4 8–3 73%
Indian Wells Open A A 3R 4R NH 0 / 2 4–2 67%
Miami Open A A 2R 2R QF 0 / 3 4–3 57%
Madrid Open A A 1R 1R W 1 / 3 6–2 75%
Italian Open A A 1R 1R A 3R 0 / 3 1–3 25%
Canadian Open A A 3R 1R NH 0 / 2 2–2 50%
Cincinnati Open A Q2 SF 3R 3R 0 / 3 7–3 70%
Wuhan Open A A W W NH 2 / 2 12–0 100%
China Open A Q1 QF 2R 0 / 2 3–2 60%
Career statistics
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Career
Tournaments 0 5 23 24 12 14 Career total: 78
Titles 0 0 2 3 3 2 Career total: 10
Finals 0 1 4 4 3 3 Career total: 15
Hard Win–Loss 0–0 11–7 35–13 32–13 23–7 15–6 9 / 50 116–46 72%
Clay Win–Loss 0–0 0–0 4–5 5–5 6–3 13–3 1 / 16 28–16 64%
Grass Win–Loss 0–0 1–1 7–4 2–4 0–0 7–3 0 / 12 17–12 59%
Overall Win–Loss 0–0 12–8 46–22 39–22 29–10 35–12 10 / 78 161–74 69%
Win (%)  –  60% 68% 64% 74% 74% Career total: 69%
Year-end ranking 159 78 11 11 10 $8,019,347

I just cannot figure out why the NHs are merged across different tournaments? Just because they are listed coincidentally together? I don't see they have the same to the columns of A(bsent)s. Instead of such illogical designs, it should be like:

Tournament 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SR W–L Win %
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open A Q2 1R 3R 1R 4R 0 / 4 5–4 56%
French Open A Q1 1R 2R 3R 3R 0 / 4 5–4 56%
Wimbledon A 2R 1R 1R NH SF 0 / 4 6–4 60%
US Open Q2 Q1 4R 2R 2R 0 / 3 5–3 63%
Win–Loss 0–0 1–1 3–4 4–4 1–2 10–3 0 / 15 21–15 58%
Year-end championships
WTA Finals Did not qualify NH 0 / 0 0–0  – 
WTA Elite Trophy DNQ RR W NH 1 / 2 5–1 83%
National representation
Summer Olympics A Not Held 2R 0 / 1 1–1 50%
Billie Jean King Cup PO F 1R SF Finals 0 / 3 10–6 63%
WTA 1000
Dubai / Qatar Open A 1R A 3R W QF 1 / 4 8–3 73%
Indian Wells Open A A 3R 4R NH 0 / 2 4–2 67%
Miami Open A A 2R 2R NH QF 0 / 3 4–3 57%
Madrid Open A A 1R 1R NH W 1 / 3 6–2 75%
Italian Open A A 1R 1R A 3R 0 / 3 1–3 25%
Canadian Open A A 3R 1R NH 0 / 2 2–2 50%
Cincinnati Open A Q2 SF 3R 3R 0 / 3 7–3 70%
Wuhan Open A A W W NH 2 / 2 12–0 100%
China Open A Q1 QF 2R NH 0 / 2 3–2 60%
Career statistics
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Career
Tournaments 0 5 23 24 12 14 Career total: 78
Titles 0 0 2 3 3 2 Career total: 10
Finals 0 1 4 4 3 3 Career total: 15
Hard Win–Loss 0–0 11–7 35–13 32–13 23–7 15–6 9 / 50 116–46 72%
Clay Win–Loss 0–0 0–0 4–5 5–5 6–3 13–3 1 / 16 28–16 64%
Grass Win–Loss 0–0 1–1 7–4 2–4 0–0 7–3 0 / 12 17–12 59%
Overall Win–Loss 0–0 12–8 46–22 39–22 29–10 35–12 10 / 78 161–74 69%
Win (%)  –  60% 68% 64% 74% 74% Career total: 69%
Year-end ranking 159 78 11 11 10 $8,019,347

Any thoughts? Unnamelessness (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to attention. Agree that these cells should not be merged vertically and , with the exception of NH, also not horizontally. In your version there is still an issue with the font color of NH and similar values. These do not meet accessibility guidelines and should be in black like the rest of the values to provide sufficient color contrast with the background. Also there should be consistency in usage, not NH in one case and Not Held in another. Finally, DNQ is not part of the legend, so it should either be added or not used. If it is added it should probably be listed as NQ for Not Qualified to fit into the cell and for consistency with NH.--Wolbo (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Tennis guidelines should be amended accordingly then. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
This can certainly be done. I agree with NQ as it is shorter and gets the point across. As far as font color the only thing I can say is it does not have to be changed to black. Using a color such as #696969 (Dim Grey) is also compatible. I changed the very last China Open NH to that color in the above chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click) According to the color tool, such color combination is still WCAG 2 AAA Compliant. Not severe, but better avoiding. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Well we also have to be careful. There is a fine line between what is safest and what is useful. The grey color we have now was used to purposefully offset matches that were played and matches that were not played. We wanted it to be different. If you make it too dark you can't tell the difference between black and grey, at least not on my screen. We don't want it to be the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I actually have no problems with the color here, but I do have some problems with the timeline table. Given how COVID-19 affected both ATP and WTA tours and the implementation of new WTA Tier tournaments since 2020, I do believe the timeline table in the tennis guideline should have a proper update. Not only can we respond to the discussion above, but also a best opportunity to guide editors what to do and, more importantly, how to do under the current circumstances. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
You mean the example we give at wikiproject tennis should show current events/section titles rather than old events/section titles? That sounds very reasonable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. Current examples are pretty stale to be honest. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
DNQ is the de facto standard abbreviation used on these timelines [1], so should be added to the legend unless someone wants to go back and change all instances to NQ. Fading the NHs/DNQs is a relatively recent innovation that should be rolled back, as it is haphazardly applied, harms accessibility, and is logically inconsistent—a player whose ranking was too low to qualify for the qualification rounds of a mandatory tournament literally "did not qualify", yet the 'A'bsents are not greyed out like the DNQs. If only the NHs were faded it would make sense but even then be a net-negative IMO due to the impact on accessibility. —Somnifuguist (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Have updated the full performance timeline table on the article guidelines page in line with this discussion. Have used #696969 for NH.--Wolbo (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Also the colors (font in combination with background) for the Olympic bronze medal are far from WCAG compliant. We need to change that as well.--Wolbo (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@Wolbo: Thanks. If you select a new colour for bronze (and Gold/Silver if necessary), I'll do an AWB run to correct all the DNQ/NH/medal colours in one go. —Somnifuguist (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Changed the Olympic bronze medal color from #CD7F32 to #E5B47D to make it WCAG compliant (compare the legend with the full timeline on the article guidelines page). Will have a look at the silver.--Wolbo (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Gold and silver medal colors seem to be complaint.--Wolbo (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, all the timelines are now updated with the new colours. To summarise the new guidelines:
  • No vertical merging of result cells (rowspan=X).
  • DNQ text is not faded.
  • Not Held/Not Tier 1/... text colour is now faded to #696969 instead of #ccc.
  • Bronze medal cell colour is now #E5B47D instead of #CD7F32
Pinging some of the frequent editors of these timelines to make them aware of the changes: @Ddenilson @JamesAndersoon @Mrf8128 @Rubyaxles @Subaryan @The Sports Gnome. —Somnifuguist (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Using the color #696969 isn't distinct enough to tell it apart from regular black. It just looks like something is subtly wrong with the table, like when someone makes the font size of the whole table smaller for no reason. It would be better to just leave it as black. I also don't see why #696969 was chosen when anything as light as #767676 is still compliant. But even that wouldn't provide sufficient contrast with black. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, but if consensus to change to black does emerge, a user with the AWB permission can copy this page to their user space, then after installing WP:JWB, load the "WCAG" settings, press start, and then click "save" ad nauseum to remove the text colour from all the timelines in one sitting. —Somnifuguist (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't have a strong preference either way. Not convinced it needs to be separate from black but if we conclude that this is useful and #767676 is the lightest variant which is still WCAG compatible I would be fine with changing it to that color. I'm not good with those scripts though.--Wolbo (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Chang, Becker and others missing from youngest winnersEdit

Hi. First of all great job everyone on creating such wonderful information about tennis players. However I was wondering why on the Tour Records page Change and Becker are missing from the youngest winners. I expect there are a couple of others younger than 18 as well. If there is a date cut-off e.g. 1990 then this should be clearly stated. Even better would be a true "All-time youngest winners" where Chang and Becker and others can be seen. At the moment it is simply misleading. Regards. ConanTheCribber See

It is clearly stated in the 2nd sentence: "The ATP Tour is the modern top-level men's professional tennis circuit. It was introduced in 1990..." So there can't be anything before it was created in 1990. However what you are looking for is Open Era tennis records – men's singles where you will find Chang and becker listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Men's Grand Slam Winners Achievements as TablesEdit

Hi all

There has been some disagreements about how to list achievements of Grand Slam Tournament Winners on the List of Grand Slam men's singles champions page. I was suggested to come here and ask.

Following the discussion Here, I pose the question - Should each Title Double have its own table? Also, should each Table be limited to exactly that combination, or should there be double-counting? For example, in 2010, Rafael Nadal won the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. Should Rafael Nadal be added to the French Open/Wimbledon/US Open Triple, and French Open/Wimbledon Double (as part of the Channel Slam), and/or Wimbledon/US Open Double, or a combination of these? .

To give an rough indication of what having all the Title Doubles as tables would look like, gives an indication.

This (LINK) is what it currently looks like. Note the Pre-Open and Open distinctions, as well as the listing of the Channel Slam as the only Title Double as a table.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated. If anyone thinks this deserves an RfC, please also comment on that. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@ABC paulista @ForzaUV @Fyunck(click) @Wolbo @Somnifuguist @Sportsfan77777 @Ddenilson @JamesAndersoon @Mrf8128 @Rubyaxles @Subaryan @The Sports Gnome @Unnamelessness @Mjquinn_id @Revolynka @Spiderone @Another Believer @Qwerty284651 @Tvx1 @Ipigott @Jonaththejonath Pinging. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
DiamondIIIXX It's funny how only now I ran into this discussion, after all has been said and done already in the respective tennis article, and I archived the whole thing... Funny, how things work out some times. P.S. It was amusing engaging with you in the heated back-and-forth discussion over what combo and version to use in the article...Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I really don't think we need double title tables. We need a Channel Slam because it is a press reported issue with sourcing. As for double counting, there are legitimate concerns for both styles. I have always included it myself, such as Graf winning both the Grand Slam and the non-calendar Grand Slam. As far as Pre-Open/Open Era distinctions I'm not big on that... I like greatest in history tables not so much greatest in different eras. There are too many weird things in each era. Womens pre-Open and Open Era differences are minimal compared to the men. Tennis in the 70s/80s also had players that weren't allowed to play big events. There are big differences in the fact that in the last 20 years they changed balls at the French, changed grass at Wimbledon to slow it down, sped up some hard courts. Big differences from wood to composite to gigantic oversized rackets. The Big tournament organization changes in 1990. To say that pre-Open and Open is the demarcation line is not looking at history... twas one of many. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. It's already a very long article as it is. Rubyaxles (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need that Title Double table either. Per WP:NOTDATABASE, I even think only the first three sections should be included on the page. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@Unnamelessness Comment - I believe these stats were previously on Grand_Slam (Tennis), but were moved here to have all the stats in one place. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  1. I don't see any reason to list 3 of 4 at all...UNLESS the player is still active and "could" win the 4th (Calendar or non-calendar). Like "Pending". The only accomplishment below the 4 slams would be the Channel Slam.
  2. I agree with combining Open Era and not... I think it tends to be confusing and not really enlightening. Though it seems to make sense in some of the Misc tables; when things are chronological. I found the two "by country" tables interesting. Clearly shows when Aus and Eng were basically "private" tournaments.
  3. I think there should be a "See also" at the top for the opposite sex page (Men's singles to Women's singles), etc.
    1. There is very little consistency between sexes and/or events (Same sections, same order...)
  4. We need to stay with the consistent BOLD being for Active - some pages are using underlined?
  5. Is there a reason we have stopped putting the Portal:Tennis link in the See also section at the bottom?
Just my thoughts - Mjquinn_id (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Time to allow that one player to have her own name?Edit

Was wondering if with a Brit having won the US Open those editors who've made it a thing over the last 9 years to select (for no discernible reason) just 1 East European woman in the entire encylopaedia for diacritic-stripping could let her have her fully spelled name back? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

And what Brit are you speaking of? Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The spelling of the article matches the spelling of her name on the US Open trophy, no?  oncamera  (talk page) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
And on her own social media accounts, which are clearly under her direct control (or that of her "team" these days perhaps, but I doubt she had much of one back in November 2019). The reference to "the last 9 years" confuses me here, as that doesn't seem to apply to either Emma Raducanu's wikipedia article or her career in the tennis rankings, so unless someone else is being even-more-obliquely referred to here, I'm a little lost. (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

"Top Seed Open" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Top Seed Open. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 15#Top Seed Open until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone here know anything about this tournament? Should it have its own article, or was the redirect to Lexington Challenger correct? Please discuss if you are familiar with this subject. Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Natg 19: Essentially, the Lexington Challenger had been a male and female tournament up until 2019 and was officially known as the Kentucky Bank Tennis Championships. Since Challenger tennis tournaments typically go through many different tournament sponsors over the years, it is easier to go with just a generic article name, using the host city and then Challenger, hence the name Lexington Challenger. However, the women's edition of the tournament in 2020 was upped to WTA Tour level with the pandemic affecting the calendar, so that edition of the tournament picked up a different sponsor, in this case Top Seed. Whether or not they are technically the same tournament I have no idea, but I feel like the original redirect to Lexington Challenger would suffice. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you also comment at the RfD page? Thanks. Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the Rankings tables for Yearly Masters tournaments' drawsEdit

Hey, there I am proposing we completely remove the following table from this event

Extended content

2021 BNP Paribas Open men's singles rankings table

Seed Rank Player Points before Points dropped from 2019 and/or 2020 Points won Points after Status
1 1   Novak Djokovic 12,133 23+180 10+0 Second round vs  
2 2   Daniil Medvedev 10,553 23+1,000 10+10 Second round vs  
3 3   Stefanos Tsitsipas 8,350 360 10 Second round vs  
4 4   Alexander Zverev 7,603 23+600+250 10+10+10 Second round vs  
5 5   Andrey Rublev 90+500 10+90 Second round vs  
6 7   Matteo Berrettini 5,173 360 10 Second round vs  
7   Casper Ruud (90) 10 Second round vs  
8   Félix Auger-Aliassime 45+150 10+45 Second round vs  
9   Denis Shapovalov 45+250+180 10+45+45 Second round vs  
10   Hubert Hurkacz 90+90 10+23 Second round vs  
11   Jannik Sinner 90 10 Second round vs  
12   Diego Schwartzman 10 10 Second round vs  
13   Pablo Carreño Busta 70+90 10+45 Second round vs  
14   Cristian Garín 45 10 Second round vs  
15   Roberto Bautista Agut 90+90 10+45 Second round vs  
16   Reilly Opelka 45+90 10+0 Second round vs  
17   Gaël Monfils 90+45 10+10 Second round vs  
18   Alex de Minaur 10 10 Second round vs  
19   John Isner 2,091 45+90 10+0 Second round vs  
20   Daniel Evans (23) 10 Second round vs  
21   Lorenzo Sonego 10+20 10+13 Second round vs  
22   Aslan Karatsev (10) 10 Second round vs  
23   Ugo Humbert (45) 10 Second round vs  
24   Karen Khachanov 90+90+90 10+45+45 Second round vs  
25   Cameron Norrie 70+90 10+35 Second round vs  
26   Grigor Dimitrov (10) 10 Second round vs  
27   Lloyd Harris 57 10 Second round vs  
28   Fabio Fognini 180 10 Second round vs  
29   Milos Raonic 1,649 180+180 10+0 Second round vs  
30   Dušan Lajović 10+45 10+23 Second round vs  
31   Nikoloz Basilashvili 90 10 Second round vs  
32   Filip Krajinović 53+10+150 10+28+23 Second round vs  

and all related tables of this type for Masters tournaments. In my opinion, it is pointless to have them in the event pages for each of the 4 categories per Masters tournament every year, which is excessive Either move them to their respective draws, like we did for the Grand Slams [2], or stop using them altogether. I get it, newcomers want to keep track of the rankings during the tournament and update regularly. But risk of engaging in edit wars and for what? The rankings are updated weekly on Mondays throughout the year by the ATP and WTA Tours, respectively, anyway. So, all this match scrambling to find the right defending points and new points and now putting into account the adjusted rankings because of cancelled tournaments is too much. Too many edits over so little. And besides, there is a website that does just that (what many Wikipedia editors do, update said rankings table per XYZ Masters relentlessly) updates regularly, on a per player-win basis for all 4 categories: men's and women's singles and doubles. To summarize, either:

  • Option 1. cease using said rankings table any future Masters events henceforth;
  • Option 2. continue using it, but move it in the draw (men's, women's, singles, etc.) pertinent to the category,

rather than having it take up unnecessary space in all of 9 Masters tournaments' main article's Wikipedia pages. That is my proposal. I am inviting other editors to weigh in on the matter, so common ground is reached. Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Ensuring a "since" is included in attribution of recordsEdit

I have come across numerous sites, both generic and individual specific, that make all manner of claims to records that are either not correct or imply something more than it is. The key issue underlying this seems to me that the records are not properly qualified. While there is some separation into Amatuer and Open eras that is not always an appropriate fit so if we are talking about the current Masters tournaments or the reintroduction of tennis at the Olympics as an official tournament then we should make clear that this was only possible from 1988 and if a record is being claimed for also winning the mixed doubles in this period of the Olympics it should also be specified, where that is different to the general date, when that occurred (e.g. 2012). The same applies to Grand Slam claims. If one holds (and has made clear the argument for exclusion) that the FO was not a Grand Slam tournament until 1925 then the first time that the "Grand Slam" could have been achieved was 1925 and that should be stated. This also applies to variation s on the theme such as career slams, surface slams (1978 if all four majors have to be won as well) etc. So "Grand Slam" records were not and are not "all-time" records. They were and are records established pertaining to a set of criteria that was only made possible at a certain time. Now that is different from records that may relate to "Grand Slam" tournaments (I prefer Major as this term confuses the individual tournaments with the specific definition in respect to attaining all four 'Majors' but accept it is an approved term by the ITF) - these (once defined/justified as that for the relevant period) could be claimed to commence in 1877. So, for example, the record for the most Majors did commence in 1877 and it is an all time one, the all time record for the most AO did commence in 1905 etc. By being more disciplined in this we can: - help avoid the ongoing additions to sites for claims that are incorrect - qualify records, where appropriate, to understand the period to which they pertain - better focus on earlier achievements (records) that were achieved but have been effectively superseded by a record, the combination of which didn't even apply to them Antipodenz (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Table font size disparity between ATP and WTAEdit

Also posted on Talk: 2021 WTA Tour -- I only just noticed this for some reason, but apparently the WTA tour Schedule tables have font size set to 85%, whereas ATP have font size set to 95%. This seems to be consistent across years for the ATP, but seems to have changed to 85% for the WTA from 2012 onwards. Is there a reason for this? If not (my working theory is that it was a typo that nobody noticed), I'm proposing to make font sizes consistent across ATP and WTA. I'm not sure if this is the best place to put this comment, but since this is the page I first realised it I'll stick it here and hopefully someone will note it. Also, which out of 85% and 95% should be the preferred standard?

For this version of my post, I should say that I haven't checked through all the archives in this talk to see if it was noticed or mentioned before. If so, my apologies. Still, that there's a sudden change from 2011 WTA Tour to 2012 WTA Tour suggests that it might just have been missed. I also would add that I prefer the 85% text size, but this would presumably require a lot more editing. Jimthree60 (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Jimthree60, the ATP standard formatting is also used for the majority of the WTA tour articles (from 1971 through 2012) and also for the World Championship Tennis circuit articles. The WTA Tour articles from 2013 until now still need to be updated. The differences are a bit more than just font size though.--Wolbo (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't notice any other differences but I can well believe there are some! What did you have in mind? Jimthree60 (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@Jimthree60: Per MOS:SIZE "In no case should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size (i.e. 11.9 px in Vector skin or 10.8 px in Monobook)." So, 85% is the minimumn font size any text on Wikipedia articles is allowed to be. Below that and WP:MOS is violated. Any size between 85% and 100% is to editor's preference. Uniformity, i.e. consistency, should be applied across articles of similar context. As far as between ATP and WTA disparity is considered, I have nothing against you willingly changing said font size for past 10 years of WTA tour to either 95 or 85 % or whichever font size to your liking. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Notability criteria discussion at WP:NSPORTEdit

Don't see a notification about it here but there is a discussion ongoing at WP:NSPORT on whether Fed Cup and Davis Cup participation should be removed from the notability criteria for tennis players.--Wolbo (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to deal with "Partial Season" played out in Tennis like for the year 2020Edit

Hi... I am referring to "World No.1 ranked male tennis players" article page. We are basically listing sources, who based on their judgement awarding their champion for the full year performance. ATP Player of the year and ITF World champion are two awards decided by two big sources ATP and ITF respectively. As you know, the year disrupted by COVID-19 pandemic, so no tournaments were made mandatory by ATP for players’ participation. ATP Rankings frozen from 16 March 2020 to 24 August 2020 as tour was not played (Tour was played less than half of the year). There was revision of ATP year-end ranking to ATP’s Best of 24-month ranking. ATP had awarded their player of the year based on best of 2019 and 2020 performance, which is not exactly taking into account 2020 performance alone. Very few tournaments were played by few players including Grand Slams. ITF did not announce its World Champion due to pandemic. In this case, few editors awarding World no.1 player based on single source (ATP). How to assess the performance of the player in a partial season ??. Now, An undisputed number one player for the year (without another player regarded as co-number one) is shown in BOLD and the year is also shown BOLD against the player. My proposal is to make the year un-bold by the virtue of partial season for any player. We need to add no.1 for that player if the season is played without any disruption or suspension. e.g. The year 2020 would be un-bold irrespective of player regarded as no.1 by any one of the big sources as the season was partial. Kindly let us know your views on this. Krmohan (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Change to NSPORT notability for Davis Cup and Billie Jean King CupEdit

Eleven editors decided 7-4 to remove Davis Cup and Billie Jean King Cup participation from automatic notability. It has not changed in our own Tennis Project Guidelines, but keep it in mind when creating new articles based solely on those ITF team events. Some of us had thought a compromise to those players being in the main World Group of 16 countries should have automatic notability, but that did not happen. This is just an FYI to those not privy to that discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) So, what you are saying we should just give up because the discussion was closed by a non-admin. We should and will demand a revote. There is no way this is going unnoticed. You did say it so on the closer's talk page, Fyunck, you will take it up one level. Why the sudden change of heart? Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Because the closer did nothing wrong. Their assesment of the consensus is correct. These discussions aren’t even polls with votes, so a revote cannot be demanded. Moreover, WP:Tennis does not have special authority or some veto. Therefore I strongly suggest we adapt our guidelines so that they match the actual Wikipedia notability guidelines.Tvx1 21:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Not a change of heart. Just got back in town and work was piling up. Plus admins I respect said all looked well with the closure. The players picked for Davis cup are usually the best tennis players in that nation (although not so with the US). They are probably notable anyway. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, yeah. It is good to know fellow editors with higher privileges, I reckon. And besides, the higher the coverage for one athlete, whose article was started on the notion of Davis/Fed Cup, the better for said athlete to have their article be expanded upon, rather than removed speedily. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
That comment again shows the shortcomings of your argument and why it was given little weight in the assessment. It is based on a personal sentiment not supported by facts. That Davis Cup and Fed Cup teams usually holds true for ties in the World Groups and their play-offs and more recently their Qualifiers and Finals. But that is far from the case with smaller nations playing in levels like zonal group IV. These countries most often select who is available and willing to play and even had to add juniors to the rosters at times because they often don't have sufficient successful players travelling around the tour to fill up Davis Cup or Fed Cup roster with. Moreover, these lower-level zonal ties rarely garner signifacant coverage, let alone the players doing so independently. Just playing one Davis Cup or Fed Cup match ever was way too low for a notability bar.Tvx1 22:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
That being said, I think both of you are overconcerned about the consequences of the removal of this criterium. You seem to fear that articles of all players who ever played in a Davis or Fed Cup match will now be deleted. I can assure you that's not true. These will really only affect some players from the lower levels of this competition who are just not notable.
On a side note, I think the Hopman Cup should also be removed from that criterium. The Hopman Cup is an invitational event that invites players who have already achieved considerable notability through their performances in the sport. Most often players from the top 100 in the ATP and WTA singles or doubles rankings. I cannot actually think of any player who competed in the Hopman Cup who wasn't already notable before doing so.Tvx1 22:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
But that would mean we shouldn't remove Hopman Cup from auto-notability. Back to Davis Cup, someone had mentioned auto-notability would be better assigned to the World Group, and it's hard to fault that choice as you have eloquently said above. And two other things mentioned in that and the previous discussions at that talk page, we don't start removing players article already created, and it doesn't necessarily supersede our own Project Guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Auto-notability does not and should not exist. WP:N only attributes presumed notability. Actually notability is only achieved by siginificant coverage in reliable third-party sources. What I wrote means the Hopman Cup should be removed. It’s presence in the guideline is pointless. There is no tennis player who achieved notability through playing in the Hopman Cup. Lastly, WP:CONLEVEL quite patently dictates that WikiProject guidelines cannot override site-wide guidelines. Site wide consensus supersedes local consensus.Tvx1 23:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
What should happen and what does happen are two completely different things. Guidelines are just that that.... guidelines. Common sense prevails over them as has been stated in Wikipedia policies. General guidelines don't always work and everyone who edits here for a length of time knows that. They simply can't cover everything. I'm guessing we won't agree on this subject but that's ok... there are plenty of things we agree on and plenty of things I agree and don't agree with other editors. As long as we are civil to one another things have a tendency to work out most of the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This is true what you said to a degree there, Fyunck. It's just that why go ahead and remove certain guidelines, when it was fime just the way it was with them. Now there was a proposal to takr down Hopma cup from the notability list, as well. Yes, the exhibition tournament is defunct, being replaced by the current ATP Cup, but still. I just don't like it when things get changed so abruptly, on a whim, because to tighten up the creation BLP's articles for player, who are not getting enough coverage by the media in some sufficient/adequate way, form or fashion..It's just...I don't know. I wish you could change things, keep certain guidelines as they are, intact. But this, it seems, is bigger than me. Out of my control. Not much I can do about this, except state my opinion/vote and hope for the best. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The proposal to remove Hopman Cup is not because of it being defunct. It isn’t even defunct but just temporarily absent. It’s because the claim is simply incorrect. There are simply no players who achieved notability through playing in the Hopman Cup.
Fyunck(click), do you have any meaningful argument as to why WP:TENNIS guidelines should remain deliberately contrary to the community consensus achieved at [[WP:N]? “Common sense prevails” amounts to nothing but “for the sake of it”. That’s a really poor attitude. The discussed general at WP:N isn’t even a general guideline but a tennis sub-specific guideline of the specific sports notability guideline. Our WikiProject should reflect the community consensus instead of sticking to a local one.Tvx1 13:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tvx1 Is it, in your opinion, advisable to reopen the discussion on the topic? I would do the reopening myself, but would that change anything, 'tis the quandary here. I fear, whilst removing the until-further-notice defunct Hopman Cup, should not spell doom for current BLP's articles on the grounds on WP:GNG, it will on the future ones, for sure. And why do you insist on removing said Cup. I am seeing of pattern the Cups being targeted, which does not have to mean anything, but still why? Furthermore, will these changes affect the WP:WTENNIS'notability criteria, now that the Cups are being removed? Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
No I don’t think it is advisable to re-open. A community discussion was held in a correct way and closes with consensus assessed in a correct way. I cannot see any justified grounds to reopen it. I cannot personally vouch for why the cups were discussed. Someone raised the subject for whatever reason and I just gave my opinion. I decided to mention the Hopman Cup because I thought it was best to discuss all of the ITF’s national team events rather than just some. And as I have stated multiple times, yes I think WP:Tennis should be changed in line with the changes at WP:NSPORT. No proper reason no to do so has been brought forward.Tvx1 15:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, if I was making the Tennis Guideline today, I would write it as all players in the 16 team World Group of Davis Cup are presumed notable. I think our Guideline should reflect that. If NSPORT wants to follow that, great. If they don't, then oh well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but that is not how it works. A WikiProject should follow community consensus, not the other way round. If you want to start a new discussion at WP:NSPORT to demonstrate that the Davis Cup World Group players are presumed notable, you can always try. But I will reiterate that it would be redundant, since these players are already notable for other efforts anyway.Tvx1 17:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not the way it was originally created. Do you actually think that the NSPORT tennis section was created by the community at large? Nope, it wasn't. It was originally created with a just a few lines by someone who knew nothing about tennis. Then they called in Tennis Project and tennis experts to rewrite it as it stood for a decade. Wikipedia knew that people that knew tennis would be better equipped to write the rules of notability as opposed to those who barely know the names of the four majors. Those NSPORT rules were taken from Tennis Project, not the other way around. They didn't have an RFC to do it either... a few helpful folks wrote it, agreed, and then posted it. Now eleven years later a few editors suddenly changed it pretty much without tennis people to help. I look at wikiprojects as better able to figure out details on these things than general guidelines, and there are many many editors who feel the same way. I understand that you don't but even the recent things on the Olympics notability stated that project guidelines should be taken into account. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I would just like to point out the fact, which you two, @Fyunck(click)@Tvx1, missed. And that is WP:WTENNIS, not to be confused with WP:TENNIS, mind you. That is [[3]] Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Tennis task force which clearly mentions the Fed Cup as an notability criteria. Notability guidelines. What does one do in this case? Ignore the criteria, put it into account, or what? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click)@Tvx1 I propose we move this discussion on the Sports notability talk page, instead of here, because it has developed into a full blown ping pong game pretty much between certain editors and/or patrollers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Important possible change at World number 1 ranked male tennis playersEdit

Pretty important change being discussed at World number 1 ranked male tennis players. It's looking like in column two, the No. 2 player will be replaced by the No. 1 amateur. If this is something you like or don't like and want to comment please do so on that talk page topic. It's an important article for Tennis Project and I didn't want anyone blindsided. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Fyunck. Will look into it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Really important change now being discussed at World number 1 ranked male tennis players.Edit

There is discussion at World number 1 ranked male tennis players that may or may not remove some or as some have suggested all rankings from all players. If that's the case we may need to rename the article. Please voice an opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Developing a new notability guideline for Davis Cup and BJK CupEdit

As was already mentioned on this page above, a recent discussion removed the Davis Cup and the BJK Cup (i.e. the Fed Cup) part of the WP:NTENNIS guideline for presumed notability. In short, the rationale for removing these tournaments was that some Davis Cup players who compete in Group IV definitely don't meet WP:GNG, so the entire thing should be removed. We were only notified of the discussion after a request to close the discussion was submitted, so we were largely left out of the discussion. Requests to re-open the discussion have (at least so far) been denied because regular editors of the sports notability page don't think it is necessary to notify editors who don't follow already follow that page and because the late comments from us didn't dispute the reasons for closing. If they don't like that version of the guideline, then let's develop a new one. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't like that the discussion treated the Davis Cup and BJK Cup as single entities. There are different levels of these competitions (Finals, Group I, Group II, etc.) just like in the rest of tennis (e.g. with the ATP Tour, Challenger Tour, and ITF Futures). Here is a breakdown by group...

First, the more obvious ones:

  • Finals: I think most of us (or even all of us?) would agree that participating in the Davis Cup or BJK Cup Finals (formerly known as the World Group) should confer presumed notability. Tvx1 basically said above that it was so obvious that these players would be notable that they didn't think it would be worth adding the Finals to the WP:NTENNIS guideline because all of these players already have articles. To some extent I agree, but I'd still be in favor of including it for completeness.
  • Group IV: I think most of us already agree that participating in Group IV does not confer presumed notability. Case in point: Almost none of the 2021 Davis Cup Africa Zone Group IV players have articles, and not many of the 2021 Davis Cup Europe Zone Group IV players do either.

Then, the less obvious ones:

  • Group I: Davis Cup is simpler since there is just one World Group I. Pretty much all of these players have articles. At least a few of them only have articles because they competed in Davis Cup (e.g. Murkel Dellien and Boris Arias from Bolivia.) Dellien, Arias, and basically all of the other questionable ones seem to have lost their matches. So I'd suggest you actually have to win a Group I match to get presumed notability.
  • Group II and Group III: I don't think just playing a match or even winning a match is enough to confer presumed notability at this level. In the interest of being inclusive, maybe winning a certain number of matches or playing for a certain number of years would be enough?


  1. Keep the Finals in the guideline. (You have to play one match.)
  2. Keep Group I in the guideline. (You have to win one match.)
  3. I'm not sure about Group II or Group III.
  4. Get rid of Group IV.

Thoughts? I'd want to see what the editors who normally create these articles have to say in particular. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)




One thing. The World group might not always be so "obvious", so it needs to be in the guidelines. Remember that it includes 16 teams but only eight from the year prior. The next eight have to play preliminary rounds where upsets from lesser teams happen. Players on those lesser teams may be much more unknown outside their countries. Otherwise I don't usually create these articles but your reasoning is sound. Groups 2 and 3 are probably notable but that can be quite different than "presumed notable." Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

"The World Group" doesn't exist anymore. The current Davis Cup format has two World Groups which are actually the second and third tier. These actually feature 24 teams each. The top tier is currently the "Finals" tier which has a 24 teams qualifying round and a 18 team Finals round.Tvx1 17:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The proposal is flawed from the beginning if you ask me. For some reason only the current format is considered, which is recentism and not even presented properly. The Davis Cup does presently not have one but two World Groups and a Finals level above them.

  • The current format has the Finals, then Group I, Group II, Group III, Group IV. The old format had the World Group, then Group I, Group II, Group III, Group IV. Not much has changed, except the top level was renamed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Wrong. Much more has changed. The old format had World Group and zonal levels below that were teams were nations were group in zones. The new format has Finals and World Groups I and II and the zonal levels only below that. Thus there are three levels now were teas from all over the world are mixed versus only one such level previously.Tvx1 18:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
      • That's not really correct. In 2021, Group I has 24 teams. In 2018 with the old format, Group I still had 24 teams: 11 in Europe/Africa, 7 in Americas, and 6 in Asia/Oceania. The fact that they combined the continent sub-groups into one big group doesn't change the level. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the proposed guidelines are just to vague and general to properly deal with a tournament that is actually older than three of the grand slam tournaments. The Fed Cup, recently renamed to Billie Jean King Cup, is younger but equally evolved through the decades. It's too simplistic to say all players who played in a World Group match, of which the Fed Cup had two and the Billie Jean King Cup has none, are presumed notable. Two important things are ignored:

  • Firstly, quite a lot dead rubbers were played in the years the World Groups were the top tier. These dead rubbers often featured the lowest ranked players of the relevant teams playing for experience and I strongly contend that all players playing such a match are presumed notable.
    • That's easy to address. Just change it to live rubber then. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Secondly, players only playing doubles have comparatively lower notability than players who play singles or both. So I do not believe that every player who played even just one doubles world group match (and that could even have been a dead rubber in the Fed Cup) is notable.
    • Currently, all of our guidelines apply to singles and doubles players equally. This wouldn't be any different. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Which would be wrong as these do not have the same level of notability, let alone they could achieve it equally easily.Tvx1 18:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

These are quite big issues and therefore I cannot support the current proposal. Moreover, in general I still believe that players who played in these cups and are notable are notable for other achievements in Tennis and that players who only ever played one match in these cups, whichever level, or not notable just because of that.Tvx1 17:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Tennis MSE templates listed for deletionEdit

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#Tennis at multi-sport competitions about numerous tennis MSE navbox templates which have been replaced by Template:Infobox tennis tournament event and Template:Infobox tennis tournament year. Any comments therein by WP:Tennis members would be appreciated. Sod25 (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wimbledon articles: Large move request to move Gentlemen's" → "Men's", "Ladies'" → "Women'sEdit

A move request at Talk:The Championships, Wimbledon is taking place to move any Wimbledon article titles that contain Gentlemen's and Ladies' to Men's and Women's. Not sure if we ever decided what to do about this. Back in 2009 a discussion took place to use Gentlemen's and Ladies' because that's what Wimbledon has always used, but I don't see anything since. The current invitational articles still use G&L rather than M&W, and articles before 1903 do also. Not sure who moved them to men's and Womens or why. Does anyone recall a conversation where it was decided? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Camila OsorioEdit

Hello, WikiProject Tennis,

I have some questions whether this article is a target of paid editors so I'm hoping that editors more familiar with tennis and tennis players than I am can confirm that she is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Thanks, in advance. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: She's ranked 53 in the world (actually 54 today), was a finalist at the WTA Tenerife Ladies Open 2 weeks ago, advanced to round three at Wimbledon, and won the WTA Copa Colsanitas tournament in April this year. She is very notable. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Championship vs. ChampionshipsEdit

Coming from a brief conversation at User_talk:Ytfc23#Championships ... I find things like 2016 Nielsen Pro Tennis Championships where "Championships" seems to be inappropriately plural. I just did a fix at 2015 Nielsen Pro Tennis Championship and related articles, but wanted to get more input before continuing in that direction. Back when existed, it only used the singular, as far as I've found (but I didn't look further back than 2015); see archived 2016 page. OK to fix these? Is there a similar issue in other championships? User:Ytfc23 suggests that maybe Brits use plural and Americans use singular. Comments? Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. I recall we had a Tennis Project discussion and I believe the consensus was to always use "championships." It appeared to be the most common term and we wanted to be consistent. I think that's the way it happened but @Wolbo: was more a part of the conversation than I was. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
To my recollection we mostly use the plural form because tournaments usually consist of more than one event. That is the reason why the 1877–1883 Wimbledon tournaments are called Championship (only one event) but as of 1884 they are called Championships because there are several events and therefore several titles (champions). I don't think it is a specific British-US distinction. Most of the sources I know have the various official U.S. championships (national, indoor, clay) in plural form, but the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championship is currently in singular form. In summary, we usually go with the plural form, however, if reliable sources say otherwise we should follow that.--Wolbo (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, I will attempt to continue to fix the Nielsen to singular, since that's the official and common form for that one, and I won't worry about others unless I stumble into them at some point. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of Singles and Doubles and suchEdit

One more thing: on these I was working on, and probably on others, I find " – Singles" and " – Doubles" on titles, where the capitalization does not seem justifiable. So I'm downcasing those. Any objections? Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

On tennis article titles it is Women's Singles and Men's Doubles. That is the normal use in tennis. I know the Olympics Project has a different idea and we agreed to use lower case for them since other Olympic articles do the same, but it is a proper phrase in tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not asking about that phrase, just about the isolated "singles" and "doubles". Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
But wait, does the capitalization from the title leak into the infobox? See 2010 Nielsen Pro Tennis Championship – singles which I downcased. I don't understand templates well enough to get what's happening here. Anyone want to comment on the right way forward? Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure. This Indian Wells article title would be correct as is the prose. If all we see is the word "singles" I'm not so sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what "a proper phrase in tennis" means, either. Book sources don't cap these much. Also not capped at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
A proper name... like "Open Era" should be capitalized. Under our guidelines under "Article types and recommended practices" it says Draw articles, 2008 US Open – Men's Singles, 2007 Brasil Open – Singles. And if you are talking about the infobox at 2010 Nielsen Pro Tennis Championship – Singles, those are their own section beginnings... I would assume Singles and Doubles would be capitalized there since it's like the start of a sentence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I of course understand that we capitalize proper names; I just wasn't sure if "a proper phrase in tennis" was some conventional thing I need to learn about. From looking at usage in books, it looks to me like "men's singles" and such are not usually capitalized. These terms are pretty clearly not proper names of anything, right? As for the infobox title, I agree they should use sentence case; but the template makes that hard if they're not sentence case in the title. I don't see anything in the guidelines and conventions about this case issue. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ITF and Fed Cup/Billie Jean King Cup chartsEdit

Hello to everybody! I'm wondering what is correct way of writing ITF names and how Fed Cup/Billie Jean King Cup table should look like? Most ITF tournaments are represented as ITF + name city, Country, talking about 10/15/25K tournaments, but what about higher level ones? Should there be universal template for all tournaments on the ITF Tour? Names of some higher level tournaments ex. Coleman Vision Tennis Championships (held in Albuquerque) is too long and maybe it will be better to specify the city rather? Also there are some tournaments like Copa LP Chile where saying Cope LP Chile, Chile is a little bit pointless cuz we already can see that tournament is hold in Chile. Talking about Fed Cup/BJKP chart, I can't found proper version cuz on almost all female ralated pages there are not the same chart represented in Article Guidline for Davis Cup. Davis Cup chart is for me unlegible and needs new format. JamesAndersoon (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)