Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

Latest comment: 3 days ago by Unnamelessness in topic NEW Performance timeline

WikiProject iconTennis Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Tennis To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

10x WTA 1000 events in 2024 edit

I am pinging @Fyunck(click), ForzaUV, and Krmohan:, the original contributors to the WTA 1000 tables' current design and layout. Not sure Forza will respond as he's been inactive for almost a year. Fyunck helped with the tables design before both stat pages were even created.

With BOTH Dubai (Dubai Open) and Doha (Qatar Open) being added as WTA 1000 events next year, 10 WTA 1000 events are scheduled to take place in 2024 for the first time since 2007. Other notable changes: Wuhan is coming back and will be played AFTER Beijing as the last, 10th, event.[1][2]

This mainly affects 3 pages: WTA 1000 and its corresponding singles and doubles statistics pages. Both stat pages have "Champions by year" sections listing all the winners 1990-Present in 2 tables: WTA Tier I (1990-2008) and WTA Premier Mandatory/5/1000 (2009-). The first table has 10 tournament columns, because between 2003–2007 San Diego took place, which contributed to there being 10x WTA Tier I events in a year. Whereas the 2nd table has only 9 tournament columns.

My question is: do we create a 3rd table to accommodate for that extra tournament OR expand the current 2nd table to list both Dubai and Doha in separate columns? Or maybe some other solution that someone comes up with.


  1. ^ "Tennis Tournaments | Official WTA Tournaments – WTA Tennis". Women's Tennis Association. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
  2. ^ "2024 WTA 1000 Calendar" (PDF). Retrieved 14 November 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I didn't know about all those changes. The WTA 1000 article should be no problem since we create a new table every year. We'll simply have more rows in the 2024 season. I've always hated the city name in the tournament column in those charts. For the records articles it's time to start a new chart with 10 columns just like we did from 1990 to 2008. This is too big a deal to not start something new in 2024. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if we create a 3rd table, then what would we call that section, since both tables are defined within a certain timeframe (see subsection names)?
Looking at the newly created 2024 WTA Tour article, it seems that they are also dropping the whole Mandatory, non-mandatory sub-categorization. Hopefully, this unify the ranking point system across the board and distribute equal points for all 10 tournaments.
As for the WTA 1000's tournaments column, we can always change the names from city names to full names, such as: China Open, Italian Open, Indian Wells Masters, etc. This would also affect the ATP 1000 article. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. merged tables or
  2. split tables? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me, it's a no brainer. This is a drastic change and should require a new table. So split tables. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thoughts on the lead texting? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shall we include flags/nationalities of Russian and Belarus players, from 1 March 2022 onwards, in our rankings charts? edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The situation. From 1 March 2022 the ATP/WTA/ITF issued a statement saying "Players from Russia and Belarus will continue to be allowed to compete in international tennis events as individuals. However, they will not compete under the name or flag of Russia or Belarus until further notice." Two links: ITF Here, and WTA Here. We have followed this lead and sources at Wikipedia and removed Russia/Belarus nationality from our players at international events since 1 March 2022. Some here also want to include the flag/nationality removal here on our ranking charts also. No sourced statements have said to do so. However the ATP and WTA websites also removed the nationalities from rankings. Outside sources other than those tennis bodies are mixed, but then other sources are also mixed on nationality removal from tournaments. Examples, here, and here, and here, and here. Example of ESPN using nationality even in tournaments.

We would tend to go with the sourced charts of the ATP and WTA websites, but there is a big problem on this issue with reliability there. The WTA/ATP websites removed all nationalities/flags from all Russia/Belarus players from all times in history... a blanket removal. Players long since retired are included. WTA player Dinara Safina hasn't played in a decade... no nationality. Same with Elena Dementieva and 1990s player Yevgeny Kafelnikov. No flags/nationalities in any tournament they played in or in any capacity on their websites. We certainly are not going to start removing nationalities from these players as the tennis governing bodies seem to be telling us to do on their websites. Their software on this issue seems to be faulty in determining what to do or they were lazy and did a blanket removal. Can we use them for our rankings not knowing if it is faulty/limited software issues or if they really mean to remove the nationalities from rankings as well? If so should we also follow them in removing retired player nationalities from years ago? This is our dilemma at Tennis Project since it affects any article with rankings charts.

We had a previous RfC on this a year ago with no opposition to keeping flags, but only three people participated. Since we have two current editors now wanting the nationalities removed I thought it best to rehash and see if opinions have changed. I'm not starting with an RfC since that includes all editors from society, sports, and culture, and this is really a tennis chart only issue. I think the Tennis Project can handle this plus we don't want to bump up against WP:RFCBEFORE.

  • (A). Keep flags/nationalities in ranking charts until a formal statement is issued specifically saying no nationalities in rankings.
  • (B). Remove flags/nationalities in ranking charts just as we do with current tournament charts.

That's our pickle. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey edit

(A) Keep flags or (B) Remove flags

  • (A) keep flags - I would tend to go with what we have always done with rankings until a statement from the ATP/WTA/ITF says otherwise. The websites are unreliable in this particular case. We can confirm they meant to remove the flags from tournaments, so no issue there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We already have that statement.Tvx1 09:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (B) Remove flags – There are only two options, to respect or not to respect the joint statement from the Tennis Governing bodies, the ATP and WTA. If Wikipedia respects the decision not to display RUS/BLR flags in all types of tennis articles: players, draws, circuits, lists of number 1 ranked tennis players, and even for the highest ranked players in season, there is no reason to make an exception for rankings. Rankings are compiled by the ATP and WTA on their own circuits, it's their business. The ATP and WTA have been publishing rankings in this form since March 2022: ATP 1 + ATP 2, WTA 1 + WTA 2. It's the most reliable source and the only authoritative for Wikipedia. Kacir 19:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (B) Remove flags This seems to be crystal clear to me. The relevant players have not been allowed to compete under their nationalities for almost two years know. They collect ranking points without a nationality, so cannot possibly be ranked with one. The ATP/WTA site argument is nothing but a desperate excuse to keep the flags.Tvx1 14:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)x1 14:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further discussion edit

  • Fyunck(click) since the majority of the votes is to remove the flags, please close this discussion and remove flags on the Current Rankings page and any other pages where there are current rankings being displayed for all the WTA and the ATP Russians and Belarusian Active players.Sashona (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Retired or Inactive players are irrelevant for this discussion, we are talking about a decision made on 1 March 2022, so only Active Russian and Belarusian players that have a ranking in the Current tennis rankings and going forward are being discussed. Sashona (talk)
    They are not irrelevant at all when their flags are removed in error on the governing bodies websites. It shows their software is suspect in regards to this issue as they should never have been removed at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you saying that "" website is wrong too? When you type "ATP current rankings" it comes back with blanks also. Or the Olympics organization at ""?Sashona (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As stated in previous discussions, there are also good sources that use the nationality. And often ones that omit it refer readers to the ATP/WTA website. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Correctly so, of course they will refer the ATP/WTA since these are the official main correct sources. Sashona (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Official sources yes... they aren't always correct though. We have plenty of articles where they have had to be overridden by the correct data. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That doesn’t mean we should consider them incorrect by default. Do you honestly think that if the removal of the flags was incorrect, that they wouldn’t have rectified that in the almost two years since??? They have kept these flags out of their rankings more than long enough, for this to clearly have been intentional. Tvx1 14:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If that's true then they mean for all Russian players of all time periods (even the 1970s) to have their flags/nationalities removed from all tennis mentioning. We obviously must do the same and remove all our Russian/Belarus nationalities no matter who they are and no matter the time period. This omission by them is an obvious error and the rankings may or may not have been caught up in that error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Or it is a technical limitation of their site. We know bloodly well that they are not supposed to be gone, because there is no formal statement from them retroactively banning Russia and Belarus from every competition ever. You are just making problems where there are none.Tvx1 09:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We also don't know if technical limitations are involved with the rankings data removal. That's my point... we don't know. There is also "no formal statement" on ranking removal. You are trying to cherry-pick which we use and which we don't, and Wikipedia is not supposed to work that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fyunck(click) Can you please close this RFC and remove the flags on all pages where there are Current rankings or any other pages with Active ATP and WTA Russian and Belarusian players displayed since we have reached a majority as of 2 January 2024. Sashona (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Sashona:It's not much, but I guess it's all we have from tennis project members. There have been holidays, but it's been a month. Go ahead a remove those you find and I'll close this up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rankings are calculated at least in part based on results before the 2022 invasion. We keep flags for retired and inactive players not because they haven't played since the war escalated but because of their scores before the war. Along the same vein, results before 2022 also contribute to the rankings of active players. CurryCity (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Rankings are based on 52 weeks so none of the 2022 results before the invasion impact the Current rankings. The only results that matter at this point are the 2023 results for the Active players.Sashona (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ATP Masters 1000 yearly page title naming edit

WTA 1000 season articles all end with "...tournaments". Only the 2023 ATP Masters 1000 page has "tournaments" at the end of the title. Do we match what the WTA articles have or remove tournaments from the one ATP Masters season article? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well we have ATP 250 tournaments and ATP 500 tournaments why wouldn't we have ATP Masters 1000 tournaments? The titles are supposed to help readers and simply saying ATP Masters 1000 without saying tournaments seems a little less than adequate. We could be more descriptive and call it "2023 ATP Masters 1000 tennis tournaments." Do you realize in the lead or infobox we don't even let readers know what sport it is? The only mention of tennis in the whole article is in references and external links. That is pretty bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you are proposing is we update all leads and do a mass-page move for all yearly Masters articles. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like the first "ATP Masters 1000" article is 2019 so that's barely any. Even going back to 2009 would only take a couple minutes. Changing the leads to include the words "tennis tournament" is also pretty darned easy, and is really mandatory. These articles are supposed to stand on their own no matter how a reader gets there. It is pretty much required to name the sport the article is all about. I had to re-write almost every single one of the four majors (mens, womens, singles and doubles) all the way back to 1901 because of reader and administrator complaints. That took me days and days but I finally got them corrected. This is a minor blip compared to that. The title change is only a suggestion of mine... we certainly don't have to do it. But the lead really needs that wording addition. If the group wants them all without the word "tournaments" (as just ATP Masters 1000, ATP 500, etc) the lead fixes can make it very clear they are tennis tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could have asked for a BRFA and somebody do it for you with a mass-edit using a bot. The same thing I am going to use for the mass-page move to "...tournaments" for the Masters season articles (1990–Present) and the lead update. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's extremely difficult with a lead update. Every lead is written slightly differently so where the terms "tennis" and "tournament" go will be very fluid. Plus, few of all those leads had the winner and score in the first line. They had the last years winner mentioned first. A lot of re-writing and moving. A title could be done that way but I'm not sure it's worth it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fyunck, I am talking about these articles: Category:ATP Tour Masters 1000 seasons. There aren't winners or scores listed in the lead in the aforementioned articles. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just added "tennis" to 2023 ATP Masters 1000 tournaments. Just a simple addition so readers know the sport. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A title could be done that way but I'm not sure it's worth it. So, you don't want "tournaments" added to end of each yearly article then? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I meant was a title could be moved by bot, but the lead not so much. But as long as the prose states tennis and tournaments, the title doesn't absolutely need to be moved. I would change "at least" 2019-2023 to "ATP Masters 1000" for consistency. Really they should all be changed to that nomenclature back to 2009. Sources have always used simply ATP Masters 1000, even way back then. See 2013 event, a 2015 article, a 2012 article, and even a 2010 article. It was common to call them ATP Masters 1000s from the term's inception in 2009. But the article leads need to tell our readers that these are tennis tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what nomenclature do you propose for the articles pre-2009? Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure. I thought it was one thing at a time? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, to not jump the gun. The atp masters articles are named they were based on the sponsoring name from ATP, i.e. ATP's name, at the time from 2009-Present. Now, you propose unifying them to "<XYZ year> ATP Masters 1000" tournaments" for years since 2009. I am okay with that. I will add tennis to all articles' lead to signify the article is about tennis tournaments. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I looked at old newspapers and even the ATP tournament logos from 2010 they only said "ATP Masters 1000"... nothing more. It may have been different in the ATP official paperwork, but even they tended to only use "ATP Masters 1000". Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead edit

See this change for 2023 page and give me your opinion on it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there really a Masters 1000 season? Perhaps: The 2023 ATP Masters 1000 events are the thirty-fourth edition of the ATP Masters Series tennis tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article name edit

  1. 1990–2008 TBA
  2. 2009–2023 (replace current names with YEAR ATP Masters 1000 tournaments)? Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Like I said... I'm cool with leaving the word tournaments off the title, but the WTA events should then be changed to use the same format (as long as tennis and tournaments are somewhere in the lead for our readers). Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've written a draft about a local tennis champion. Could someone check my sources to see if they're suitable? edit

Marc Pepin has a five-decade history and has been inducted into our provincial sports hall of fame. He is a highly ranked player on the Senior Tour. I have written and submitted a draft article but it keeps getting rejected. Reading between the lines it seems to be for sources. My sources are CBC News articles, Government of New Brunswick, Canada sources and Sports Hall of Fame. All independant and published. What more can Wikipedia want? I'm looking for guidance from the group. Thank you for your time. Todio64 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose you expand your bare links 3-6 to contain cite web, access date, publisher or website like you did with the second resource. As far as notability is concerned. They pass, for me anyway. Also, make sure your sources are archived. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Wikipedia wants is for the subject to have achieved notability. Senior competitions or local halls of fame just don’t cut it. This subject doesn’t even meet the tennis notability guidelines. This is why the article was deleted through AFD before. You need a strong consensus opposite the AFD conclusion to recreate this article. Tvx1 14:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictures for older players edit

Hello to everyone! I wondering can we provide some better pictures for some significant former players. For instance, Justine Henin is one of the most successful female tennis player, but she hasn't got any proper image. For me is interesting that there is no photo of her holding any title, but she has won some major, just as French Open five times. I'm sorry if this is not proper place to leave this message, but I need to spread this request as far as possible. I hope so we can do something. Also, e.g. there is some former player, Julie Halard-Decugis, that I have never heard about, but she is former number 1 doubles player, Grand Slam doubles champion and top 10 singles player and she hasn't got even one photo. The list is big. JamesAndersoon (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are so right for Justine !!! And I agree as well for Julie Halard (who is well kwown in France by tennis fans). But I don't know how to get photos. Thnak you for the subject. Eric68L (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Justine Henin (examples of the existing photos)
All we can do is keep searching for free images. We can't upload what we don't have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Federer–Nadal rivalry edit

Federer–Nadal rivalry 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. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2024 ITF Womens tournaments recategorized edit

From 2024 ITF recategorized its tournaments the W25 --> W35 the W40 --> W50 the W60 --> W75 and terminate W80 category.

Until now, this has also been the was the ITF tournaments key:

Key edit

W100 tournaments
W80 tournaments
W60 tournaments
W40 tournaments
W25 tournaments
W15 tournaments

What will be the new color scheme? Sczipo (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well there will still be W15 = $15k so that will remain the same. The W25 will goto W35 but remain at $25k so that will remain the same. The W40 will goto W50 but still have $40k so no issue there. The W60 will goto W75 but still be $60k so that should remain the same too. W80 is gone so the color is gone. And the W100 will stay the same and still be $100k. So the dollar amount isn't changing for these events and the W80 is disappearing. All we need do is delete the W80 and switch to the new names and all should be good. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thx. Sczipo (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are the tiers (prize-money) and the key colours for the season 2024 not displayed as answered above? The ITF circuit finals are marked with wrong prize-money (example among other Nonthaburi 50.000 instead of 40.000). This is misleading for the readers and not correct. Sherman1998 (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The W40 category doesn't exist for the 2024 tournaments but the W50 tournaments offer $40,000 in prize money. (W50 Nonthaburi for example) The colour is incorrect on Antonia Ružić and the key should be changed to reflect categories and not prize money. YellowStahh (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just fixed the article in question. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WTA Rankings system changed edit

Aside from the change regarding the points distribution, the points breakdown slots would also expand from 16 to 18 (excluding year-end championship). The new system has already implemented on 1 January 2024, according to the latest official WTA rankings, which has a lot of moves compared to the year-end 2023. Unnamelessness (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did not know that. Everchanging WTA/ATP/ITF. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ATP also updated its ranking point distribution.[1] Couldn't find any articles on WTA's latest rankings changes. Seems to me this is the next "phase" of the infamous ATP/WTA merger which was made public back in 2021. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "ATP Releases Pepperstone ATP Rankings Breakdown Updates | ATP Tour | Tennis". ATP Tour. Dec 26, 2023. Archived from the original on Jan 3, 2024. Retrieved 2024-01-03.

Very strange order at 2023 United Cup unlike any other tennis event edit

In all yearly tennis events we describe the most important aspect first. Who won the yearly event, the edition and what it is. WE do that with [[1]], US Open, etc. There were multiple complaints about this by readers throughout the years here. No sport mentioned, no winners at the top, finals brackets buried. Sure in the main article at United Cup where it's not a yearly article it would be different, but this is for our readers. You come to the page and first and foremost you want to know the winner of the 2023 edition, and in the body you want to see the final bracket, just like all other tennis articles here. The only reason anything else would go up top is that this is the very first edition, but then its opening lead would be different than all other editions. It seems like readers heading to 2023 United Cup first and foremost want to know who won that year. Then you tell us the edition, the fact you get ranking points, etc. Just like we do at the 2024 United Cup or 2023 Davis Cup. This has been copied from Talk:2023 United Cup to get more eyes on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this where we start a discussion about if it's the correct way to list by most recent champions (Savannah Challenger) or chronological order (ala any sensible winners lists)? Articles such as WIM, and USO arguably already fail MOS:OPEN as it fails "It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." As it already presumes you have knowledge of professional tennis and would understand what Wimbledon/US Open is rather than play to the "nonspecialist" reader. My knowledge of Wikipedias Manual of Style may be a little out of date from when I used to edit years ago, but despite Football arguably being the most popular sport on earth 2023 Major League Soccer season and 2023 MLS Cup Playoffs at least establish what the tournament is first before delving into any details regarding who did what. YellowStahh (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really set the issue. Makes logical sense to first and formost explain the subject. You need te remember that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia for every kind of reader, not a tennis fansite for tennis fans.Tvx1 16:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly disagree with the point raised here. I agree that many people will want to just see the data immediately - this is what the infobox is for. It is also worth noting that unlike individual draw pages for most tournaments which are much more result-focused, the fact that it serves double-duty as the article for the entire event as a whole makes explaining what that event was far more important than saying who won it. 2023 United Cup is a much better-written lead than 2024 United Cup as far as I'm concerned. SellymeTalk 00:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually the article on the entire event is focused in the article on the United Cup. The 2023 event readers will want to know who won first and foremost, not what edition of the event or who jointly controls it. It could even be tweaked in writing it as:
"The United States defeated Italy in the finals 4–0 to capture the inaugural 2023 United Cup, an international mixed-sex team tennis competition held jointly by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) and the Women's Tennis Association (WTA)."
Something like that should satisfy everyone as a compromise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your asking for opinions on this, and so far 3 people other than yourself have said to basically follow Wikipdia's MOS and your compromise is to follow through with your approach. If we were to take Novak Djokovic's lead as an example on your compromise. Wikipedia already has a manual of style with side wide consensus on the subject so I'm not even sure what there is to discuss.
"Djokovic has been ranked No. 1 for a record total of 408 weeks in a record 13 different years, and finished as the year-end No. 1 a record eight times. Djokovic has won an all-time record 24 Grand Slam men's singles titles, including a record ten Australian Open titles. Overall, he has won 98 singles titles, including a record 71 Big Titles: 24 majors, a record 40 Masters, and a record seven ATP Finals. Djokovic is the only man in tennis history to be the reigning champion of all four majors at once across three different surfaces. In singles, he is the only man to achieve a triple Career Grand Slam, and the only player to complete a career Golden Masters, a feat he has achieved twice. Novak Djokovic (Serbian: Новак Ђоковић, Novak Đoković, pronounced [nôʋaːk dʑôːkoʋitɕ] ⓘ;[6] born 22 May 1987) is a Serbian professional tennis player who is currently ranked world No. 1 in singles by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP)." It would appear a little something like this, because thats what the readers want to know first. YellowStahh (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An individual bio has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's a terrible example. Every tennis event we have follows a certain protocol and this one seems out of place. Most of MOS talks about the first paragraph and not the first sentence. And a yearly article is quite a bit different than a a non-yearly article. We have items like Super Bowl XLVIII where the first sentence tells the two teams playing, and the second sentence who won and the score. And my compromise has bits of both... it's a big difference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why seek other peoples opinions when you have no interest in taking them on board? YellowStahh (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are you talking about? I read each and every one of these responses. I may not agree but I certainly listen. There have been many times when I've been in the majority decision at Wikipedia but still find a way to compromise with the minority as this is a team effort. This isn't US politics where it's one way or the highway. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only ask because the Superbowl article you point to starts with "Super Bowl XLVIII was an American football game" and doesn't start with the "The Seahawks defeated the Broncos 43–8 at the Superbowl XLVIII.." It mentions the two teams in the first sentence sure and that they are National and American champions, but it leaves the scoreline to the second sentence. While I do always seek to consider editors in good faith, the reason I ask why you are seeking opinions is because you've had 3 people weigh in, technically 4 people as Wolbo (talk · contribs) did revert your edit on the 2023 edition (Though if Wolbo is more than welcome to clear up my presumptiom should he wish to do so), and you are still seeking a compromise where describing the event is secondary where consensus seems against you. YellowStahh (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course I am if I think differently. And you'll notice that the article in question doesn't mention the two finalists in the first sentence. And it doesn't mention the score in the second sentence. It doesn't mention any of those things in the first three sentences. It takes the another paragraph to do so. It mentions ranking points and dates and multiple city locations. You said the superbowl "mentions the two teams in the first sentence sure" but this article doesn't. My compromise does all of that, yet you brush it off and come back with nothing else. I wouldn't have come back with an alternative if I simply blew off the other's opinions. If the article stays the way it is so be it, but that doesn't mean I think it is correct and better for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not meaning to blow you off so I am sorry if it comes across that way. Maybe a closer comparison would be a multi team article like 2022 FIFA World Cup which actually mentions who won in the third paragraph. YellowStahh (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That article is quite bad. I'm in shock that I would go to the 2022 World Cup page and have go down three paragraphs before I could see who won the darned thing in 2022. What's even worse is that the actual knockout bracket is so far down as to be hard to find. That's what readers want to see first and foremost. It's as if the most important aspects of the event don't matter. As if it's an afterthought. Britannica at least says who won in the first paragraph. Most sources of the event put the winners/losers front and center. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet if we were to look at 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup which is a relatively recent featured article, which I presume the 2022 World Cup is followimg the standard of, its very similar to how its Introed. Wikipedia is not Newspaper, so while I don't want to be dismissive once again I apologize for this as I'm not sure its super relevant how our sources lay out their information. Papers will lead with "USA def. Italy 2–1" in the headline yet our article will be named 2023 United Cup. YellowStahh (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please stop conflating what you would like to see, whith what all readers want. You don’t speak for the entire ridership here. Tvx1 15:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologize on that confusion. We had many many complaints about order through the years on standard tennis tournaments, so it holds true for them. But it was not complained about with the international team events. That was extrapolation on my part and I'll do my best in the future to keep that clear. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing is it's quite different with a yearly article. When we have an article on the United Cup, we say what that is in the lead. It's an International team tennis event. But the 2023 United Cup is far different. 2023 United Cup is an international mixed tennis event that was won by the United States over Italy. They are intrinsically linked as the highest level of importance. I feel our readers would want that right off the get-go. I could be wrong but no one has convinced me otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MOS:FIRST - There is clearly defined Manual of Style for the first sentence, so I'm not sure why we would have to convince you as it feels it should be the other way around. YellowStahh (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think MOS:FIRST can clearly be used for my interpretation also. The 2023 event is not just the United Cup. It's the "2023 United Cup", which includes a winner/loser. You will also find that I will always argue for what I believe is the best interest of our readers regardless of an interpretation of MOS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the problem is none of the readers here is agreeing with what you think is best for them. And I really don't see how you can claim MOS:FIRST can be interpreted in your favor, when it clearly states that the lead needs to start explaining what the subject is to the nonspecialist reader, while all your arguments and interpretations are aimed at the specialist tennis fan.Tvx1 19:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The United Cup article states what the United Cup is.... just the general competition itself. The 2023 United Cup encompasses the winner also. It is a more specific definition... not just the United Cup but the 2023 United Cup. In my book that includes who won. I understand that the three of you don't agree with me and of course we go with this tiny majority. Tennis Project is notorious for the small number of editors making consensus and I've benefited and not benefited, but that's the way it goes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearly we are just going around in circles, so I am going to remove myself from the conversation as its proving unproductive. YellowStahh (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry, your arguments are well documented. Wikipedia Consensus is based on arguments, not on who has the last word.Tvx1 19:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel the need to reiterate that who won an event is far less important than what the event is. Readers do not care who won some random unnamed unexplained event. "John Doe won!" is not meaningful if you don't know whether he won a Grand Slam, a 250 title, a Futures tour event, or just a match against his friends that wouldn't even pass notability guidelines. Explaining what the article is about must be the first thing in an article, because otherwise none of the other information has meaning. SellymeTalk 23:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We totally disagree that readers don't care who who won the 2023 United Cup and what is important in a yearly sub article like this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving Yulia Starodubtseva to Yuliia Starodubtseva edit

Good afternoon, I have put in a move request for Yulia Starodubtseva as she is listed as Yuliia in most sources, there is a move discussion on Talk:Yulia Starodubtseva as well as my opening argument, as its moving slow I am hoping bringing the projects attention to it can move it along. YellowStahh (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help needed edit

Hello I am currently drafting a 1967 men's tennis season here: User:Navops47/sandbox/Season and I am having a technical issue with the January section of the calendar. I cant seem to align the tournaments showing for week beginning 9 Jan their should be 4 events showing ive put in rowspan 8 but the Tasmanian Championships wont show I've tried correcting it a few times but can't  :( I would appreciate any help from anyone to correct the error im not seeing many thanks. Navops47 (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well shoot, I did a quick look and cant figure it out yet either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for looking its been perplexing me so I moved on appreciate your help.--Navops47 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Navops47, hey there. I fixed your issue. You used a duplicate reference (<ref="name">) but you closed it with a > tag instead of a \>. See revision difference. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks I was just posting a thank you reply at the same time you posted and got an edit conflict topjob my eyesight even with glasses is not brilliant :).--Navops47 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure thing. Sometimes you just need a fresh pair of eyes, a second opinion, if you will.
I also propose you replace any deprecated tags like valign=top, align=center, etc. with their full forms style="vertical-align:...; text-align:..." Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did notice several disambiguation links (dabs) in your sandbox. You can highlight the dabs to fix them by using the link classifier tool. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

American tennis coaches by state discussion edit

Please comment Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_14#Category:American_tennis_coaches_by_state regarding this tennis-related discussion.--User:Namiba 18:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NEW Performance timeline edit

At tennis guidelines a new performance timeline design was agreed upon.

Performance timeline

Timeline edit

Iga Świątek career statistics#Performance timelines

(W) winner; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; (RR) round-robin stage; (Q#) qualification round; (P#) preliminary round; (DNQ) did not qualify; (A) absent; (Z#) Davis/Fed Cup Zonal Group (with number indication) or (PO) play-off; (G) gold, (S) silver or (B) bronze Olympic/Paralympic medal; (NMS) not a Masters tournament; (NTI) not a Tier I tournament; (N1K) not 1000 tournament; (P) postponed; (NH) not held; (SR) strike rate (events won / competed); (W–L) win–loss record; (YEC) Year-end championships.
To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated at the conclusion of a tournament or when the player's participation has ended.
Tournament 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 W–L Win %
Australian Open 2R 4R 4R SF 4R 3R 17–6 74%
French Open 4R W QF W W 28–2 93%
Wimbledon 1R NH 4R 3R QF 9–4 69%
US Open 2R 3R 4R W 4R 16–4 80%
Win–loss 5–4 12–2 13–4 21–2 17–3 2–1 70–16 81%
YEC WTA Finals DNQ NH RR SF W 9–3 75%
Summer Olympics NH 2R NH 1–1 50%
Billie Jean King Cup A A Q A 2–0 100%
Dubai Championships A N1K 3R N1K F 4–2 67%
Qatar Open N1K 2R N1K W N1K 6–1 86%
Indian Wells Open Q2 NH 4R W SF 12–2 86%
Miami Open Q2 NH 3R W A 7–1 88%
Madrid Open A NH 3R A F 7–2 78%
Italian Open A 1R W W QF 14–2 88%
Canadian Open 3R NH A 3R SF 6–3 67%
Cincinnati Open 2R 1R 2R 3R SF 5–5 50%
China Open A NH W 6–0 100%
Wuhan Open A NH 0–0  – 
Win–loss 3–2 1–3 12–5 24–2 27–6 0–0 67–18 79%
Career statistics 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 W–L Win %
Tournaments 11 6 16 17 18 2 Career: 70
Titles 0 1 2 8 6 0 Career: 17
Finals 1 1 2 9 8 0 Career: 21
Hard win–loss 7–7 7–4 20–11 47–7 42–8 7–1 130–38 77%
Clay win–loss 7–3 7–1 12–2 18–1 19–2 0–0 63–9 88%
Grass win–loss 0–2 4–2 2–1 7–1 0–0 13–6 68%
Overall win–loss 14–12 14–5 36–15 67–9 68–11 7–1 206–53 80%
Win (%) 54% 74% 71% 88% 86% 88% Career: 80%
Year-end ranking 61 17 9 1 1 $24,592,763

Now it is taken up here for further discussion and consensus from the wider community. Share us your thoughts on whether the proposed chart befits this project or we should go back to the old format. The chart was changed because it went against MOS:HEADER hence why the row headers were redesigned to meet the guidelines. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Let's make sure it's presented properly. The decade old chart was vetted multiple times with screen readers and MOS and had no issues. One or two here think it goes against MOS header which was designed so that screen readers would work better. Yet it was tested years ago with no issues from folks who used those screen readers. A new chart was designed anyway. It is the best we could come up with though it has not been vetted at all. It is certainly ready to be presented here, though in the discussion it is not universally agreed that we need it at all. We need some with screen readers to take a look, but we would also want those who create new articles on a regular basis to see if they like it better than the long-standing original chart. Note the SR (strike rate) column has been removed. Note also that if there is only one "team event" in that row (it's shown with two items), the height of that row will be much higher than the other rows. Such as:
Tournament 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 W–L Win %
Summer Olympics NH 2R NH 1–1 50%

Not sure of a work-around for "team events" that would work. It was already shortened from "National representation" to "Team events." As an alternative chart, it is the best we could do. The comparison of what we have now is this current Iga Swiatek chart. Perhaps many will like the new chart better than what we have now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I’m sorry, but the linked discussion doesn’t appear to show a new design that is actually agreed upon. It appears to be just your proposal for an alternative design.Tvx1 07:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But that's sort of why this isn't an RfC. We wanted input from others here at the project. The new rendition is certainly the best three of us could come up with but it needs the vast experience of the full tennis project to weigh in. It does need those who use screen readers to test it out... probably to help others in giving an opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Which is why it was brought here for further review and discussion. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]