Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

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.


ATP Cup teams/countriesEdit

Isn't the country link should be the national team like Spain Davis Cup team instead of the whole country. See in e.g. 2018 FIFA World Cup. I suggest to change Template:ATP Cup box to a format like in Template:Hopman Cup box so that the countries as a whole no longer associated to the tournament but instead the team representing each of them. Flix11 (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Alexandra EalaEdit

There is a deletion discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Eala that you guys may be interested in participating in. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Collapsible legend boxes?Edit

We have an editor systematically turning the legends for things like "career finals" into collapsed boxes. Our guidelines currently always show the legends to help our readers. Personally I think it's helpful for our readers to see a legend at least once, with subsequent equivalent occurrences left either collapsed or not. But that's one layman's preference. I'm flexible but the question is always, what is best for our readers, both young and old alike? Should we always show them...show them the first time...always collapse them? Any thoughts on whether we should alter the guidelines to accommodate collapsed legend tables? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sitting here looking over many players and their legend boxes. Change probably won't happen, but my thoughts follow. Our legend box isn't really only a legend, it also often has a player's mini court record in it. A legend should be just that... a legend only, just like our performance timeline doesn't have records. You'd only need the un-collapsed legend one time with all the event colors, so our readers could quickly see the different levels of events. We wouldn't need a legend for every discipline as it would already have been shown. The ITF section would need a legend and the WTA section would need a legend, but we wouldn't need one for each singles and doubles and mixed within those sections. Things other than an actual legend could easily be collapsible and collapsed. That would be the "finals by surface" and "finals by setting" boxes. That info is already in the table below it and it's why we have the tables sortable. They are simply a convenience box so a reader doesn't have to count. Anyway, those are some musings as to how I would have done things with a clean slate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I also oppose it, mainly because of the records in the boxes. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Guideline updates - mostly minor - on main page timelinesEdit

A long while back now (per requests) I made some minor updates to the guidelines. Mainly just conforming ATP and WTA charts so they were the same. I had listed the items on the guideline talk page when I did it, for scrutiny sake. I wanted to make sure they were ok even if they were minor. No complaints so I pretty much forgot about it. Today one item was reverted. And of course that was one item I missed when explaining the update. The revert today was a bit tardy but I'm ok with it. I was simply following the usual bottom chart we use for all main pages when there is also a player career stats article. We use the simple chart at the bottom of the WTA performance timeline example and keep the heavy duty charts on the career stats page. That's one of the reasons we have a career stats page. We want the front article chart short and simple. That chart is the type we used in one of our best featured articles with Milos Raonic. I had tweaked the wording to conform with that standard table we use on main articles. I thought it no big deal at the time. We may have actually discussed it years ago but I haven't had time to look.

Since it was just reverted a few minutes ago I thought we should discuss before keeping the clarification removed or putting it back. Any thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Having one line for the year-end rankings doesn't prevent the chart from being short and simple. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sportsfan77777: No, but if you check the talk archives you can find many examples going back a decade that the main page of players only contains a Grand Slam tournament table. It's been talked about way before now. I simply clarified the instructions for editors asking about creating new articles. And it's not just year-end-ranking that get added. And it's not just one line looking at what you just reverted again at the Ashleigh Barty article. Its long-standing chart was a standard grand slam only chart yet you just reverted it again to your new version without discussion. That is not the way it is supposed to work here. If you change something and it gets reverted to the longstanding version you bring it to talk to change minds. You haven't done that. And it's not just one line. Looking at the Ashleigh Barty example it's four extra lines, and other editors may now add more. In fact, look what you just did to Dayana Yastremska's article. You added even more rows of titles and finals. That is WAY over the top. When will it stop? It's one thing to discuss potential changes here and get others to agree. It's another to force it upon us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with keeping the timelines on the main articles as they were. I really can't see the benefit of the proposed added information. In any case Sportsfan77777 should stop changing these timelines without a consensus to do so.Tvx1 22:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Why we should have the year-end rankings in the main page performance timelinesEdit

Fyunck and I have been discussing what to include in the main page performance timelines. Currently, the example ATP performance timeline in the guidelines has the year-end rankings on the main page. At the moment, some players have them on their main pages, and some players don't.

Why should we include the rankings? To answer that, you have to think about what a reader would want to use the performance timelines for. Most readers probably use the timelines to figure out which years a player was playing the best in their career, and when they weren't. Unfortunately, you can't always tell that from just a player's Grand Slam results. For example, Wozniacki was No. 1 for two years when she didn't reach a Grand Slam singles final. She also finished outside the top 5 in one of the years where she did have a US Open runner-up finish. The rankings give that away. The Grand Slam tournaments aren't the only thing that is important.

Having the year-end rankings doesn't make the chart that much more complicated. What are everyone's thoughts? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually we don't seem to be discussing it, you are forcing the change without discussion.... big difference. And this is being discussed right above... why the new section? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't think it was worth it to discuss having the rankings in the charts, if they are already in the guidelines. If you want to discuss whether we should keep them with the whole project, then we can do that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
And those charts for ATP and WTA were always interchangeable. They were examples of charts we use, but that was also before we really had player career statistics articles. When that happened we tend to only use a Grand Slam tournament chart on the main page and leave the rest for the career stats page. You are now adding year-end championships, totals wins, finals.... look what you just did today at Dayana Yastremska's article. That isn't just a yec. Please don't mass-change anymore of those tables tables. The small tables are required on all player main pages and to start making them different on all our articles is a problem. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The small gs only chart comes up as commonly known all the time. We were discussing creating a framework module in 2018, instead of hard coding the performance charts. The small chart for the main page was discussed then. Had we gone with that code written in LUA you wouldn't be able to change the "gs only" chart at all. We didn't do it because there were other issues with the coding and it wasn't flexible enough. But we were trying for two charts only... a main page gs only chart and a full chart for the career stats page. Those are the defacto standards here. The question is, should we change consensus to add 5 extra rows like you just did to Ashleigh Barty's chart? because when you add a new subject row now you also have to add a "Grand Slam tournament" row, a "Year end Championship row, and a "Career statistics" row, to separate the new topics. Standard today is sic total rows. Doubling the size when it's already on the career statistics page doesn't sound correct to me. And remember, the small chart is only if they also have a large chart on the career stats page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
So certainly we can change the standard gs only main page chart, though I'm not sure we should. The one we should stick with is the one on our "featured article" Milos Raonic or a "good" article like Petra Kvitová, and for the rare great player who really warrants it we would add a small yec chart like we do here at Novak Djokovic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand why you want the Grand Slam performance timeline at all if it repeats the information in the big performance timeline on the career statistics page? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I also don't understand why you think it is within the guidelines to have the YEC chart on the main page, but not the year-end rankings? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
It actually is not within guidelines to have a yec chart, but with discussions on certain players we went with consensus to keep it. I probably voted against it but I often get outvoted so no big deal. That's how it works. As for having the simple chart, per longstanding consensus, when a separate article is split off we kept the absolute most important item on the frontpiece... the item 90% of our readers care about or have heard of... the Grand Slam events. It seemed important enough to be a requirement on all tennis bios. We have to make exceptions of course, particularly with older historical figures, but it is a staple that has worked. It has worked for our featured articles and good articles. I see no reason to change it, but that's why I started a discussion about it above this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
And once you start adding one thing it's like dominoes. You have added two headings and year-end championships on one article and a couple of career statistic rows on another. Someone else will say that the Olympics are more important that the yecs, or perhaps Davis Cup. And if two career stats are ok, why not four? It is very tight and simple to include the results of our four biggest events by (far). It's what most of our readers look for. To be honest I think the performance timeline is the most important chart we have at Tennis Project and I'm often dismayed that it often gets put far down the page. When we start a career section I think it should be at or near the very top. Lately I've been seeing it placed below exhibition matches (which should always be near the very bottom of a bio since they are nothing official). Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
the item 90% of our readers care about or have heard of... the Grand Slam events. <<<=== This is what I'm worried about. We're making it look like the Grand Slam tournament results are the only thing that matters. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm often dismayed that it often gets put far down the page. When we start a career section I think it should be at or near the very top. <<<=== I don't like (clarifying edit: that the performance timeline is too hard to find on the career statistics page) either. This is part of why I'm advocating adding more to the main page performance timelines. I don't want force any to look through the career statistics page for basic information. I know how much I hate doing that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, like it or not, I would guess that the Grand Slam events are far and away the only thing many readers care about. However, the prose takes care of all the highlights, not just the Majors. As for the placement of the performance timeline, I guess we just have a big disagreement on how important it is. It's not more important than prose, but once you start throwing up a bunch of charts it should head the list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I meant I agree with you that the performance timeline should be at the top of the career statistics page. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 YGotcha. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

ITF QuestionEdit

Is it necessary to put ITF with the tournament name? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_Noel as an example. It seems repetitive to me. It is listed under "ITF Circuit finals". Why put ITF Cancún, Mexico instead of just Cancún, Mexico? Isn't it implied these are all ITF tournaments? We don't put WTA next to every tournament when listing someone's WTA wins. Michfan2123 (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

However, Cancun or Cancun, Mexico is not the name of the event... it is the name of the city the event takes place in. By the ITF, the Cancun event is called "W15 Cancun." Some titles get more elaborate, but remember these are actually non-notable events. None of them (35k or below) have a wikipedia article because they are the minor-minor league of pro tennis. We always try and put the tournament name in the tournament name column, not the city and since most of the event names are variations on each other we decided the best course for our readers was to simply put ITF Cancun, Mexico (basically just short for The ITF Tournament in Cancun). A quick column glance will leave no doubt that you are looking at a minior-minor league ITF event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
This makes sense, thanks man. Michfan2123 (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2020
No problem. Tennis is very tricky with its major/minor/minor-minor league tours, sponsored names, event name changes, events considered the same even when moved 1000 miles away, Open Era, challenge round era, pro vs amateur events, clay courts/sand courts/wood courts... its mind boggling even for someone with a lot of knowledge on the subject. Trying to convey it quickly to a reader of this encyclopedia to give them the info they need, without their eyes glazing over, is tough. We do the best we can. Thanks for the query and welcome. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
So true. Good to be in the mindset though of how can we make this as understandable as possible for the average reader. Michfan2123 (talk) 9:12, 2 February 2020

Infobox tournament winsEdit

Hi all, I am relatively new to editing Tennis on Wiki so I may have a lot of random questions. Will try to condense them into one thread but for now had one question. Is it really necessary to list when someone has won 0 WTA or ATP events? Like when I see in an infobox: 0 WTA, 2 ITF? Seems like it should just say 2 ITF, why list 0?

Or I have seen articles where someone has won no events and it says 0. Shouldn't be just leave it blank? Michfan2123 (talk) 9:09, 2 February 2020

I guess it's sort of editing choice since, as far as I know, we have no rules on it. Myself... I would leave it blank, but I can't speak for others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Got it, yea I would like a guideline where we don't list the 0. I used to be heavy editing golf articles and we never did this. I just don't see the point. Not sure what the process is to make it a guideline but if we could make it happen that would be nice. It is not the biggest deal in the world though so not totally necessary. michfan2123 (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Michfan2123 (talk) 7:38, 4 February 2020
@Michfan2123: Hey man! I find myself into this, cuz I'm the one forcing it the most. The reason why I forced it is cuz there are a lot of mistakes on so many tennis article pages, so I though that when you said 0 WTA, 5 ITF everybody knows that this player still doesn't win any titles, otherwise it can be someone's omission. I really like when pages are fully-made, despite the fact that 0 WTA, 0 ITF sounds a little bit "unneseccary". I really don't have problems if everybody disagree with me, it's ok :) - JamesAndersoon (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a reasonable point. Many time editors simply say under titles, 3, and we don't know what they mean. When it's spelled out as 0 WTA it's readily apparent. But I would still tend to lean on leaving 0 titles as blank. As long as it says 2 ITF it should be obvious it's 0 WTA. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree with both, probably better to let it be only ITF if player doesn't win any WTA title, but if they don't make also on ITF, then to stay "0" - JamesAndersoon (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that this slot was supposed to be just for ATP and WTA titles, not ITF titles. Someone who mainly edited WTA players started adding ITF titles to the infobox, and it stuck. For ATP players, it's less common to see Challenger or ITF titles in the infobox as of now. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
In addition to what JamesAndersoon said above about "5 ITF" looking like the number of WTA titles was omitted by mistake, the average reader doesn't know what ITF titles are. If we just list the ITF titles, they may not realize those aren't tour-level titles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
For players with multiple ATP or WTA titles (or even just one), I wouldn't list the ITF titles at all. Once you have won multiple titles on the tour, I don't think anyone cares how many low-level titles you have won. (Serena Williams is the most ridiculous example of including the number of ITF titles. Obviously, with someone like Roger Federer, the number of Challenger titles he has won doesn't affect how he is perceived.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
For players with no titles, I would just write "0". Otherwise, it looks like an omission. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like good advice. Just like we remove jr titles in the infobox once they start winning professional titles, the minor-minor league ITF events are meaningless once they win one or two WTA tour events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox guidelinesEdit

Hello all, are we able to establish a guideline for how we list the dates for current and highest rankings in the infoboxes? JamesAndersoon (talk) is determined to shorten everything to Feb from February for example. His justification seems to be that the WTA Final's tables shortens the month, so infoboxes should too (I have no problem shortening the month in the Final's tables, I think it makes sense). I have never seen infoboxes shorten months in tennis or golf, except for when he does it. 99.9% of articles do not shorten the month. If people disagree with me then that is fine and we don't need a guideline but this just seems so silly to me. Any input is appreciated. michfan2123 (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Michfan2123 (talk) 7:33, 4 February 2020

Agree. It's better that anyone said their oppinion, to know what we are on. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I would say personally that the month shouldn't be shortened. No real reason to shorten it as it doesn't clutter up the infobox anyway. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Expression of prize money in infoboxEdit

Hello to everybody! I'm forcing to change ex. $400,000 into US$400,000 but it seems that someone users are against it. Some higher-ranked player (actually a lot of them) have US$ instead of $. I think it's better to habe US$ as some kind of full-form version of american dollar, cuz as soon as I know, prize money is expressed as american dollar?? What do you guys think? - JamesAndersoon (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way. michfan2123 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Michfan2123 (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not really particular about this either. I do kinda like how it is done on Roger Federer article with a simple mouseover (like this $129,231,891 ) that tells you it's in US dollars. It looks a bit cleaner to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Tnx, probably the best solution. :) - JamesAndersoon (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

ITF External LinksEdit

Hi all, sorry for blowing up this page recently haha. I have noticed in external links some players have a link to their ITF profile, as well as their ITF junior profile. Not sure if this used to lead you to different pages, but it appears that right now it leads you to the same page. Should we go ahead and delete all of the links to the ITF junior pages? Once you are on a player's ITF page it lets you toggle between Womens and Girls or Mens and Boys. See Alison Riske's external links for one example. michfan2123 (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Michfan2123 (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Michfan2123: On old version of ITF's page, it used to have separete junior and senior profile. With new version of this site, as soon as I saw, there are junior profile, only for juniors, but it is removed for senior players. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I opened a TfD discussion which closed with a consensus to merge the 2 templates, but this hasn't happened yet. IffyChat -- 16:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Iffy:For sure, yea I guess keep us updated. michfan2123 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

European infoboxes and BritainEdit

I am updating the top European players template, should Konta and other British players still be included after Brexit? I am leaning towards yes as it is still in process but not really sure. michfan2123 (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, in this case, European refers to the continent of Europe, not to the European Union, so yes, the UK is still in Europe. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
And more specifically to Tennis Europe, which is not related to the EU at all. IffyChat -- 13:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
True, thanks y'all. michfan2123 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

2020 Fed Cup Qualifying RoundEdit

Shouldn't this page be called 2020 Fed Cup World Group Play-offs per past years pages? michfan2123 (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

No. The World Group Play-offs is a different round. That will feature the losers of the Qualifying round versus the winners of the Zone 1 groups. Also there was different format in previous years.Tvx1 18:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah got it, my mistake, thanks. michfan2123 (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

ATP Tour 250 is "too big"Edit

It's hitting a Wikipedia technical limit causing templates to not work properly.

I've opened a discussion on what to do about it at Talk:ATP Tour 250#This article is so big it is causing technical problems. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure? It's the same size as our George Washington article and no one says there are issues with that. It's only 3/5s the size of our Roger Federer career statistics article and no problem there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure. See the explanatory text at the top of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded for details. A page can have a lot of words in it and not be "too big." Likewise, due to template and module use, it can "look" pretty average sized but exceed the limits, causing templates and modules lower-down on the page to not render properly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Other "template expansion size exceeded" Tennis articlesEdit

I haven't taken the time to start discussions for these articles yet, but these tennis-related pages are in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. As a result, templates and modules that are lower-down on the page do not render properly. See the discussion at the top of the category pages for ways to deal with this issue. Before making any non-emergency change, I recommend discussing it on the article's talk page and announcing the discussion on the relevant WikiProject pages.


ATP Tour 250 is also in this category, see the discussion right above this one.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually two of those are badminton (2018 European Men's and Women's Team Badminton Championships and 2019 BWF World Senior Championships – 45+ and we have no say over that project's contents. My other question would be, how do we know when editing an article that the template include size is exceeded? Does it tell us when we finish an edit in red type somewhere as a warning? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The top of a preview says "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." The page is added to the hidden Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, also shown on preview. The bottom of any preview shows how much of the limit is used under "Parser profiling data". It stops processing at the limit 2,097,152 bytes so it doesn't show much a page goes over the limit. Sometimes a page was OK when it was saved but later broke the limit because a used template was edited. This also means the page history is not a reliable way to say which edit first broke the limit. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • U.S. Pro Tennis Championships draws, 1927–1945 should be split by year, as is standard practice for tennis draws to be split from their main articles. Not sure what to do with the ITF articles as they're split the standard way, and most of the other articles don't have this issue. IffyChat -- 18:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
True but if we look closely at the difference between the Jul-Sep 2012 ITF article (which is fine), and the Jul-Sep 2013 ITF article (which has the issue) you'll notice that the 2012 article has 196 tournaments while the 2013 article has grown to 231 tournaments. That's a huge increase, and so many flags is obviously the cause. I assume the same tournament numbers for 2014 and 2015. I counted 2016 (which works fine) and the number of events had dropped back down to 191. Why there were so many events for a few years I have no idea. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
We may get a slight reprieve. I've asked for edits to Template:Flag/core and Template:Flagcountry/core that should shave 30-odd bytes off each flag template use. It's not a lot, but if some of these pages are "just over the line" it might bring them back under the line. An xlm-formatted list of articles that are "over the line" is available here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC) My proposal wasn't as clean as I thought, I have withdrawn it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. When I went to U.S. Pro Tennis Championships draws, 1927–1945 and I removed only one year, 1945, all was well. Maybe that would be one that gets relief from that possible code tweak. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is right up at the limit. Without {{Grand Slam Tournaments}} at the bottom, its "Post-expand include size" is 2,096,104/2,097,152 bytes. If this were The Price Is Right it would have won both showcases but for that pesky navigation box at the bottom. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
U.S. Pro Tennis Championships draws, 1927–1945 has 435 {{flagicon|USA|1912}}. They each add 857 bytes to the post-expand include size. The actual output is only 133 bytes. The remaining 724 bytes are used during processing when other templates are called. If a template is called multiple times with the same parameters then full processing is made each time. But if a template is called multiple times without any parameters then the result is stored and reused, so it only counts with the size of the output. If we made a new template {{flagicon USA 1912}} which only contained {{flagicon|USA|1912}} and called {{flagicon USA 1912}} without parameters 435 times then we would save (435−1)×724 = 314216 bytes. But it may be controversial to make extra templates for this purpose. Thousands of such templates could potentially be made for flag icons alone. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
It would be very controversial to do it without discussion. It sounds like the Wikimedia code needs to be improved to cache "common template expansions" that are stored for re-use not just for the page being loaded, but indefinitely for all uses of the template anywhere in Wikipedia until a template it is dependent on changes. For modules, only those marked "safe to cache" could be cached this way. This would be a win all the way around for templates that always produce the same output, not just with flag templates. For example, {{flag|USA}} digs trough several layers of expansion, but as far as I can tell, it always produces the same HTML or at least the same wiki-code. Unfortunately, it's hard to do this for the general case because for some templates, the behavior depends on the user's Special:Preferences so not all template/parameter combinations can be cached that way. For example, {{la|job (disambiguation)}} will render in a different color if you have disambugation links set to be a different color, but it won't if you don't, so the {{la}} template with a |1= cannot be cached "across the project, for all users." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
However, multiple flag icon calling probably happens mostly in sports articles... especially tennis, auto racing, and association football. Above it said there were 435 calls for {{flagicon|USA|1912}}. Is there any other flag parameter that is even close to that number in the article? The US and Australia dominated those years and I don't think Australia has a change of flag parameter during that time. I'm guessing that most of these sports articles don't have many parameters unless a particular team dominated and uses one. It could be that only 10 templates would solve 99% of the problems with no more being needed. I don't think it will help articles like "2015 ITF Men's Circuit (April–June)" because it doesn't really use extra parameters that I can see. It just has lots of icons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, this sounds like an idea that should be brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
"Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" is a gadget at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Gadgets work by running JavaScript or CSS in the browser. It doesn't require MediaWiki to produce different versions of the page. In this case it's just one line in MediaWiki:Gadget-DisambiguationLinks.css telling the browser how to render links which are marked as going to disambiguation pages. But there are other issues with trying to cache template output across different pages, e.g. templates depending on the page itself like the namespace, page name or Wikidata item. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Bot requestsEdit

Hi all, has anyone dealt with bot requests before? I see that Jennifer Brady's page was recently moved from Jennifer Brady (tennis) to Jennifer Brady. I just requested Taylor Townsend (tennis) be moved to Taylor Townsend and it went through. There are over 500 articles that include Taylor Townsend (tennis), and about 300 for Brady. I guess it wouldn't take forever but it would be a hassle. If anyone has experience with this and can assist, let me know, thanks. michfan2123 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems like low priority since they are both automatically redirected to the correct page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:NAVNOREDIRECT, navboxes should link directly to produce a bold selflink when the navbox is used on the article itself. I have done this for five navboxes [1] with Taylor Townsend ({{Eugenie Bouchard}} isn't used on her article). This also removed 179 links from articles. michfan2123 already did it for Jennifer Brady. The remaining links don't need updating per WP:NOTBROKEN. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting on the direct link on the article itself. I never knew that but it makes sense. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal/Novak Djokovic rivalryEdit

An IP editor is asking whether or not a 2009 sourced statement about the rivalry should be included in the Rafael Nadal article. Link to discussion: Talk:Rafael Nadal#The Nadal-Djokovic rivalry section.

Return to the project page "WikiProject Tennis".