Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines

'Career statistics' consesus

Hello to everyone! Since there are so many dispute about different topics, I would like you to propose you template of how these pages should look like and also to clear up some doubts and EVENTUALLY once for all find CONSESUS. Please, say everything that bothers you and also suggest some changes if any is needed. Pay attention to everything, including SECTION NAMES, SPELLING, COLOR and etc. p.s. Time is to finally find CONSESUS that all players should share. Current GUIDLINES missing some things and is not precise enough. Cheers. p.s. I change section titles to Level 1 only in this case to make everything inside one section! JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Krejcikova at the 2023 US Open

#0 Vertical infobox

Vertical infobox

Career finals Discipline Type Won Lost Total WR Singles Grand Slam 1 0 1 1.00 Summer Olympics – – – – WTA Finals – – – – WTA 1000 1 1 2 0.50 WTA 250 & 500 5 3 8 0.63 Total 7 4 11 0.63 Doubles Grand Slam 7 1 8 0.88 Summer Olympics 1 0 1 1.00 WTA Finals 1 2 3 0.33 WTA 1000 3 2 5 0.60 WTA 250 & 500 6 5 11 0.55 Total 18 10 28 0.64 Mixed doubles Grand Slam 3 0 3 1.00 Total 3 0 3 1.00 Total 28 14 42 0.67

I would keep separate W/L records for WTA 500 and WTA 250 instead of merging them under 1 row. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I propose this change be put into motion once the current discussion is closed. Could easily be done by referring to ITF, however it lists obsolete event cats, unfortunately. One can back check to see which tournies are the WTA 250 and 500, respectively, though. (example with outdated tournament categories). Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

WTA is trying to riff (not sure if spelled correctly) off what ITF has but without an outdated tournament category, which I reckon, is the second best reliable source we have (WTA's resource). Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

#1 Performance timelines

#1 Performance timelines

Key W  F  SF QF #R RR Q# P# DNQ A Z# PO G S B NMS NTI P NH (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; (P) postponed; (NH) not held; (SR) strike rate (events won / competed); (W–L) win–loss record. To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated at the conclusion of a tournament or when the player's participation has ended. Only main-draw results in WTA Tour, Grand Slam tournaments, Billie Jean King Cup, Hopman Cup, United Cup and Olympic Games are included in win–loss records. Singles Current after the 2023 San Diego Open. Tournament 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 SR W–L Win% Grand Slam tournaments French Open A Q2 A A 1R Q1 4R W 1R 1R 1 / 5 10–4 71% Win–loss 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–1 0–0 4–2 15–3 7–4 4–4 1 / 15 30–14 68% Year-end championships WTA Finals DNQ NH RR DNQ 0 / 1 0–3 0% National representation Summer Olympics NH A NH 3R NH 0 / 1 2–1 67% Billie Jean King Cup WG2 PO2 PO POZ2 W 1R RR A 1 / 3 0–2 0% WTA 1000 tournaments Dubai / Qatar Open A A Q1 A Q1 A A F 3R W 1 / 3 12–2 86% Career statistics 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 SR W–L Win% Tournaments 1 1 5 4 3 1 5 17 17 17 Career total: 71 Titles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 Career total: 7 Finals 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 3 3 Career total: 11 Hard win–loss 1–1 0–1 1–2 0–1 1–2 0–0 5–3 26–14 21–10 19–9 5 / 44 74–43 63% Clay win–loss 0–0 0–0 1–3 5–3 0–1 2–1 4–2 15–3 2–3 5–5 2 / 22 34–21 62% Grass win–loss 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 3–1 2–2 5–2 0 / 5 10–5 67% Overall win–loss 1–1 0–1 2–5 5–4 1–3 2–1 9–5 44–18 25–15 29–16 7 / 71 118–69 63% Win (%) 50% 0% 29% 56% 25% 67% 64% 71% 63% 64% Career total: 63% Year–end ranking 188 187 250 126 203 135 65 5 21 $10,131,535 ▶ Notes Mixed doubles has short version with only Grand Slams & National representation (Billie Jean king Cup & Summer Olympics) Hopman Cup, United Cup & Billie Jean King Cup (formerly Fed Cup) counted only for win/loss, not for tournaments. If there is colspan in a row, should it be e.g. "DNQ" or "did not qualify", "NH" or "not held" ? Due to its long names, I propose these abbreviations: W, F, SF, 1R*, RR – for World Group (* it could be QF as it said when you open e.g. 2018 Fed Cup World Group, but since it's opening round, for me personally it's better to say "1R") PO – World Group Play-off WG2 – World Group II PO2 – World Group II Play-off Z1/2/3 – Zone Groups Round Robin POZ1/Z2/Z3 – when a team is playing for the promotion, not relegation. Having notes for 2020–21 edition of the Billie Jean King Cup, since it can be confused for some people why this edition is splitted into the two years. For me personally it's better to have only 'Hard win-loss' (or Hardcourt?) and no 'Carpet' as separated, because when you e.g. came to the ITF official site, you can see that e.g. they counted 'Tournoi de Québec' as a 'Hard' tournament. The reason why i'm addressing this site is because it seams to be more reliable so far (WTA official site has a lot of mistakes – e.g. for some tournament that now switched to the WTA 125K category, you can found that tournament in some player's listed matches as that category, but in the past it was different category. In addition, e.g. in 2021 there are some duplicated matches, and they still hasn't fixed it all – see e.g. Magda Linette doubles matches).

This needs revamping. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Also MOS:DTT concerned. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651, Fyunck(click), and JamesAndersoon: Dubai and Qatar could not share the same line row any more as they are both 1000 events since (or at least in) 2024. I have done an update to Iga Świątek career statistics as a sample, and left "NW1" (not WTA 1000) for the year they held as 500 tournaments per the tennis guideline suggests "Results from the WTA Premier Events (i.e. 500 tournaments) ... should not be included and/or separated into timelines and instead should be documented within the body of the player's article." Comments are welcome. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness, I wouldn't split Qatar and Dubai into 2 separate rows. They are tournaments that alternate each year. Many older players', current and former, BLPs career stats have them merged in 1 row. You can add a footnote citing Dubai is being played in odd- and Doha (Qatar Open) in even-numbered years. Let's try not to add extra rows. A footnote will do the trick. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Except they are no longer alternative afterwards. As I said, both tournaments are featured as 1000 events on the 2024 tour. Current layout no longer works. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Dubai and Doha've been featured as Premier 5 before the inception of WTA 1000 in 2021, which is the same categorization just under a different name. Current layout's just fine. But I am open to others weigh in on this. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in 2024 we would see, for the FIRST time, both Dubai and Doha would be held as WTA 1000 events. This is something that never happened before. Before 2024, it is EITHER Dubai OR Qatar run as a WTA 1000/Premier 5 event, which meant we need TWO cells, instead of just one (becasue of row-sharing), to fill in the results in the timeline table. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

In a nutshell: before 2024, either or; after 2024, both and. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with two separate rows. I think this is the only logical solution. JamesAndersoon (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I just saw the new 2024 WTA Calendar. They are adding a 10th WTA 1000 tournament. Basically, adding both Dubai and Doha and returning Wuhan, which temporarily was replaced by Guadalajara, and putting it after Beijing.... Man, the last time there were 10 WTA 1000 or equivalent events was back in 2007, under the old WTA Tier I name. This calls for a project-wide discussion. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. tl;dr I am okay with the 2 row change, having heard this news. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Right off hand, I can't think of any way to do it other than two separate rows. We may need to leave the note but change the wording a bit to explain the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the Project's talk page about the 10 WTA 1000 events. Not related to the performance timeline, moreso to the articles involving WTA 1000. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

#2 Grand Slam finals

#2 Grand Slam finals

Doubles: 8 (7 titles, 1 runner-ups) Result Year Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score Win 2021 French Open Clay Kateřina Siniaková Bethanie Mattek-Sands Iga Świątek 6–4, 6–2 Win 2022 Australian Open Hard Kateřina Siniaková Anna Danilina Beatriz Haddad Maia 6–7(3–7), 6–4, 6–4 Win 2022 Wimbledon Grass Kateřina Siniaková Elise Mertens Zhang Shuai 6–2, 6–4 Win 2022 US Open Hard Kateřina Siniaková Caty McNally Taylor Townsend 3–6, 7–5, 6–1 Mixed doubles: 3 (3 titles) Result Year Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score Win 2019 Australian Open Hard Rajeev Ram Astra Sharma John-Patrick Smith 7–6(7–3), 6–1 Win 2020 Australian Open (2) Hard Nikola Mektić Bethanie Mattek-Sands Jamie Murray 5–7, 6–4, [10–1]

#3 Other significant finals

#3 Other significant finals

Olympic finals Doubles: 1 (1 Gold Medal) Result Year Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score Gold 2021 Tokyo Summer Olympics Hard Kateřina Siniaková Belinda Bencic Viktorija Golubic 7–5, 6–1 ▶ Notes Tokyo Summer Olympics / Summer Olympics, Tokyo, Summer Olympics, Japan / Summer Olympics, Tokyo, Japan ? Year-end championships finals Doubles: 3 (1 title, 2 runner-ups) Result Year Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score Win 2021 WTA Finals Guadalajara Hard Kateřina Siniaková Hsieh Su-wei Elise Mertens 6–3, 6–4 ▶ Notes WTA Finals Guadalajara / WTA Finals, Mexico / WTA Finals, Guadalajara / WTA Finals, Guadalajara, Mexico ? WTA 1000 finals Doubles: 5 (3 titles, 2 runner-ups) Result Year Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score Win 2021 Madrid Open Clay Kateřina Siniaková Gabriela Dabrowski Demi Schuurs 6–4, 6–3 Win 2023 Indian Wells Open Hard Kateřina Siniaková Beatriz Haddad Maia Laura Siegemund 6–1, 6–7(3–7), [10–7]

@JamesAndersoon:I created this discussion section so it's easier to add comments. First lets not put the one section under "#3 Other significant finals". We don't really use it in the articles anymore afaik. Otherwise my first thoughts would be the following. We didn't want to be a cookie cutter project so some things were purposely left out of the guidelines. I'm not saying that we couldn't/shouldn't add more, just that it was intentionally left out to allow flexibility. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

3: Olympics I would use Summer Olympics, Tokyo. Probably the only city name in our charts. Year-end championships. I would probably have "WTA Finals" and nothing else. The place isn't needed here. If we must include it them "WTA Finals, Mexico".

This section is deprecated? But every player that reached these final have it? Don't get the point. Contradiction JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

They do? We have the tables, yes but not under the heading of "significant finals." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Aryna Sabalenka career statistics for instance JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Some do some don't. I don't see it as needed. Certainly not in our guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Significant finals subsection title is present in player's BLPs who have retired back. More recent articles, 2010– don't have those. I propose to remove them and merge them with the Slams, WTA 1000s and Olympics under 1 section. And then have the career section, which lists all finals ever played by XYZ player in a separate section below the "Major finals" section. Section title needs some work Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#4 WTA Tour career finals

#4 WTA Tour career finals

Doubles: 28 (18 titles, 10 runner-ups) Legend Grand Slam (7–1) Olympics (1–0) WTA Finals (1–2) WTA 1000 (3–2) WTA 500 (2–2) WTA 250 (4–3) Finals by surface Hard (12–9) Clay (3–1) Grass (3–0) Carpet Result W–L    Date    Tournament Tier Surface Partner Opponents Score Loss 0–1 Oct 2014 Luxembourg Open, Luxembourg International Hard (i) Lucie Hradecká Timea Bacsinszky Kristina Barrois 6–3, 4–6, [4–10] Loss 1–2 Feb 2016 St. Petersburg Trophy, Russia Premier Hard (i) Vera Dushevina Martina Hingis Sania Mirza 3–6, 1–6 Loss 1–5 Apr 2018 Miami Open, United States Premier M Hard Kateřina Siniaková Ashleigh Barty CoCo Vandeweghe 2–6, 1–6 Win 2–5 Jun 2018 French Open, France Grand Slam Clay Kateřina Siniaková Eri Hozumi Makoto Ninomiya 6–3, 6–3 Loss 3–6 Oct 2018 WTA Finals, Singapore Finals Hard (i) Kateřina Siniaková Tímea Babos Kristina Mladenovic 4–6, 5–7 Win 4–7 Aug 2019 Canadian Open, Canada Premier 5 Hard Kateřina Siniaková Anna-Lena Grönefeld Demi Schuurs 7–5, 6–0 Loss 6–8 Feb 2020 Dubai Championships, UAE Premier Hard Zheng Saisai Hsieh Su-wei Barbora Strýcová 5–7, 6–3, [5–10] Win 7–8 Feb 2021 Gippsland Trophy, Australia WTA 500 Hard Kateřina Siniaková Chan Hao-ching Latisha Chan 6–3, 7–6(7–4) Win 8–9 May 2021 Madrid Open, Spain WTA 1000 Clay Kateřina Siniaková Gabriela Dabrowski Demi Schuurs 6–4, 6–3 Win 10–9 Aug 2021 Tokyo Olympics, Japan Olympics Hard Kateřina Siniaková Belinda Bencic Viktorija Golubic 7–5, 6–1 Win 17–10 Jun 2023 Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom WTA 250 Grass Marta Kostyuk Storm Hunter Alycia Parks 6–2, 7–6(9–7) Note: Tournaments sourced from official WTA archives ▶ Notes We should use current tier's names. However, when we list these finals in the table, it's better to cite the name of this tier at that time. Then, we can use notes to inform users to what current tier this one correspond. E.g. we now have 'WTA 250' that is formerly known as International tier. For the players that have 'career statistics' we have this note at the 'career finals box' at the beginning of the page and then just use this 'refname'. If a player ended his/her career before new system was introduced, old one should be used. Result in the tie-breaks should be displayed in full form (e.g. 7–6(7–4) not 7–6(4)).

In the career charts we would want the footnotes in the legend, not the actual charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

#5 Team competition finals

#5 Team competition finals

Billie Jean King Cup: 1 (1 titles) Result W–L    Date    Tournament Surface Against Partners Opponents in the final Score Win 1–0 Nov 2018 Fed Cup, Czech Republic Hard (i) United States Barbora Strýcová Kateřina Siniaková Karolína Plíšková Lucie Šafářová Petra Kvitová Sofia Kenin Alison Riske Danielle Collins Nicole Melichar 3–0 ▶ Notes We a team won a BJKC trophy, we should also count all the players that was part of the team during that edition. Still, we can inform users which ones were in the final round and give others a note (just like in the example above).

5: Billie Jean King Cup. Why would we include all the players on the teams? This is a single player bio and a link is fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"Why would we include all the players on the teams? This is a single player bio and a link is fine." She is part of the team, and all members should be named. She is not only one that get the trophy. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

But this is a personal bio, not a team bio. The link to the team article should be enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Fully disagree with you. We just mentioned them, why that should be the problem? It's personally bio, but playing the team events is part of that. There is no 50 players, just max of 10. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no need for other teammates at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I would add nowrap and list the actual results for each match, not just the final rubber result, but would keep the list of all the team mates. And remove the footnote. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree! JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#6 WTA Challenger finals

#6 WTA Challenger finals

Doubles: 1 (1 title) Result    Date    Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score Win Nov 2015 WTA 125 Limoges, France Hard (i) Mandy Minella Margarita Gasparyan Oksana Kalashnikova 1–6, 7–5, [10–6] Note: Tournaments sourced from official WTA archives ▶ Notes I know we have "External Links" for player's profiles at the WTA & ITF, but still, it's better to sourced every section of the page (it looks more natural – otherwise, user needs to scroll to the bottom and maybe even don't know about these profile links). Also, I saw some editors add warning that some sections need to be sourced e.g. Ekaterina Alexandrova career statistics. WTA 125 Limoges, France / Open de Limoges, France ? Where is also dispute about this one.

6/7 "The note you propose has issues"? Pardon?? It literally said that it is the same category but 'title (prize money)' changed. What is the problem? We don't need to add each version of these tiers. This is the purpose of notes. It looks really messy adding all these tiers. Please, don't make it complicated without reason. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

Well, we disagree on this. I find the note much more obtrusive than 50/60. It is way longer and readers have to look down the page to find it rather than it being quickly seen in the legend. We'll just have to see what other think on this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): |There is something called 'tooltip'. They don't need to scroll down. Still, you can't find the perfect combination for all users – ofcourse we need to think about different cases, but you exaggerate. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Not every computer/phone handles those tooltips properly. Plus Wikipedia doesn't want you to use them if something else will do, and with far less characters to boot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

#7 ITF Circuit finals

#7 ITF Circuit finals

Singles: 21 (14 titles, 7 runner–ups) Legend $100,000 tournaments $80,000 tournaments (1–0) $60,000 tournaments (3–0) $40,000 tournaments $25,000 tournaments (4–4) $15,000 tournaments (6–3) Finals by surface Hard (1–1) Clay (13–6) Grass (0–0) Carpet (0–0) Result W–L    Date    Tournament Tier Surface Opponent Score Loss 0–1 Sep 2011 ITF Osijek, Croatia 10,000 Clay Petra Šunić 6–4, 0–6, 2–6 Win 7–3 Jul 2014 ITF Toruń, Poland 25,000 Clay Maria Sakkari 6–4, 6–1 Win 1–1 Oct 2012 ITF Dubrovnik, Croatia 15,000 Clay Polina Leykina 6–4, 6–1 Win 11–7 Apr 2019 ITF Innisbrook, United States 80,000 Clay Nicole Gibbs 6–0, 6–1 Win 14–7 Jun 2019 ITF Stare Splavy, Czech Republic 60,000 Clay Denisa Allertová 6–2, 6–3 Note: Tournaments sourced from official ITF archives ▶ Notes Just like in 'WTA Tour career finals' it's pointless to add '$75/80 tournaments' instead of only '$80 tournaments' before '80' is now current. Thanks to color and note, user can understand connections between past and current tiers. Also, maybe tiers should be labeled as 'W80' instead of '$80 tournaments' ? Again, better to source section with 'Tournaments sourced from official ITF archives'. If a player ended his/her career before new system was introduced, old one should be used. Name of a tournament: ITF Osijek, Croatia / ITF Osijek, Croatia ? Innisbrook Open / ITF Innisbrook ? Bella Cup / ITF Toruń / Bella Cup Toruń ?

#8 Junior finals

#8 Junior finals

Junior Grand Slam finals Girls' doubles: 4 (3 titles, 1 runner–up) Result Year Tournament Surface Partner Opponents Score Loss 2013 Australian Open Hard Oleksandra Korashvili Ana Konjuh Carol Zhao 7–5, 4–6, [7–10] Win 2013 French Open Clay Kateřina Siniaková Doménica González Beatriz Haddad Maia 7–5, 6–2 Win 2013 Wimbledon Grass Kateřina Siniaková Anhelina Kalinina Iryna Shymanovich 6–3, 6–1 Win 2013 US Open Hard Kateřina Siniaková Belinda Bencic Sara Sorribes Tormo 6–3, 6–4 ITF Finals Singles/Doubles: 26 (16 titles, 10 runner–ups) Legend Grade A (3–2) Grade 1 / B1 (6–4) Grade 2 (2–3) Grade 3 (1–0) Grade 4 (2–1) Grade 5 (2–0) Result W–L    Date    Tournament Tier Surface Partner Opponents Score Win 1–0 Aug 2009 ITF Mostar, BiH Grade 5 Clay Alexandra Petrzalkova Ekin Gunaysu Karolina Pondusova 6–2, 6–3 Win 4–0 Jul 2010 ITF Plzeň, Czech Republic Grade 3 Clay Aneta Dvorakova Marcelina Cichon Caroline Rohde-Moe 6–2, 6–1 Loss 5–4 Mar 2011 Copa Gerdau, Brazil Grade A Clay Aneta Dvorakova Doménica González Montserrat González 5–7, 3–6 Win 9–7 Jun 2012 ITF Halle, Germany (2) Grade 2 Grass Dominika Paterová Blair Shankle Laura Ucrós 6–3, 3–6, [10–6] Walkover 9–8 Jul 2012 ITF Linz, Austria Grade 1 Clay Petra Uberalová Christina Makarova Elise Mertens w/o Win 14–10 Jul 2013 ITF Klosters, Switzerland Grade B1 Clay Kateřina Siniaková Ioana Ducu Ioana Loredana Roșca 6–4, 6–1 Win 15–10 Aug 2013 ITF Repentigny, Canada Grade 1 Hard Kateřina Siniaková Katie Swan Nina Stojanović 6–2, 6–1 Win 16–10 Sep 2013 US Open, United States Grade A Hard Kateřina Siniaková Belinda Bencic Sara Sorribes Tormo 6–3, 6–4 Note: Tournaments sourced from official Junior ITF archives ▶ Notes Regadless we have 'Grand Slams' listed in the 'Junior Grand Slam finals' it's the same situation as the senior tournaments where we have 'significant finals' & 'WTA Tour career finals' separated. Also, when you come to the ITF website, they listed 'Grand Slam' as a 'Grade A' (or nowdays 'J500') If a player ended his/her career before new system was introduced, old one should be used. (e.g. 'Grade 1' – nowdays 'J300'). Walkover should be counted as a loss or neutral?

All looks relatively fine till we get to the ITF finals where we never came to an agreement on what to call the individual events. i.e. whether we would call it the ITF Turin or Bella Cup. That would need to be decided before we add that chart, and it is a chart we missed and should be included. And when there are both 75 and 80 events in a players timeline we do use $75/80. It is not pointless. In new charts I would use W80. The note you propose has issues. It is way longer than simply using 50/60, which only adds three extra characters. 50/60 is instantly viewable by readers so no need to mouseover a note where on phones it doesn't work well. You mentioned color as a way of discerning... that doesn't help those who are colorblind. Using 10/15, 50/60, 75/80 is the best and easiest way to handle the legend. When there is only one entry of $75 then that's what we would use in the legend, since there would be no need for an 80. Same with newer players who have only played under W80 events. That's all we'd use with no need for notes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Add <br /> between doubles players to conserve space. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I always do this, but here accidentally forgot. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I will give a more detailed feedback on this subsection later in the day. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#9 Billie Jean King Cup participation

#9 Billie Jean King Cup participation

Key F QR Billie Jean King Cup qualifying round WG F Fed Cup World Group WG PO Fed Cup World Group play-offs Singles: 4 (1–3) Edition Round Date Location Against Surface Opponent W/L Score 2023 F QR Apr 2023 Antalya (TUR) Ukraine Clay Katarina Zavatska W 6–4, 6–3 Marta Kostyuk L 6–3, 1–6, 4–6 Doubles: 1 (1–0) Edition Round Date Location Against Surface Partner Opponents W/L Score 2018 WG F Nov 2018 Prague (CZE) United States Hard (i) Kateřina Siniaková Danielle Collins Nicole Melichar – not played 2019 WG PO Apr 2019 Prostějov (CZE) Canada Clay (i) Kateřina Siniaková Gabriela Dabrowski Sharon Fichman W 7–6, 7–5 ▶ Notes As you can see, in doubles table, not played matches can be also addressed but they are not counted as a win/loss. I need help with legend for this, since in the past we had 'World Group I/II' + two play-offs + 'Zone Groups', but nowdays it's different with 'Finals' + 'Qualifying round' + 'Play-off' + 'Zone Groups'

Then we are ok until we get to #9.

9: I do not like the abbreviation for country location. Mouseover doesn't always work for phones and many readers don't have a clue about what CZE means. Just normal Antalya, Turkey. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Tooltips hasn't worked for years on mobile. There were 2 Phabricator requests started. Both didn't yield any results, because of it being a low-priority issue. I agree with Fyunck: use Prague, Czech Republic instead, for e.g. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Added a legend. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Understand about a tooltip. Thank you for the legend but this need expanding, since we have another rounds as well (e.g. World Group II, World Group II play-off, Zone Group ...) and I don't know which color should I use? JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

About the color scheme for the legend neither do I. This could be discussed in greater detail on a separate discussion. What do you think? See {{Performance key}} for reference. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but in the "performance key" there are no colors for e.g. "World Group" . JamesAndersoon (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We could create a similar legend template for BJK/Davis Cup various groups with WCAG-compliant colors and everything. I proposed {{performance key}} as an example. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

#10 WTA ranking

#10 WTA ranking
Current after the 2022 season. Year 2020 2021 2022 2023 Career Singles Highest ranking 65 3 2 2 Lowest ranking 131 66 27 1012 Year-end ranking 65 5 21 5 Doubles Highest ranking 7 1 2 1 Lowest ranking 14 7 8 1096 Year-end ranking 7 2 3 1

10: Pretty much already included on the bottom of the performance timeline. Not really needed nor does it need a guideline. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Where? Don't see it. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

How can you not see it? The ranking is at the bottom of every performance timeline. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I still can't see it. I only see year-end, but no 'highest' and 'lowest'. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You can see continual year-end highest for every year. No one cares about lowest ranking. And the infobox has their highest ranking and current ranking. We don't need more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Fyunck here. The year end rankings suffice, no need to add both highest AND lowest yearly ranking. We really don't. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, since it turns out I'm the only one for this and also don't have problem with eliminating this. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done That settles this subsection. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#11 WTA Tour career earnings

#11 WTA Tour career earnings
Current after the 2023 Canadian Open. Year Grand Slam titles WTA titles Total titles Earnings ($) Money list rank 2021 3 6 9 3,646,883 2 Career 11 17 28 10,460,758 60 ▶ Notes All three events are counted: singles, doubles & mixed doubles. If player only has singles titles, then we can remove this note and just add e.g. 'WTA singles titles'.

11: Trivial chart that we don't need. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Trivial? Why? JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

Once again it's at the bottom of every performance timeline. Why on earth would we double up? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Where? I only see total amount. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

All that's needed is their total career earnings and we already have that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I would remove the titles won stats but keep the seasonal and career prize money won. The subsection is about prize money, let's keep it limited to that only. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree! JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done This subsection discussion is settled. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#12 Career Grand Slam statistics

#12 Career Grand Slam statistics

Grand Slam tournament seedings The tournaments won by Krejčíková are in boldface, and advanced into finals by Krejčíková are in italics. Doubles Legend (slams won / times seeded) seeded No. 1 (2 / 10) seeded No. 2 (2 / 4) seeded No. 3 (2 / 3) seeded No. 4–10 (1 / 3) seeded No. 11–32 (0 / 3) unseeded (0 / 6) Protected ranking (0 / 1) Longest streak 4 1 1 2 1 3 1 Year Australian Open French Open Wimbledon US Open 2017 protected ranking 12th not seeded not seeded 2018 16th 6th (1) 3rd (2) 1st 2019 1st 1st 2nd did not play 2020 4th 4th cancelled did not play 2021 3rd (1) 2nd (3) 1st 2nd 2022 1st (4) 1st 2nd (5) 3rd (6) ▶ Notes not seeded / unseeded ? did not play / absent ? as you can see e.g. 2022 French Open, Krejcikova and Siniakova were seeded No. 1 but they withdrew right before tournament started. It should be counted but with note (it should be counted since it's about seeding not participating) Best Grand Slam results details Grand Slam winners are in boldface, and runner–ups are in italics. Singles Australian Open 2022 Australian Open (4th) Round Opponent Rank Score 1R Andrea Petkovic 73 6–2, 6–0 QF Madison Keys 51 3–6, 2–6 French Open 2021 French Open (unseeded) Round Opponent Rank Score 1R Kristýna Plíšková 89 5–7, 6–4, 6–2 W Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova (31) 32 6–1, 2–6, 6–4 Wimbledon Championships 2021 Wimbledon Championships (14th) Round Opponent Rank Score 1R Clara Tauson 93 6–3, 6–2 4R Ashleigh Barty (1) 1 5–7, 3–6 US Open 2021 US Open (8th) Round Opponent Rank Score 1R Astra Sharma (Q) 114 6–0, 6–4 QF Aryna Sabalenka (2) 2 1–6, 4–6

12: Grand Slam tournament seeding – another non-needed chart. Best Grand Slam result – already in the performance timeline. This is why we have a performance timeline. The actual score is trivial and can be linked to if someone wants that info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-needed chart? Pardon? JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

A grand slam seeding chart? That is fluff in my book. We have way too many charts on these pages and this one is super trivial. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): "in my book". What? That is exactly the problem. No cooperation at all. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You asked for input here. I find these charts obtrusive and trivial. Certainly should not be in a guideline. But others may feel differently, I realize that. These are simply yours and my opinions, and many opinions form a consensus. We'll see what happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I would remove the "best slam results" section as it is, as Fyunck had already mentioned, in the performance timeline. If you want to keep it, then limit it to 1 best result per slam and have the tables collapsed to save up on space. Otherwise, remove the subsection altogether. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then we should remove 'best slam results' but keep 'seedings' from my POV. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly what I proposed. Ditch the best slam results but retain the slam seedings. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#13 Record against other players

#13 Record against other players

No. 1 wins # Player Event Surface Rd Score Result 1. Iga Świątek 2022 Ostrava Open Hard (i) F 5–7, 7–6(7–4), 6–3 Winner 2. Iga Świątek 2023 Dubai Championships Hard F 6–4, 6–2 Winner Record against Top 10 players Singles Krejčíková has an 11–17 (39%) record against players who were, at the time the match was played, ranked in the top 10. Result W–L Player Rank Event Surface Rd Score Rank H2H 2022 Win 6–12 Anett Kontaveit No. 4 Tallinn Open, Estonia Hard (i) F 6–2, 6–3 No. 27 2023 Loss 7–13 Daria Kasatkina No. 8 Adelaide International 2, Australia Hard 2R 2–6, 5–7 No. 21 2–1 Loss 7–14 Jessica Pegula No. 3 Australian Open, Australia Hard 4R 5–7, 2–6 No. 23 1–1 Win 11–14 Iga Świątek No. 1 Dubai Championships, UAE Hard F 6–4, 6–2 No. 30 Loss 11–15 Aryna Sabalenka No. 2 Indian Wells Open, United States Hard 4R 3–6, 6–2, 4–6 No. 16 ▶ Notes Record against other players / Head-to-head records ?

13: Is fine but with a caveat. We certainly don't want these to overwhelm an article in length. A player like Djokovic would be so long as to be ridiculous. He should only have top 10 victories. Where we have the cutoff I'm not sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You literally agreed on this table before??? JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

I agreed on the table, but we also have to be reasonable. It works great for almost all players. But if someone like Federer or Djokovic have one that is 10x longer than everyone else it could be too unwieldy. Their articles are way too long already. It might be better to only have top 10 wins for them, or for the table to be hidden. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Then why you didn't say anything about when we make consesus? I can't understand. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

One doesn't always think about every aspect at all times. We would want a players bio to be half filled with a single chart. So we make exceptions. That's normal. Remember that I didn't necessarily like the chart, but the original chart was horrid and non-sourceable. This chart seemed the best compromise. If I was building it I would have only had a top 10 wins chart. And it wasn't being proposed at the time for our guidelines. Others here may have different opinions as to it's usefulness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Limit it to back to the original Top 10 wins, not Top 10 win %. Krejčíková has an 11–17 (39%) record against players who were, at the time the match was played, ranked in the top 10 could be reworded to Krejčíková has an 11–17 (39%) record against players ranked in the top 10. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think one of the problems in the past was the addition of another table that was worded as "record against players ranked in the top 10" and that included players who were ever ranked in the top ten... even if they never met when they were in the top 10. More and more of the those massive tables were being created with no way to source them. It was original research. So articles contained a top 10 wins chart AND and a non-sourceble top 10 at any time chart. While I thought all we needed was a top 10 wins chart (with a simple overall record posted) for sanity I agreed to a compromise. If this is being opened up for all to see at the project I would agree with Qwerty here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I really don't know how to think about this one. Again, if I'm the only one wanting the loss top 10 matches as well, then we should only include wins. I wanted to find compromise between top 10 wins and former table. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to negotiate on this one to satisfy both sides of the discussion in more detail. I propose a new section gets created which only focuses on raw statistics: "Top 10 wins" being one of them (see Open Era Top 10 win stats), preferably, at the end of Career stats pages. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The current table is MOS:DTT concerned. A good layout would be several independent tables with the year as the repective header, something like the entry list I created for Rally articles (e.g. 2023 Rally Japan#Entry list) If the table is too long, consider to collapse it, though the only problem for this is that, correct me if I am wrong, it is not accessible for mobile users. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

A legend could be created above the 2nd table to accommodate for mobile users not being able to open tooltips. Note: tooltips can be opened if clicked on in the Desktop version of Wiki on mobile, but not in the mobile Wikipedia app. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I just went to check at the Wiki app. It seems that every wikitable is automatically collapsed by default. Anyway, the only problem here is to deal the MOS:DTT issue. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It's auto-collapsed to save up on scrolling, I opine. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

BTW, the performace timeline also has MOS:DTT issue. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what. It was built and updated with discussion from accessibility groups, and screen readers. Then tested a lot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You may refer to MOS:COLHEAD. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Unname is talking about scopes row and col in conjunction with ! and WCAG colors. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

#14 Longest winning streaks

#14 Longest winning streaks

4-match singles winning streak (2021) # Tournament Category Start date Surface Rd Opponent Rank Score – Italian Open WTA 1000 9 May 2021 Clay 3R Iga Świątek No. 15 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 5–7 1 French Open Grand Slam 30 May 2021 Clay 1R Kristýna Plíšková No. 89 5–7, 6–4, 6–2 2 2R Ekaterina Alexandrova (32) No. 34 6–2, 6–3 3 F Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova (31) No. 27 6–1, 2–6, 6–4 4 Wimbledon Grand Slam 28 June 2021 Grass 3R Anastasija Sevastova No. 56 7–6(7–1), 3–6, 7–5 – 4R Ashleigh Barty No. 1 5–7, 3–6

14: Do we need a guideline for this? Very few players should have this chart unless it's approaching some kind of record. That's what I see in my first look through. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes we need. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)

Once again we disagree on every player having a winning streak chart. These charts should be for records of some sort. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Halfly agree, but still we don't make it when someone have 3 consecutive wins... JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Too short of a win streak to be listed here. I propose list match win streaks with 20 and above consecutive matches won. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually it's longer in Barbora's case (15) but I didn't want this layout to be so long ony for demonstration purpose. I will limit it with 10+ if you agree with me. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me. 10+ wins, only list the longest streak bookended by both losses, when the streak began and ended. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#15 Awards

#15 Awards
WTA Awards Doubles Team of the year: 2018, 2021 and 2022 (alongside Kateřina Siniaková)

More awards could be added here... Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

#16 See also

#16 See also
Krejčíková–Siniaková doubles team References

JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

General comments

NOTE: From your POV we only need to provide just some basic info that you can literally found everywhere. Plus, these tables (just like Performance timelines) are full of mistakes (literally). So, provided only these information seems so much lazy and unrealiable (because of mistakes). All of these tables that I represented here is not my work, they have been there before I came. I just decide to continue populating them with new info. I never came across someone having any issue with having all these tables, notes etc. Plus, it has been there for a while, with no complaining. I really can't understand your desire to just make some quick changes without even thinking how much effort other user give in order to make these tables good. It is really disrespectfull and selfish to just came and say everything is 'trivial' and to add some new rules over the night. Yesterday I saw you adding names of previous tiers of WTA Tour to the Kateřina Siniaková career statistics. What is your point? No one complain about it, and also this is a big work to change each 'career statistics' that miss these 'former names'. I really start thinking that is all directed on me, because of everything you done in past. You cannot have excuse for not knowing that 'career statistics' need to have 'former names', because it has been like that for MONTHS/YEARS. I have always had respect towards you, but this getting pointless. Bravo ... JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You asked for comments so gave them. Nothing more or less. Almost all these items are not in our guidelines for a reason. They did not garner support to be required entities in the past. Why would we add them now? Wikipedia is not supposed be a place where you create new things or new stats. That's original research which is forbidden here. We are not a stat repository or stat creation district. It's obvious I'm much more a minimalist than you are and I'm sure other editors are all over the map. I'm fine with that. These are my opinions. Remember we are for the most part supposed to be adding charts that we see on multiple other websites, and charts that the average reader would need. We aren't supposed to have every nut and bolt... that's for a book or a tennis website, not for an encyclopedia. And a legend is the place to guide our readers. That's where the tier info should be, not in the tournament chart or the bottom of the article. If a player has none of the old tier we don't need it in the legend... if they have multiple tiers that's the best place to do it. We've always done it that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

What we have in our guidelines right now is what is required in articles. Yes the names of tiers/tournaments needs updating, and yes we missed a couple items like ITF charts. But all these charts should not be in the guidelines. Many of the charts are heavy overkill in stats or repeat info from the performance timelines. It's hard to control folks adding trivial charts to individual articles and then have it spread to other articles. This is Wikipedia and editors like to add things. But to include all of them in our guidelines is another matter entirely. Last year someone changed a consensus color scheme in an article and before we really noticed a hundred articles had changed. I had to change them all back. I'm sure there are some I missed. It happens and we deal with it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I agree with you, but in the same time there are so many contradictions. First of all, you say that we should not add new things because they aren't in the guidliness. But wait, aren't guidlines suposted to follow the current situation? You can't have guidlines from 20 years ago with no change – you need to adapt to the current situation. As soon as I remember you said in the past that if someone want to make new consesus about something, then should go there? Also, in the beggining of the year, you have problem with adding 'United Cup' row to the Performance timelines? Why? You said it was against guidlines, but United Cup hasn't been there before 2023. Ofcourse that the guidlines need to be updated. What is the problem? The main question is if so many tables are against guidlines, then why they exist? I have been doing this since 2018 and all the tables I edit were there already. If this is against guidlines, why you not remove it? We have consesus about new 'Record against top 10 players', so that's why I had removed the old one on some pages. I haven't seen you done any of this? Also, you talk about CONSESUS, where are all the administrators? Why you are the only one getting involed in the topics like this? If you are the only here, I want to know, because it gonna changed this debate a lot.

p.s. I haven't edited pages of ATP players so much, because they haven't needed so much change unlike WTA's. Still, many of these tables exist there and editors continue to work with them. Why? Why noone stop them? JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say we should not add things that aren't in our guidelines. I said the things in our guidelines are very specific and followed more strictly. The performance timelines being one. For that to change it would need consensus at Tennis Project. If you get that consensus it changes. Those tables we are talking about above are not against tennis project guidelines. They can actually be removed or added to any players page by consensus on that page as long as they can be sourced. But you are bringing them up on the guideline page as if to add them to guidelines. That's a huge deal and needs consensus at Tennis Project to add them. Something to consider would be if our guidelines article has two sections. One section for required charts on particular pages, like the two performance charts for the main bio and career stats bio. Then another section for charts that are not required under any circumstances. Charts that are not required, but if they happen to gain consensus to add, must follow the rules in our guideline. Perhaps that is what you are looking for here? A section for these charts that are never required but should always be the same if we decide to use them? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate any effort to improve article guidelines but this particular setup of the discussion makes it very difficult to contribute. Have no idea how the discussion above is going and who is commenting. See a list that starts at 9 followed by a response that starts at 3 which has comments without signatures. Impossible to follow. Would suggest to restructure it so that the discussion of specific elements take place below the element itself. This section can then be limited to generic comments and suggestions. When that is done a notification of this discussion can be placed on the tennis project talk page. --Wolbo (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click):, @Wolbo: So, how can I "try" to make consesus? Should I do it here or ...? I'm asking because I want to do it for multiple things, doesn't matter will it be in my favor or others? e.g. I want 'United Cup' to be part of the Performance timelines ... btw, I will do it part by part, because it will be more readable. JamesAndersoon (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That's probably the best idea... to do it part by part. I'm wondering if first we should determine if we would like a subsection of the guidelines to include charts that aren't required but must have a certain structure if used? Then determine chart by chart which if any should be included in that section? I would support such a section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree! JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

New comments

I have been keeping my eye on this discussion from the getgo, but finally have the time to get to it. I am eager to discuss Article guidelines for BLP career statistics quasi-subpages in the upcoming days. Have a busy schedule, but will role up my sleeves and get to it. My plan is to ensure our readers are served the most pertinent and up to date info without going into excessive detail. Discuss with you later this weekend. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! JamesAndersoon (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I overhauled the entire comment section to best follow a logical narrative. @Wolbo:, is this satisfactory enough so we can notify the Project's talk page there is a dicussion on progress on article guidelines, namely BLP's career statistics articles. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I invited others to chip in on the discussion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Replied to most of the subsections and gave my proposals what should be kept, added or removed. More discussion to follow, I am sure. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Career Stats

Does a player's participation in tournaments involving "national representation" like Davis Cup & Olympics (and BJK Cup, United Cup Laver Cup) qualify as a tournament played for their stats? for W/L stat? I couldn't find a discussion or guideline docs for this question. Blaine3699 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Blaine3699: I'm not sure it has been discussed. I mentioned it a few weeks ago on some stats page that it would seems a bit odd to count it as a tournament. They are international team competitions not singles tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Blaine3699 Hey! When I'm working with performance timeline tables, I never count TEAM EVENTS as played tournament, because it doesn't make sense. You also have segment in this table where you said how many titles player has won out of all events he/she played. (e.g. 3 / 89). Since TEAM EVENT's title is not counted as a ATP/WTA title, it's not logic to count it. At least from my POV.

p.s. I have never saw any discussion about this topic. JamesAndersoon (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Blaine3699, for Djokovic, for example, ATP doesn't include stats like aces, prize money or titles won in Team events, it does include W/L. It used not include any non-ATP Tour related stats but after several website overhauls over the years it has started including them. ITF, on the other hand, excludes all stats, including titles. These are two separate governing bodies, both Tours their own entities, whereas all Cups are under ITF.

So, whether the title count and win loss record of national representation be included in player's stats is up to one own's interpretation of which body is more reliable ITF or ATP/WTA Tour. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Record against top 10 players

Hi! @Fyunck(click) and @Unnamelessness. I know this topic is complicated, but guided by experience of working with arranging these table, the solution I pruposed are most appropriate. You need to understand that a lot of users want to see top 10 records, but we need to think for every possible scenario. Since I finally found way to quickly filter only top 10 records using tennisabstract, I decide to return this old style. Generally speaken, people are mostly used to this old style. When you go to the old edits, you will see that editors used this style for a long time (not something made a year ago). In cases like Novak Djokovic, it's pointless to have all top 10 matches listed (he is not the only one). Also, I'm begging you to stop reverting this because the most importing thing is to have VALID data in this table. This table is now shorted and it's easy to track new matches that should be added to this table. p.s. I'm really giving my best to make these pages as best as possible, but it's worthless since you REVERT all my work just because you not like something. Since I'm the one that take most care about this records, leave it as it is and try to contribute to this pages on some other way. Most easy is to just DESTROY someone's work. And for once in a lifetime (expecially for Fyunck()) respect someone else opinions because I haven't see you make any contributions in terms of VALID DATA – you just want to imposed you 'wishes'. If you were someone who really want to help these pages, I will have MUCH BIGGER respect for you opinion. I'm just wondering how much YOU TWO will take care about THIS TABLE if you returned it to the previous state. Please, have understanding if you really TAKE CARE, otherwise, I will definitely have no words. JamesAndersoon (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon: The people that need to see intricate top 10 records can go to the one website that has them filtered. We are not a data collector service. We had agreed to a table and in fact had discussed making them a "wins only" table. Djokovic should certainly be wins only. We discussed a lot of this prior, and before changing them again you should have brought it up for discussion, not just impose "your wishes." Tennis Abstract is a single source that wants to compile incredibly trivial information. Leave it as an external source for those who want that type of minutia. It's great for them. To me it looked like more recently you were finally changing players to top 10 wins (at the time they played) rather than top 10 records (at the time they played), and that seemed like a good idea as what had been discussed. I thought you were doing great work. This looks like a huge step backwards. Plus editor Unnamelessness had also said in discussion that the info is less clear in this change by you. Did you think no one would ever notice you changing them all back? Editor @Qwerty284651: also told you in another discussion on this talk page that it should be top 10 wins and you said "if I'm the only one wanting the loss top 10 matches as well, then we should only include wins." This table was discussed a lot. If all we do is keep top 10 wins, the No. 1 wins is simply a duplicate. That's why we have that column sortable. And the other table with "record against top 10 players" only needs the sentence of what you have for Sabalenka... "She has a 30–32 (48.4%) record against players who were, at the time the match was played, ranked in the top 10." We don't need the table which can be confusing to readers.

Now, do I think it has accessibility issues, no I don't. Unless screen readers have gotten worse rather than better, our similar performance timeline passed with flying colors per testing. I don't think this needs separate charts for every year, and any ! coding can be tweaked to work. But certainly if done the charts all need to be the same size. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon, refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines § Record against Top 10 players about records against top 10 player tables/charts. My proposal is to keep the charts limited to top 10 wins only and remove the top 10 losses. It is a very specific record to keep in tennis athletes' career statistics articles but because some players have a played 100s of top 10 matches, listing them all would add unnecessary balast. I say just keep it to top 10 wins and omit the losses.

And for WCAG guidelines make sure you use the proper scope="col" or scope="row" for column and rowheaders after ! in tables, and keep a consistent format across tables/articles and you should be good to go. The =alt param for pictures also helps. ;)

Those are my two cents on this many times discussed topic.

Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The old table that returned is purely misleading. You can bodly assume random readers could easily mistake that table as a H2H record, especially given that there are no explict legend/key explained. No consensus was built before you introudce your idea, so WP:BRD puts here. And you do not WP:OWE the article, so do please respect the consensus that has already formed before, rather than WP:ILIKEIT.

Also, regarding the layout, I have no problem with including top 10 losses or not, but the issue here is that it is accessbility challenged, which is MOS:DTT concerned that I pointed out, so seperate by year is highly recommended, i.e. independent header per MOS:COLHEAD. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Timeline charts in articles

Timeline charts

Men's singles Weeks as No. 1 leaders timeline Year span Leader Date achieved Duration Record 2021–present Novak Djokovic March 8, 2021 3 years, 1 month 422 2012–2021    Roger Federer July 16, 2012 8 years, 7 months 310 1999–2012 Pete Sampras August 2, 1999 12 years, 11 months 286 1990–1999 Ivan Lendl July 30, 1990 9 years 270 1975–1990 Jimmy Connors May 5, 1975 15 years, 2 months 268 1973–1975 Ilie Năstase August 23, 1973 1 year, 8 months 40 Current record in bold. No. 1 leaders timeline Men's doubles Weeks as No. 1 leaders timeline No. Leader Date achieved Duration Record No. Debut 1. Bob Hewitt March 1, 1976 2 months 6 / 2. Raúl Ramírez May 31, 1976 2 years, 3 months 62 12 April 1976 3. Frew McMillan September 4, 1978 2 years, 3 months 85 23 August 1977 4. John McEnroe December 15, 1980 30 years, 11 months 269 3 January 1983 5. Bob Bryan Mike Bryan December 12, 2011 10 months 299 8 September 2003 6. Mike Bryan November 5, 2012 11 years, 5 months 506 8 September 2003 Current record in bold. No. 1 leaders timeline Women's singles Weeks as No. 1 leaders timeline Year span Leader Date achieved Duration Record No. Debut 1975–1985 Chris Evert 3 November 1975 9 years, 6 months 238 / 1985–1985 Martina Navratilova 27 May 1985 0 months, 28 days 240 10 July 1978 1985–1986 Chris Evert 24 June 1985 9 months 260 3 November 1975 1986–1996 Martina Navratilova 31 March 1986 10 years, 1 month 332 10 July 1978 1996–Present Steffi Graf 21 May 1996 27 years, 11 months 377 17 August 1987 Current record in bold. No. 1 leaders timeline Women's doubles Weeks as No. 1 leaders timeline Year span Holder Date achieved Duration Record No. 1 Debut 1984–1985 Martina Navratilova September 4, 1984 1 year 27 / 1985–1986 Pam Shriver September 30, 1985 7 months 44 18 March 1985 1986–present Martina Navratilova May 26, 1986 37 years, 10 months 237 10 September 1984 Current record in bold. No. 1 leaders timeline References

Do the following charts meet the tennis article guidelines? Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Tables good. Datacharts need to answer the question of whether they are accessible for readers across every platform (i.e. mobile readers). Unnamelessness (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness, both work as intended in the wiki app, on desktop and mobile browsers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Then I would say both are good to go. I would slightly prefer the datacharts, because I see the potential of automation, though the only concern here is it could be affected by random techinical issue. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I know what you mean. had to take down a malfunctioning graph from ATP no.1 singles page, the one with oldest number ones {{graph}}, because of a security bug in Phabricator. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87:, do your screen readers clearly describe the graphs in this section? Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: The HTML tables work fine but the timelines do not; the output of the timeline tag is not (and never has been) accessible to screen readers. Graham87 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87, how do you propose this gets fixed? Report it to Phabricator? Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: It won't ever be fixed with that particular extension. See this discussion from 2011, which references bugs from 2006 (Phabricator was at Bugzilla back in 2006/2011). EasyTimeline was supposed to be replaced with the graph extension, but that doesn't work right now. Graham87 (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87, do you then propose we remove the charts for the foreseeable future if/when the graph bug gets resolved? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: Yeah, probably a good idea. Graham87 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness and Fyunck(click):, do we remove them? Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I have never been a fan of these particular timeline charts. Kinda foo foo to me. But we have to remember something. If possible we should try and accommodate accessibility issues. It's only right to do the best we can. If a chart is quite useful to sighted viewers and we can't figure out a way to make them better, we don't just remove them and hammer 90% of readers that find them very useful. These particular timelines I find frivolous but many of our millions of readers may not agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How are we to know that the millions of readers will disagree with their removal? I created them a few days ago using the men's singles one as a template. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean these particular charts, just that we don't automatically remove something useful just because it has issues with accessibility. Sorry about the confusion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In other words, keep them until somebody complaints and removes them. In which case we start a convo on a talk page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really. There is not always a reason to remove them. If they aren't useful, of course we should remove them. If they are useful to 90% of readers we don't remove them at all, no matter if someone complains. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD is the path. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness, meaning? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change." Unnamelessness (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Problems with the timeline

The full timeline and the extended timeline are actully textbook failure of MOS:COLHEAD, which we need to sort out in the guideline. Loads of extended timelines are used in GA and FA tennis biopage, and that is concerning in terms of accessibility. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you propose would be the first step that the community needs to make to get this issue sorted out? Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The first thing is that avoid to use the extended timelines in the biopages, instead using the GS only timeline, which would resolve the issue. Then, given there are no more aricles using the extended timeline, the examples in the guideline should also be removed. Regarding the full timeline, given it is covered in the career statistics pages, so it may be tolerable to leave as it is. Of course, it would be better to have a fix to sort out the issue. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

For the full timelines, break it down into smaller chunks, i.e. tables? Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. One for GS, one for YEC, one for 1000 events, one for national representaion, and the final one for career statistics. Ideally, two tables would work. Just let me propose for one minute and a half... Unnamelessness (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Timeline

Iga Świątek career statistics#Performance timelines

Key

W

F

SF

QF

#R

RR

Q#

P#

DNQ

A

Z#

PO

G

S

B

NMS

NTI

N1K

P

NH

YEC

(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 %
Grand Slam events	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%
Team events	Summer Olympics	NH		2R	NH			1–1	50%
	Billie Jean King Cup	A	A		Q	A		2–0	100%
WTA 1000 events	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

I removed SR column as it is redundant and Guadalajara Open (defunct as of 2024) row with a 0–0 record.. Categories column should be replaced with footnotes. Moved 2nd chart's caption as the 1st column header "Career statistics". I propose using {{twl2c}} instead of {{twp}} for the last 2 columns. Create a "NMS", "DNQ", "NH" (minimum AA-WCAG compliant) template similar to {{NA}}. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651:SR redundant? I don't see the totals listed anywhere else in the chart. There are a lot of folks who like that column that could be very disappointed it's been removed. I'm not one of them since the only time in tennis encyclopedias or almanacs or magazines that I have ever heard of the term "strike rate" is here on Wikipedia. But others may be quite upset of a decades existing column being removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed SR to reduce width with less columns. Readers visiting our page/articles can count themselves the number of times a title was won out of how many times it was played. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

But it's not redundant. People can also easily figure out for themselves the win percentage by division. People can also figure out for themselves the overall w-l by counting. Or the number of finals and titles by counting. It is an arbitrary removal based on your likes/dislikes vs someone elses likes/dislikes. Actually, for me, the most useless column is win% but people seem to like it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Let us vote on which columns to keep then. I vote for win%, but against S/R. What say you? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd probably do the same, but it could come down to dozens of others willing to use your new chart but only if SR is kept. Or perhaps most will want no part of a new chart at all. We'll see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The community will decide what's best. After all, it's a group project not an individual's one. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I made some modifications. Still unsure on whether to create a NA-equivalent template for NH, NMS, DNQ and A or just use raw text without the background param. First passes WCAG-AA, second one AAA contrast levels. Thoughts? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of its value, there are some errors. The section titles are Grand Slam tournaments, Year-end championships (with no win-loss), National representation (no win-loss), WTA 1000 is fine. Wrong bolding on table 2 which I can fix. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to edit my sandbox. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Why apply to the entire chart: style="background:#efefef? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It was there to set it off from the rest of the table as agreed to years ago. However, in a separate table I guess that could be avoided.... maybe just the first column. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

But you left off the year end championship section. This is the trouble with table 1... it really looks wonky and why we dismissed it years ago. Plus some people have issues of reading 90 degree wording. I think it creates problems where none existed before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I propose retitling the YEC, Olymp. row headers, because they vertically clutter table 1. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

While that can work for YEC it won't for National representation because it includes Davis Cup, Billie Jean Kings Cup, Hopman Cup, etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

What if we used {{abbrev}}? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You might be able to get by with "Team events" but I'd really hate to change it. I look at the chart we have as a tremendous collaborative effort between Project Tennis, and accessibility editors. It's one of our crowning achievements that I wouldn't want to mess with at all. I can sort of close my eyes if it gets split into two charts which makes it much worse to eyeball down columns to see exactly what was done in a season, but to change a very easy to see chart into a worse rendition for no real reason is beyond me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Also add all the Cups, in our example, Iga Swiatek has played in. Also, we can always merge the tables back into 1. This is only a prototype. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The Elite Trophy is the other YEC event and the United Cup is one of the team events. Moreover, both events distribute points, so they could earn a place in the table. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Those events were left out for a very good reason... worthiness. We don't have 500 and 250 level events either. People were adding them left and right and the tables were ridiculously large. The event type needed some sort of pedigree and Olympic/DavisCup/FedCup were decided on. The YEC are the main year end event(events in the 70s-80s), not the 250 level event that will never have the best 8 players in the world. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Do ATP/HOPMAN/UNITED CUP belong in the table, i.e. are notable as a national representation? I added United Cup because it is sponsored by both Tours. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Career or Career total? Does BJK Cup have different levels of qualifiers, Q1, Q2 or is it all 1 level? Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

And by using a full scope row you have introduced incorrect bolding to table two column one. Not all should be bolded. Is there a parameter to unbold specific items? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove font-weight for a specific row and then ''' ''' the data cell you need bolding. See WTA 1000 Series singles records and statistics#Champions by year, for example, the 2021 season row, in particular. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Or add a new line after the scoped datacell. Either one works. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed the font-weight. Bold what you feel needs bolding in the chart. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651:I must be missing things. In the first column under "career statistics", hard win–loss, grass win–loss, clay win–loss, should not be bolded. Can you remove it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Just remove the ! scope I added for the aforementioned rows. See example. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel a table should either have all rows highlighted with the gray background ! does or not have any at all. Combining them makes the tables look inconsistently colored. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I second that. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In table 2 the entire career statistics column is now bolded. We don't want them all bolded. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I merged both tables back into 1. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it "Win-loss" or "Win–loss"? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Win–loss per WP:DASH. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved bolding with plainrowheaders and custom ''' ''' where needed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Either way worked. I have an issue with a footnote for YEC on every single chart on every player page. If we have to do that we didn't create it correctly in the first place. That footnote should be for exceptional circumstance like a weird tournament being switched out, not a permanent fixture for the table. It either needs to go in the performance key, or it needs to be spelled out as Year-end<br />finals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I purposely used an abbreviation to not elongate the table with "Year-end finals". The footnote helps explain what YEC stands for. I avoided using tooltip/abbreviation template because those do not display on mobile devices. Footnotes, on the other hand, do. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Or move the {{notelist}} to the notes section at the bottom of the page instead of having it immediately below the table. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651:But look at the performance key that is required with every one of these tables. I placed one above your chart. It can have a YEC explanation, just like every other explanation, so no need for a note at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. That old legend. Well, that settles that. Footnotes no more. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we update the key a bit? Becasuse NMS is "not a Masters tournament", which specifically refers to the ATP 1000 series, and NTI is "not a Tier I tournament", which is stale and has been replaced by WTA 1000 tournaments. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

But aren't those terms still used in older player events? Players from 70s 80s 90s would have a lot of those terms. No idea how to write it today where it would only be two or three letters. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Three solutions:

1. Adding additional cells.
2. Extending abbr. explaination.
3. Create a new key copy that suits the current tournament format.

Unnamelessness (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

So as can be seen in the sandbox key above, I added a (N1T) for not 1000 tournament. That should cover both mens and womens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness, WTA and ATP retconed the categories when they introduced 1000 Masters as a category way back when in 2009 (WTA 1000 overshadowed Tier 90-2000 and Premier Mandatory/5 2010-2021 by calling them all WTA 1000 1990-present).

There used to be Tier I events. I wouldn't remove TI and NMS. You AGAIN would need project-wide consensus from the community as this covers a lot of BLP's and career stats pages (not all older BLP's have career stats pages).

My proposal: leave the abbreviations as they are. But edit {{performance key}} if you feel will benefit the timeline. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I like your N1K much better and changed the sandbox key to reflect that. But no matter, this performance timeline would absolutely need project-wide consensus. It affects almost every single modern player bio we have. It would need a month of visibility on the project talk page, the goods and bads, and see if others agree or disagree with the proposed change. The key addition of N1K wouldn't need that. It would be boldly changed to correspond to new ATP/WTA tournament names, but of course the project talk page would be informed to allow for revert and dissent. That would be standard practice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

We shall see what happens. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Which is how we process right now. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I replaced {{twl2c}} with a newly created {{twl2c2}} because the former would display % followed by W-L. The latter does the opposite (W-L followed by %). I filed a request at WP:VPT if they could create a param that would reverse the order of % and W-L instead of having to create a new "reversed" win percentage template, but haven't gotten any response. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I bit missing here, but what's the difference between {{twl2c}}/{{twl2c2}} and the commonly used {{twp}}? Unnamelessness (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Vertical wording is always not the first option. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD is the path. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am actually thinking of rotating the table for 90 degrees to produce a table something like the WTA Rankings#Points breakdown section if the width is really a concern, i.e. instead of one row, one line per season. This is also something done in the motorsport community, for instance, Charles Leclerc#Racing record. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I cannot picture it. Can you provide an example? (You want to swap the columns and rows, I presume). Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

ALT solution

Season	Grand Slam events				Yec	National teams		WTA 1000											Tours	Finals	Titles	Win–loss				Win%	POS
	AUO	FRO	WIM	USO		Oly	BJC	Qat	Dub	Inw	Mia	Mad	Ita	Can	Cin	Gua	Chi	Wuh				Hard	Clay	Grass	Total
2023	4R	W	QF	4R	W	NH	A	NMS	F	SF	A	F	QF	SF	SF	A	W	NH	18	8	6	42–8	19–2	7–1	68–11	86%	1

Something like this. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Use "div style="overflow-x:auto"> for it. Isn't the goal to reduce on width not increase it? Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

For 99% of players this would be wider, plus it missed Billie Jean King Cup and the occasional changes of additional 1000 events. But for some like Federer or Serena it would be less wide. It brings in many many abbreviations which makes it harder for readers to understand what the events are. I guess I'd have to see a 10 year chart to make better sense of how it would look for most players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You need ! with scopes and col-/rowgroups id's for the col-/row headers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It also creates issues with w-l rows at the bottom. We never use them for Olympics and Davis Cup. It's why they placed where they are now as a good separator between the Majors and the 1000 events. It seems a bit strange to have the Year-end championships after the 1000 events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The idea of this format is to limit the width to make sure it won't be made way too wide. Yes, for most of the players, it is wider, but for those whose career spanning across 20+ years, which usually have the width concern, its width is now limited. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Move YEC and OLY after the WTA 1000s like in List of ATP Big Titles singles champions#Champions list. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The more I look at this chart, the more it is rubbing me the wrong way. Abbreviations without a legend or a footnote/tooltip something, no col-/row group id per WCAG for grouped headers. Plus, it is a complete remake from what we currently have. And even the OG performance timeline chart has been going through some extensive editing. This one would need project wide discussion and consensus on the Tennis project's talk page which frankly, I do not wish to be part of. I am up for new stuff but not this new. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I am thinking of something like this. Citing sources below the tables to complete WP:V. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I like your approach but I'll wait for others to chip in before I give my two cents. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The Grand Slam only timeline is all we are supposed to use if a player also has a career stats page. As for changing the full timeline I would be against it. Accessibility has absolutely no issues with it at all! It has been vetted and tested multiple times by those who are sight challenged... we had those using special browsers and they had no issues at all. This was discussed multiple times at Tennis Project. Don't fix what ain't broke. We have so many other items that actually need discussing and this isn't one of them. And it doesn't violate MOS:COLHEAD as that is specific to the use of an actual column header (!). Our tables specifically do not use them for that reason. What is more concerning is with player's careers extending you would be adding an extra width to the table that we cannot afford in the least. They are often already too wide. Now if the only thing we wanted to change was to split the career stats out of the full table but keep everything else intact, that is at least doable but not necessary. Right now it is easy to scroll down with eyes to correlate titles won and rankings without skipping a beat. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if it is actually a column header (!) or not. The fact is that colspaned cells are indeed column header visually, regardless of wiki-wise. The trouble is that the current full timeline layout contains multiple headers, and for those random readers who are not familiar with the tennis category could lead to the question of which header apply to what – You have 1000 tournaments header below GS tournaments header: does that mean the Miami Open is not only a GS event, but also a 1000 event? This is what the accessibility of MOS:COLHEAD all about. That is not the WP:AINTBROKE case. And the width should not be the issue, the nowrap would do the trick. The only WP:IAR here is we boldly assume all readers to which access the career subpage are familiar with the tennis category, which is why I said it may be tolerable to leave as it is. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"Nowrap" combined with "div style:overflow-x:auto". Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Width is a huge concern. Scrolling off the screen is a big headache for laptops and phones. The MOS:COLHEAD is very specific about the use of ! and this was already discussed at Tennis Project as ok. We had readers use screen readers and they said all is well. Why would we make it worse for sighted people when it works just fine on screen readers? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), ! with scope is bear minimum for any header, row or column, in tables. And wrapping a table in a "div style:overflow-x:auto" solves the width issue with/without "nowrap". Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Right now we have no ! at all mid table... there is nothing wrong with that html or accessibility wise. If we add ! we must add scope row. And width is a concern and always has been. Scrolling to the right is always something to be avoided if at all possible. In this case adding 150–200 width pixels is quite bad when we don't have to do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"Margin: auto" is what we should try to avoid. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

true... Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

And one thing. We would never go through a wholesale change of one format to a flawed format. It would need to be shown (again) that this new creation has zero issues with Wikipedia/mos/accessibility. It would need to be presented that this new table creation is a shining star of perfection. We would never want to go through it again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFC is probrably the next step. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually I would think not. You dont want to put it up to rfc unless you can prove it is unassailable. Otherwise why would anyone want to change from 15 years of perfectly working long-term consensus? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

First step would be at least a month long discussion about the chart, followed by possibly an RFC (RFC is a maybe not a definitely). Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you two want to make any further changes to the chart or do we call it a wrap here and take it to the project's talk page? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I am good with the layout. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), you? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't see it getting much better than what you have created. It's certainly the best proposal thus far. I wouldn't present it as up or down yet. I would post the consideration and ask some accessibility folks to vet it. You might even do that here before posting it at WT:TENNIS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Someone like Primefac, Redrose84, Graham87 Jonesey95? Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the project's talk page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Given what is happening out there, I guess that thread is required to be pinned? Unnamelessness (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)