Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines/Archive 3

New chart proposal

Wolbo and I have been butting heads on how to compromise yet maintain a consistent set of Finals charts. I think we may have hit on something we can all agree on. We have listened to what editors have said in "good article reviews". We have tried to make it look clean and only color what needs to be colored for the sight impaired. We have agreed on a W/L column instead of a number column. We didn't want the chart to be wider and it's actually less wide. Dates and tournaments on player articles were starting to link to all kinds of things... even multiple things in the same article. This proposed chart gives us consistency and would replace our current charts.

We know there was a 50/50 split on a No. column in finals charts but I'm hoping we can compromise with a W/L column. Wolbo and I have. Maybe there's something missing that we haven't thought of so I'd love to hear thoughts. The abbreviations used on the Tiers column was my doing so yell at me if you hate them or give an alternative. Everyone join in with your thoughts and I'll try and send out special mention to our editors who do most of the player article creations. If everyone likes this chart we could simply implement it. If not we can always go the formal RfC. If we missed something please let us know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Current chart

Result	Date	Category	Tournament	Surface	Opponent	Score
Winner	August 10, 2008	International Series	Los Angeles Open, United States	Hard	Andy Roddick	6–1, 7–6(7–2)
Runner-up	October 5, 2008	International Series Gold	Japan Open, Japan	Hard	Tomáš Berdych	1–6, 4–6
Winner	January 17, 2009	250 Series	Auckland Open, New Zealand	Hard	Sam Querrey	6–4, 6–4
Winner	August 9, 2009	500 Series	Washington Open, United States (2)	Hard	Andy Roddick	3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
Runner-up	August 16, 2009	Masters 1000	Canadian Open, Canada	Hard	Andy Murray	7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
Winner	September 14, 2009	Grand Slam	US Open, United States	Hard	Roger Federer	3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
Runner-up	November 29, 2009	Tour Finals	ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom	Hard (i)	Nikolay Davydenko	3–6, 4–6

proposed chart

Result	W–L	Date	Tournament	Tier	Surface	Opponent	Score
Win	1–0	Aug 2015	Los Angeles Open, United States	Intl Series	Hard	Andy Roddick	6–1, 7–6(7–2)
Loss	1–1	Oct 2015	Japan Open, Japan	Intl Series G	Hard	Tomáš Berdych	1–6, 4–6
Win	2–1	Jan 2016	Auckland Open, New Zealand	250 Series	Hard	Sam Querrey	6–4, 6–4
Win	3–1	Aug 2016	Washington Open, United States (2)	500 Series	Hard	Andy Roddick	3–6, 7–5, 7–6(8–6)
Loss	3–2	Aug 2016	Canadian Open, Canada	Masters 1000	Hard	Andy Murray	7–6(7–4), 6–7(3–7), 1–6
Win	4–2	Sep 2016	US Open, United States	Grand Slam	Hard	Roger Federer	3–6, 7–6(7–5), 4–6, 7–6(7–4), 6–2
Loss	4–3	Nov 2016	ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom	Tour Finals	Hard (i)	Nikolay Davydenko	3–6, 4–6

Differences

• Winner/Runner-up changed to Win/Loss
• Add W/L column with wins/loss tallied by small script
• Day removed in date column, and linked to actual singles/doubles sub page
• Category column moved to after tournament column and name changed to Tier (I had also considered Level and Class but thought Tier sounded best)
• Color signifying the tier is only placed on Tournament and tier columns
• W/L and Score are non-sortable
• Standardize abbreviated tier names for use in charts. Grand Slam, Masters 1000, 500 Series, 250 Series, Intl Series, Intl Series G, Tour Finals

You can also notice that even with the inclusion of a new W/L column the new chart is actually less wide than the original.

Thoughts?

Please leave some thoughts or any suggestions here.

I have a question in regards to how the chart can show titles in the Challenger Tour and at the Futures level. For men, do we just not use the tier field since there are none, which would also lead to no coloring for the tournament. For the women's futures circuit, it isn't really broken into tiers but into money categories, so do we use that instead? Adamtt9 (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The men's futures circuit does have tiers - $15k and $25k. I feel like for the sake of consistency that should be using the same column. How to refer to the tournament name in futures circuits is the more debatable issue, as that's all over the place currently. I'm in favour of, e.g., "Bahrain F1 Futures", but the vast majority of existing articles merely list the city name. Sellyme^Talk 11:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Challengers don't have tiers, unless you want to use the points awarded as a tier. And for the sake of futures, I am completely on board with using Bahrain F1 as you said. It is better than using just the city name. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Using the points awarded makes more sense to me considering that half of the currently-used ATP World Tour tiers are named after the number of points given anyway. Challenger 80 is hardly any different to 250 Series or Masters 1000. Sellyme^Talk 13:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You know some of the ITF events DO actually have names given to them by the ITF. I see some ladies $25,000 events given names like Kashiwa Open, Japan...Koza Wos Cup, Turkey...Santa margherita di Pula, Italy. I'm not sure if any of the men's futures events do the same thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I am fine with the proposed charts. Don't really have any complaints. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that we used to join futures and challengers together in one chart, and for that we need tiers. When they are in separate charts as we sometimes do with Masters 1000 charts or Grand Slam only charts, the no tiers are needed. A Challenger only chart needs no tiers. The mens' futures event really needs no tiers since none of the ITF futures are even notable. The ladies we really had no choice but to separate by money. They had no challenger level events, just ITF events that ranged in value from $10,000 to $100,000. The men's Challenger Tour was notable so we made the same money value notable for the ladies. It wasn't ideal but it was the best we could come up with. The ladies do have a challenger event now but it's only a $125,000 event. As for names for low level events it would be nice to add something to the guidelines to solidify that aspect, but we should NEVER only use a city name with a link back to the city. That does our readers no good at all since they won't find any more info when they go to the city wiki page. It should always be the tournament name. I have no trouble with "Bahrain F1 Futures." Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And we may have to look at all the ITF events in the near future since the ITF is going to do a massive restructuring. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, I feel like a player should only have a Futures chart if they don't have any Challenger or ATP titles. I don't see how a Futures title can be significant when it is paired next to a Challenger or ATP final. The tier part isn't that bad; separating it by money for Challengers is good enough. And as for the major ITF changes, we will just have to wait and see. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with that... those futures are not notable, even if they win. The Challengers are the minor league of tennis. The Challenger event is notable, but it only makes the player notable if they win the title. The futures and and women's $25,000 and under are not notable events nor are the players that participate. So why the charts? When should we use them? Of course this is getting off track of the main chart revamp. We can't foresee everything in tennis, and there will always be exceptions. All we can do is try and make a chart that encompasses as much vital info as possible, in as little a space as possible, while complying with accessibility issues. Our readers are everything. That's what we were thinking of when Wolbo and I brought this chart together. Certainly we could have missed something, but we were hoping we didn't and that everyone would see something they liked. It's not a whole lot different than what we have now or how many editors create their non-guideline charts now. But it puts it in our guidelines which gives it teeth when explaining to new editors the proper way to do things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I like the proposed chart you have, I just wanted to address the tiers for the Challengers and Futures since they aren't really existent. And while I feel that Futures charts shouldn't really exist, I am pretty sure some editors will just continually add it. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the chart that is proposed as well and would also be interested in how we think Challenger charts fall into this. Can I ask what the thoughts were around removing the day from the date? I know space is at a premium but for example describing a tournament that runs from 31 August to 6 September as "August" is a bit misleading. Jevansen (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

From my previous experience, if you are inserting titles from the past, the ATP and ITF website don't provide an exact date of the final. You have to go digging for the date the match was played. However, they give you the range of dates the tournament was held, but you can't just assume they played it on the last day, especially for doubles. So in my opinion, just using month and year is fine. Adamtt9 (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what Adam said. Two other reasons also. Most of the Grand Slam and Masters tables already use only the month and year and it seems to look much cleaner. Look at the first 5 charts on Roger Federer career statistics and they only have the year... not even a month. Only when you get down to his career finals do we get the exact month, year, and day. I had seen several queries in the past about what day of the tournament do we use and had also heard several queries at good article inquisitions about why we needed it so exact. We also noticed (again looking at Federer's career stats) that we do not link the date of the career finals to the actual tournament. We only link the tournament name to the generic tournament. However if you notice Federer's Master or Grand Slam tables, the date links to the actual yearly event where you can get more detail about the days it occurred. By changing our current chart to one that links date to the yearly event (as some have been doing against current guidelines) we really don't need to include the day. I guess we wouldn't really need the month either but I thought that was too drastic. Also I felt that when you link (and change it to a link color) "September 29, 2017" it again looks sloppier than a linked "Sep 2017".

But @Jevansen: brings up a good point. What month would we put in when a tournament like the French Open runs from May 28 to June 11? Of course we have the same problem with the old chart. Right now we'd probably put in June 11, 2017 for the men's final but the women's final might get June 10, 2017 or June 11 2017. But they could also be edited as May 28, 2017. So we have the same problem no matter which chart we use unless someone actually puts in "May 28, 2017 – June 11, 2017". In this particular case i would be using Jun 2017, but what about if the US Open ends on Sep 1? Would we tend to use August or September as the tournament month? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I like the new chart that is being proposed. It address all the major issues I noticed from previous GAN, and I was honestly not expecting the new way to present the dates. Like Adamtt9 stated, the precise date is too hard to find, especially for older minor tour-level tournaments. So, I'm all in for the month/year presentation. SOAD KoRn (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I know that Challenger/Futures tables are not the subject in discussion here - but since they were brought in, I will give my opinion. I have spent most of my time here working on players' articles whose careers were almost exclusively in minor tours. Sometimes, I find it too tiring to list all ITF Men's Circuit career finals - which can easily go to double digits - and they are not even considered notable per WP:Tennis standards. Having a player's Futures career written in short, succint prose, is something I agree with. Posting huge tables of non-notable tournaments results might be too much work for little benefit. SOAD KoRn (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wolbo and others had also talked about the full date. Editors were never sure if they should use the start date or the final date, and older tournaments were tough to find. Then of course sometimes the dates were linked to the event and sometimes not. What I did have to do was add "dts" to the coding when making it only month and year. I had to do this for sorting as it seems wiki automatically sorts correctly when using days but does not sort properly when using months. Strange but true. As for Futures, to me the only thing of any remote value would be the final tally of W/L, and perhaps number of titles...but that can be done in prose. Anything more should be linked to the ITF website. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The short date works just fine, and I agree that Futures should be included minimally when a player has played in many Challengers and/or World Tour tournaments. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a lot of players have only won a single Challenger event - or even haven't made the finals of one at all but are notable due to Davis Cup participation. For these players excluding the Futures table is going to make the article 2-3 lines long at most, and it's nearly impossible to find enough sources to get any kind of meaningful prose. I definitely agree that there's absolutely no reason to include Futures if the player has ever made a World Tour final, but it makes sense to include Futures wins if they're the bulk of a player's accomplishments. Keep in mind that the notability requirements to include something in an article are much lower than the notability requirements for something to get its own article, and we shouldn't judge the inclusion of Futures tables on the fact that they don't singlehandedly meet GNG. I feel like this is something that should only be excluded once some minimum number of Challenger finals has been reached, perhaps 5. Sellyme^Talk 14:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

May 17 will be one month since discussion opened. Right this second I don't see anyone not agreeing to the compromise chart with added W/L column. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting at least until the end of May before closing this discussion. If accepted this proposal will result in a significant update effecting thousands of articles so it is worth taking the time to get as much feedback as possible and to iron out all the necessary details.--Wolbo (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure... no hurry. I'd rather get it right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just use standard templates like {{won}} and {{lost}}? Chinissai (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We could, but is it really easier? We have to add in the syntax for align=left, change it to Win and Loss as opposed to Won and Lost, and the color of Lost is way too dark so we would need to change that too. When you add all that in it might even be longer than what we have now. If we could add another template for Win and Loss with our colors so all we had to do was write {{Win}} or {{Loss}}, it would be great. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, why reinvent the wheel? I don't see anything wrong with Won/Lost as opposed to Win/Loss. They both indicate results of a match. Didn't pay attentionto left-align, but centering doesn't seem to bother me. And why reinvent a coloring standard? (On that note, {{lost}} has only ~100 transclusions, while {{won}} has ~16000. Looks like others don't like the color either, but I think this is our opportunity to make a change sitewide. I'm sure we won't get too much opposition.) Chinissai (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We re-invent because "wins" and "losses" are terms used all the time in tennis. "Won" and "Lost" doesn't roll off the tongue as readily. You have a win or you have a loss, you don't have a won or a lost. It's not a deal breaker but changing from "winner and runner-up" was tough enough. It should be aligned left as all other items are in the chart... it works better, looks better, and gives more space between the term and the next cell. Our colors aren't as harsh. If someone wants to make a new template for Win and Loss with standard notation of align left, so that all we need to type is {{Win}} or {{Loss}}, it would be great! Even {{T-Win}} or {{T-Loss}} (t for tennis) would be ok. But once we have to start adding multiple parameters it's no better than our original, except that in the original someone could always mess up a letter and make an error with the color. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Or: you won a match, or you lost a match. I'm not gonna fight on though; not interested in maintaining these tables. Just wanted to help reduce somebody's overhead. Chinissai (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

One thing strange is that with "Lost" I couldn't make it align left like I could "Won." Strange and probably user error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I think an important factor here is that "Win/Loss" is next to a W-L record. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "Won-Lost record", so using Win/Loss flows a bit smoother in this instance in my opinion. Sellyme^Talk 00:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Ok. it's all done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this. I had missed this entire discussion until implementation has started now, and of course accept the consensus. I like most changes, except the removal of the exact date of the final, since this little piece of information (useful for e.g. calculating a players exact age, or for noting that two titles were won in consecutive weeks) is also not always available on the tournament (sub) pages. Tournament pages give the date range for the entire event, but the final can be on Saturday or Sunday, or even Monday. Gap9551 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

We were talking about this level of detail and the only time it really mattered was for making other Grand Slam tournament chart records for age at titles. This is quite rare. And you'll notice that even if the Grand Slam age down to days is important, none of the player's Grand Slam charts give the dat or the month.... just the year. So you're saying only in the career finals charts the day is important? To me it seems that those tournament articles is exactly where the dates should be. If the exact day a tournament final took place is important enough to be notable, shouldn't it be in on 2013 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles and 2013 Wimbledon Championships instead of on one particular chart on a player's career stat page?

I'm not saying we couldn't tweak it so the career stat table says says "27 Sep 2013", that's up to everyone here... but in looking at Roger Federer career statistics, why didn't we do it in the Grand Slam tournaments charts, the Year–End Championships chart, the Masters tournaments, or the the Olympics chart? When we scroll down to the "Record against top-5 players" chart only a year is given in the last column, and that links to a tournament page that didn't think it was important enough to show any dates at all other than the year. We also have inaccuracies galore because there is no set rule what date to use. For older tournaments, exact dates of finals can be impossible to find. For newer events it could run from Sep 18 to Oct 1. What date do we use for the tournament? For me with just a month/year I might put September but some would put October. We have no guidelines that say we use October 1 for the tournament date. Looking at Serena's WTA career finals chart you'll see she won the US Open in 1999 on September 12. Of course that's wrong since that's that final day of the tournament, not the date she actually played (which was the 11th). Same for Steffi Graf on her career title chart. It shows a victory on 9 July 1989 at Wimbledon. Of course that's not the date she won it on. The old style like with Navratilova was simply to say "the week of July 9." Anyway, those are my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's true that most tables don't have any dates at all, and if exact final dates are hard to source, then months may be an good compromise. It just struck me as a loss of information to see the dates go in the Federer table. But since there are no dates/months listed at all for most players, just adding months would be a clear improvement for the typical player. I hadn't looked at it that way. I agree that the tournament articles are the most logical location for any dates, and should definitely have the finals dates, in addition to the entire tournament period, if available. For an encyclopedia, the date a match happened is an important aspect of the match. Personally, I write scripts to analyze tennis statistics including ages, that's probably why I'm always interested in the precise dates. :) Gap9551 (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing for 99.9% of readers here, even the months aren't important on the Federer page. But we were just trying to make a clean, informative chart, without unneeded extras. Color only where appropriate, works in all browsers equally, etc.. It seemed like the day a person wins an event was trivial to most of us (and wrong in most charts anyways), and it wasn't used in any other of our charts. If everyone misses it we can certainly make it a "12 Sep 2017" format. Maybe others feel as you that this one chart type only should have an exact date of the final, but don't want to speak up. It's easier to change now rather than later. I do think as you do, that both the season tournament articles and the season tournament draw articles should give exact dates if we have them. We should start with this year's Majors and make sure all the doubles/mixed/singles draw pages have exact finals dates. It should also be noted on the 2017 Wimbledon Championships either in the top prose section or at least the list of champions section on the bottom. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, it makes sense to just list months as default rule. Gap9551 (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should add a date_final parameter to Template:Infobox tennis tournament event, on the event subpages. Gap9551 (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You have me a bit worried since another editor asked me the same thing. It's important we get this correct so i posted it on the main talk page too. Even if you'd only lean towards including the day maybe others are having second thoughts or feel the same way, so i wanted to be sure. You were concerned and it's a team effort. I would lean to month/year but I really have no big preference on it. It's not like having the day of the final listed is something wacky or unreasonable. The question is, does it make our chart better, especially if we include a link to the tournament that has the full date of each final. If many feel it makes our charts a little bit better to include the day, then that's what we'll do. It's not like it takes up much room.... just three spaces. I might suggest that if many feel as you do, to keep things closer to equal size, that we include a zero in front of single digits. So maybe 04 Sep 2017 instead of 4 Sep 17. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting comment

I wonder if anyone on the project would care to comment on this episode, which I raised on the ANI/edit warring page without result. I was taken to task by one of the tag team [1] for not following the "article guidelines" for WikiProject Tennis (of which he doesn't appear to be a member). Now I've got no problem with following article guidelines, and I've looked at these and cannot for the life of me see what he is talking about. I don't subscribe to the view taken by these users that the "Wimbledon draw page", as they are calling it, shouldn't have a lead paragraph of more than two sentences; apart from anything else, that would be utterly inconsistent with the MoS. Does anyone else here understand what's behind this? (Note: You need to look at the history thoroughly to recognise that this is not just a matter of individuals disagreeing; these anons and redlinked users were appearing within seconds of my every edit and yet since 7 July not one of them has shown any interest in the article.) Deb (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to Move Masters 1000 Section Above Tour Finals in Performance Timelines on Career Statistics Pages

New to Wikipedia editing, but NOT new to tennis fanaticism!

Some thoughts on the order of the performance timeline sections:

1. I feel strongly that the Masters 1000 section should come BEFORE the year-end championships section in performance timeline charts. As the ATP Finals comes at the end of the year, this change allows the reader to get a better sense of the chronological progression of a given player's year. (By that logic you might also say the Majors and Masters 1000 should be sprinkled together in the same chart, but the Majors have such importance that they merit their own section at the top.) I'm guessing the reason for the current convention of placing the ATP Finals above the Masters 1000's is the higher # of potential ranking points associated with the tour finals, but I consider them to be on roughly the same level of importance and therefore I believe chronology should dictate order of presentation.

2. Even apart from item #1, the order of Grand Slams–Masters 1000–tour finals–national representation is not consistent across players' pages. For instance, you'll notice that on Federer's and Murray's pages the order currently is Grand Slams–tour finals–Masters 1000–national representation, whereas on Nadal's and Djokovic's pages the order is Grand Slams–tour finals–national representation–Masters 1000. Clearly this order should be consistent across different players' pages. (I'm not sure I have the time or the appetite to make conforming changes across literally every player's career statistics page, but for the most important modern players I'd be happy to do the work.)

Fedfan1984 (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page, I kinda like the order we have now, and I do try to make things consistent when I see them. I'm sure the old reasoning of why we have it the way we do now... maybe I'll look through the archives. I think our guideline order now goes by importance, but it has the added benefit of book-ending the Grand Slam tournaments and the Masters 1000s to make them stand out more. Chronological order is mentioned but the 4 Majors and Masters 1000s won't be chronological. National representation won't be chronological. For the women's chart the Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 are split and not chronological. I'm not married to the order we have, but I'm not sure we have a substantial reason to change things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Overall Win-Loss

Hello guys! Can someone tell me where you find information about correct score of Win-Loss for some player? Talking about ATP players, I found that information on their official site, but what about WTA players? So far, I used to count number of w/l manually, but it takes a lot of time. And if there is not a information about w/l score, can someone tell me what are all included for that "Overal Win-Loss"? Ex. Somewhere I find that Fed Cup's results are included, somewhere not. Thanks for the answer.
JamesAndersoon 12:35, 02 October 2019 (UTC)

Conformed ATP and WTA tables

• The performance tables of the ATP and WTA were a tiny bit out of kilter as far as the reversing of the year-end championship and the National representation. I made the WTA identical to the ATP. I hope that's ok. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Fixed minor issue with WTA chart missing a parenthesis around %
• Looking at the current ATP table and existing articles it is clear the percentages are rounded, not brought out to two decimal places. I corrected the WTA tables.
• The current longstanding tables allow for 35 pixel uniform widths for performance tables. I recall a discussion on this way back when. It certainly looks better to have uniform year widths. But we also have guideline tables that have no width statements. I assume this is editor's choice unless consensus changes.
• The wording in the ATP charts says Career totals: and that seems like a good choice since the total covers 3 cells with no meaning. The WTA chart was updated accordingly. Perhaps there should be a similar wording for the total cash earnings which says nothing. Maybe "Earnings:"? Consensus will need to be made on that but since it's not on any charts in the guidelines or in wikipedia articles, I left it as is. That's all for now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• For some strange reason the WTA had bolding on the Year-end and National representation rows of the performance chart. The ATP chart did not have this and it was different than all other rows/columns (except those greyed out as W-L rows). I corrected things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Coding change

Just a note. I did not change the appearance but I changed the coding for the performance table that has the extra row of dates mid-chart. It was done in an archaic style that used header exclamation points to create bold. This has issues with accessibility for those with screen readers if done in the middle of a table and should be avoided per Wikipedia. headers like that are for the beginning of a table only. That's it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

WTA 1000 tournaments

I've changed WTA Performance Timeline table in Article guidlines, due to merge of Premier Mandatory and Premie 5 into one category called "WTA 1000 tournaments". Hope so that my edit was correct!? - JamesAndersoon (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Scores

There are a couple of small ambiguities I've come across regarding scoring within brackets that I think we should establish standards for:

• Walkovers: On the side of the player who received one (ex.), or the player who withdrew (ex.)? Also, the small tags that are normally used for walkovers (<small>w/o</small> → w/o) are being removed en masse [2] citing the manual of style. So should we advise against using small tags for walkovers?
• Retirements after a set/at the beginning of a match: rendered as 0^r–0 (ex.), or r– (ex.)?

Our scoring section should include an example bracket showing the recommended style for these things and scoring in general (tiebreaks, retirements, etc.) to make it easy to understand. —Somnifuguist (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

For retirements I usually see 0^r–0, especially because if it happens in the final set there wouldn't be a box to place the "r". For walkovers I've always placed it on the player who moves on, since they move on by walkover. I also use the small attribute in the draw charts. Those charts already use smaller fonts for tiebreaks and retirements, so I do it for consistency. Plus w/o makes the individual scoring cell much wider unless small. Those are my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree on all points, but will wait to see if anyone else weighs in. I was thinking of adding a bracket showing various score situations. —Somnifuguist (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Now added. I'm not suggesting we enforce these guidelines, or retroactively change articles to fit them; it's more just so unsure editors have something they can follow. —Somnifuguist (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility concerns regarding the performance timeline

A WP:ACCESS was raised following the discussion at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#The rowspaned NHs in the performance timeline table, which regarding WP:COLOR. It seems that currently we are using color #ccc to display NH, DNQ, etc. However, according to the color tool, such color with a white background are both WCAG 2 AA and WCAG 2 AAA compliants, i.e. inaccessible for visual impairs. Tennis guidelines should be amended accordingly. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It's best not to split the discussion, and the handful of people who watch this page would all be watching the main project talk page anyway. —Somnifuguist (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Order of Play

Hi all tennis people, i'm a newcomer, and i have noticed the tennis page are very well formatted and standardized. I got it, this is to quicken the process of updating the pages in an efficient way. Nonetheless, being on Wikipedia means that articles should be bold and ambitious in order to be encyclopedic, which should be the goal of every article and section in here. So, it came to my attention that the general informations about tennis tournaments are sort of limited. I've already started to update the part relative to the change of surface during years on the main page of various tournaments (with some resistance of some editors, i must say).

The thing that baffled me most, though, it's the presence of the Main Draw and Qualification Draw pdf link at the bottom of the the tournaments main pages (the bottom?? i think it should be much higher), and particularly the lack of the "Order of Play" link, that is the page where the matches are enlisted by court along with the presumed time they will be played there. This is a big no to me, OoP should be there with MD and QD.

I have already started the updating process ( as i did with the historical log of surfaces used into the tournaments) and already, you know that, bumped into some resistance. Again. This time i get my updates reverted (again) and it was pointed to me the "need" to ask in here (i hope this is the right place) for permission or consensum, or agreement ( remember i'm a newcomer) to add the OoP. So here's the proposal:

Target: Add the Order of Play for every tournament (ATP, WTA, ATP Challenger ) available (in pdf)

HowTo/Process: Upload indirectly from the same source providing pdf links of MD and QD (www.protennislive.com), but since the link is automatically updated every single day, uploading it directly would result in uploading substantially the last day of the tournament, i.e. single (and doubles ) finals. And that's it. And that's not the intention of this proposal, which is to add informations about the stadiums and courts used to play (in an expansion of this project there should be the introduction of a map of the tournaments which should include the names of the courts and their collocations (i already did this by myself, but on a tiny fraction of what is out there)).

So the links should be uploaded "indirectly", that is downloaded on personal notebooks/pcs and uploaded from there to Wikipedia. This way the links will be permanently fixed to the Order of Play (OoP) of the day chosen (more on that later) and won't be automatically updated (if anyone knows about what kind of copyright it should goes with this- i assume the same actually used for uploading the MDs and QDs pdf- please write the right procedure below in order to bypass the "in 8 days this file could be expired" showing up when i upload indirectly under the "i find this file on the internet" copyright section of uploading files).

Of course these OoPs have to be uploaded on the year edition page of the tournaments, not on the main ones.

Finally, my idea is about having ONLY ONE Order of Play (0oP) uploaded per tournament, which is the one with more matches, that is the OoP of the first day of the Main Draw ( which could be different for a combined like Indian Wells 2021, so two different OoPs uploading could be needed in such cases ) because, again, it's about giving a more general view and deep understanding to the readers of how a tournament functions (also, am i the only one to find deeply wrong to have the money prize on the main page of the tournaments? What about to have it on the year edition instead?!? And the same goes for the surfaces, but i've already half-coped with that by enlarging them to an historical dimension). It's not my intent to have all the OoP of the tournament uploaded, but, hear me out on this, on the Grand Slam pages it should be, since there's already the day-by-day summary, and not having also the day-by-day OoP would result into an inhomogeneous view of the event. I leave to the general consensum if we should have the day-by-day OoP also for Masters and WTA1000 tournaments- i think not as well as for the lower level tournaments and the ATP challengers.

I think the QD OoP could be included as well with the same exception stated above. In that case i envision not a three lines (QD/MD/OoP) format in the external links section, but a continuous line QD- OoP/ MD- OoP, which should be more compact and thus useful and easy to follow by the readers, who could stop at the Draw or go on and see also the relative OoP on the same line. In the case of the Grand Slam, i think the format should be (let's take the Main Draw case) either by a)weekdays or b)the tournament's days so: a) MD- OoP (M-T-W-T-F-S-S.... ) or b) MD- OoP (Day1-2-3-4-5-....)- i prefer the latter.

So, i don't know if there were a format to follow, a time to wait for the response, a minimum number of replies to get a final say on this, anyway here it is. So, let's hear from you about the OoP proposal. I think maybe i wrote too much and too deep about it, but my idea is, long story short, very simple, easy and quick to be executed, and it came out of necessity, since it's intended to give the readers and tennis people an overview of what they should expect of various tournaments (like, "oh yeah, Indian Wells Masters is coming, how many courts they are using?" "Here, go and see the OoP" or "How late they are going to play on central court?" "Here, go and see what time is expected last match on the OoP", or " i want to see that match" " Check the OoP first, they won't play in the Stadium, camera's quality will thus be lower" and so much answers which could spawn from uploading the OoP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandraketennis (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a live scoring page or a sports/tennis website. It is an encyclopedia, where we just present the facts and information. The linking of the draws is there as a sort of impromptu source so that anyone looking at the tennis draws can validate their accuracy by comparing them to an official source. Taking screenshots of an order of play and then uploading to Wikipedia serves absolutely no purpose. Seeing who played on the first day of a tournament and if they played on center court or court 15 provides no useful information to anyone reading a Wikipedia article. And if someone is looking for an order of play as you say to determine which match to watch, they visit either the ATP or WTA scoring site, they don't visit Wikipedia for that information. In my opinion, adding OOP doesn't contribute much to the articles here, and adding them following your proposal above seems difficult and time-consuming. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia tournament pages are not live scoring pages, but are scoring pages nonetheless, so much so, top 5 minutes after a match ended the result will show up on the year edition of every single tournament. You seems oblivious that an article is a collection of facts and where and when a match is played is a fact, a relevant one that, just to cite a recent example, Nadal suggested he lost to Djokovic at this year Roland Garros because also of the time the match was played (by night). There were tons of articles about his words. If you're not interested in seeing where a match is played is not enough reason to pre-emptively revert all the OoP i uploaded, a dozen at best. I follow tennis forums, nationally and internationally, and people are very interested in knowing if a match is played on centre court by day or by night, so are blogs and specialized websites and interviewers (just mention here the question to Nadal if it was right Barty, WTA n.1, played on court 1 at Wimbledon, which is a widely known fact in tennis circle). On the merit that people should get their info on ATP and WTA websites, well, this is a motion to close the whole tennis section of Wikipedia, then. All the infos are out there, Wikipedia is to collect and organize them in a timely and easy way. I 'm not reading 15 pages of statistics for a single players (especially if very young), but here we have it. So informations are important, even if you don't personally agree with those, or miss their scope.

Finally, I don't see any obstacle in uploading one link, the OoP, after you have uploaded two (Main Draw and Qualification Draw ). It's the same process (almost), and the same source, it's onetime, for a single tournament, just to give people more info. I guess editors spent 10 time their time updating the results for single and double matches per tournament. In my proposal, i'd extend the OoP day-by-day only to big tournaments, but, easy-peasy, it could be done for every day of every single tournament, once good practice is in place. In fact after your reply i think we should give readers OoP every day of the tournament, not a whiff of it, by uploading only the first day of the Main Draw. Mandraketennis (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That is too trivial for the article in question and wikipedia is not a ticker-tape. Daily order of play jpg's is not really the way to go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a misrepresentation by the precedent user you get caught in. There is no .jpg standard for the OoP. They are all pdf files, same standard of Main Draw. Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Open_International_de_Tennis_de_Roanne_%E2%80%93_Singles ::::see reference section at the bottom of the page. I don't understand what the "too trivial for the article" was referring to. Please elaborate on that, if you don't mind.Mandraketennis (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

But what are you going to do... put an order of play for each and every day of the event? We'll have seven new links on the page bottom. And another important thing. It's one thing to link to the gambling site pdf, but it's quite another to copy the pdf and upload it to wikipedia, which is what you did. That might be a copyright violation which could get wikipedia in hot water. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If you did take time to read the proposal, i stated in capital letter that the order of play file uploaded would be only one and that relative to the first day of the main draw (not even for the qualification draw). I suggested to upload all of them, that is all the order of play for every day of the tournament, only for Grand Slam, for internal coherence reasoning, since there's already a day-by-day summary in that case, which is by no means short. I don't know what gambling site you are referring to, the website from which i've taken the order of play is the same exact editors of wikipedia have been taking the main draws and qualification draws for years! So, i guess there's isn't any problem with copyright so far, and order of play file don't pose one new now.Mandraketennis (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is you aren’t using the same link. Since that order of play link updates every day to the next days order of play, by the end of the tournament, the only match on that order of play link is typically just the singles final. You’re saying you want to post the OOP from early in the tournament, which means that you’d have to screenshot that one and upload to Wikipedia without providing that link. And then doing that for each day. Not only is that a lot of work but it will add a large amount of files to Wikimedia that will automatically flag for that deletion message you mentioned in your first message. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't screenshot anything, i donwloaded the pdf file locally and uploaded on wikimedia: the files, as you know very well since you deleted my OoP, are pdf files and quality guaranteed. I don't get what's the fuss about it, that is the difference in uploading the link directly or indirectly to have the OoP of the first day of Main draw. It's still a file uploading, as there are so many in the Grand Slam pages, just mentioning the pictures in there, and in the upload the source and the link are acknowledged multiple times, i can name the file with the link, so that would resolve the "indirect copyright issue" you have. I see no problem in doing that, as long as the files will show up as "order of play" on wiki tournament pages. I don't know about problems with uploading multiple files to Wikimedia, but if wikipedia is true to its word, to be an encyclopedia, then more content should be added, not less.Mandraketennis (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be like a photo. They can put up a photo or pdf for everyone to view, but that doesn't mean you can take those items and publish them yourself... as you have done here at wikipedia. You can link to them, but not publish their property. And encyclopedias don't put in more content just because you can. We could put in Serena Williams shoe size but we don't. An encyclopedia is a summary of information, not book. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot to argue with your definition of encyclopedia, not from an abstract point of view, but from a very practical one: the best pages, which got most praises were the ones longer and more detailed: Clijsters and Raonic. I'm not saying you have to reconsider posting about S. Williams' shoe size, but maybe you shouldMandraketennis (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

To follow up on this, I'm not sure if this is even feasible. Taking photos of the pdfs and publishing them on Wikipedia may or may not follow copyright. I honestly am not familiar with those rules and would rather err on the side of caution. The only solution that has been presented is then to link to the order of plays, but those links automatically update to the next day's schedule, leaving you with one match by the end of the tournament. And even if taking screenshots/pictures of the order of play was allowed, what happens if you miss a day? There is almost no way to get those order of play pictures back, as the link has already automatically updated. This just seems like a messy and quite trivial situation. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly because Orders of Play are so difficult to get, they should be uploaded, at least one for every tournament. It's mind boggling nobody has been doing that for years. I guess that as long as i, you and any other editor learnt how to link url, and others were copying and improving the procedure toward best practice, as long as there are editors, there will be someone who will update Orders of Play too. In case there will be some miss, well, we can get them anyway, after "expire date" on social media ( with lower quality and for the joy of Fyunck as photos) if not directly on the official site (for example all 4 Grand Slam tournaments give readers the opportunity to check all the Orders of Play for the entire duration of tournament, and some even after that. That is the actual best practice i'm looking up to when i consider to introduce OoP on wikipedia).Mandraketennis (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree. I still think this is completely unnecessary. If someone is looking for an order of play, they don't come to Wikipedia, they go to a tennis scoring website or the ATP/WTA/ITF websites. I'm struggling to find any purpose of including OOP on here at the moment, and for now, it seems like others agree. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to argue anymore in favor of this proposal. I've already cancelled the related example of Order of Play. I don't have the time to deal with endless and specious requests put up by a wall of editors, both here and on wikimedia pages, whose intentions are to keep the status quo and never make any improvements to the detriment of the readers who come here looking for something more detailed and informative than an updated collections of matches and few sparse news here and there. In my opinion there's clearly a bad attitude of thinking that less and very basic content is for the best among senior editors, i cannot but disagree with.Mandraketennis (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Tweaked wording to significant coverage

Tweaked wording to significant coverage rather than notability to more closely align with with Wikipedia guidelines. It doesn't really change anything but it makes things less a hard edge with more emphasis on showing that significant coverage when creating an article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Preferred sources for infobox

I saw that Aryna Sabalenka's height was different from whats on her WTA player profile, is this because you guys prefer a different source, or should I update it? I dont edit tennis profiles often. Thanks, Nswix (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Usually we go with the WTA source. If for some reason bunches of other sources say differently, then that can be used. As for Sabalenka it is the same as the WTA source 1.82m, but where WTA translates that to 5'11", wikipedia transposes it to 6'0". Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks. Nswix (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

ITF and Fed Cup/Billie Jean King Cup charts

Hello to everybody! I'm wondering what is correct way of writing ITF names and how Fed Cup/Billie Jean King Cup table should look like? Most ITF tournaments are represented as ITF + name city, Country, talking about 10/15/25K tournaments, but what about higher level ones? Should there be universal template for all tournaments on the ITF Tour? Names of some higher level tournaments ex. Coleman Vision Tennis Championships (held in Albuquerque) is too long and maybe it will be better to specify the city rather? Also there are some tournaments like Copa LP Chile where saying Cope LP Chile, Chile is a little bit pointless cuz we already can see that tournament is hold in Chile. Talking about Fed Cup/BJKP chart, I can't found proper version cuz on almost all female ralated pages there are not the same chart represented in Article Guidline for Davis Cup. Davis Cup chart is for me unlegible and needs new format. JamesAndersoon (talk) JamesAndersoon (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I wish I knew. I seem to remember discussing it at least once but darned if I can find it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

United Cup and notability

Will participation in the 2023 United Cup qualify a player for an article in the same way it does for Davis/BJK? Asking because I notice a number of teams have nominated players without articles and wanted to know if it was worth preparing any drafts. --Leonstojka (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It's similar to the old Hopman Cup, and we could update the essay on this page, but adding it to the WP:NTENNIS page is going to face fierce resistance. Iffy★Chat -- 14:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to take that risk. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting for a shortcut

Consensus was reached to create WP:TENNISG and WT:TENNISG as well as WP:TENG and WT:TENG as shortcuts for the Tennis Wikiproject's Article guidelines. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am inviting the Tennis community to support me in creating a shortcut redirect for this talk page: WT:AGL. I had created the aforementioned redirect page, but it was taken down in a few days. Help me resurrect it, fellow tennis enthusiasts. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC) What is WT:AGL supposed to mean? Is that short for Wikiproject Tennis, article guidelines? Do other projects use the same nomenclature for their guidelines? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC) I don't think so. No. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC) However, I propose we use WT:TENAGL as a shortcut redirect for this page. Thoughts? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Because? I'm curious in how it would help us here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Ease of access. Instead of having to go to WP:WPTEN and then clicking on Article guidelines, followed by clicking the talk page, one just types in the aforementioned abbreviation and access the talk page of said article. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC) It could help if you can show it's referenced frequently. CurryCity (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Here's what I see. For the "WikiProject Tennis" page we have three shortcuts: WP:TENNIS, WP:WPTEN, WP:WFT. I have no clue at all why we have WP:WFT... a misspelling? I'd dump WP:WFT unless someone can show what it stands for. Then for "talk:"WikiProject Tennis" we now have WT:TENNIS and WT:TEN. No idea how we still have WT:TEN since WP:TEN is for wikipedia's humorous ten commandments article. I don't see a shortcut listed for "Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines" and if we did I would recommend we go off of what we have and use WP:TENNISGL and/or perhaps WP:TENGL. That would leave us for the guideline talkpage with WT:TENNISGL and/or WT:TENGL. Those are more easily remembered because they look more logical. We could even simplify it more with WP:TENNISG/WP:TENG and WT:TENNISG/WT:TENG... as I'm not sure we need the "L". But to be honest... I've never even used what we have now at WP:WPTENNIS/WP:WPTEN... I have a link on my user page to it and since guidelines don't get changed much I just click on the WikiProject Tennis link at the page top. But it might be nice to refer others (especially new editors) to a shortened standard link... especially during the time period of the four majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC) An RfD was held about WT:TEN and it got accepted on my behalf. I prefer shortcuts as they speed up looking up pages/articles I frequently am working on. I agree we could drop WT:WFT, but we'd have to check for backlinks first. I am on board for WP:TENG and WT:TENG, the short and straight to the point the better. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Actually that was a discussion on WPT:TEN not WT:TEN. Yes a WT:TEN got created... it's just odd that it has nothing to do with WP:TEN. What the heck was WFT supposed to stand for? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Wikimedia Foundation Tennis? Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Vote Let's vote for the preffered redirect shortcut: WP:TENNISGL & WT:TENNISGL WP:TENNISG & WT:TENNISG WP:TENGL & WT:TENGL WP:TENG & WT:TENG I vote for 4. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC) I also vote for 4. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC) If only one I would prefer 2 (TENNISG) since TENG almost sounds like a word and the full word TENNIS conveys more info when we are explaining things to new editors. But it's no big deal and I'd go with 4 if that what most want. One query though... why only one choice? With shortcuts like MOS:CONTEXTBIO, MOS:ETHNICITY, MOS:CITIZEN, MOS:NATIONALITY, these all go to the exact same place. Our own project has three right now, WP:TENNIS, WP:WPTEN, and WP:WFT... all redirecting to the same place. I would actually propose using two for our guidelines... 2 and 4, WP/WT:TENNISG and WP/WT:TENG. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC) I am on board with having 2 sets of shortcuts for the guidelines: 2 and 4. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC) What do you say, @JamesAndersoon? Would you prefer we have 2 shortcuts or just 1? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Probably better with only one. JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Let's wait for a week for others to give their preference of 1 or 2 shortcuts. Otherwise, I will close this discussion with 2 votes in favor of 2 shortcuts 2. and 4. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC) @Fyunck(click) and JamesAndersoon:, it's been 10 days since the last comment. I am closing this discussion in favor of creating and using WP:TENNISG and WP:TENG and their talk page counterparts as shortcuts for the Article guidelines for the WikiProject Tennis. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm also going to ask for a delete of WP:WFT. Nothing links to it and it's pretty much never used... no one even knows what it means. WP:TENNIS and WP:WPTEN should be enough for our main page shortcuts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  RfD discussion started: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 25 § Wikipedia:WFT Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I closed that as delete. BTW, I found the diff where WP:WFT was first added by DarkFalls, but there seems to be no real explanation other than "made shorter redir.": Special:Diff/123465360. - Fuzheado | Talk 11:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Pictures for older players

Hello to everyone! I wondering can we provide some better pictures for some significant former players. For instance, Justine Henin is one of the most successful female tennis player, but she hasn't got any proper image. For me is interesting that there is no photo of her holding any title, but she has won some major, just as French Open five times. I'm sorry if this is not proper place to leave this message, but I need to spread this request as far as possible. I hope so we can do something. Also, e.g. there is some former player, Julie Halard-Decugis, that I have never heard about, but she is former number 1 doubles player, Grand Slam doubles champion and top 10 singles player and she hasn't got even one photo. The list is big. JamesAndersoon (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Justine Henin (examples of the existing photos)

• 
  2005
• 
  2006
• 
  2007
• 
  2010
• 
  2010

Yeah, the older the player the less public domain photos seem to exist. But Henin has many good pics on her page besides what you posted, some need to be cropped perhaps. As for Trophies, only one of those is usually needed per article, but it requires some fan with a camera taking the shot and then uploading it and giving it away forever. We can't use press photos. You can try and contact Julie Halard-Decugis personally and ask her to upload a photo or two to wikimedia commons. Don't have her send them to you to upload because the hoops wikimedia makes you jump through aren't worth it... as I found out from Margaret Court. You might be able to use something from Tennis On The Line if it's labeled as "fair-use." . I see no other public domain image of her and the trophy pic could be used if uploaded to wikimedia with the understanding of it's fair use and no other photo available. But that's a maybe. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for Halard-Decugis suggestion. I visited link you send (Tennis On The Line) but I don't know how to upload files unless it is from Flickr. Perhaps someone can do it? Talking about Justine, you said "on her page", do you mean Wikipedia page? I'm sorry but we don't have the same observation. Yeah, there are pictures that can be cropped, but when you zoom them, you can't clearly see her face (sometimes it's about resolution, sometimes about perspective). As a one of most significant players, I think she deserve higher quality pictures (at least one). Some of examples of (for me) quality pictures of older players:

• 
  Flavia Pennetta, 2007
• 
  Serena Williams, 2008
• 
  Nadia Petrova, 2008
• 
  Ana Ivanovic, 2008
• 
  Kim Clijsters, 2009

JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

She does deserve better... but if there aren't any free photos then there is nothing we can do. Wikipedia is pretty clear on this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2023 (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)