Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

I have been testing new versions in "Title leader" in women's singles to distinguish the active events from defunct. See below the original and 3 versions. Which one do you vote for?

I plan to implement this new design to the other 3 related articles once a consensus is reached:

1. men's singles

2. men's doubles and

3. women's doubles. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Boc (Boca Raton)	Dub (Dubai)	Doh (Doha)	Ind (Indian Wells)	Mia (Miami)	Cha (Charleston)
Mad (Madrid)	Ber (Berlin)	Rom (Rome)	Can (Canada)	San (San Diego)	Cin (Cincinnati)
Phi (Philadelphia)	Mos (Moscow)	Tok (Tokyo)	Wuh (Wuhan)	Zur (Zürich)	Bei (Beijing)

• Players with 5+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in bold.
• 73 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.

Active tournaments

Defunct tournaments

Active tournaments

Defunct tournaments

Active tournaments

Defunct tournaments

Note: I removed the table from the collapsible show/hide box. Horizontal sticky row headers do not work correctly inside the box in Firefox in Windows 10 Pro. Nor in Safari in my iphone SE 2020. See the table inside the box in this version of the page.

nowrap has been left in so that this table can be compared to Qwerty284651's table (without nowrap) in portrait view on cell phones. We both agree that nowrap should not be used. Nowrap messes up portrait view on mobile by making the location column take up too much width (see discussion). On desktop PC monitor (Windows 10 Pro) there appears to be a bug (in Firefox only) in dealing with nowrap that causes the table to be cut off slightly at the end of the row, and the horizontal scrollbar appears.

I edited version 2 (active followed by defunct events) to get the following table below. I lessened the height with this:

<div class="scroll-container" style="max-height:50vh;">

The article editors can decide what scrolling table height to use.

New readers: Sticky horizontal headers work. Lessen your browser window width to see. Also, feel free to start your own table section here, or in a user sandbox.

The table below (when nowrap is ignored or removed) is working perfectly on my desktop PC monitor in Windows 10 Pro. Also on my iphone SE 2020 (in portrait and landscape view). It has been tested in Safari, Firefox, Chrome, Edge, and Opera. The row and column headers are both sticky.

Active tournaments

Defunct tournaments

• Players with 5+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in bold.
• 73 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.

--Timeshifter (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Active tournaments

Defunct tournaments

• Players with 5+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in bold.
• 73 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.

Added my version above. See current difference between your and my version. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed sticky rows not working (sticky-Col1 -> sticky-col1). Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the chronological instead of the alphabetic order; it makes it easier to look for the event's name. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I leave that up to you. Though I don't understand what you mean by chronological order. I am not a tennis fan, and so I have no idea of the chronological order of events.

I prefer version 2. Since cell phone users will want to see active events first without having to scroll horizontally.

Also, it is nice to let the years sort too.

I removed any table formatting that did not seem to be needed. Or did not seem to be doing anything. Such as style="margin:o;"

What is that doing? And I think you meant to use a zero, and not the letter "o"

With the flat-list glossary it is not needed since the space between the glossary and table is not large. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The original order listed was the chronological before you changed it to alphabetic. The column order is the chronological order for the active and defunct events. Which is why I would like to see it in the legend above.

Added margin:0 to omit excess wrapping whitespace.

Agree: current events should be listed first.

Is the year column even necessary or can we do without it? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You can change the flat-list glossary to chronological order. But alphabetical order is a lot more intuitive. Especially for casual tennis fans who may not know the chronological order of events. I assume that is what you mean by chronological order? And the flat list takes up less vertical space than {{Columns-list}}. That is important for cell phones.

I noticed that you have margin:0 within the table wikitext in your version 2 higher up. I removed it from my version 2. I don't see that it is doing anything at all.

On your version 2, the scrolling window stops prematurely in the horizontal direction. In my version 2 I can read all the columns. That is because I removed class=nowrap from the table.

I like having the year column. So I know what is the time period for each tennis player winning the titles. And I like it being sortable. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I would leave nowrap and margin:0; I am using desktop version on mobile. It leaves a line of whitespace on my end (desktop version on mobile and regular desktop), which I bypass with margin:0 (without margin:0 vs. with margin:0). I agree with the glossary being in alphabetical order—more intuitive to the casual reader. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Replaced the plain flat-list glossary (• ''' -> * ''') with {{flatlist}}. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Please do not edit my version 2 further. It is very confusing.

Edit your version 2 higher up. Then I can make comparisons.

{{flatlist}} is a good idea. I think I had a problem with it before. But now it is working. I will keep it in my version.

I removed margin:0 from my version 2 for comparison purposes.

Will be looking later in browsers on my cell phone.

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

In what way confusing? I feel a live update on the same table is faster and more efficient than each editing their own table.

Okay will not add margin:0 until further notice. I remembered sidebars/navboxes use html lists often so I looked into those. The best I could come up was flatlist. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the table's design and code, I am content with how it turned out, unless you have something else to add. nowrap and margin:0 are minor things and preferential. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am constantly tweaking. So I need to see what effect my changes are having. And I need to compare with your version 2. I can just scroll up and down this talk page to compare the 2. Plus WP:TALK requires not editing others' posts. I rarely do that except when it is something minor that I know they will appreciate. Like changing margin:o to margin:0 in your versions that still needed to be changed.

If margin:0 is of help to you, then I have no problem with you using it in your version 2, and in articles. I am just trying to see for myself what it is doing. Will do some cell phone work later. Same for nowrap. I think it causes problems sometimes on desktop screens. It may help on cell phones in this case.

I am using max-height. So the scrolling table window is less tall:

<div class="scroll-container" style="max-height:70vh;">

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I truncated version 1-3 to only display the notable changes and removed the rest (glossary flat-list and table's column headers) for better readibility. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

See:

User:Timeshifter/Sandbox255 - not scrolling.

User:Timeshifter/Sandbox256 - scrolling.

Margin:0 helps with the scrolling table. On my desktop monitor there is less space between the top of it and the section header when you push the scroll bar all the way to the top. That is all I have noticed so far. I haven't noticed any difference on my mobile browsers yet. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly what I said. The difference can be noticed on desktop and the desktop mode on mobile browsers but not on mobile mode, because the latter defaults to Minerva skin which omits any stray whitespace. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed my note in my table section: "Note: I removed the table from the show/hide box. Horizontal sticky row headers do not work correctly inside the box in Firefox in Windows 10 Pro. Nor in Safari in my iphone SE 2020."

Look at your table in the show/hide box to see what I mean. I suggest removing the box so that others reading this thread can see that the horizontal row headers are sticky, and work correctly. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I get you. {{cot}}/{{cob}}, Collapse box, as you call it show/hide box, overrides disables overflow, thereby disabling and sticky headers (row and column). Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Btw, I propose we rename the tables to version 1 & 2, respectively, because with our names next to them sounds like we one the tables which goes against WP:OWN. We don't own anything on wiki, but rather share it with the rest of the community. You named them thusly to distinguish whose proposed design is but it may rub people the wrong way. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying I own the table in the article, and so it doesn't go against WP:OWN. Saying "Timeshifter's table" in the heading just prevents others from editing the table in that section. And it allows me to continue editing it. Since the discussion is in another section it makes it easy. And it makes it simpler for others to follow the discussion. And others can come up with their own table ideas in their own sections if they want to. Or in a sandbox. I left a note to that effect in my table section. Going by table numbers alone could get very confusing.

I added back margin:0 to my table per discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your request. It's just that I have been involved in a couple of table redesign discussions where we've gone through several versions and combinations for a result: all edits on 1 table or set of tables. But have it your way.

Imagine 10 editors, each with their own version. You would never reach a consensus that way. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess I could move my table to a sandbox. Maybe wait to see if more tables show up before consolidating on one here. I think we have the same table except for the height and nowrap. Amount of height is a decision of the article editors. So is nowrap. I prefer not using it, but I can live with it. Right now people can quickly compare our 2 tables on the same page to decide whether they want nowrap or not. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I have changed my mind after looking at my cell phone again. Keep nowrap. I was torn between its effects on desktop PC screen versus mobile screen. Mobile wins out on this one. I am talking about mobile (not desktop) view on my iphone SE 2020. This iphone has a relatively smaller screen compared to other cell phones. And I use a larger text size. So if nowrap works on it, then it will also work fine on other cell phones. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: After additional testing on portrait mobile, I noticed that nowrap obstructs field of view of the table by 70% similar to tall column headers but for rows. (see with nowrap vs. without nowrap). Removed nowrap from my version. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I am pretty much done on my end and I am happy with the version. I feel you and I are, sans margin:0, on the same page. I will give the new design a month to marinate until the next event from the list above. And, if noone objects will implement said design in all 4 pages. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That's funny, I did not even think to look at such a wide table in portrait view on my cell. I just did, and since it is a smaller screen, and because I use a large font, I can only see one and a half data cells in the row. That is with nowrap on. I can see 4 and a half data cells without nowrap on. So nowrap can remain off as far as I am concerned.

Feel free to implement the changes now. Further discussion may make further improvements. But I see no reason to wait to implement these improvements. And we agree on keeping margin:0. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I primarily edit in desktop mode on mobile, so I always use portrait view. I doubt the majority of wiki visitors use landscape mode on mobile. 4 and a half cells is 9x more than half a data cell (on my end, goes from 5 to 8 cells) without nowrap. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

For me it is 3x more without nowrap in mobile mode in portrait view. 1.5 vs 4.5 data cells visible without horizontal scrolling.

You are right about the majority of wiki readers since most will have a larger cell phone than me.

I don't like to indent too many times. Messages end up being very long and narrow, and some occupy only a third of the width of the screen on my phone in portrait view.

I just noticed that {{outdent}} operates differently on my cell versus on desktop PC screen.

{{outdent|::::::}} - The colons are needed on my phone to get the outdent arrow to line up at all in portrait view. Unlike in desktop PC where they are not really needed. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I left nowrap in my table so readers can compare our 2 tables in portrait view on cell phones. Your table does not have nowrap. That way readers can see why we both now oppose nowrap. I left a note about it before my table. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

{{od}} does behave differently on mobile vs. on desktop. Still, don't need to outdent every few comments. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have the smaller cell screen. So I think I would know when to do it. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not really into this whole chart so I have no say in how it's displayed. Whatever works for you two. I do have one complaint about these type of charts in general since you are in the process of fine-tuning this one. In almost all tennis articles we have had a big no-no to listing tournaments as only a city. They are the common tournament name, not a location. Why on earth would we retain the city here when it's being updated? It seems like the events could easily be two letter abbreviations. Indian Wells is the event name so it should be IW or IWO for Indian Wells Open. It should never be Rome since it's the Italian Open that everyone knows. So IT or IO or ITO. No Tokyo it's Pan Pacific Open. PP or PPO. No Beijing... it's the China Open. CO or CHO. And the key should not say the cities either but instead use the name of the event. Pretty much all our charts by consensus make sure we use the tournament name under tournaments. Why is this chart funky? I see Moscow and I have no idea what event that is... Kremlin Cup. Same with Berlin since it's the German Open. And the abbreviations should also link to the proper tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Will update the glossary. Thanks for the feedback. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  This then merits updating the following pages:

  1. ATP: WTA 1000 tournaments's transcluded charts found in Category:WTA 1000 tournaments seasons and respective records and stat pages: WTA 1000 Series singles records and statistics, WTA 1000 Series doubles records and statistics
  2. WTA: ATP Masters 1000 tournaments's transcluded charts found in Category:ATP Tour Masters 1000 seasons and respective records and stat pages: Tennis Masters Series singles records and statistics, Tennis Masters Series doubles records and statistics. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  As I said, some tables have been wrong for awhile, and some have slowly been fixed. Since you two were updating these particular charts it seems like a good time to fix the city names and make them proper event names. Whether it gets left as Ind for Indian Wells Open is not a huge deal, but leaving it as Ber for German Open or Rom for Italian Open or Tok for Pan Pacific Open is the bigger issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Fyunck(click), I surmise you want the event names in ATP Masters 1000 tournaments and WTA 1000 tournaments's "Past finals" sections expanded to full names. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I substituted the charts on the main pages (atp masters and wta 1000). Here are the current events' names:

1. Bei (Beijing) - CH or CO or CN for China Open

2. Ber (Berlin) - GO or GR or GE for German Open

3. Boc (Boca Raton) - VF or FL for Virginia Slims of Florida

4. Can (Canada) - CO or CN or CA for Canadian Open

5. Cha (Charleston) - CL or CH or CO or CR for Charleston open

6. Chi (Chicago) - a tricky one....VC or AC or CI or CG for Virginia Slims of Chicago/Ameritech Cup

7. Cin (Cincinnati) - CI for Cincinnati Open

8. Doh (Doha) - QO or QA or QT for Qatar Open

9. Dub (Dubai) - DC or DU or DB for Dubai Championships

10. Ind (Indian Wells) - IW for Indian Wells Open

11. Mad (Madrid) - MA or MD for Madrid Open

12. Mia (Miami) - MI for Miami Open

13. Mon (Monte Carlo) - MO or MC for Monte-Carlo Masters

14. Mos (Moscow) - KC for Kremlin Cup

15. Gua (Guadalajara) - GU or GO or GD for Guadalajara

16. Par (Paris) - PA for Paris Masters

17. Phi (Philadelphia) - PH or VP for Virginia Slims of Philadelphia

18. Rom (Rome) - IT for Italian Open

19. San (San Diego) - SD or SC or SO for San Diego Open, Southern California Open

20. Sha (Shanghai) - SH for Shanghai Masters

21. Tok (Tokyo) - PP for Pan Pacific Open

22. Wuh (Wuhan) - WO or WU for Wuhan Open

23. Zur (Zurich) - ZU or ZO for Zurich Open

Note:

Added the missing Chicago and Guadalajara (now defunct) to the list. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

CH is proposed twice for China Open and Charleston Open. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Several are proposed twice as I didn't know what was best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Any other abbreviations you would like to propose or is that it? Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If not, then let's vote on it. Which abbreviations do you opt for? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Added Monte Carlo, Shanghai and Paris. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Krmohan, Crows22, Wolbo, and Unnamelessness: to chip in. Which names and abbreviations would you replace them with? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not a tennis fan, so I don't have a clue about the column headers. 2-letter abbreviations would make the table less wide. That is a good thing. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I too am a proponent of narrow tables. The less horizontal scrolling the better. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

So if we do our best to make it two letters I added one set of choices above. And I think it should be Zurich since that is the English usage at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a big deal but in order I think I'd go with:

• 1.CN, 2.GE, 3.FL, 4.CA, 5.CH, 6.ACVC, 7.CI, 8.QTQA, 9.DU, 10.IW, 11.MA, 12.MI, 13.MC, 14.KC, 15.GD, 16.PA, 17.PH, 18.IT, 19.SD, 20.SH, 21.PP, 22.WU, 23.ZU Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I propose the following abbr:

Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Two items I was just looking at. China already has an official country code of CN, so I think more people would be familiar with equating China Open with CN, which leaves CH for Charleston. Likewise the country code for Qatar is QA so I will change my Qatar to QA also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I changed mine to CN and CH, respectively. Short names not yet decided upon:

6. VC or AC; 15. GD or GU; 19. SD or SC? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with yours. Only question in looking at it is SC. Not because it doesn't work well with Southern California Open, but that article was recently changed to San Diego Open (tennis). The chart you have here is from 1990 onwards and the San Diego event was only a 1000 level from 2004-2007, and in that time it always had San Diego in the title. In fact from 1990 through today, only in 2013 was it called the Southern California Open. Because of the recent page move to San Diego Open (tennis) which these events will link to, it should probably be at SD or SO. I would personally stick with SD. Otherwise VC and GU are fine. I think I went with GD because some will not know how to spell Guadalajara and GD seemed to roll off the the tongue better for me. I had no clue what to do with the Virginia Slims of Chicago/ Ameritech Cup. I didn't want another "C" issue. VC I think works better now that I think of it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's stick with the events' current names and use abbreviations according to those. SD, GD (valid argument about others not knowing how to spell it - even though only contested twice; now defunct), AC...until they change again.

Because we are changing the names events, all 4 stat and record articles are using the event's names by city, I would leave the rest of the articles tables unchanged, maybe add something in lead along the lines of "The following is a list of the events played by sponsor name and city: <and then you list them of in one order or another> WTA German Open (Berlin),...Italian Open (Rome),..Virginia Slims of Florida (Boca Raton), etc." What do you think? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not my first choice, but yes we can also keep it as is. I would only put the sponsor name if we do at the main tournament page, which is almost never unless the sponsor name is the only name it ever had here. Also if you change to two letters, and all they are is the first two letters of a city name, the second letter should not be capitalized. CN sure, two word names like Indian Wells (IW) or San Diego (SD or Sa), but Rome would be Ro, Guadalahara would be GD or Gu. VC but Be. And what do we do with the Qatar Open? put it at Do for Doha? It is a bit strange that these are the only type of charts that do not use the tournament name. I find it confusing but I guess others don't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The 34 transcluded charts at WTA 1000 and ATP 1000 from the yearly pages and the 4x records and statistics pages all use the city name instead of the tournament, i.e. sponsorship name. I purposefully added the events' cities to save up on space in the charts — for conciseness, really.

The problem with the main 2 pages is that they contain 34 transcluded charts each. If we, let's say, change the city name to the current tournament's name, this would then require constant updating whenever a tournament changes its name in the future. That's I am hesitant on renaming them...it requires maintenance. With the current city names it's no problem. Even Cincy was once contested in a different city but still only Cincinnati is listed, for consistency and to avoid confusion.

If we use the name of the tournament at the time it was played, it would confuse everyone. So many events went through numerous sponsorship name changes over the years that listing them all for any tournament would be inefficient.

This is why I am fine with listing the full names in the lead of the 2 main and 4 records pages as a compromise. If that is okay with you? Otherwise, I am not getting involved in changing the event names. Plus, even atp/wta refer to them by their city names when listing records (Iga's Madrid-Rome double; Nadal's Canada-Cincinnati double, etc.).

With consensus you might get them to be renamed, but don't count my vote. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as the abbreviations is concerned, I have concocted this prototype:

Thoughts? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Whatever on this one. However those cites initials should each absolutely link to the events so you have the same issue of events name changes. I don't know what the worry is though since every time an event name changes the old name is redirected. And I never said to use the event name at the time it was played with sponsorships. We would use the general common name. The Ameritech Cup is a sponsorship name that we try not to use... but that's really the only name we have for that event. Virginia Slims is also a sponsorship name but it is what it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

So, what do you propose then? We revert to the original version (wta singles (outdated) version below) or replace the current one with the one above, listing only events pertinent to the discipline or keep the glossary/legend as is? I wikilinked the above events.

Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You will certainly never see me advocate for a city name over an event name. If the column header says tournament or championship we would not do that. It is wrong to list a city under a tournament headers. We corrected many charts that did this long ago, like the performance timelines. These were so stewy, and to be honest a lot of original research, that they were ignored I guess. I just thought that if they were being be updated it would be a good time to fix the city names under the tournament header. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, event name it is. I just remembered the 3 defunct masters events: Stuttgart, Stockholm and Hamburg in men's. I assume we just use Eurocard Open, Stockholm Open and Hamburg European Open, respectively, correct? What about abbreviations for them? What do you propose? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hamburg European Open should be Hamburg Masters. During the time as a 1000 level it was German Open and Hamburg Masters. Then from '09 to '18 it was back to German Open. It's now at Hamburg again. The men's event has never been called the Hamburg European Open. Our article is broken with the Hamburg European Open title and needs some fixing. That's a women's 125 level event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

And for abbreviations? I suggest something like this: EU or EO for Eurocard Open, ST for Stockholm Open and HA for Hamburg Masters (at the time it was played). Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeppers. I'd go with EU. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Like so? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Boy that sure looks great! If we go with VC shouldn't it then be Virginia Slims of Chicago? Otherwise AC for Ameritech Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is the final product: Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

ATP Singles

Active tournaments	– Events not played
Defunct tournaments	– Events not won

79 champions in 303 events as of 2024 Rome.

ATP Doubles

Active tournaments

Defunct tournaments

• Players with 6+ titles. Active players and tournament records indicated in bold.
• 171 champions in 303 events as of 2024 Rome.
• Masters' time slots indicated with 1st–9th column names.

WTA Singles

Active tournaments

Defunct tournaments

• Players with 5+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in bold.
• 73 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.

WTA Doubles

Active tournaments

Defunct tournaments

• Players with 6+ titles. Active players and records are denoted in bold.
• 154 champions in 294 events as of 2024 Rome.

Pinging @Timeshifter and Jroberson108: who sparked the idea for improvements.

In light of recent events the above tables, namely, the 2nd one: WTA 1000 Series singles records and statistics#Title leaders

  Active tournaments   Defunct tournaments

is going through a makeover and we cannot decide on what colors to use to distinguish between "Active" and "defunct tournaments" in the table's column headers. We are trying to make the table more accessible per MOS:COLOR and mobile user-friendly.

You are welcome to contribute. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

After some consultation at Template talk:Sticky table start#Table design discussion for a more mobile and screen reader user-friendly design of the above table, I am proposing new designs below for additional feedback from the tennis community.

The design focus is on table's header, currently located at WTA 1000 Series singles records and statistics#Title leaders, which I am later planning on implementing to the other 1000 records-related pages:

• WTA 1000 Series doubles records and statistics#Title leaders
• ATP Masters 1000 singles records and statistics#Title leaders
• ATP Masters 1000 doubles records and statistics#Title leaders

once consensus is reached.

Active tournaments

Defunct tournaments

*  Active players and most titles won per tournament are denoted in bold.

Title leaders

Titles	Player	Active tournaments										Defunct tournaments								Years
		DU	QA	IW	MI	MA	IT	CA	CI	WU	CN	FL	CH	GE	SD	PH	KC	PP	ZU
23	Serena Williams	-	-	2*	8*	2	4*	3	2*	-	1	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1999–2016

OR

Active tournaments

Defunct tournaments

*  Active players and most titles won per tournament are denoted in bold.

Title leaders

Titles	Player	Active tournaments										Defunct tournaments								Years
		DU	QA	IW	MI	MA	IT	CA	CI	WU	CN	FL	CH	GE	SD	PH	KC	PP	ZU
23	Serena Williams	-	-	2*	8*	2	4*	3	2*	-	1	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1999–2016

OR

*  Active players and most titles won per tournament are denoted in bold.

Title leaders

Titles	Player	Active tournaments										Defunct tournaments								Years
		DU	QA	IW	MI	MA	IT	CA	CI	WU	CN	FL	CH	GE	SD	PH	KC	PP	ZU
23	Serena Williams	-	-	2*	8*	2	4*	3	2*	-	1	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1999–2016

I have come up with the following designs: Leaning towards the 3rd option. Thoughts? Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered using Template:Vertical header for the tournament names? This would eliminate the need for Template:Abbr, which is not compatible with mobile browsing, and the legend for the abbreviations (it's not clear to me whether that is still a part of the proposal or not).

The player name should be row header, not the number of titles, because the data in each row relates to the player, not the number of titles. In the case of ties, you would also have rows without headers.

Would active players not be distinguished by an open range in the years column (e.g. "1992–")? If so, it would be redundant to bold active player names. When player names are the row headers, they will be bolded anyway, so this avoids a conflict. Otherwise, perhaps use an explanatory footnote or italic typeface?

I think bolding the highest number in each column is fairly self-evident and wouldn't need to be explained in a legend. I also think we can ditch the underlining and asterisk as redundant.

I prefer the third design, without color. With the column groups, the color is redundant.

Title leaders

Titles	Player	Active tournaments										Defunct tournaments								Years
		Dubai Championship	Qatar Open	Indian Wells Open	Miami Open	Madrid Open	Italian Open	Canadian Open	Cincinnati Open	Wuhan Open	China Open	Virginia Slims of Florida	Charleston Open	German Open	San Diego Open	Virginia Slims of Philadelphia	Kremlin Cup	Pan Pacific Open	Zurich Open
23	Serena Williams	-	-	2	8	2	4	3	2	-	1	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1999–2016

--Bsherr (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

{{vertical header}} would impede the view on mobile due to the egregiously tall sticky column headers are used which would nullify the effect of the stickiness rendering vertical scrolling useless. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Using some simple abbreviations would shorten the height of the headers.

Title leaders

Titles	Player	Active tournaments										Defunct tournaments								Years
		Dubai Champ'shp	Qatar Open	Indian Wells Open	Miami Open	Madrid Open	Italian Open	Canadian Open	Cincinnati Open	Wuhan Open	China Open	Va. Slims of Fla.	Charleston Open	German Open	San Diego Open	Va. Slims of Phila.	Kremlin Cup	Pan Pacific Open	Zurich Open
23	Serena Williams	-	-	2	8	2	4	3	2	-	1	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1999–2016

--Bsherr (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Turning the text sideways hurts my eyes... it is very difficult to read that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

843 other articles currently use vertical headers in their tables. --Bsherr (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

843 strained necks and sore eyes for our readers... great. Luckily we can afford to be kinder to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, I think the differentiated border between the active and defunct tournaments is redundant with the column groups and therefore unneeded. However, if you do keep it, you should probably extend it up a row to the border between the column groups. I also think you should use weight instead of color to differentiate. When you set the default color as black, it is black even when the user has dark mode set, rather than the default border color, and it actually minimizes, rather than emphasizes, the separation. --Bsherr (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bsherr, the chart already has a key for the events' abbreviations (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Continued discussion 2). Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

So retaining the legend, this would be my suggestion:

Title leaders

Titles	Player	Active tournaments										Defunct tournaments								Years
		DU	QA	IW	MI	MA	IT	CA	CI	WU	CN	FL	CH	GE	SD	PH	KC	PP	ZU
23	Serena Williams	—N/a	—N/a	2	8	2	4	3	2	—N/a	1	—N/a	1	—N/a	—N/a	—N/a	—N/a	—N/a	—N/a	1999–2016

Grey is the default color for {{n/a}}, but that can be changed if it's important. --Bsherr (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking closer, it looks like the chart is mistakenly using a hyphen for a null cell when an em-dash would be the correct symbol. You should consider using Template:N/a instead. --Bsherr (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

- over — makes for a cleaner look. N/a just adds darkened cells which I really don't like and prefer the chart looked as simple as possible, color-wise. The above choice is pretty much option 3 above and symbols are needed per MOS:NOSYMBOLS when emphasizing text. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

On this I will only say that we would never use hypens (-)... either ndash (–) or mdash (—). I usually prefer ndash but it's no matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Can the Laver Cup be considered an exhibition tournament? If not, why not?

It has the contradiction of having been added to the ATP circuit in 2019, but it is not an event that provides ranking points. Rafaelfdc (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It's one of those iffy things. It's sort of like the Next Gen ATP Finals.... in limbo... more than exhibition though still wimpy. But no ranking points for Olympics either and it's not exhibition. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

We are having a dickens of a time trying to come together on a Career Grand Slam chart for List of Grand Slam and related tennis records. There only three of us but I admit that the other two have spent much more quality time on it than I have. I just have some big issues on sorting and using keys when it comes to our readers than my fellow editors do. Input here or there would be much appreciated. The whole topic is at Talk:List of Grand Slam_and related tennis records#Career Grand Slam table but a lot of the recent conversation is at Talk:List of Grand Slam_and related tennis records#Continued discussion 5. Thanks all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has reached a conclusion. The final version is now live. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This project is the quintessential example of why Wikipedia is increasingly losing respect. It seems unless you are a member of this Tennis Project clique, your work on tennis pages will immediately be altered or removed. There are dozens, if not more, tennis articles about obscure players with few or no citations. There are many noteworthy BLP articles filled with unsourced content and over the top stats like "Joe Bloggs won his third match at this tournament in 10 appearances" or nonsense like "Joe Bloggs made his Major debut at this Major and won his first match at a Major"...well if it's his debut and he wins a match of course it's his first win. It doesn't need saying! There is one particular editor (Sashona) in your project who puts so much tiny stat related detail in and either doesn't cite it or uses random Twitter accounts to back it up. They, and a few others, act as if the tennis pages on here are their own personal property, pouncing on every edit made outside their clique and changing it no matter how well cited it may be. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia for the world, edited in good faith by anyone, with everything appropriately sourced. Unfortunately when it comes to tennis pages, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the few, edited by a clique, packed full of unsourced trivia and clogged up by biographies of players who never made the top 300 or played a significant match in their entire careers. Oh, and one last thing, Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia so insisting everything be written in a certain way because "that's what we say in the US" is ridiculous. Wimbledon, French Open, US Open and Australian Open are in fact Grand Slam tournaments no matter how often Americans call them Majors and titleist is at best nonsense and at worst not even a word! I could give more examples but none of you Tennis Project clique members give too hoots so I will stop there. I got this off my chest and if it gets deleted immediately I don't care. Also if you want to hurl abuse at me on my talk page or in reply to this then enjoy. Shrug02 (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to reverse the decision to blanket remove this from the talk page. While I agree some of what's written might fall into WP:CIVIL. In your edit summary Fyunck, you said on removal that "some of what was written is true." It might be worth elaborating on your thoughts rather than removal, if it leads to the health of the information on Wikipedia then it merits a discussion. YellowStahh (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of this is true, but most is total baloney by an editor guilty of the same things he is ranting against and perhaps some ignorance in the world of tennis. Looking at them, many of his edits are just fine. Some have been unsourced pov or against Wikipedia standards. But he got it off his chest so that's a good thing. I looked at the post as grandstanding without an actual question, and I removed it, but another editor brought it back for comment.

• "This project is the quintessential example of why Wikipedia is increasingly losing respect." - A load of crap with this. All you need to do is look at any political article and see where the respect is draining away.

• "It seems unless you are a member of this Tennis Project clique, your work on tennis pages will immediately be altered or removed." - More baloney. Some editors do that to be sure but not most, and not some clique.

• "There are dozens, if not more, tennis articles about obscure players with few or no citations. There are many noteworthy BLP articles filled with unsourced content and over the top stats." - No question this is true. I think we already knew this but many of our articles could be trimmed by 50%-75%.

• "There is one particular editor (Sashona) in your project who puts so much tiny stat related detail in and either doesn't cite it or uses random Twitter accounts to back it up." - Some things are true and hard to argue with. That editor is a problem for me too. If it's not over-detail it's too lengthy of section headers that hammer the tables of contents for browsers or his refusal to obey wikipedia rules on capitalization.

• "when it comes to tennis pages, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the few, edited by a clique, packed full of unsourced trivia and clogged up by biographies of players who never made the top 300 or played a significant match in their entire careers." - Partial truth here. It is packed full of trivia, and I wish it were not. But it's not edited by a clique. There are actually not all that many tennis editors so it may appear so. But in those few editors they disagree among themselves all the time... there is no clique.

• The rest I'll attribute to ignorance of tennis.

So you got your response. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) Show me where I've used unsourced pov content? Shrug02 (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

As for not meeting Wikipedia standards. You told me in August not to use scoring in prose unless it's a record and I haven't done since. If welcome further examples so I can seek to improve. @Fyunck(click) Shrug02 (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) As for "ignorance of tennis" you know nothing about me and just because you write about tennis on Wikipedia doesn't make you an expert. I'm an informed, long time tennis fan and former low level player. I do the best I can and I learn from constructive advice such as detailed above but I'm certainly not ignorant and I resent the remark and ask you to retract it. Shrug02 (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You know something.... the pov edit was attributed to another editor. I was wrong on that. Sorry. I originally said "perhaps some ignorance." I had no idea your tennis background but the last part on tennis majors is simply wrong and I attribute ignorance (lack of knowledge on that matter.) There can be other reasons why you are wrong that I don't know about, but lack of knowledge on the terminology seemed to me the best reason at the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

And agreeing with @Shrug02:, editor Sashona continues to add long section headers that make table of contents too wide. Silly items like "top 60" to Renata Zarazúa or not adhering to the absolute biggest item of the period (like winning an event) and instead adding 3rd round or making their first appearance. This is an encyclopedia and them adding the trivia is a detraction. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello WP Tennis! I am a volunteer with WikiProject Unreferenced articles; we are in the midst of our November 2024 backlog drive and a few editors recently went through and tagged few hundred articles are unreferenced. Most of these are part of the ATP Challenger Tour and I'm having some trouble finding citations for them. Would you have any suggestions for perennial sources? Sports is not my metier and I don't want to make a bunch of edits that are obviously detrimental to the project overall and frustrating to WP Tennis editors. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Best, Kazamzam (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

All the ATP Challenger Tour events are listed at [1], basic information about the tournament, along with the draw and tournament results can be cited to the appropriate pages. More detailed information may be tougher to cite as challenger tournaments vary hugely in how much coverage they receive. Iffy★Chat -- 19:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iffy - much obliged! And the ATP site is considered a reliable source by WP Tennis? Just making sure I'm not about to get reverted 10,000 times for my trouble. Thanks for the speedy response. Kazamzam (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the ATP is a generally reliable source for the existence of tournaments held on their tours and for the results of those tournaments; though as the ATP is also the organiser of those tournaments, their website would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source, so ideally other sources would also be included to flesh out the articles. Iffy★Chat -- 17:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iffy - excellent, thank you for the help. Kazamzam (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this actually notable? If yes, the find and add reliable sources to show significant coverage. If not, then please send it to WP:AfD. Love. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

LOL. I would say having an article on "Flat (tennis)" is about the silliest topic we have. I didn't know it existed yet is has been here 15 years! It has no sourcing and should absolutely be dumped or, at worst, merged into Tennis shot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2009 Malmö anti-Israel riots#Requested move 5 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Alexander Zverev has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

This fan-written stub has been unsourced for 15 years. Do you want to improve it or delete it? Bearian (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Let me see what I can find. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks like that there are no references on the article and the infobox is very incomplete. I wonder how could it still be like this, since it is an article as old as it is Haddad Maia fan (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I have added sources and removed the hyberbole. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

A little conversation going on about Qinwen Zheng (Zheng Qinwen) name order. Any thoughts on her order then join in please at Talk:Zheng Qinwen#Name order. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, the article should respect the name she signs under at tournaments or the name that appears on her profile on the ITF or WTA websites Haddad Maia fan (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we can somehow distinguish different categories of the Challenger Tour (50, 75, etc.) using different colors. Also, it would be good to separate them from the ITF Futures. In the case of ITF events for women, the situation is different since we have already established a system. I also noticed that, for example, on the 2025 ATP Challenger Tour page, certain categories do not have assigned colors.

Example (Men): Casper Ruud
Example (Women): Barbora Krejčíková

JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

So, I created an article for the Maria Esther Bueno Cup, a tennis tournament popularly known as the MEB Cup for short, that was a men’s competition exclusively for Brazilian players aged up to 24 years old. The tournament was played only in the singles category, with no doubles draw. The champion of the competition received a wildcard entry into the main singles draw of the Rio de Janeiro ATP 500 (Rio Open), while the runner-up secured a spot in the tournament’s qualifying round. I was wondering if you think that the creation of separate articles for each edition of this tournament would be a worthy addition or not Haddad Maia fan (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think the article you created is notable. It's sort of a qualifying event for the ATP 500 Rio Open... not a real tournament. No points, not part of the ATP Tour, the minor league Challenger Tour, or even the minor-minor league ITF Tour. So absolutely not for separate editions which we don't allow here for even the ITF tournemants. And I'm thinking of nominating Maria Esther Bueno Cup for deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Bianca Andreescu has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to WikiProject Tennis! I noticed that in "Top [gender] singles tennis players by country" template, for countries where certain athlete names are spelled with diacritics, some don't have ones to match article title. Basically, in Czech Republic male tennis players template (for example), it uses Tomas Machac instead of Tomáš Macháč... and so on. I can't edit such templates to fix the link myself. Can somebody do so? Thank you! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Clariniie: I believe it's because it is taken automatically from the actual ATP rankings, and they only use standard English letters as is shown here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw it, but I edited the article "Brasil Tennis Cup" and deleted any mention of the WTA 125 tournament that currently takes place in the same city and which is nowhere listed as a successor to the "Brasil Tennis Cup" and then I created a separate article under the name "MundoTenis Open" to include information about this WTA 125 tournament. It turns out that on the "Brazil Tennis Cup" page there is still information about previous tournaments that took place in different Brazilian cities throughout history and on different surfaces, so I would like to know if you think that these previous tournaments should have a separate article for each one or should they remain where they already are Haddad Maia fan (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Tournaments quite often move from city to city while retaining the same name. It was the Brasil Open during that time, and was also a standard WTA Tour event. I would leave them together. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

For some time it really was “Brasil Open” but in the final years it changed to “Brasil Tennis Cup”, that is why I am asking Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

But essentially the same event... names change especially sponsor names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Haddad Maia fan I don't see any agreement or consensus here. The same thing applies to many other tennis tournaments. What is even worse, is that you went ahead anyway with your solo proposal, but what you ended up doing is not even separation but vandalism. You simply dumped decades of data on another page, with no citation (which leads to instant deletion as that goes against WP:BURDEN). This kind of editing is unacceptable. —Loginnigol 22:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

So, you’re suggesting that we just leave that article as it is—despite it already being discussed and agreed upon here that it’s confusing, stitching together information from barely connected subjects—and that the editor responsible refused to explain themselves, leaving us with a poor-quality article? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Recently I have created some articles about the junior wheelchair competitions from some of the Grand Slams, such as the 2022 US Open – Wheelchair girls' singles, and I noticed that the infoboxes from the Slams do not feature the junior wheelchair competitions in the list of draws of the tournaments. I was wondering if anyone here could fix that in some way, since I don’t know how this would be resolved Haddad Maia fan (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Julian Bradley#Requested move 22 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems we need a page for the "2025 WTA 1000 Series". I'd be happy to help, but I'm still a bit confused on how all the templates work. It's linked on the main WTA 1000 Page, but there's nothing there as of now. Legendofmv (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

If I were you, I would just simply copy the 2024 page and change all of the information to be accurate for the 2025 season Haddad Maia fan (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I'm from the Tennis Project at pt.wikipedia. Dozens of articles are being deleted in my language under the justification that "Wikipedia is not a disorganized repository of information", which is the equivalent of your Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Even if I insert a brief introductory text explaining what the subpage is about, it is not accepted by editors against this type of content.

First, articles about tournament draws are being deleted, and then articles about tournament editions, which closely follow the en.wikipedia model. Any collection of data in tables causes aversion among certain editors, who may prefer pure textual description instead.

The project has too few editors to fight against this offensive, which could destroy all the hard work of more than a decade. If this demand were made on en.wikipedia, what arguments would you use to prevent it?

Thank you for your help. Rafaelfdc (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting question. We find it easily sourced and notable and most editors here feel the same. There are so many baseball, football, hockey, and Olympics articles that the editors of Tennis Project really find things no different. Now when editors place biographies of players who are ranked 1000 of course they get pummeled. But perhaps the fine print rules at the Portuguese Wikipedia are vastly different? I believe the French and Italian editions have all the draws. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

In fact, the issue is more focused on pages and subpages of ATP Tour and WTA Tour tournaments.

There is no fine print. In fact, the rules are very generic, and there was a side discussion that pages with results will not be allowed. This will basically end the Tennis Project in Portuguese, which I spent ten years contributing with great effort.

I tried to reproduce the hierarchy of the English Wiki with the addition of some ideas and changes. See, for example, my version for the 2024 WTA Tour.

If the editors continue with the wave of deletions, the tennis content in Portuguese will be very superficial, practically disposable.

I wanted to know how this project managed to maintain the results pages and often only with primary sources (in my case, secondary sources are also required, which is often not possible), but perhaps the problem with my language project is deeper. Rafaelfdc (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rafaelfdc: It's not that primary sources absolutely can't be used, it's that secondary sources (even tertiary sources) are what we want. And many secondary sources have the draws. tennisabstract.com and tennisarchives.com have heaps and heaps. I can find event draws that Bjorn Borg played, Rod Laver played, even Bill Tilden... all the way to yesterdays draws. So those are great secondary sources for draws. We find it best to link to the ATP or WTA draws since those are the most reliable sources we have, and those are actually inbetween primary and secondary sources. The actual tournament website would be the primary source and the ATP would then ok, approve, and use that source. Then the newspapers would ok, approve, and use the tournament or ATP source. The newspapers can have more name errors than the primary source. So we could link to secondary draws if we needed to. English Wikipedia discussed this stuff 15-20 years ago and we have a fairly detailed set of Guidelines. One of our first consensus items of business 20 years ago was to create draws for every year of every major. Not knowing any Portuguese I cant really help there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), I am aware of these websites, but they are probably not accepted as reliable sources on pt.wikipedia. So, just the pdf files of the draws hosted on protennislive and wtatennis would not be enough.

Are these 15-20 year old discussions very difficult to locate? Rafaelfdc (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rafaelfdc: Why the heck would they not be reliable sources? Your wiki must have different requirements as far as sources go also. Almost all draws can be found in old newspapers if you want to search them all one by one at newspapers.com. Our consensus-built WikiProject Tennis Guidelines at WP:TENNISG and the talk page of the project WT:TEN have years and years of discussion of how the Guidelines were brought to fruition. But it sounds like your guidelines and allowed sources are very different so I'm not sure it would help. We use articles written at the WTA and ATP websites all the time for scores. I guess we are very different here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

tennisabstract and tennisarchives are seen as blogs, fan sites, or alternative Wikis. There are several sites like that on Google that would not be accepted.

newspapers.com only shows results from newspapers in the United States - could I, for example, find Asian tournament draws there? Besides, it's a paid service. How would I access it and use it on Wikipedia?

In your penultimate answer, I meant that in addition to primary sources, secondary sources are mandatory - the same in your domain. Without them, pages are candidates for deletion. On many pages on en.wikipedia, I only see primary sources, such as here, here and here. How is this allowed?Rafaelfdc (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Newspapers.com has newspapers from around the world.... UK and Australia for instance. And US newspapers will show draws from China. Sorry, but Astract and Archives are certainly not blogs. I use newspapers.com through the wikipedia library card access. Also you are misinformed as to primary sources. Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD, they can certainly be used without secondary, we just have to be more careful. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think Rafael claims primary sources are forbidden. They just correctly point out that articles need to cite secondary sources, because primary ones can’t establish notability. Thus these articles with only primary sources are not acceptable practice. Tvx1 05:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That is actually not true at all per the link I gave above. "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source...". Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to Wikipedia articles, but only in the form of straightforward descriptions that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify and are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. Secondary sources are usually best, but "Secondary" does not mean "good." Per Wikipedia "POLICY": "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." That is the same thing on an article about a tennis draw. We cite the primary source on the tournament's track listing... in this case, the draw. We don't interpret the draw/results... just show them with the primary source. Perhaps the Portuguese Wikipedia has different rules... I have no idea, but our Wikipedia has flexibility per Policy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you even read what we wrote??? I have not stated at all primary sources are not allowed in any way and neither has Rafael. Primary sources just cannot be used to establish notability. I real don’t know how I can spell this out to you any more clearly. Primary sources are ok as a sources of information, like sports results, but not to prove notability. Therefore an article cannot cite only primary sources. There always have to be some secondary and/or tertiary sources, even when primary sources are used. There is no flexibility in policy for that! Please read our general notability guideline on that subject. It literally contains the following passage ""Sources" should be secondary sources". Tvx1 08:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

"Should be" not "must be". Sometimes the best sources are primary and sometimes the worst sources are secondary, especially when it's simple data. All these draws get plopped in newsprint somewhere, and then they are buried in archives. The tournament posts its draws. The WTA sees those and adds the draws to their publishing. The NY Times sees those and adds the draws to their sports section. A magazine sees those draws and adds them to Tennis.com. Technically those are all primary sources since it's just parroting the data. Look at it like this. You have a player bio after determining the player is notable. That really doesn't mean every deed they do is notable. Pretty much every bit of data in every player bio is from the ATP and WTA website. Do we wipe that data clean? Their win loss record? Their records against other players? Their runner-up finishes? Those are primary sources. Now the article gets too big and must be split off per wikipedia rules. We split off all the primary source data into a separate article so readers can find all the player records in one spot. I guess we have to delete that article as soon as we split it?

The tournaments are all notable and the yearly tournaments are all notable and the mens singles events in those yearly tournaments are notable. A pretty typical article would be 2025 ASB Classic – Men's singles. There is nothing wrong with that article. Could it have one added source like The New Zealand Herald? Sure it could as that would be better. But it's extremely notable and we include the draw. It would be better to include the draw from the ATP rather than a betting site like protennislive but it works too. Remember that all our article should have a bit of prose at the top and not just be 100% data. None of our pages are allowed to have the "main" template at the top as that is against MOS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rafaelfdc . Some examples of where tournament draws can be located. If they are men's tennis events in the open era they can be found on the ATP website (some can also be found on tournament websites). A collection of amateur era tournament results (not all by any means, but a decent amount) can be found on tennisarchives. Results of open era tournaments from 1970 to 2000 can be found in World of tennis annuals (before that amateur results can be found in other annuals such as the 1950s Dunlop annuals). All draws of US amateur men's singles events before 1967 can be found in the book Tennis Observed. All Wimbledon singles draws up to a certain date can be found in John Barrett's history of Wimbledon book (though not in more recent editions). Tennis magazines such as World Tennis, Serve and volley, Ace, etc. (most are now defunct but some ran for many years) contained many tournament results from around the world. All editions of World Tennis are on archive.org. Newspapers.com has good coverage of many newspapers in the US and some in Canada, the UK and Australia. Tournament results from around the world often appear in one newspaper. For instance, in the early 1990s when I followed tennis avidly before the days of the internet, I would buy UK broadsheets and see ATP results from all over the world. Other newspaper websites containing newspapers from various countries are also available online (Gallica, British newspaper archive, Delpher, Trove, Papers Past etc. etc.) So there are quite a lot of different sources primary and secondary that contain tournament draws. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alexandra Eala#Requested move 24 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Some editor just erased almost half of the content on the Daphne Akhurst Memorial Cup article and when I tried to reason that all of that text had reliable sources and restored everything, even adding more reliable sources, this editor just erased everything again. Can someone give me a good explanation for this? Just to clarify, other editors have seen that article and haven’t found anything wrong with it Haddad Maia fan (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm having some issue with this new {{sports links}} template replacing our normal templates. There are simply way too many additions that had no approval here. I looked at the Coco Gauff article and it had added, WTA, ITF, Billie Jean King Cup, Wimbledon, ESPN, Olympics, Team USA. Other players also get Olympedia, Australian Open. Here is a list of links included for tennis:

• ATP
• ATP tennis tournament
• WTA
• WTA tennis tournament
• ITF
• Davis Cup player
• Billie Jean King Cup
• Tennis Hall of Fame
• Tennis Australia player
• Tennis Archives player
• Wimbledon
• Olympics.org
• Olympics.com
• Olympedia
• ESPN

There may be a few more I missed. This list was based off of some Norwegian Wikipedia. No input was asked of us here. If we place the template "sports links" on an article, all that apply will be included, though there is usually a cutoff of five with what gets cut is just based on order in the database. Wikipedia Guidelines tell us "Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." And, "Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information."

I realize that some players may need a few extra special links. Federer may need a Wimbledon link because he is a record holder there, but otherwise it's trivial for most players. I spelled out my concerns at a discussion at Template talk:Sports links#Tennis Abstract? and that I thought the bare minimum should be used and if a player rarely needed more we could add the extra templates case by case. so that would be:

• ATP player id
• ATP tennis tournament id
• WTA player id
• WTA tennis tournament id
• ITF player id
• Davis Cup player id
• Billie Jean King Cup player id
• Tennis Hall of Fame player id

For any one player that would be four items max. But the Olympic ids we would have no control over so they would also get added. I think the same with ESPN and a few more. I think this makes the template too inflexible for Tennis Project purposes and it's use should be curtailed. I could ask them to create a "tennis links" template including my bare minimum list, The benefit of using it would be having to use only one template instead of eight separate templates. Then if a player really really needed an Australian Open bio link we can always add it separately. But that link would need to supply info not found in the other links per Wikipedia Guidelines. An official personal website would be a likely candidate.

Now, we don't need to use any combined link template as for years we simply added them all individually. But "sports links" template creates problems and should not be used. Should I ask the template creators to make a "tennis links" template that can be use for all our players? Is my list ok? Should there be less or more? Should we never use a combined links template like "tennis links" and just use all individual templates? By the way the full list of all sports templates included is at Template:Sports links under list, and at Module:External_links/conf/Sports. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know if it would be suitable, but don’t you think that Olympic medalists should have the links for their respective pages on the Olympics website and their respective national Olympic committees websites? That same type of information would apply to Paralympic tennis players that are medalists as well Haddad Maia fan (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

By the way, your idea of creating tennis links is very interesting Haddad Maia fan (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Remember... with the "sports links" template it looks at everything regardless if it's in the tennis section. It adds Olympics.com, Olympics.org, Olympedia.com and a few others in addition to what we have listed under Tennis. If you look at those Olympic links for most players they are duplicates of info, so they probably only need one max. I have no idea what the criteria is at Norway's Wikipedia, but here it is supposed to be minimal without duplication. So with the Olympics we either see if the Olympics creates their own "olympic links", or we add either Olympics.com or Olympidia ids to our own "tennis links." But not both. Here's the thing though... do we want to add an Olympic link to every player who has ever been in the Olympics, or only to players who did well enough to garner attention? Here's why I ask... Look at player Francisco Cabral's Olympic profile. he played only in 2024 and was routed in the first round. But he has an Olympic ID. Do we include an Olympic.com template for him? That Olympic website is sponsored by the ITF and the ITF and ATP websites cover all that is has and in more detail. I mean we can do that, but wouldn't it be better to include an separate Olympic template for those players who have a wealth of Olympic data that is hard to find elsewhere? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

My idea was to include those links only on tennis players that won one or more medals at the Olympic Games, not on every tennis player that was in the Olympic Games, just the medalists Haddad Maia fan (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

And that sounds reasonable. But we can't narrow it down in a "tennis links" template like that. It has no way of knowing the degree of success so it's all or nothing with an id. So we would simply add an Olympics template to those players worthy and leave it off a "tennis links" template. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

That looks like a great idea Haddad Maia fan (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Earlier today, it was announced that the city of São Paulo, Brazil, will host a WTA 250 event in September 2025. As a result, I created the article São Paulo Open (WTA). Feel free to make your edits and sugestions on how to emprrove it. Later on, we can consider creating a separate article dedicated to this inaugural edition of the tournament Haddad Maia fan (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

And I have a question: Do we leave the article as is with the courent name "São Paulo Open" or do we move to "SP Open" as it is known in most places including the tournament's social media and the WTA website? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Everything I see says it should be the "SP Open". Plus we'd rather not have to use anything in parenths. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

So, earlier today I was reading the article titled “Brasil Tennis Cup” which is the name of a former WTA tournament that used to take place in Florianópolis, Brazil, when I noticed that the article contained information about other WTA tournaments that were hosted in this same city in the past but had other names and categories, as well as the current WTA 125 that is been hosted there since 2023 and I wondered on what was the guidelines for these types of articles. Do we mix all the information from the various tournaments on the same article? Do we focus on only one and split the rest into various other articles? Do we just change the article title to simply “Florianópolis WTA” and leave the rest as it is? I need your help Haddad Maia fan (talk) Haddad Maia fan (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It's always tough. Usually new editions of the event talk about past winner, or newspapers talk about past winners. If there is not correlation we usually create a new article, especially if it's in a different level... WTA/WTA Challenger/ITF. The website itself says there were only two events so it looks like an entirely new event that should be split off. I don't see where it has anything to do with the past Brasil Tennis Cup. Also that page is in the wrong order as it should ALWAYS be listed from oldest first. The only thing that could happen is that someone outside the tennis project might think the new event is not worthy of a stand-alone article and delete it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

So, you suggest that all of the information and content about the current WTA 125 should be taken out of this article and transferred to a standalone one, that would be only about this 125 tournament? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that, but others here might disagree. Give it a few days to make sure there are no opposers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I will do that Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

In the same page, there are information about tournaments that came even before the “Brasil tênis Cup”. Should this also be in separated articles? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

As Fyunck already mentioned it can be really difficult to determine what comprises a tournament and what should be considered as separate tournaments. We always look at what reliable sources mention, but sometimes that still leaves a murky picture. With all the gaps between editions as well as the different locations this one is certainly tricky. The article was originally meant for the Brasil Tennis Cup in Florianópolis (2013–2016). A particular editor decided to lump all the other editions together in a single tournament article without providing any explanation or sources for doing so and without any consultation. The latter is not required per se (you are allowed to be bold), but said editor did not respond to many requests for consultation which ultimately resulted in an indefinite block. In my view the Brasil Tennis Cup has little in common with the tournaments from the 70s, 80s and 90s, besides being women's tournaments held in Brasil, so I propose to restore the original Brasil Tennis Cup article. The other tournaments could be temporarily parked in a WTA Brasil Open article while we determine what best to do with them.--Wolbo (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Haddad Maia fan (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I will start to do just that, later you see if there are any other inpoovements to be done Haddad Maia fan (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Haddad Maia fan: You need to add references to the article. You cannot simply dump unreferenced information into a new article as it is likely to be deleted. Please see WP:V, especially WP:BURDEN. Additionally, when moving content from on article to other you need to provide attribution. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. --John B123 (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

about the other page, I understand the edits being reverted due to lack of citations, on the other hand, on the “Brasil Tennis

Cup” page it was discussed here that it should focus only on providing information about the tournament that was extinguished in 2016 and because of that, this is what I did, so I don’t understand why the edits are being reverted. Can someone explain? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, isn’t it more beneficial to just edit the article to be within the desired parameters rather then just revert everything back into a worse version of the article? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Over 60 days have passed, yet the issue remains unresolved, leaving us with a poorly structured article filled with unrelated information. Although I attempted to address the problem, I was prevented from doing so. I’m beginning to wonder what we, as a group of editors, can do—because right now, it feels like I’m either alone in this effort or the rest of the editors are fine with the current, subpar state of the article. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The original page has been fixed with the wrong tournaments removed. They were not part of the same event. What we do with them I'll look at next and check their history. As for what you can do... look at the article history of "WTA Brasil Open." That article MUST have sources. You could have added sources to each and every event like I'm going to have to do now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The WTA Brasil Open has now been sourced. There are a couple missing that I couldn't find today. Were they all a part of the Brazil Open umbrella... I'm not sure, but it's the best we have right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Someone looks to be vandalizing the Brasil Tennis Cup article on a attempt to restore to what it was before we discussed that it should not redirect to the WTA Brasil Open page or the other way around. We should be looking into it to secure this issue stops Haddad Maia fan (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve noticed that a large number of pages in the Category:Billie Jean King Cup teams, that currently host 137 articles, are either significantly outdated or are very short stubs with limited information. Many of these articles haven’t been updated in several years and lack recent team history, rankings, or player information.

While I would love to update all of them myself, it’s realistically too large a task for one person. That’s why I’m reaching out here to see if other editors are interested and might be willing to help with this effort. Even updating a few pages — or just focusing on the most prominent or outdated ones — would make a big difference.

Please let me know if you’re interested or if there are better ways to organize such an effort within this WikiProject. I’m open to suggestions and other ideas Haddad Maia fan (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I know this topic was extensively discussed on the Iga Świątek article’s Talk Page, because some editors prefer to put quite old images on the infobox just because they are supposedly “better quality”, while others prefer to put newer pictures as they believe it is bad to leave old pictures there if you have more recent ones. Currently there is no 2025 or even a 2024 image of her on commons and it looks like an specific editor keeps leaving the article without a photo and its editing keeps being reverted back to the 2019 picture. I know it looks like we will hardly reach a consensus on this issue, but I don’t see anything good on putting and removing an image time and time again. What can we do? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that, within reason, the quality of an image and its suitability for an infobox is far more important than the date of an image. Newer does not equal better.--Wolbo (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Images in infoboxes, and actually anywhere in an article, are simple consensus choices. Usually there are no issues and sometimes there are. My usual mantra for an infobox is we want the best head/shoulders shot (a normal wiki standard) possible that represents the time period of notability. For current players, if it's close to how they look today, go with the best pic. If two are equal, go with the most recent. You will not see me upvote a poor quality new image just because it's newer. A few years just doesn't matter that much... unlike 15 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The article about the Soviet tennis player Nadezhda Belonenko was proposed to be deleted, because it has been more than 10 years that the article is unsourced. So I ask you, should we edit the article to add the missing sources or we just agree with the deletion of It? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It would be hard to believe that a four-time Soviet Union Champion wouldn't have heaps of Russian sources. I don't speak Russian or have access to Russian newspapers. That's probably why it is still here... everyone feels there are plenty of sources but no one has access. Heck, after she died in 1964 there were supposedly yearly memorial tennis events held in her home city of Taganrog. Tennis Abstract has some records, but we need some Russian news sources. You can go to a Russian famous birthday page like this one and find her listed. So she is well known in Russia.Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I found some sources, but I have no idea if they are reliable:

http://www.tennis-russia.ru/encyclopedia/s/820

https://spartak1935.ru/about/history/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=754&utm_source=chatgpt.com

I also found two other articles, Tennis in Russia and USSR Championships (tennis), that she appears in, so it could have sources about her Haddad Maia fan (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I have added two english languages sources from newspapers.com. There are only a small number of citations if you type in Belonenko tennis in newspapers.com. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Recently my draft Dabrowski-Stefani tennis partnership was approved for being moved to an article, but it is far from being complete and it was also tagged with having some issues that I have no idea on how to resolve. Can anyone help me with that? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The first suggestion Layout - the pictures need relocating, please is recommending that the images used are placed in a different location, such as in the infobox. The second suggestion, that the article is an orphan, can be remedied by linking to the article from other pages where appropriate. Feel free to keep improving the article, you can remove the cleanup tag once someone has improved the layout of the images. I've removed the orphan tag as you have added two links already from other articles. Iffy★Chat -- 22:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Earlier today the WTA announced the comeback of the Chennai Open, so I created the 2025 Chennai Open article. Feel free to edit and improve it as you like Haddad Maia fan (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I see there is a constant back and forth across wikipedia pages at the moment between Fyunck(click) on one side and other editors, ie GOAT Bones231012 and Wolbo on the other side (please tag any other editors involved in this dispute) over whether win percentages should be listed on the infobar on player pages. A consensus needs to be established on this, as at the moment some pages have win percentages listed and others do not. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Fyunck(click) that it shouldn’t be on Novak Djokovic's page. Not sure who put it there as he is still active, but for players that are retired, I don’t see the harm in adding it at all. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes for sure I agree they shouldn't be on current player pages. Providing they are correct percentages, I see no objection to them being listed on retired player pages, but they should be applied to all retired players, that's the issue I have. It's no good having some with and some without (also they should be correct). I have recently been analysing some percentages stats for the pro tour and I find them quite interesting and relevant. A win-loss number doesn't always indicate what the exact percentage of wins is (unless its 400-400 or 100-0 etc.) Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

But there’s an issue on doing that with all retired players, there is nowhere to find that information for all players, some that only played before the Open Era or are not that known, for example, most of the time do not have that type of information available, so we will have some articles with that information and others without it Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, any player that has a win loss record has a percentage.... it's simple math. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

But that is the issue, some retired players do not have this information online or on physical media Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I would propose to only add the win percentage to player's in the Open era where we have a reliable source on the number of W/L matches. There are websites out there with data on pre-Open era players but these mostly tend to be personal projects that do not qualify as a reliable source. Besides, they frequently disappear after a while. Best to stay away from those, at least as a source for Wikipedia.--Wolbo (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agree on open era only Wolbo Before the open era there are problems associated with unknown results (both amateur and pro). In fact I came across this the past week. I was looking through Hoad Gonzales match results and saw that Hoad is credited on wikipedia with one too many wins in their rivalry based on documented results (this additional Hoad win was added to the Hoad and Gonzales pages without a correct source by a Hoad biased poster four years ago and is still on the pages.) For Open era results, the ATP website lists all matches that meet their requirements (not including exhibition matches and tournaments) and so is a reliable source. Whilst it could be possible to add current players' percentages, the effort in updating and keeping track of the correct percentages wouldn't be worth it, so I vote against that for reasons of practicality. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

That’s a very reasonable argument, with retired players of that period of time is very easy to find this kind of information on reliable sources and for obvious reasons wouldn’t be in need of it being constantly updated. As for active players I don’t think it is feasible, because there is no way that an editor or a group of editors would go on every active player’s article after every single one of their matches just to update that specific information, just wait for their retirement and then include the proper information Haddad Maia fan (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The only time the percentage would need to be updated is when someone also updates the win-loss record. The problem happens when both items aren't updated at the same time. That's really editor error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I would be favor of adding it to active player's like Djokovic as well if we can find a practical way of keeping the info up-to-date. Don't know if it still exists but there used to be a template that automatically calculated the win percentage based on W/L data. Was not a particular fan of the template as it also added some other info that bloated the infobox but it should be possible to (semi)automate this.--Wolbo (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I would not use it for active or inactive players, but certainly not active players. But the template of Template:Tennis win percentage is the one. So someone with a record of 7–2 would show up as 7–2 78%. I sure don't see a need to have it blown out to two decimal places. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I've no idea why they chosen now to remove them on pages where they've been for years, they are relevant stats otherwise what's the point of having the term used in all the record pages. Navops47 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I see that on Wikipedia the inclusion or removal of some types of information can change over time, but for the ones that have been on those articles for quite some time I think would better to be discussed first before doing anything. I see that just removing without any discussion would be a very unilateral or arbitrary, specially that a considerable amount of editors are against it Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I reverted a deletion of a win percentage from a player's infobox because this info seems completely uncontroversial to me. It is relevant information to a player's career and suitable for an infobox.--Wolbo (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

To me they are pretty useless. It's not a stat... it dividing the two numbers of their record... it's right there for anyone to do if they really want it. Remember, we aren't supposed to be a holding place for stats here on Wikipedia. Sure we have lots of it, but a percentage that is simply the win-loss record in percentage form seems trivial. Certainly trivial for current players where it changes with every match. At least with retired players it will stay the same. A simple 233–147 record is all we really need in the infobox under "career record". I feel readers want to know a players record, something they dont have access to. They do have access to a phone if they really want to convert the record to 61.32%. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

And another thing. There are complaints all the time at wikipedia about infoboxes getting cluttered. They are supposed to contain the most vital info only; an amalgamation of the quintessential facts. There are lots of tournaments and stats we do not and should not include. The percentage of wins to losses is trivial and should not be included just because we can... it should be included because it's absolutely vital that we do so. A win/loss record is a pretty pertinent fact... tuned into a percentage is not. We show major title wins... but not WTA 500 level wins. We show Davis Cup but not ATP Cup. We show their current coach but not all their coaches. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I see a consensus forming around adding or keeping the percentages for retired open era players. If that is the final outcome (give it a few more days), who is going to ensure the percentages are added to all the relevant pages? I can add them to some, but I am not going through every open era retired player page to see they are on there. Also, pre-open era players this stat would need to be removed. This is a shame in a way, but I already see several pre-open era rivalries and players that have obsolete win-loss stats, because Tennis Base no longer exists and its data was last updated circa 2021.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see consensus formed about "only" retired players. How do you figure? I see editors here wanting it for all Open Era players regardless of retirement. I really think my argument against it at all is by far the strongest reason not to clutter the infobox, but I realize I'm in the minority. But I don't see consensus for any or all retired players. Even if kept, why would we want decimal places instead of rounding? Some have whole number percentage, some have one decimal place and some have two decimal places. That should be standard if kept. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

And I see no one agreeing with only Open Era players. If you are plopping in this useless info for Open Era retired persons it should also be with pre-Open Era retired persons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe it was discussed to show this information for the Open era players only because it is easier to find reliable sources for them and as for players from before, this type of information is not available or the various sources are in conflict with each other Haddad Maia fan (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

"If" they have a win-loss record then there is no reason not to show the same useless win percentage as with other players. Obviously some will not have a win-loss record so we also wouldn't show a win percentage. The percentage is simply a different way to show win-loss. I saw mention of this but nowhere was there agreement. My stance has been crystal clear. It's a useless bit of flotsam for an infobox. But if we have to include it it should be for retired players... but none of this Open Era only baloney. Plus remember... the Open Era barely affected the ladies at all. They didn't have their own pro tour and only a couple left for money-making adventures. You wouldn't leave Maureen Connolley and Margaret Court blank while giving percentages to Evert and Navratilova. You wouldn't remove it from Bill Tilden and Pancho Gonzales. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

As I see it, the main issue for choosing which articles can have this information and which cannot simply falls under the reliability of sources available, and usually with Open era players there are more reliable sources than players from previous years, but I believe that if we have reliable sources from players that played before the Open Era, I wouldn’t see why not adding them. But as I said, usually for those players the information is not available or the sources available contradict themselves Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If, as you say it's more reliable sources, then you must REMOVE all records of pre Open Era players. You would not be able to have a win-loss record for any player that you dont express it in terms of the silly percentage. If there is no win-loss record the problem solves itself. If you are concerned about the win-loss record itself than add a note that it may not be complete or per existing sources. But that has also been the case in the 1970s... many records are missing that the ATP updates from time to time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The ATP chooses not to include exhibition matches, that is different. They choose to assign status of matches and have the right to do that. Before the open era there is no such structure: all matches count, amateur and pro. But the problem is twofold. Firstly, the pre-open era amateur and pro matches are incomplete (which is just the way it is), but the currently used source, Tennis Base is no longer the most accurate and complete source. Tennis Base was last updated in 2021 and no longer exists (so can not be checked). I found lots of matches for lots of players that Tennis Base never listed. My first book for pros plus Tennis Archives website for amateurs would be the most accurate and complete sources currently available, plus ATP for open era. Currently some early open era players list additional matches in their win-loss that are not on the ATP site that were listed on Tennis Base but have now disappeared entirely. I have never felt these should be listed, as the ATP assigns status in open era, exhibitions are just exhibitions (not like before the open era). There will never be a complete list of pre-open era pro results as some were not reported anywhere, but wikipedia should at least list the available results. Tennis Base is too problematic as a source now. Recently I had to check my own personal archive of Tennis Base screenshots to verify whether a match was listed on there in the Hoad-Gonzales rivalry, it was and I ascertained the current figure on Gonzales and Hoad pages overstates known wins by the margin of one win for Hoad (and wrongly lists what the source said). As much as I dislike removing pro data, I would have to vote in favour of removing the Tennis Base win-loss records on the basis the figures are out of date and are unverifiable. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Tennis Base was never the currently used source... it was one of many. I cant tell you how many times I told the guy that ran it that he was in error or that he was using subjective analysis with his labeling. He had to change it many times just because of me, let alone probably dozens of others. Tennis Abstract is very similar and has their own data that is used. But there is something else too. "Career record" in the infobox, like Nadal with 1080-228 is based on what readers today would call tournament records... tournaments with draws. Two guys playing in Houston is not a tournament. It's fine for head to head but it's not a tournament record. The pros usually had their three majors and several other tournaments and those are easily sourced... it's the 1on1s and 2on2s pro exhibitions that have missing events. Perhaps those shouldn't be included in the career record section, or should be in a note? We can also erase the career record of all players who played before 1968, but if they have a record listed all we do is divide the wins by the total matches played and get a percentage. That's what we do with any record... simple math. It's not really data just another way to show the record. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The world series tours were the most important set of matches on the pro tour. Those were one night stands, not a tournament. I have considered the classification issue long and hard. If you were referring to the Tennis Base classification system in your last reply (A, B, C, etc.), then I agree completely, it made no sense. The only divisions I have are obvious ones. World Series tours, other tours, tournaments and team matches (with no value judgement written on each division). Whilst I agree there were generally speaking three pro tournament majors the French, Wembley and US Pro this isn't quite as set in stone as it is on the amateur and open circuits. The Wimbledon Pro was a major also, as were the World Pros in Germany in 1932-33. And there are missing tournaments, not many, but there are a few. The world series matches are almost complete now (currently in my results it is down to 1 missing match for each year from 1931-33, 2 for 1934 and around 6 for 1936 and in all of these years, final tallies of all tours are known). The most missing matches are in the other tours section. But there is no hierachy difference between tours and tournaments (world series tours are elevated above standard tours and pro majors are elevated above other tournaments though not in a set in stone way). Exactly how many matches are missing is impossible to know, as itineraries often weren't published. My proudest achievement is unearthing several substantial tours with no itineraries as a guide, just a rough idea of location. I sent many emails to libraries looking for possible results, probably drove one library mad with repeated requests for newspaper look-ups, but they unearthed a lot of results for me. I must say that libraries (those that do reply) provide a vital resource for researchers who can't travel the world looking for tennis results (I travel my country looking for them but not all over the world). Online newspaper archives have various levels of completion, newspapers.com is the best one. Tennis abstract is a great source for match stats and articles, but they are unreliable for match data. The problem comes when websites just copy data from here and there. Data must be found and where possible verified. Its a laborious task but I think worthwhile. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on debating worthiness... the Wimbledon pro was certainly a tournament... it should be included in tournament records. It's classification is of no matter for that. And I find a big difference between tournaments and 1on1 matches as far as totaling them together. I wish you had published your book instead of self-publishing. I do own it. But my point has always been do we include a win loss record of any kind for pre 1968 players, with the best sources we have? I say we do. If we do, and if editors here want to include the trivial win percentage at all, then those pre 1968 win-loss records must also have the percentage. Otherwise it's unfair and POV. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Worthiness debate links into your point about only listing certain matches. I self-published my book, just as McCauley did. Trying to get a tennis book published at all gets harder and harder. I did try one or two publishers (literally only one or two) with both my books but my books are data-rich, not written for the mass market. One guy told me (from a renowned sports publishing company) the last tennis book his company published didnt do well and his firm were reluctant to publish another tennis book. But back the original point, I agree to listing the best sources we have prior to 1968, but my point is, that has changed. Tennis Base was the only source prior to mid 2019 that provided substantial pro data. It no longer exists, is obsolete (and listing it proves very problematic for the reasons outlined). The choices now are those I outlined above. There are no other options. Research on the pro tour doesn't stand still. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

That is not true. Tennis Abstract has extensive pro data also, and without the puffery of Tennis Base. And research on the pro tour may be ongoing but it doesn't matter unless it's published by a source that Wikipedia says is reliable. If newspapers and magazines and books start using your numbers and quoting you, then we can use that. But this is going in circles.... are you saying we should not have a win-loss number for Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden, Wills, Connolly, Court, etc...? No win loss at all in the infobox? I guess that's the bottom line. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Tennis abstract had a badly botched transcription of some of my data. A researcher can tell the origin of research. Tennis abstract is good for match stats, some good statters working for them, also good articles. Tennis abstract is a good site in some ways. Tennis Base had problems sure, but it had pro tour researchers also (and very good ones). And I agree with you 100% about Tennis Base classification. Tennis abstract lists my book on their site btw. I understand what you are saying regarding sources and don't disagree with you. If I can contact you privately, I can send you some information regarding my book. There is an option to contact editor on profile if you don't want to release email info. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

But back to my question. Are you in favor of removing all win/loss records from Wikipedia pre 1968? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

But back to my point, which is very relevant to the discussion we are having (and also relevant to the answer to your question, as will become clear). Do you have a way to be contacted privately? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I like to leave all in the open here since it's relevant to all of WikiProject Tennis. So I guess never mind. I still go with no percentages at all. If we must have percentages with retired players then they all get them as long as they have a win/loss record since it's simple math division and wont change often if at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I may be able to share some information here in time. If this issue of pre-open era win-loss records can be left for the time being that's fine. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Renamed user e2bceb05e0c43dd19cc50e3291d6fac5 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:EMPIRE Tennis Academy Trnava (Slovakia)#Requested move 29 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

So, I was editing the 2025 SP Open article to add all the names of players that are confirmed to be on the tournament, but I wondered if we can already consider on splitting the article into other ones for the singles and doubles draws and leave the current one with the winners only. What do you think? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

No idea when we usually do that. Isn't it after the draw is announced? We haven't done it for the 2025 Guadalajara Open yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I suppose the best idea is to wait for the draw, because by doing so we won’t have to go to two separate articles to change some names if we have withdraws before the announcement of the draw Haddad Maia fan (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The article The Residences at the Ritz-Carlton Grand Cayman Legends Championship has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 10 years. No other language has a sourced article from which to translate. No reliable sources on Google. No hits on Google Newspapers or Books; a single passing News reference.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I tried to find more sources about him, but I could only find sources of more recent tennis players with the same name. I think @Fyunck(click), @Tennishistory1877 and other editors that know more sources than I do can help you better with this Haddad Maia fan (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I should be able to find some information on him. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, sources now on page. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

One practice I've noticed in articles about specific tennis tournaments, especially Grand Slams, is that several editors constantly update the seeded players list long before the tournament starts. This information usually changes a lot before the tournament actually start and In my opinion, it's not very beneficial for any Wikipedia article to have specific information change so often. I don't know why they don't wait until the final list is published before adding it. Is there a correct way? What do you think? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree. There should not be seedings in these articles before the tournament organizers have actually confirmed them. Tvx1 01:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed that there is still some editors doing this on the 2025 US Open (tennis) article, but I have no idea on how to address this issue Haddad Maia fan (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Just remove them. Tvx1 20:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I see there is a constant back and forth across wikipedia pages at the moment between Fyunck(click) on one side and other editors, ie GOAT Bones231012 and Wolbo on the other side (please tag any other editors involved in this dispute) over whether win percentages should be listed on the infobar on player pages. A consensus needs to be established on this, as at the moment some pages have win percentages listed and others do not. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Fyunck(click) that it shouldn’t be on Novak Djokovic's page. Not sure who put it there as he is still active, but for players that are retired, I don’t see the harm in adding it at all. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes for sure I agree they shouldn't be on current player pages. Providing they are correct percentages, I see no objection to them being listed on retired player pages, but they should be applied to all retired players, that's the issue I have. It's no good having some with and some without (also they should be correct). I have recently been analysing some percentages stats for the pro tour and I find them quite interesting and relevant. A win-loss number doesn't always indicate what the exact percentage of wins is (unless its 400-400 or 100-0 etc.) Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

But there’s an issue on doing that with all retired players, there is nowhere to find that information for all players, some that only played before the Open Era or are not that known, for example, most of the time do not have that type of information available, so we will have some articles with that information and others without it Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, any player that has a win loss record has a percentage.... it's simple math. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

But that is the issue, some retired players do not have this information online or on physical media Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I would propose to only add the win percentage to player's in the Open era where we have a reliable source on the number of W/L matches. There are websites out there with data on pre-Open era players but these mostly tend to be personal projects that do not qualify as a reliable source. Besides, they frequently disappear after a while. Best to stay away from those, at least as a source for Wikipedia.--Wolbo (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agree on open era only Wolbo Before the open era there are problems associated with unknown results (both amateur and pro). In fact I came across this the past week. I was looking through Hoad Gonzales match results and saw that Hoad is credited on wikipedia with one too many wins in their rivalry based on documented results (this additional Hoad win was added to the Hoad and Gonzales pages without a correct source by a Hoad biased poster four years ago and is still on the pages.) For Open era results, the ATP website lists all matches that meet their requirements (not including exhibition matches and tournaments) and so is a reliable source. Whilst it could be possible to add current players' percentages, the effort in updating and keeping track of the correct percentages wouldn't be worth it, so I vote against that for reasons of practicality. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

That’s a very reasonable argument, with retired players of that period of time is very easy to find this kind of information on reliable sources and for obvious reasons wouldn’t be in need of it being constantly updated. As for active players I don’t think it is feasible, because there is no way that an editor or a group of editors would go on every active player’s article after every single one of their matches just to update that specific information, just wait for their retirement and then include the proper information Haddad Maia fan (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The only time the percentage would need to be updated is when someone also updates the win-loss record. The problem happens when both items aren't updated at the same time. That's really editor error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I would be favor of adding it to active player's like Djokovic as well if we can find a practical way of keeping the info up-to-date. Don't know if it still exists but there used to be a template that automatically calculated the win percentage based on W/L data. Was not a particular fan of the template as it also added some other info that bloated the infobox but it should be possible to (semi)automate this.--Wolbo (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I would not use it for active or inactive players, but certainly not active players. But the template of Template:Tennis win percentage is the one. So someone with a record of 7–2 would show up as 7–2 78%. I sure don't see a need to have it blown out to two decimal places. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Restored discussion to add my 2 cents. A better alternative to {{twp}} is {{twlp}}; a one-stop shop for both win-loss and win %. If agreed upon, we can do a mass BRFA for tennis athletes post OE (active or otherwise) to update the W/L record in the infoboxes. Also, would that be singles only or also doubles and mixed where data is available. 8rz (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean if it automatically calculates the percentage then I would be open to implementing it for both active and inactive players and for singles, doubles, and mixed doubles records. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Lets hear what the others have to say. It's a matter of 3 params in the infobox being updated with the twlp's params, a fork of {{twp}}. Many players who've played doubles/mixed doubles matches don't have win-loss listed, but can be quickly updated using info from a player's respective ITF page. 8rz (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I would absolutely be against it. We do not need the trivial % at all but certainly not for active players. It adds even more text to the infobox when a simple 22–14 works great. How did this thread get started again? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

{{twlp|W=16928|L=92873|dec=17}} gives 16928–92873 (15.41698163040400000%) (large decimal count used for demonstration purposes. 8rz (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

How did this thread get started again? I don't know. Ask User:Tennishistory1817. 8rz (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

In theory it SOUNDS good if all current players could be listed with an auto-update feature, but knowing the practicalities of this (implementing it on all current player profiles) and how people needlessly remove or alter formatting from time to time, I think this wouldn't work, so I am against it. And please do not imply I re-started this thread again, 8rz, when you know that is not the case. My name and comments may appear (along with other editors') but the edit history of this page shows which editor has regurgitated this argument again and it wasn't me. The original comment of mine was dated 8 June 2025 and this issue was already resolved months ago as far as I am concerned. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Didn't register the "again" part. My bad. Seeing this is a WP:SNOWBALL. I will close this topic. 8rz (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I've no idea why they chosen now to remove them on pages where they've been for years, they are relevant stats otherwise what's the point of having the term used in all the record pages. Navops47 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I see that on Wikipedia the inclusion or removal of some types of information can change over time, but for the ones that have been on those articles for quite some time I think would better to be discussed first before doing anything. I see that just removing without any discussion would be a very unilateral or arbitrary, specially that a considerable amount of editors are against it Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I reverted a deletion of a win percentage from a player's infobox because this info seems completely uncontroversial to me. It is relevant information to a player's career and suitable for an infobox.--Wolbo (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

To me they are pretty useless. It's not a stat... it dividing the two numbers of their record... it's right there for anyone to do if they really want it. Remember, we aren't supposed to be a holding place for stats here on Wikipedia. Sure we have lots of it, but a percentage that is simply the win-loss record in percentage form seems trivial. Certainly trivial for current players where it changes with every match. At least with retired players it will stay the same. A simple 233–147 record is all we really need in the infobox under "career record". I feel readers want to know a players record, something they dont have access to. They do have access to a phone if they really want to convert the record to 61.32%. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

And another thing. There are complaints all the time at wikipedia about infoboxes getting cluttered. They are supposed to contain the most vital info only; an amalgamation of the quintessential facts. There are lots of tournaments and stats we do not and should not include. The percentage of wins to losses is trivial and should not be included just because we can... it should be included because it's absolutely vital that we do so. A win/loss record is a pretty pertinent fact... tuned into a percentage is not. We show major title wins... but not WTA 500 level wins. We show Davis Cup but not ATP Cup. We show their current coach but not all their coaches. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I see a consensus forming around adding or keeping the percentages for retired open era players. If that is the final outcome (give it a few more days), who is going to ensure the percentages are added to all the relevant pages? I can add them to some, but I am not going through every open era retired player page to see they are on there. Also, pre-open era players this stat would need to be removed. This is a shame in a way, but I already see several pre-open era rivalries and players that have obsolete win-loss stats, because Tennis Base no longer exists and its data was last updated circa 2021.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see consensus formed about "only" retired players. How do you figure? I see editors here wanting it for all Open Era players regardless of retirement. I really think my argument against it at all is by far the strongest reason not to clutter the infobox, but I realize I'm in the minority. But I don't see consensus for any or all retired players. Even if kept, why would we want decimal places instead of rounding? Some have whole number percentage, some have one decimal place and some have two decimal places. That should be standard if kept. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

And I see no one agreeing with only Open Era players. If you are plopping in this useless info for Open Era retired persons it should also be with pre-Open Era retired persons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe it was discussed to show this information for the Open era players only because it is easier to find reliable sources for them and as for players from before, this type of information is not available or the various sources are in conflict with each other Haddad Maia fan (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

"If" they have a win-loss record then there is no reason not to show the same useless win percentage as with other players. Obviously some will not have a win-loss record so we also wouldn't show a win percentage. The percentage is simply a different way to show win-loss. I saw mention of this but nowhere was there agreement. My stance has been crystal clear. It's a useless bit of flotsam for an infobox. But if we have to include it it should be for retired players... but none of this Open Era only baloney. Plus remember... the Open Era barely affected the ladies at all. They didn't have their own pro tour and only a couple left for money-making adventures. You wouldn't leave Maureen Connolley and Margaret Court blank while giving percentages to Evert and Navratilova. You wouldn't remove it from Bill Tilden and Pancho Gonzales. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

As I see it, the main issue for choosing which articles can have this information and which cannot simply falls under the reliability of sources available, and usually with Open era players there are more reliable sources than players from previous years, but I believe that if we have reliable sources from players that played before the Open Era, I wouldn’t see why not adding them. But as I said, usually for those players the information is not available or the sources available contradict themselves Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If, as you say it's more reliable sources, then you must REMOVE all records of pre Open Era players. You would not be able to have a win-loss record for any player that you dont express it in terms of the silly percentage. If there is no win-loss record the problem solves itself. If you are concerned about the win-loss record itself than add a note that it may not be complete or per existing sources. But that has also been the case in the 1970s... many records are missing that the ATP updates from time to time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The ATP chooses not to include exhibition matches, that is different. They choose to assign status of matches and have the right to do that. Before the open era there is no such structure: all matches count, amateur and pro. But the problem is twofold. Firstly, the pre-open era amateur and pro matches are incomplete (which is just the way it is), but the currently used source, Tennis Base is no longer the most accurate and complete source. Tennis Base was last updated in 2021 and no longer exists (so can not be checked). I found lots of matches for lots of players that Tennis Base never listed. My first book for pros plus Tennis Archives website for amateurs would be the most accurate and complete sources currently available, plus ATP for open era. Currently some early open era players list additional matches in their win-loss that are not on the ATP site that were listed on Tennis Base but have now disappeared entirely. I have never felt these should be listed, as the ATP assigns status in open era, exhibitions are just exhibitions (not like before the open era). There will never be a complete list of pre-open era pro results as some were not reported anywhere, but wikipedia should at least list the available results. Tennis Base is too problematic as a source now. Recently I had to check my own personal archive of Tennis Base screenshots to verify whether a match was listed on there in the Hoad-Gonzales rivalry, it was and I ascertained the current figure on Gonzales and Hoad pages overstates known wins by the margin of one win for Hoad (and wrongly lists what the source said). As much as I dislike removing pro data, I would have to vote in favour of removing the Tennis Base win-loss records on the basis the figures are out of date and are unverifiable. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Tennis Base was never the currently used source... it was one of many. I cant tell you how many times I told the guy that ran it that he was in error or that he was using subjective analysis with his labeling. He had to change it many times just because of me, let alone probably dozens of others. Tennis Abstract is very similar and has their own data that is used. But there is something else too. "Career record" in the infobox, like Nadal with 1080-228 is based on what readers today would call tournament records... tournaments with draws. Two guys playing in Houston is not a tournament. It's fine for head to head but it's not a tournament record. The pros usually had their three majors and several other tournaments and those are easily sourced... it's the 1on1s and 2on2s pro exhibitions that have missing events. Perhaps those shouldn't be included in the career record section, or should be in a note? We can also erase the career record of all players who played before 1968, but if they have a record listed all we do is divide the wins by the total matches played and get a percentage. That's what we do with any record... simple math. It's not really data just another way to show the record. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The world series tours were the most important set of matches on the pro tour. Those were one night stands, not a tournament. I have considered the classification issue long and hard. If you were referring to the Tennis Base classification system in your last reply (A, B, C, etc.), then I agree completely, it made no sense. The only divisions I have are obvious ones. World Series tours, other tours, tournaments and team matches (with no value judgement written on each division). Whilst I agree there were generally speaking three pro tournament majors the French, Wembley and US Pro this isn't quite as set in stone as it is on the amateur and open circuits. The Wimbledon Pro was a major also, as were the World Pros in Germany in 1932-33. And there are missing tournaments, not many, but there are a few. The world series matches are almost complete now (currently in my results it is down to 1 missing match for each year from 1931-33, 2 for 1934 and around 6 for 1936 and in all of these years, final tallies of all tours are known). The most missing matches are in the other tours section. But there is no hierachy difference between tours and tournaments (world series tours are elevated above standard tours and pro majors are elevated above other tournaments though not in a set in stone way). Exactly how many matches are missing is impossible to know, as itineraries often weren't published. My proudest achievement is unearthing several substantial tours with no itineraries as a guide, just a rough idea of location. I sent many emails to libraries looking for possible results, probably drove one library mad with repeated requests for newspaper look-ups, but they unearthed a lot of results for me. I must say that libraries (those that do reply) provide a vital resource for researchers who can't travel the world looking for tennis results (I travel my country looking for them but not all over the world). Online newspaper archives have various levels of completion, newspapers.com is the best one. Tennis abstract is a great source for match stats and articles, but they are unreliable for match data. The problem comes when websites just copy data from here and there. Data must be found and where possible verified. Its a laborious task but I think worthwhile. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on debating worthiness... the Wimbledon pro was certainly a tournament... it should be included in tournament records. It's classification is of no matter for that. And I find a big difference between tournaments and 1on1 matches as far as totaling them together. I wish you had published your book instead of self-publishing. I do own it. But my point has always been do we include a win loss record of any kind for pre 1968 players, with the best sources we have? I say we do. If we do, and if editors here want to include the trivial win percentage at all, then those pre 1968 win-loss records must also have the percentage. Otherwise it's unfair and POV. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Worthiness debate links into your point about only listing certain matches. I self-published my book, just as McCauley did. Trying to get a tennis book published at all gets harder and harder. I did try one or two publishers (literally only one or two) with both my books but my books are data-rich, not written for the mass market. One guy told me (from a renowned sports publishing company) the last tennis book his company published didnt do well and his firm were reluctant to publish another tennis book. But back the original point, I agree to listing the best sources we have prior to 1968, but my point is, that has changed. Tennis Base was the only source prior to mid 2019 that provided substantial pro data. It no longer exists, is obsolete (and listing it proves very problematic for the reasons outlined). The choices now are those I outlined above. There are no other options. Research on the pro tour doesn't stand still. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

That is not true. Tennis Abstract has extensive pro data also, and without the puffery of Tennis Base. And research on the pro tour may be ongoing but it doesn't matter unless it's published by a source that Wikipedia says is reliable. If newspapers and magazines and books start using your numbers and quoting you, then we can use that. But this is going in circles.... are you saying we should not have a win-loss number for Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden, Wills, Connolly, Court, etc...? No win loss at all in the infobox? I guess that's the bottom line. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Tennis abstract had a badly botched transcription of some of my data. A researcher can tell the origin of research. Tennis abstract is good for match stats, some good statters working for them, also good articles. Tennis abstract is a good site in some ways. Tennis Base had problems sure, but it had pro tour researchers also (and very good ones). And I agree with you 100% about Tennis Base classification. Tennis abstract lists my book on their site btw. I understand what you are saying regarding sources and don't disagree with you. If I can contact you privately, I can send you some information regarding my book. There is an option to contact editor on profile if you don't want to release email info. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

But back to my question. Are you in favor of removing all win/loss records from Wikipedia pre 1968? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

But back to my point, which is very relevant to the discussion we are having (and also relevant to the answer to your question, as will become clear). Do you have a way to be contacted privately? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I like to leave all in the open here since it's relevant to all of WikiProject Tennis. So I guess never mind. I still go with no percentages at all. If we must have percentages with retired players then they all get them as long as they have a win/loss record since it's simple math division and wont change often if at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I may be able to share some information here in time. If this issue of pre-open era win-loss records can be left for the time being that's fine. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Some editor changed an entire article for all the times the Billie Jean King Cup was mentioned and instead wrote “BJK“, but not on the first time it appears on the article, that one was left with the name in full. I changed all back to the full name, but this editor insisted on the short version.

Here is why I think it is very bad to change to “BJK”:

1. The tournament itself doesn’t promote this “BJK”name and it is not widely known by it, or at least not like in the way the “International tennis Federation” promotes itself as the “ITF” and it is very known by this name

2. Wikipedia articles are read by people that know a lot about tennis, but mostly by casual readers that want to know more, so changing to “BJK“ wouldn’t add anything and would make readers confused

3. Not everything on a Wikipedia article should be altered just for the sake of making the article shorter

well, that’s how I see it. What are your opinions? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't like abbreviations with initials because it is often not immediately apparent what they mean. Like you say, a tennis person knows who BJK is, a non-tennis person may not immediately connect the initials BJK with Billie Jean King. I always think the most obviously recognised term should be used. A non-tennis person may assume BJK is a company (sponsorship name) rather than a person. Most people have heard of Billie Jean King, less so BJK. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Haddad Maia fan (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not agree with almost all of this. I guess I'd have to see the context, but they do promote it. If an article in a newspaper was talking about the event 50x they would never spell out "Billie Jean King Cup" over and over. They would say Billie Jean King Cup (BJK Cup) and then use BJK Cup throughout. There is nothing wrong with that. I'm not fond of using BJK Cup... the acronym should be in total, BJKC, but what I want is no matter. The actual Billie Jean King Cup website also uses BJK Cup throughout its articles. The USTA uses BJK Cup. One of the official logos for the event is BJK Cup. Billie Jean Kings own homepage uses BJK Cup. The Olympics uses BJK Cup after first uses. This is a very common way to talk about the event. For the most part if the term is used several times in an article it should be spelled out in full the first time with (BJK Cup) in parenths, then use "BJK Cup" forward. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

They use BJK Cup on TV coverage of the event in between replays, but that still does not help readers know what BJK stands for. I understand there are arguments for BJK being used, I am just saying my personal opinion on the matter. Many times abbreviations are used in many walks of life to the point where no one knows what the full terms are. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

It does if it's spelled out in full for first use. We'd have to get rid of all our draw articles since they use "A Anisimova" instead of her full name. This is common in every newspaper published today. First full name then acronym. Billie Jean King Cup (BJK Cup) then BJK Cup throughout. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

In the context of how something is written, you should use the initialisation in the lead at the start of the article, as this explains how the shortened version will be used later on in the article. Any pro wrestling articles are generally good examples of this, WCW World Heavyweight Championship for example still uses the full name in context of explaining the history of how the name changed to World Championship Wrestling, otherwise the dominant use is WCW. YellowStahh (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

My first thought was to use the name in full, Billie Jean King Cup, instead of BJK Cup because the latter name did not sound familiar to me. However, Fyunck gave some good examples showing that reliable sources regularly use the abbreviated name (mostly in addition to the full name). In that case the common practice is to write the name in full in the first instance (with the abbreviated name between brackets), followed by using the abbreviation. If it is a particularly long article it does not hurt to repeat the full name somewhere in the article.--Wolbo (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the more I looked I found all kinds of BJK Cup promotions. But this is good advice I didn't think of. When you have really long articles it makes sense to throw in the full name again in the second half the article, just to refresh reader's minds. Sort of like we do when we have a players name linked in a table if further down the page you have another table, the name can get linked again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

One user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/178.167.161.159 is adding (nth as a grand slam) on yearly french open articles without any consensus. He should be warned or banned. 38.137.29.193 (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Banned for what ?. Adding the truth to a page. I am trying to point out that there were 29 championships that were not grand slam events, The 124th edition was only the 95th grand slam event. I was told last night by an editor to add this information to the lede which is what I have done. It should be pointed out for readers so they know the exact amount of grand slams that have been played. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.161.159 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere it says it is the 124th grand slam edition of the tournament but simply 124th of the French open. You seems to the only one who fails to understand a simple line. 38.137.29.193 (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point I follow the game. I am on about casual readers ie all the other editions of the other three majors are all grand slam events since their inception unlike the French which I have stated above. Maybe you cannot understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.161.159 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

You are wrong that "the other three majors are all grand slam events since their inception", none of them started as a major event. They only became so after 1920s. It was only after that it was decided that the winners from 1880s should also be considered grand slam winners. Also, an another user said to you, "It's a longstanding consensus to handle it that way. If you wish to do it differently, make a proposal at the Tennis Project talk page and see if you can get consensus." But, you didn't do that but instead out here doing your thing. 38.137.29.193 (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

So I am not wrong then. They are counted as majors since their inception whether it is retrospectively or not it does not matter. However the French Open is not regarded as a major prior to 1925 ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.176.191 (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Usually when you edit something on an article and it keeps getting deleted, you should stop putting it back on the article, because that can be a sign of it being not suitable for it to be there or you bring the discussion to the article’s talk page or to the wiki project, or the various wiki projects, related to that article. It is not a good idea to be in a constant fight of editions on an article. If you notice that what you write is not being accepted, discuss about it rather than just writing it again over and over Haddad Maia fan (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that it wasn’t always like this, that is what we are trying to say. The idea of a Grand Slam is more recent than the creation of those four tournaments Haddad Maia fan (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. There is actually no need to put it in yearly French Open articles. It is included in the main French Open article already. It just seems repetitive as it's rather a french open history than that of the yearly tournament. --Jessicat830 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

"It is French Open history rather than a yearly tournament". What are you talking about ?. The number of editions increase each year as does the numnber of Grand Slam events and the number is not the same. I think it should be pointed out as it is not like the other three Grand Slam tournaments. It is unique to this tournament. It should be defined clearly. 92.251.135.249 (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

It is defined in the main article already, why the need to define it again and again in the yearly ones? I really don't see the significance of this increase that it has to be included in all yearly articles. Jessicat830 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

But it is, just look on the main page about general information of the history of the tournament.

It is unnecessary to say it on the specific page of each edition Haddad Maia fan (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

And in which sense is this exclusive to the French Open? As I mentioned, none of the tournaments we now call “Grand Slams” have always been considered “Grand Slams”, the idea came much later than the creation of those four tournaments Haddad Maia fan (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

My opinion on this:

1.This is absolutely not exclusive to the French Open. All four Grand Slam tournaments didn’t originally start as “Grand Slams.” The label was applied retroactively, and earlier editions of these tournaments—before the Grand Slam classification existed—are now considered Grand Slam events as well.

2. This information is already included in the main French Open article, so there’s no need to repeat it on the individual pages for each edition of the tournament.

3. Given point 1, I don’t understand why this information should only be emphasized in articles related to the French Open and not in those about the other three Grand Slam tournaments. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly what I think too. Being stated in the main French Open article is enough, there is really no need to include it in all yearly articles repetitively. Jessicat830 (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Well one thing is quite different. While the term "Grand Slam" was retroactively applied to winning all four of those majors in a single season, it did not retroactively apply to the French Championships prior to 1925. The other three it was applied retroactively from their inception. So that does make the French Championships a bit unique. While this is the 100 year anniversary of the French being a major international tournament, it has been around a lot longer than that, but as a lesser entity. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

If editors want to list Japan Open and All Japan separately then I have no objection. These two events were quite different. The All Japan only occasionally had top overseas entrants (later becoming purely a national event), whereas the Japan Open is an international event. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

So, that’s it then, we go to every article we judge it is in need for a revision, then if we reach a consensus, we move the information of those other articles to stand-alone articles that would be new articles or just simply revert editions to bring back old articles and if needed, we insert my proposed phrase on those articles? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I notice you list Indian Open as one of these pages of concern Haddad Maia fan. I spent some time getting the information on this page correct. However, it was not me that linked together each version of the event. This is the case with a few pages. I can see why websites and editors do this linking though. Just because an event happens to change their name doesn't mean it isn't the same event (Queen's may not later have been Stella Artois but it's the same event, just a different sponsor). It's quite complicated sometimes and I think the idea of an agreement on each event on a case by case basis is a good one. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I added a 'factual accuracy is disputed' tag to the article. In my view it is an example of an article which was augmented with older editions without proper (reliable) sourcing to support the change. Since the inception of the article it was always a tournament that started in 1973. Then, after about 15 years, it suddenly became a tournament that started in 1915. There is nothing wrong with drastically changing an article if sufficient reliable sources are provided to support the change. As a rule of thumb, the bigger the change the better the sourcing needs to be. You did a good job of adding sources to the older editions but these do not show a connection between the 1973 version of the tournament (Japan Open) and the 1915 version (All-Japan Championships). The Max Robertson's Encyclopedia (a very reliable source) shows the All-Japan Championships starting in 1922 (as you correctly indicate), but it lists different winners for 1972 and 1973. To me that indicates that these were indeed different tournaments which begs the question why the change was made in the first place. Wolbo (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The Japan Open has always been a bit of a problem. Yeah the article looks like the All Japan Championships morphed into the Japan Open in 1972 for the men and 1973 for the women. The trouble is we have sourced book info that there was overlap and that the All Japan Championships continued through at least 1973. They are missing because of the forced morphing. And the Japan Open itself only recognizes Men from 1972 and women from 2009. That one is probably ripe for splitting/fixing but the ladies could be an issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Jim McManus also has the Japan Open starting in 1972 and mentions that the first edition was an invitational event.--Wolbo (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The Max Robertson encyclopedia is a good book. It has errors, like virtually all secondary sources do (I found a few errors in the Robertson book). Where a newspaper differs from a secondary source, I go with the newspaper every time. The most reliable sources are newspaper reports usually published the day after matches took place. Regarding your comment, Wolbo, about mirror websites on the other thread (circular reporting) this is certainly true of some websites. I always look at each site and analyse the research that is being done and the accuracy of it. On Tennis archives research has been done, original sources are listed in many instances (it is good for amateur results). Tennis Base had two excellent researchers for a good portion of their data, good for pro results. Some of these other sites are pure mirrors or contain botched transcriptions of other researcher's work. When editing on wikipedia I use a mixture of newspaper reports and secondary sources. Sometimes I don't have a huge amount of time to research the final of every year's event using newspapers, sometimes a particular country's newspaper archives are not available, so in these cases I use secondary sources (as reliable as I can find quickly). If I have more time I find the original reports. But I never use pure mirror sites. It seems we all have agreement on Japan Open anyway. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

That is true Haddad Maia fan (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

So, how should we proceed then? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a clear consensus to split the tournament into the original Japan Open (1972/3) and create a new tournament article for the All-Japan Championships (1915/22) but let's wait a few more days to see if any other opinions are added. Also, haven't really looked into the women's side of the tournament yet.--Wolbo (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

1915 was the lawn tennis championships of Japan, a small event for British expats. Not similar to the All Japan, which had mostly Japanese players plus a few foreign entrants scattered over decades. I wouldn't mind if 1915 was ditched. Yes there seems to be a consensus to split All Japan from Japan Open. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

However, there is no other place to put the 1915 event. I wouldn't necessarily keep it in the table, but I would keep it in prose in the history section somewhere that it existed withe winners and scores listed. We just make it clear (as we already do in a footnote) that it is not the same as the 1922 event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes the 1915 event in the narrative section, that sounds good. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The next question is, it says the All-Japan championships continue to this day. Why aren't they listed? I'm sure it's a popular event with newspaper articles. Shouldn't we continue to list the winners? It probably gets more Japanese press than many Challenger-level events when list here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

In the open era, the event became a Japanese only event. I did find one or two articles about recent tournaments. Probably mainly in Japan these would be reported. Reminds me of the now defunct British nationals at Telford that Jezza and Andrew Castle won a few times in the late 80s and early 1990s. If someone wants to research it, then the winners can be listed. National only events don't interest me much, but if someone wants to find the winners they can be added to the table (along with a note in the table showing the date it devolved into a national event). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

So, there’s almost ten days since we last discussed this and we had no new added opinions. In my view we could proceed into editing the article. What you all think? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

There is agreement to split Japan Open from All Japan. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree Haddad Maia fan (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

So should we proceed on doing this? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

If an editor wants to split the page they can. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

So, I started moving the information about the All Japan Championships to its separate article, but I really need some help on moving the table of winners from the other article. Can someone assist me with this? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, I have done that for you. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

So, last December I created the article about the Brazilian tennis player “Nauhany Vitória Leme da Silva” but in January of this year it got deleted because other editors thought she wasn’t notable enough for having an article yet

Since then, she has accomplishing more notable features in tennis and I would like your opinion about the possibility of restoring her article or creating a new one from scratch or even a draft

Here are the main reasons I think she is notable now:

•She reached the round of 16 in the girls’ singles draw at this year’s Wimbledon Championships and made it to the round of 32 at the French Open. Earlier in the season, she also competed in the girls’ singles draw of the Australian Open and took part in the doubles events at all of those three Grand Slam junior tournaments I mentioned.

•In 2024, she competed in the girls’ singles draw at Roland Garros as well.

•One of the youngest women to be ranked on the WTA Tour and she has already played a significant number of professional matches on the ITF Circuit.

•This year, she also participated in the Giorgio Armani Tennis Classic at Hurlingham and is listed to compete at the 2025 SP Open.

• She is a quarterfinalist on the JR Billie Jean King Cup

What do you think? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

That she is still far from meeting our notability standards. She’s a junior and last 32 or 16 in junior grand slam is not such a special achievement. The former means winning just one match, the latter two. Way too soon for an article. Tvx1 04:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Tvx1. If a tennis player is notable enough for an article is covered by our project notability guidelines and the overarching general notability guidelines.--Wolbo (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

And also the subject specific notability guidelines. Tvx1 19:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Are wins and losses from WTA 125 tournaments supposed to be included in the wins and losses for each season and each surface in the performance timeline tables? My understanding is the ITF results don't count for those tables but WTA Tour tournaments at the 250 level and above do. I'm not sure about WTA 125, because it's like the middle ground in between. I was trying to update the performance timeline for Jil Teichmann and many of her results for this year are at the 125 level. Thanks. JamesAM (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, bringing this here as it seems a matter of standardisation, albeit minor. Within the MOS, constructions such as "ATP Tour-level" and "WTA Tour-level" should be "ATP Tour–level" and "WTA Tour–level", per MOS:SUFFIXDASH. Not really a matter of urgency but just noting it here! MB2437 19:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

8rz (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know how to change a code of an infobox or how to create a new one, but I noticed that the Wheelchair girls' and boys draws are not linked on the slams tournaments infoboxes, just the man’s/ woman’s and quad draws. Since there are already some individual articles for the boys and girls draws of some tournaments, I think it would be great to have them listed on the infoboxes among the rest of the draws. For exemple on the 2022 US Open – Men's singles article there is nothing on the infobox that links to the 2022 US Open – Wheelchair girls' singles article. Does anyone know how to fix that?Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

That could be done, however if you look at pages like 2024 US Open (tennis) those links exist and they are red. Many other years are also red and that looks terrible in an infobox. Plus some majors don't have boys and girls wheelchair events. I dont see any for Wimbledon so we cant make it a universal infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with creating parameters for events that might not be played in all slams, because AFAIK when these parameters are not used, or remain empty, they don't appear on the page. In the 2024 US Open (tennis) infobox, for example, these links exists there because they were manually included inside it, they don't follow the same coding as the others thus also aren't well aligned inside the infobox, and that's one of the reasons why they look so bad. The same can be said for the 14&U juniors events that Wimbledon currently holds.

Unfortunately I don't know how to code parameters, otherwise I would have done it myself. I tried to ask for them to be added on the Template's talk page, but got no response and eventually forgot that I've asked. ABC paulista (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

We can very much make it universal. The parameters are actually coded to be optional. So they only appear in article when they are actually added to that’s article specific infobox. Someone just needs to add the parameters to the template. I can’t do it because it’s protected. Tvx1 22:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be great to have that information on the infoboxes, since almost all Slams already had one or more editions of the Junior wheelchair competitions and I feel It looks incomplete without them on there. So, to change that we would need to reach out to the people responsible for coding the infoboxes and ask them to do that? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

A formal edit request on the template’s talk page should do it. Tvx1 14:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Already did it before, got no response. But if one of you manage to contact someone who's able to add the parameters, I'd appreciate if the 14&U juniors are also included on the template. ABC paulista (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Because you didn’t place a formal edit request. You just posted a talk page comment. Just look at the section below yours on how to post a proper edit request. Tvx1 15:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

So there's been a bunch of articles claiming that Iga has broken the USD$40mil mark in WTA Tour earnings and earnt $7mil this year ([2][3][4]) but the official WTA documents state neither claim ([5][6]). Is it common protocol to use other websites as references for her earnings on both her article and the WTA Tour records article or do we normally follow the official sources? I haven't been able to find an article that states where the number of her before money comes from, my only assumption is that they may update the official sources late or that they don't count the grand slams in tour money but that seems strange. QWisps (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There has to be a really good reason to go against the WTA record on this, which is currently $39,473,498. We would usually go with the official WTA/ATP sources which update on Mondays. Most of those sites fluctuate because they base the total "as per current exchange rate." Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Would it be in our best interest for me to revert all of the changes made relating to this statistic and keep reverting them if necessary? I haven't seen anything that would disprove the WTA TBH. QWisps (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I would think so. The "keep reverting" part can be problematic... I wouldn't want you to get in trouble by bumping up against 3R. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean I could always add a mention of it to the talk page of the records page/add an invisible note to the records page specifically? I don't have many other ideas for how to solve the issue unfortunately.. QWisps (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Well it's fixed right now on her article and I'll keep a watch for it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem here is that the WTA have erroneously reported her Wimbledon earnings as 3 million USD when she won £3m. There is a big difference between the two. If we convert her £3m into USD then it does take her over the $40m mark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

My only question is how do we maintain which sources are accurate and which are not? Many of the sources listed take the WTA earnings at face value except for Iga's at Wimbledon, which means we would have to find a source that converts earnings for every event individually accurate to the conversion rate of the time. I just don't know how sustainable it is and how accurate we can make it, especially when you consider that we'd (assumably) have to do this for every other women's tennis player too. QWisps (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

We would always take the WTA site as accurate, but sometimes it makes a mistake. If it makes an obvious error you source another site with the correct number and expalin in a note what is wrong with the WTA in this instance. We've had to do that multiple times with players from the 1970s because the WTA/ATP makes errors in those years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that the WTA will correct itself in time. I remember the Australian Open prize money figures were reporting wrong because they were taking the Australian dollars figure as being equal to the USD figure. This got fixed a few weeks later. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I’ve observed a recurring issue across several Wikipedia articles—particularly in the English edition and in various other languages—regarding how certain tennis tournaments are presented. Specifically, unrelated ATP and WTA events are often grouped together under the premise that they are “new editions” of the same tournament. In most cases, the only real commonality among these events is that they were held in the same country or city and were part of either the ATP or WTA tour. In my view, that alone does not justify treating them as continuations of one another.

A closer look at the history, structure, and organization of these tournaments often reveals little to no true continuity—beyond geographical location or tour affiliation. Despite this, articles are sometimes merged under broad titles like Indian Open or Brazil Open, giving the impression of a continuous event when, in reality, the tournaments may have entirely different origins, organizers, and formats.

I’m genuinely curious whether this issue has ever been formally discussed within the Wikipedia community. Has there been a consensus or rationale for combining such distinct events into a single article? From what I’ve seen, many of these articles lack reliable sources that explicitly state one tournament is a direct continuation of another.

I want to make it clear that I say this with full respect for the efforts of past and present Wikipedia editors, whose work I deeply appreciate. However, the current approach seems, at times, to reflect a desire for simplicity over accuracy—grouping events under generic titles instead of acknowledging their individual identities. I believe this practice can be misleading, as it risks flattening the rich and distinct histories of these tournaments. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Could you give us like 3-5 example links so we can look at the situation and discuss? I agree that it sometimes happens, but you mentioned the Brazil Open, and that's not one of the problem articles. In 2012 the whole world acknowledged that Nicolás Almagro won his third Brazil Open. The tournament itself said it was a continuation. When that happens it absolutely goes on the same article. When those things don't happen it usually goes in different articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, look into WTA Indian Open, German Open (WTA) and WTA Brasil Open if you go into those tournaments articles you either do not see a source that indicates that they are related or in some instances they have sources that state that they are not related. I know that there are some other examples, but for now I think those suffice Haddad Maia fan (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

We have also told you before that tennis and its city changes and name changes and surface changes is very very tricky. There is no one size fits all rule, and will always have to be done event by event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

the WTA Indian Open is one of those tricky ones because of the pandemic. It was brought back as a one time event. Is it the same, probably not, but there is no good fit for where it goes that readers will find it. The WTA German Open is also tough. On one hand you have the long history of the German Open until 2008. Then in 2020 they bring back the German Open only to see it canceled by the pandemic. So it starts in 2021 till now. Where do we put it? Under German Open 2? It is the German Open. But it has issues. It's now called the Berlin Open and the WTA website honor roll says it started in 2021. But the Grand Slam History book says otherwise. We go by sourcing but with tennis events the sources can be messy. Not unreliable as far as players and scores, but placement in an encyclopedia name. There is no rule we can go by since it's not like any other sport. We dothe best we can. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

What about we separate those tournaments in the cases of ones we have clear sources that we can conclude they are not “new editions” of each other and then explain in the text with a phrase like “Although the organizers of the tournament do not recognize it, it is widely accepted as a follow up of this other tournament from the past, like sources such as the Grand Slam history book say”? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

You mean keep it in the same article but separate the charts? That's also a possibility. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

No, what I meant was that we should separate these tournaments in the way of relocating to stand-alone articles and in those new articles we insert that phrase, but if more editors prefer your idea, we can also look into that Haddad Maia fan (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a very valid point Haddad Maia fan and an issue which has concerned me for quite some time. I just added a 'factual accuracy disputed' tag to the Japan Open article for this exact reason. Since a couple of years several tournament articles have been augmented with what are claimed to be earlier editions of that same tournament, thereby changing the history of the tournament. The problem is that in most cases no reliable sources are provided to support these changes. From what I can tell usually self-published websites are cited which are largely not acceptable as a reliable source and which should certainly not be used in isolation. I have reverted a few of these article augmentations (Dutch Open, Moscow Ladies Open) but I'm not sure what the full extent of the problem is. The reason it worries me is that it calls into question the reliability of these articles and also creates a risk of circular reporting (a reliable source uses this potentially false information which is then used as a source for the article).--Wolbo (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

So, do you have a proposition on how should we approach this topic? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I had noticed this same issue myself and share your concerns. This is one of the things you are confronted with an online encyclopedia editable by all. For time of time you have these editors make large volumes of edits to multiple articles based on incorrect assumptions. And when this happens to a group of articles under the perview of a WikiProject on a subject as vast as tennis and which only has a very low number of highly active editors, it proved difficult to vet and if necessary rollback such a vast amount of incorrect edits. In the examples you cited above, the incorrect additions were made by the same person who simply combined tournaments which were held in the same city. So I'd suggest we start from checking that user's edits and blanket revert their relevant edits that are not supported or even contradicted by the sources.

Also on this subject, I noticed that the WTA Birmingham Classic, which disappeared from the world tour this year, is treated on Wikipedia as being the same tournament as new Challenger called the Birmingham Open which started up this year despite the clear difference in name (though Birmingham is normally replaced by a sponsor in the name). Is that actually correct?? I also remember having started a discussion here once on multiple different challengers which took place in Nottingham being treated as the same tournament as the ATP and WTA World Tours' Nottingham Open. Tvx1 14:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I made a search on the Birmingham open and it is a case of different sources with different information, the WTA treated as a new tournament, but the LTA treated as being the same one, as you can see on their respective websites:

https://www.lta.org.uk/fan-zone/international/lexus-birmingham-open/event-guide/history/

https://www.wtatennis.com/tournaments/1126/birmingham-125/2025/past-winners Haddad Maia fan (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

As I said... it's very tricky with many tournaments. Tvx1 is correct that one or two editors have taken liberties in clumping things together when they really don't belong together, but then we have Birmingham that has a tournament on different tours being lumped as the same in sources. Part of that is the way the WTA markets the WTA 125s... they want them to sound as important as possible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe we can do a mix of what I suggested and what @Tvx1 suggested, we go to the pages Tvx1 mentioned and change them accordingly to their respective needs and create new articles when we see that a tournament does not belong on that page, and on those new articles we include my proposed phrase or some similar phrase. What do you think about that? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

If the mergers or augmentations of tournament articles are clearly incorrect (or not reliably sourced) they should be reverted. In case of an incorrect merger this would revert back to separate articles. If it's an incorrect augmentation of a tournament article the added information will be removed. However, this could lead to the loss of potentially valuable information. The best way forward is probably to judge these articles on a case by case basis to see what, if anything, needs to be done. The tournament article talk pages usually do not get a lot of traffic so it is probably better to discuss it here (with a short notification on the article talk page). Wolbo (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Haddad Maia fan (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

A major argument, at least for me, that defends separating each tournament into its own article is the language link. As you know, Wikipedia has this tool that takes you to an alternative version of the article in other languages in just a few clicks. But with this tennis tournament issue, this is highly outdated and confusing because in one language the tournament is separated into its own article, and in another, all the tournaments are in the same article. This makes it impossible to link languages, since the platform doesn't allow linking multiple articles in the same language. So, the best thing would be to separate everything to make it easier to find the article for a specific tournament. But I don't know if anyone here agrees with that. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

So, I added to the Hellenic Championship (tennis) article the “Not to be confused with Super League Greece, a professional association football league in Greece.” but for no reason some editors are deleting it. For me it is absolutely needed to stay that there because if you search for Hellenic Championship here at Wikipedia you will be redirected to the Super League Greece article. What do you think? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

It might be un-needed now since i turned Hellenic Championship into a disambiguation article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Since other WTA tournaments held in Brazil have their own dedicated articles, I believe the page WTA Brasil Open, that contains loads of tournaments put together, should also be treated separately. Each tournament deserves its own page, and we already have enough reliable sources to support the creation of these individual articles. If additional references are needed, we can consult Wikipedias in other languages, where many of these tournaments already have standalone entries. Creating separate articles allows for more detailed coverage of each event and enables proper interlanguage linking, something that isn’t possible when multiple tournaments are grouped together in a single article, as Wikipedia does not allow one article to be linked to multiple entries in other language.

What do you think about that? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

You mean turn it into 9 different events? These were all the Brasil Open. There is plenty of room for detailed coverage now... plus each yearly event gets an article. WE don't care what other wikis do, I'm not sold on this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

They are not “all the Brasil Open”. The first one and the second were indeed called “Brasil Open”, but the rest went by other names, for example: in 1990 and 1991 it was the “ Nivea Cup”, in 1999 and 2000 it was the “Brazil Ladies Open”. In my opinion this is another case of unrelated tennis tournaments that got put together on the same page just because they were WTA tournaments that were held on the same country and nothing else (in fact, all of those tournaments were held in 3 different cities) , but as I see, you totally disagree Haddad Maia fan (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

And as far as I know, no sources explicitly say that they are new editions of each other Haddad Maia fan (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

These are just sponsored names. The Stella Artois Championships, The Aegon Championships, The Cinch Championships an the HSBC Championships are also all editions of the same tournament. Tvx1 12:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say I totally disagree, I said I'm not sold on this. Sponsored names mean nothing because sponsors change all the time even today. And tournaments often move from city to city and maintain the same event history. I'll look a little deeper to see if I can find anything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you, but anyway, here's some sources that I think can be used to support that they are different tournaments:

https://www.wtatennis.com/tournaments/210/guaruja/1987

https://www.wtatennis.com/tournaments/166/nivea-cup/1988

https://www.wtatennis.com/tournaments/210/guaruja/1993

https://www.wtatennis.com/tournaments/1010/bahia/2001

One more thing, I just discovered that some of those tournaments already have separated articles on the English Wikipedia

1984 Santista Textile Open

1988 Rainha Cup

1988 Rainha Cup – Singles

1989 Rainha Cup

1990 Nivea Cup

1991 Nivea Cup

1993 Bancesa Classic

1988 Rainha Cup – Doubles Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

However, so far i found two interesting things. I see 1999-2001 being called the Brazil Open by the press, but more important the WTA has an honour roll of champions under the Nivea Cup banner that includes all the winners from 1985-1993. This is one of those stewy ones because it was such a low level event in those years... tier 5 and tier 4. But the WTA looks at those years as the same event with different names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Another thing is where we would put a multi-split of titles so that readers can more easily find the events. We'd be better off keeping them on the same page but changing the article title to something like "WTA Tour Brazilian tennis tournaments." Then splitting the chart into three charts: 1977, 1984-1993, 1999-2002. Then re-writing the intro explaining that the events are only loosely related but are all placed here for easy reference under the Brazil Open umbrella. We should make it clear to our readers its minimal linkage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

And for the ones that already have their own separate articles we could link them in some way on that general article, so readers can find those other articles. What do you think? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

And later, if we feel the need, we can create the missing articles for the other tournaments/editions, so the general article can have a link to all of them Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Many were already linked here, but I added the missing one. They are linked through the date. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Although I don't like the term career title because, in my opinion, it should be used much more broadly than it actually is, I understand it's typically used for WTA Tour or ATP Tour titles, which doesn't include any titles in WTA 125/ATP Challenger/ITF/Olympic Games tournaments and others. Am I wrong? I saw that in the article about Naomi Osaka, the title she won this season in a WTA 125 is referred to as a career title. Wouldn't that be incorrect? I'd like to know what is the correct way to use this term, if there is one Haddad Maia fan (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes you are wrong. Under Career titles it does not include minor league titles of the Challenger Circuit and it does not include minor-minor league tiles of the ITF Curcuit. But it certainly includes Olympics and Grand Slam tournaments. They are part of the main WTA and ATP tours. What Osaka's sentence was trying to say was it was her first clay title at any tour level.... even jrs. Andre Agassi did the same thing in the 1990s when he dropped down to minor league level to work on his game. Osaka's career titles is still listed as seven on the Main Tour. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I was reviewing some tennis related articles, and one in particular stood out to me: Georgina Jones (tennis). The article is quite short and has carried a notability tag since 2022. Given the time that has passed, I believe it’s worth evaluating whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines or not. I’d like to hear your thoughts on what action should be taken regarding this article. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe tennis not so much, but she is also an author of a book that is sold on Amazon, and a playwright whose play was choreographed by Ruth St. Denis (a pioneer of modern dance in America). I think when you take it as a whole this person is notable. Also the person who left the tag wrote nothing on the talk page expressing concerns. I removed it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Archived a couple of links. 8rz (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

So, I created the article 2025 São Paulo Torneio Internacional de Tênis Feminino for the reason that it is the second edition of this tournament that already has it own article for the first edition and for the tournament in general, but someone decided that it should be deleted. If we have an article for an edition of a tournament, shouldn’t we have for every other one as well? What do you think about that? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

As for reference, here is the article for the general information about the tournament: São Paulo Torneio Internacional de Tênis Feminino

And here is the one for the 2024 edition, the first edition:

2024 São Paulo Torneio Internacional de Tênis Feminino Haddad Maia fan (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Per our Tennis Project Guidelines no we should not. If an event gets demoted to an even lower level we do not create new articles. 35K is a really really low level event that is usually not notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Consensus was reached to remove the draws links and background colors from the men's and women's singles, doubles, (quad) wheelchair and juniors list of Grand Slam champions. 8rz (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear colleagues, About a week ago I had a discussion with @ABC paulista:. In the List_of_Grand_Slam_men's_singles_champions#Champions_by_year. When Bill Bill Tilden wins his first title we use Bill Tilden (1/10). The 1 before the dash mean his first title en the 10 behind the dash means he won in total 10 titels. with this method in mind, i changed the article List_of_men's_wheelchair_tennis_champions#Wheelchair_boys'_singles on the same way. My edit was undone by "ABC paulista". He/she used a different method, it cost me a while to understand it. Charlie Cooper (1/2) the 1 one before the dash means his first title on the French Open, the 2 behind the dash means his second mayor title. In my opinion, ABC paulista' method is too complicated. Is it better to change it back to de method used on the other grand slam pages. Micnl (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC) It is far far far too complicated. I think I had the conversion with him or someone else very recently. The first number is the chronological title number and the second number the total number of titles eventually won. It's what we always use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC) It's not a standard format within the project since the majority of lists don't use it (none of the juniors and wheelchair use it). Now I'll present my proposal of new format to substitute the one currently used on the main lists: Year Australian Open French Open Wimbledon US Open 2002 Thomas Johansson (1/1) Albert Costa (1/1) Lleyton Hewitt (1/2) Pete Sampras (5/14) 2003 Andre Agassi (4/8) Juan Carlos Ferrero (1/1) Roger Federer (1/1) Andy Roddick (1/1) 2004● Roger Federer (1/2) Gastón Gaudio (1/1) Roger Federer (2/3) Roger Federer (1/4) 2005♦ Marat Safin (1/2) Rafael Nadal (1/1) Roger Federer (3/6) Roger Federer (2/6) 2006● Roger Federer (2/7) Rafael Nadal (2/2) Roger Federer (4/8) Roger Federer (3/9) 2007● Roger Federer (3/10) Rafael Nadal (3/3) Roger Federer (5/11) Roger Federer (4/12) 2008♦ Novak Djokovic (1/1) Rafael Nadal (4/4) Rafael Nadal (1/5) Roger Federer (5/13) 2009♦ Rafael Nadal (1/6) Roger Federer (1/14) Roger Federer (6/15) Juan Martín del Potro (1/1) 2010● Roger Federer (4/16) Rafael Nadal (5/7) Rafael Nadal (2/8) Rafael Nadal (1/9) 2011● Novak Djokovic (2/2) Rafael Nadal (6/10) Novak Djokovic (1/3) Novak Djokovic (1/4) 2012 Novak Djokovic (3/5) Rafael Nadal (7/11) Roger Federer (7/17) Andy Murray (1/1) 2013♦ Novak Djokovic (4/6) Rafael Nadal (8/12) Andy Murray (1/2) Rafael Nadal (2/13) 2014 Stan Wawrinka (1/1) Rafael Nadal (9/14) Novak Djokovic (2/7) Marin Čilić (1/1) 2015● Novak Djokovic (5/8) Stan Wawrinka (1/2) Novak Djokovic (3/9) Novak Djokovic (2/10) 2016♦ Novak Djokovic (6/11) Novak Djokovic (1/12) Andy Murray (2/3) Stan Wawrinka (1/3) 2017♦ Roger Federer (5/18) Rafael Nadal (10/15) Roger Federer (8/19) Rafael Nadal (3/16) 2018♦ Roger Federer (7/20) Rafael Nadal (11/17) Novak Djokovic (4/13) Novak Djokovic (3/14) 2019♦ Novak Djokovic (7/15) Rafael Nadal (12/18) Novak Djokovic (5/16) Rafael Nadal (4/19) 2020 Novak Djokovic (8/17) Rafael Nadal (13/20) Cancelled (COVID-19 pandemic) Dominic Thiem (1/1) 2021● Novak Djokovic (9/18) Novak Djokovic (2/19) Novak Djokovic (6/20) Daniil Medvedev (1/1) 2022♦ Rafael Nadal (2/21) Rafael Nadal (14/22) Novak Djokovic (7/21) Carlos Alcaraz (1/1) 2023● Novak Djokovic (10/22) Novak Djokovic (3/23) Carlos Alcaraz (1/2) Novak Djokovic (4/24) 2024♦ Jannik Sinner (1/1) Carlos Alcaraz (1/3) Carlos Alcaraz (2/4) Jannik Sinner (1/2) 2025 Jannik Sinner (2/3) Carlos Alcaraz (2/5) To summarize, the format would largely remain the same, the only change would be the numbers' meanings: The current one is [total nº # of the total]/[total overall] My proposal is [title nº # of the tournament]/[major nº # of the total] For the pros and cons, here's my comparison: CURRENT PROPOSAL Provides 2 kinds of information: The total of majors won The order in which they were won Provides 4 kinds of information: The total of titles won on each tournament The order in which they were won in relation to the total overall The total of majors won The order in which they were won The table doesn't provide the number of titles won by a given player on a certain tournament The table provide both the number of titles won by a given player on a certain tournament and the overall counting The total of majors won by a given player is always on display, being possible to see which are multi-slam winners at first glance The total of majors won by a given player is only provided on their last entry The last entry of each player would always be redundant, displaying the same number on both sides of the dash The last entry would always provide the total overall, an information not provided before When adding a new entry for a multi-slam winner, it's necessary to adjust the previous entries' total majors count When adding a new entry, there's no need to adjust previous ones About the issue of being "too complicated", I totally dismiss this notion and I attribute this impression to "familiarity bias" and Mere-exposure effect: This format has been standing for years, so we had more than enough time to familiarize ourselves with this format and the numbers' meanings, but for newcomers and casual readers their significance is not clear, especially without legends as it currently stands, and the numbers would hold litle to no meaning at first glance, regardless of the format. My proposal would run on the same problem, but to mitigate that I'd also propose to add a legend to exlain their meaning. But overall I still defend that the learning curve would be similar for both formats. ABC paulista (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC) I found the discussion at The "current champions" chart is a horror show. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC) By the way those charts should not have all that color. And we should not use FO when there is plenty of room for French Open. They should be pretty much the same as the men's singles article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC) WP:STAYONTOPIC, if you want to discuss them further, please start new discussions on the subjects. ABC paulista (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC) It was simply a note for the person to fix things. I find that new proposal against consensus and a poor choice as I stated under the Horror Show topic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC) I am against this format change. Federer 1 of 1 then goes up to 8 of 19. Again, same as before, I do not know what these numbers mean and unless I know instantly, these numbers shouldn't be there. I don't care what an individual editor has in their head, these articles are written for readers of wikipedia and numbers should be understood quickly. Trying to implement a system that has already been rejected on another page is not a good thing to do. Please find something better to do with your time ABCpaulista. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC) Tennishistory1877, FYI, I was the one who created these tables on both men's and women's wheelchair lists, already with the format I proposed, almost a month before I implemented the same format on the Grand Slam article and months before any discussion or "rejection" of it was ever voiced, so you should research a little bit more before pointing fingers to others, since you already commited the same mistake, due to unawareness, on the aforementioned discussion. Furthermore, I don't like how "personal" or "finger-pointing" your most recent remarks have been, and this one felt borderline slandererous and WP:ICA. Your "suggestions" about how I should behave or on how I should spend my time are unwarranted, so I recommend to you to keep them to yourself and WP:STAYONTOPIC. And be WP:CIVIL. ABC paulista (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC) There isn't a project-wise consensus on the matter, and one can't claim that a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is applicable to other pages without a wider discussion being done beforehand. ABC paulista (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC) And I think there has been for many years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC) It's true, but still WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:WEAKSILENCE. They're only valid within their table they're used in, within the article at best, and the easiest to be contested and/or changed. ABC paulista (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC) You are the one who needs to stay on topic, ABC paulista . I do not need to look at your edit history in the months before Fyunck and I rejected your chart changes on Grand Slam (tennis) because it has no relevance at all. My annoyance stems from your proposal which you posted on this topic on 22 June 2025 (that is AFTER Fyunck and I have already said we do not want your style changes and AFTER Fyunck removed your style changes from the Grand Slam (tennis) page after you agreed to remove it). Now another editor is also telling you they do not like your numerical formatting. So just to make it crystal clear. I do not approve of this numerical method on the Grand Slam tennis page, the list of Grand Slam men's singles champions page, or any other tennis page on wikipedia. I know I feel I have wasted my time saying the same things I have already said before to the same editor and that I can spend my time more productively than this. Maybe you feel differently as you are entitled to do. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC) It has relevance on the remark that I was Trying to implement a system that has already been rejected on another page and I don't take accusations of lack of WP:GOODFAITH lightly. Your "annoyance", your personal feelings about me or my actions... Keep it to yourself and WP:AVOIDYOU. About the proposal, I just presented here now because Micnl brought up the discussion sooner than I was planning to, but I'd show it here anyway because the discussion on the Grand Slam page wasn't the final say on the matter. That discussion only pertained to that specific table, on that specific page, and had no bearing on the wider scope. And you two aren't the only ones who have the right to have a say on the matter, nor are the ones that have the right to give the final decision yourselves, especially if other editors demonstrate agreement to my proposal. I know what you two think, my interest is in what the other contributors think. ABC paulista (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Again, please try and stick to the issues in hand and stop trying to turn this into some personal issue. As you have taken such offence to the words good faith I have replaced them with "not a good thing to do". No I will not avoid you if you are trying to change wikipedia tennis pages against a consensus which you already agreed to 3 weeks ago. "That discussion only pertained to that specific table, on that specific page, and had no bearing on the wider scope". It stands to reason that if we don't understand or like your tables on one page, then we don't understand or like your tables on other pages. Do we have to spell this out on the talk page of every single wikipedia page with these sort of tables on? And it is not only Fyunck and I that are entitled to our views, all editors can express a view if they wish to. Another editor (Micnl) also expressed their view that they do not like this table style. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Okay, let me divide it in topics: Again, please try and stick to the issues in hand and stop trying to turn this into some personal issue. As you have taken such offence to the words good faith I have replaced them with "not a good thing to do".: I take issue to the fact that you said that I was Trying to implement a system that has already been rejected on another page, which is untrue. The moment you made such inference it became personal, and I won't accept it regadless of the wording being used here, period. No I will not avoid you: You don't need to, but you should address my arguments, not me as an editor. That's basic WP:ETIQUETTE. Per WP:AVOIDYOU, no finger-pointing. you are trying to change wikipedia tennis pages against a consensus which you already agreed to 3 weeks ago: The consensus reached there was that, specifically, that table didn't need that kind of linkage so it was to be removed, but that consensus didn't affect the other tables, those that has a similar linkage didn't have them removed too. And I never agreed to the opinion that my idea is bad ou that the current format is better. It stands to reason that if we don't understand or like your tables on one page, then we don't understand or like your tables on other pages: That doesn't mean that others wouldn't have liked it, that's why I wanted to present it on a wider scope, for a broader viewership, to have more opinions on the idea. Do we have to spell this out on the talk page of every single wikipedia page with these sort of tables on? No, I was going to bring the proposal here beforehand to avoid this kind of situation, but sometimes this sort of situation can happen. Just because an idea didn't work on a situation doesn't mean that it won't work on others, nad just because a proposal wasn't accepted in one instance doesn't mean it's forbidden to be presented again, in another time, in another situation. And it is not only Fyunck and I that are entitled to our views, all editors can express a view if they wish to: Exactly, that's why I wanted to present it on a wider scope, for a broader viewership, to receive a wider array of feedback, but that can only happen if the proposal is presented to them. Another editor (Micnl) also expressed their view that they do not like this table style: Only after they brought it here. We had a quick conversation on my talk page, and there was no display of disagreement. They just asked for clarification. ABC paulista (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Where I disagree with you (and I think Fyunck also disagrees with you based on his remarks) is the idea that because your system was rejected on one page, it was OK to put it on another. I am sorry that you are unwilling to admit this could cause issues. We are never going to agree on this. At least this issue finally seems to been resolved. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC) I've created those tables already with my idea implemented months before my proposal was ever discussed and/or rejected in another instance. You keep treating like the order of events was the opposite, and this is factually not true. ABC paulista (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC) I have no problem with the fact you have created the tables months ago. What I take issue with is you continuing to push these tables in recent days after Fyunck and I expressed our views to you in early June on the Grand Slam (tennis) talk page that we didn't like them (and we did not say in that conversation we objected to using the table style in that specific table. We both made it clear we didn't like the table style period). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC) To the scope I'm aiming for, I need more feedback than of mere two editors, with all due respect. My idea was project-wide, not on some 1 or 2 pages of it, so a bigger involvement would be necessary to better gauge if my proposal was actually good or not, and a local discussion about a local consensus neither cut it, nor were deterrent to my endgoal. Unfortunately my planning was kinda jeopardized by this untimely discussion, and the contents of it certainly didn't help to create engagement and participation. I wasn't prepared to present it on a more understandable way. Just remember that both you and Fyunck don't hold the right or power for definitive decisions, and the opinions of other members hold just as much weight as ours, regarless if they showed support for my proposal or not. ABC paulista (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC) While true you have to take something else into account. Even here in this forum where editors have asked for wide input, that is usually at most five editors. Participation is not this project's strong suit. If you get four people saying it's bad that may be all you get. Your extra planning I doubt would have made any difference on the new numbering system you wanted. It should have been discussed before implementing if you wanted that kind of time. You mention here later about going to a single number. I may not agree, but that is a reasonable alternative to what I really consider the table of horror that I hate with passion as a disservice to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC) That's fair, maybe I could have demonstrated things better and it could have been a smoother ride, especially the discussion part. Just taking advantage that I was creating a new table to implement my idea and present the results later was a plan that presented many risks of not working because of timing. I admit that failed to forsee this possibility. ABC paulista (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "with this method in mind, i changed the article List_of_men's_wheelchair_tennis_champions#Wheelchair_boys'_singles on the same way. My edit was undone by "ABC paulista"." This was already posted by Micnl before you chimed in with your proposal. So three editors already objected to your proposal with none in favour. How many editors do you think give their views on tennis project threads normally? One further editor has commented since, against your proposal. And I do not like the accusation that only Fyunck and I are the ones who are entitled to give our opinions. All these discussions are open to all editors as you well know. I wish there were more editors on wikipedia tennis pages. If there were, then I would never have become involved in these debates on table style in the first place, as there would have been enough editors to stop you putting your tables on that page without me intervening. Fyunck was unable to get a consensus by himself on Grand Slam (rtennis) and as I did not like the tables, I felt it was my duty to back him to try and ensure they were removed. I often try and persuade people on tennis forums (on private messages or emails) to become active wikipedia editors but none of them ever want to. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC) This was already posted by Micnl before you chimed in with your proposal: Yes, that's why I brought my proposal, so people would get a first-hand explanation of my proposal instead only a recount of facts. But bear in mind that Micnl only showed disagreement to my proposal on the last sentence of his comment. How many editors do you think give their views on tennis project threads normally: Seeing how many members are part of the project, I expected a bit more. But I admit that I'm not familiar with this project's engagement levels. I do not like the accusation that only Fyunck and I are the ones who are entitled to give our opinions: It's more of a feeling, rather than an accusation. Sorry if sounded otherwise, but I do feel that you were quite agressive with this argumentation, constantly reminding me how you both showed disagreement to my idea. And I admit to have felt a bit intimidated by it, it felt like what happened at the Grand Slam page was to be taken as a final decision, and that you were forbidding me to pursue this idea, or comdemning the "mere audacity" to try things here. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that how everything appeared to me. ABC paulista (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC) I really thought you had accepted that this table style was not the right thing to do on that Grand Slam (tennis) talk page. As I said, I have no issue at all with that original conversation. But when Micnl said his edit was undone by you, I thought "why would someone still be pushing this system with a third editor that disagrees with them after two other editors have already expressed in detail how they strongly dislike the system?" (Now two other people have clearly expressed they dislike the system). Surely by the third editor disliking the system (with none in favour) you would start to question the fact that it wasn't the right thing to do to implement it. I accept that you say your intentions were good, but I still don't understand the reasoning. And you have been editing on wikipedia tennis pages a long time and should know there aren't many active editors (with a novice editor I could understand them not knowing how the system works). I have thought before that you and I are very different. I see it again on this thread. Neither of us understands the other's thought processes at all. The idea that you think I think Fyunck and I are in charge is very far from the case. Fyunck keeps an eye on a lot of pages and stops a lot of vandalism from unregistered ids. I leave him to get on with it most of the time, but in the past couple of years if I notice him arguing a point with an experienced editor without anyone supporting him and if I agree with his argument (I don't always) then I intervene to back him to ensure the quality of pages is not degraded. As I said I wish there were more editors around so I wasn't needed (I detest having to argue out points on wikipedia talk threads, but it is necessary at times. I much prefer adding information to pages.) I remember years ago another editor showing me a newspaper article about wikipedia which said that a lot of problems occur on pages that don't have many editors on them. It's the truest article I have ever read about wikipedia. If there were always a good number of editors on these tennis pages, the whim of one particular editor would never be carried. And there are no cliques operating on wikipedia tennis pages and Fyunck and I are certainly not one. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC) I really thought you had accepted that this table style was not the right thing to do on that Grand Slam (tennis) talk page.: The only point I agreed on was that the linkage on that specific table was unnecessary, but never saind that I admited that my idea wasn't good. In fact, I remeber defending it to the very end last discussion, and I still believe that it is a good one, just not fully realized. But when Micnl said his edit was undone by you, I thought "why would someone still be pushing this system with a third editor that disagrees with them after two other editors have already expressed in detail how they strongly dislike the system?" (Now two other people have clearly expressed they dislike the system). Surely by the third editor disliking the system (with none in favour) you would start to question the fact that it wasn't the right thing to do to implement it.: I don't assume that disagreements exist until they are verbally expressed, there are numerous other reasons for one to change something on an article. When Micnl edited the tables they didn't state their reasoning for doing so, and when I reverted them they went to my talk page to ask if their understanding of the numbering system was right and why it was different from other pages. I take it as curiosity and unfamiliarity, not disagreement, the first time they expressed disagreement was here. And you have been editing on wikipedia tennis pages a long time and should know there aren't many active editors (with a novice editor I could understand them not knowing how the system works).: Honestly i don't keep tabs on who does and doesn't participate on the projects. I care more about the edits themselves than about the editors who make them. The idea that you think I think Fyunck and I are in charge is very far from the case: I don't think this way, because I know that Wikipedia's guidelines don't allow something like this, but I felt that most of the arguments presented here boiled down to since we showed disagreement before, this case should have remained close and not be brought again, and the way the discussion grew out from this I do believe that it may have made some people to stay away from this in order to avoid getting caught on the discussion. At least there was some outside response as things de-escalated a bit, but in the end I don't think that the end result was as productive as it could have been. ABC paulista (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC) I have to say that I'm not a fan of your proposal either. The existing style was very logical and just fine. This for me a case of trying to fix something that isn't broken. I have to say that I'm sure I have seen a slightly different format in use were the totals figure is split per specific grand slam tournament, so for instance when a player won five French Open's the numbers shown are 1/5 through 5/5 irrespective of the player having one or more editions of the other grand slam tournaments. Tvx1 13:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC) In this discussion there are five participants. Three of which have had a previous discussion. Of these five, four are opposed to ABC paulista' proposal. In the coming days, I plan to undo the changes made by ABC paulista. Micnl (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry you had problems regarding this issue Micnl. This should never have happened after Fyunck and I had already stated our views against ABC paulista's numerical table style on the Grand Slam (tennis) page and I thought that initial discussion had ended reasonably amicably with ABC paulista agreeing to remove this numerical table style. I hope this has finally cleared up the issue for good. If you have any more problems with this issue then please let me know. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC) That still leave us to the fact that the current tables follows no standard at all, and I created my proposal mostly to define a standard going forward. So if my proposal is not accepted again, IMO we should try to adopt one from now on. But I'll just leave my opinion here that I'm against the maintenance of the current 2-number system. ABC paulista (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Yeah, I saw that one they also irk me the same way the others do. They don't provide as much information as they could and are more cumbersome to mantain since any new entry you have to adjust the counting on previous ones, it can get bothersome especially when there are multiple tables to be mantained. On that part, I kinda prefer how some sports, like football (soccer), just use one number to represent the amount of titles won by a team at that point. Take a look at the List of Brazilian football champions, for example. Easy to understand, easier to mantain. ABC paulista (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Not a fan of the proposal either. I don't subscribe to WP:AINTBROKE, even if something isn't broken it can often be improved, but this to me is not an improvement. The table, with all the flagicons, colors, bolded text and asterisks and the numbering brackets is very busy and not pleasant to look at (frankly it's an eyesore). The proposal is well-intentioned but the numbering to me is nonintuitive and overcomplicated. Wolbo (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC) ABC paulista says "they don't provide as much information as they could" and mentions the Brazil football champions article. That article doesnt have asterisks, that table doesnt have extra links. I think there may be too much information now and we dont need more. It's overkill and busy. I agree with Wolbo that all the colors and flags, and asterisks, etc, make the table harder to read. Wolbo has been changing some of our articles to remove a lot of the color and comply with guidelines and consensus. Unfortunately most of that work goes unappreciated because most edits only get mentioned when there is a disagreement, not agreement. Wikipedia pretty much forbids the use of templates "main" and "see also" in the lead. I personally don't feel that template "further" was originally meant to be in the lead, but it is not expressly forbidden so I keep plodding along and changing the former into the latter. I do it when I have the time (which comes in clumps). Most of the time these things get figured out on a single article, and sometimes editors bump heads and it winds up here. I am 100% sure the changes ABC wants are good intentioned and when I first noticed it I didn't know how it got changed. But he owned it right away and we simply very strongly disagree on its usefulness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Just to clarity, the they don't provide as much information as they could comment was specifically about the numbering system, on how my proposal is able to provide more information than the current one, without changes in the numbering structure. But I do prefer the numbering system of the Brazil football champions list over the Grand Slam men's singles champions one: They provide the same level of information, but the former isn't a chore to edit unlike the latter. ABC paulista (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC) Actually all these "add-ons" to the table already exist on the actual List of Grand Slam men's singles champions, just the numbering system would be changed. And to counter the unfamiliarity, my idea was to implement a legend to explain their meaning, so people wouldn't be left trying to figure it out. Just to be clear, I believe that the current system also needs a legend to explain their meaning. This one might be slightly simple and easier to grasp, but we can't guarantee that people won't struggle trying to understand them, epecially those who aren't familiar with tennis and the Grand Slams, but I think that the editors have a harder time to grasp this possible difficulty because of familiar bias. Without proper contextualization, anything can be harder to grasp, regardless of how simple it might seem to be. And that's one of my main arguments: With proper explaining, my proposal could be just as well understood as the current one, maybe even becoming as familiar as the current one. ABC paulista (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC) @Tennishistory1877: That despite the fact that the odds are five against one, at some point a choice has to be made. That was the reason behind my last post. For a lost visitor, in my humble opinion the system on the other pages is reasonably understandable. The system of 'ABC paulista' cost me some headaches to understand it. --Micnl (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC) New comments As the one responsible for adding the (X/Z) titles won, I thought it was obvious that the career titles won were in ascending cumulative total. Maybe a note above each table can be added what the numbers in brackets indicate. Wiki links to the draws were added for convenience and reference to the draws if readers wantes to see who the winner played against in finals, i.e., read up more on it. Technically, I planned to expand all 5 main slam list pages with more stats but then got sidetracked with the WTA 1000 stat pages...after which I took a 1 year break. Long story short, I am up for removing them if others agree. Let's vote: Support or remove: I am sticking with whatever the majority decides on. 8rz (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Question: 8rz when you state that the career titles won were in ascending cumulative total, that means that the current format follows it better, or what I proposed is more in line with what you envisioned? ABC paulista (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC) @ABC paulista, the current one. Less data to keep track off and less confusion overall. 8rz (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Then, my vote is to remove as long as we find a suitable substitute. IMO, the only the (X) titles won suffice, for example. ABC paulista (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC) the only the (X) titles won suffice. Care to provide an example? 8rz (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Sure, I'll use the same example I used before: Example Year Australian Open French Open Wimbledon US Open 2002 Thomas Johansson (1) Albert Costa (1) Lleyton Hewitt (2) Pete Sampras (14) 2003 Andre Agassi (8) Juan Carlos Ferrero (1) Roger Federer (1) Andy Roddick (1) 2004● Roger Federer (2) Gastón Gaudio (1) Roger Federer (3) Roger Federer (4) 2005♦ Marat Safin (2) Rafael Nadal (1) Roger Federer (5) Roger Federer (6) 2006● Roger Federer (7) Rafael Nadal (2) Roger Federer (8) Roger Federer (9) 2007● Roger Federer (10) Rafael Nadal (3) Roger Federer (11) Roger Federer (12) 2008♦ Novak Djokovic (1) Rafael Nadal (4) Rafael Nadal (5) Roger Federer (13) 2009♦ Rafael Nadal (6) Roger Federer (14) Roger Federer (15) Juan Martín del Potro (1) 2010● Roger Federer (16) Rafael Nadal (7) Rafael Nadal (8) Rafael Nadal (9) 2011● Novak Djokovic (2) Rafael Nadal (10) Novak Djokovic (3) Novak Djokovic (4) 2012 Novak Djokovic (5) Rafael Nadal (11) Roger Federer (17) Andy Murray (1) 2013♦ Novak Djokovic (6) Rafael Nadal (12) Andy Murray (2) Rafael Nadal (13) 2014 Stan Wawrinka (1) Rafael Nadal (14) Novak Djokovic (7) Marin Čilić (1) 2015● Novak Djokovic (8) Stan Wawrinka (2) Novak Djokovic (9) Novak Djokovic (10) 2016♦ Novak Djokovic (11) Novak Djokovic (12) Andy Murray (3) Stan Wawrinka (3) 2017♦ Roger Federer (18) Rafael Nadal (15) Roger Federer (19) Rafael Nadal (16) 2018♦ Roger Federer (20) Rafael Nadal (17) Novak Djokovic (13) Novak Djokovic (14) 2019♦ Novak Djokovic (15) Rafael Nadal (18) Novak Djokovic (16) Rafael Nadal (19) 2020 Novak Djokovic (17) Rafael Nadal (20) Cancelled (COVID-19 pandemic) Dominic Thiem (1) 2021● Novak Djokovic (18) Novak Djokovic (19) Novak Djokovic (20) Daniil Medvedev (1) 2022♦ Rafael Nadal (21) Rafael Nadal (22) Novak Djokovic (21) Carlos Alcaraz (1) 2023● Novak Djokovic (22) Novak Djokovic (23) Carlos Alcaraz (2) Novak Djokovic (24) 2024♦ Jannik Sinner (1) Carlos Alcaraz (3) Carlos Alcaraz (4) Jannik Sinner (2) 2025 Jannik Sinner (3) Carlos Alcaraz (5) Jannik Sinner (4) Carlos Alcaraz (6) IMO, this one has the best cost-benefit of all the other options. ABC paulista (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC) I'd provide a description atop the section for the number in brackets. 8rz (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC) For example: Player's accumulative career titles indicated in brackets. 8rz (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC) Yes, the necessity to address the lack of legends to identify these number's meaning is something that I advocated in these discussions. ABC paulista (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC) A legend or a simple note would have cleared up any confusion. 8rz (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC) Yeah, but it wouldn't address the rest of the problems I cited with the current format, especially from the editor's side. ABC paulista (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC) The above format solves the issue of having to update the totals after each event. I don't see why a simple note is not sufficient. Legend is usually used for symbols in conjunction with background color. Said brackets don't use either. Therefore, a legend is unnecessary. 8rz (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC) Two things. First we would lose the at-a-glance feature of knowing how many majors a player has won. I have to admit with a large table its hard to figure out how many titles Nadal wound up with searching his name over and over. I do use that feature a lot when composing articles and others might also. I hate having to update all of a single player when they win a new major, but it is a useful feature. And two, the links on each number are hard to click and pretty useless for each and every major. The year already gives us all the linkable info we need in the Open Era. I would dump all those tiny numbered links for sure. What if we only numbered their final major, or their first and final majors? I'm not sure that would work either but it' something to try to see how it functions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC) I am not opposed to removing the links. 8rz (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC) I think that the links are harmless. They are easy to set up since one can just copypaste from a previous entry and change the year of the event. About the numbers, maybe we can implement something that signales each last slam won by any player, like bolding their name on their respective last entries, in order to make them easier to spot. ABC paulista (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC) Again a note would be required, for e.g., "Numbers in bold indicate a player's last title." and "Accumulative career title totals indicated in brackets." Off with the links, I say. 8rz (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC) I'd support the proposal by ABC paulista, with just the X (titles won) value. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC) Legends would be already necessary to explain the numbers' meanings, so it would have to be provided regardless of the resolution reached, thus I don't think that we should be concerned about it. ABC paulista (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC) Legends usually go with symbols. A simple note would suffice. 8rz (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC) After careful consideration, I would opt with the linkless, career total removed and only the X (titles won) listed. I would highlight the first rather than the last title, but that's just me. I took the liberty of applying the above in a live example. 8rz (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC) Since the first time a name appears on the chart their name is wikilinked, that already serves as the indication that that was their first title, so also bolding it wouldn't serve much purpose. But bolding the last one would make easier for the reader to spot it. Also, I think that it's better to bold the player's name rather than only the number of titles, since the latter are small and kinda hard to differentiate the bolded ones from the normal ones. ABC paulista (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC) Keep total e.g. (20/24) As it provides at a glance the total throughout a player's history. Otherwise readers would need to search for a player's name through the years to find their final total, which is cumbersome. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC) Searching a player's name with the universal Ctrl+F keyboard shortcut displays the number of instances of that name in the bottom left corner. 8rz (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC) Unfortunately it's not that simple, since the chart is just one part of the page, it's expected that the player's name will appear in other parts of the page, which means that most likely the counting of their name appearances will be bigger than the number of titles won. ABC paulista (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC) The information should be displayed without relying on the search function. Where the totals come in useful is for example 2018, where Federer was on 20/20, Nadal on 17/22, and Djokovic behind on 13&14/24. Glancing at this shows readers that Federer was in the lead at this stage, but got overtaken later, something that isn't possible with using the search function. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC) Not sure that is relevant info about who surpassed whom when. It is more important and the scope of this topic to display the career totals or not. 1/X or only 1->X...that's it. 8rz (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC) Yeah, this is just a bonus info that the format provided, not an endgoal. And the tradeoff is that it makes it bothersome to edit. ABC paulista (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC) To be honest and I've been holding onto this information, but one (those who are tech-savvy) can use regex (find-replace but more technical) to update the totals per player after each new title in 1 big swoop (edit). But then again not everyone on WP:Tennis knows regex. Not that I know off anyway, except for maybe template editors (Wolbo comes to mind). 8rz (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC) The process could be automated if there were a template that counted the instances certain parameters were flagged, like COUNTIF in excel, for example. ABC paulista (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC) Ask at VPT. Nothing comes to mind at the top of my head. 8rz (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC) As I mentioned earlier, one can update a player's title totals by using the find and replace option in source editor with the following code: find (NAME.+)\/TOTAL\] and replace it with $1/NEW TOTAL] by marking it as regex. For example. Find (Alcaraz.+)\/6, replace with $1/7 (result). Works in all instances, singles and doubles. 8rz (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC) Yeah, still cumbersome. It might work for now as we are exposed to this method and take our time learning it, but we can't expect that others will also be able to do so in future updates. ABC paulista (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC) That is true. Few know of this method let alone how to use it. It does come in handy once you get the hang of it. 8rz (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC) For most it's not that big a deal. Even for Djokovic, if he wins a 25th major, we'll highlight his name and change a 4 to a 5... and do it 24 times. So mouse click, backspace, 5....24x. That's faster than even adding a source to a sentence. And most players win far far far less majors. Of all the stuff we add here this is a minor thing to correct or worry about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC) It's not that big of an issue when updating one chart, but when we consider that there are currently 19 of such (5 main ones, 4 juniors, 6 wheelchair and 4 wheelchair juniors), and counting, it does become an ordeal. ABC paulista (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC) The junior tables have never had (20/24) nomenclature because so few win more than one or two and then they are done with jr's. Mixed hasnt had a person with more than four since before the pandemic. And wheelchair charts don't use them at all. The only thing this is really about are mens and womens singles and doubles. Considering all the things that need routine updates after a tournament, changing a single digit numeral on four charts seems really minor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC) Besides the main 5, JR, WC and WC JR don't have totals. 8rz (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC) My plan is to standardize all charts into one format, to adopt one format to all these tables in order to make them better organized and easier to mantain. Considering all the things that need routine updates after a tournament, changing a single digit numeral on four charts seems really minor. but things add up, and I do feel that it's one of the things that take more time while having a lower cost-benefit to it. ABC paulista (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC) I do find those totals a benefit and I think readers do too. I tried a lesser version, but you didn't like those. And would be against adding totals to the other charts except "maybe" the wheelchair singles. They are extremely low traffic and on the low end of notability as it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC) I also do see some benefits to them, but I think that they are underutilized in their current format, like I explained in the beginning of this whole discussion, and thus I believe that the chore to update them outweights their current usefulness. And about the standardization, WP:MOS recommends it so things can be more user-friendly; familiarity makes layouts and infos easier to be recognized, navigated and mantained. ABC paulista (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC) I don't see that in MOS at all, and when tables dont require something we dont just put it in. Some need it and some dont. And it doesn't seem like much a of chore in my book. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC) Wouldn't unifying the format require more updating consequently? Because you would then need to update all 19 charts after each slam instead of just the main 5. 8rz (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC) Yes... so we don't need to change the format on all 19 charts. Just the core 5. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC) All these charts already exist and are consistently updated after a grand slam winner is crowned, regardless of the format they follow, so no extra work would be added if charts were to be standardized. What I'm advocating here is that a standardization across the pages would make things easier for both the readers and the editors. And that the (X/Y) format would be in the way of this effort should it be implemented. ABC paulista (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC) WP:MOS state that Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article, and MOS:GOODHEAD state that A standardized article structure improves accessibility by allowing users to anticipate the location of specific content on a page., and logically the same logic applies to similar pages that deal with the same kind of subject, and as such it's fair to infer that the readers of these pages are also similar to each other, and are looking for similar information for the respective disciplines, regardless of how much "traffic" these pages attract. And it doesn't seem like much a of chore in my book, agree to disagree. That's one of the main reasons this discussion exists in the first place. ABC paulista (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC) It's very specific to a single article. And even in a single article the formatting can be the same but the info different, especially if one chart only has one or two duplicate winners. The formatting is the same with these charts (actually the wheelchair charts are a mess of color) just the info is different depending on need. And yes we agree to disagree on the difficulty of editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC) It's very specific to a single article Technically true, but their implications can be inferred to wider scopes, like seen on WP:COHERENCE or Wikipedia:Consistency proposal, for example. Consistency should be exercised whenever possible, to achieve a more cohesive overall structure. The formatting is the same with these charts only on their structure. Everything else, they are very different from one another in all aspects (style, formatting, data conveyiance, linkage, etc) just the info is different depending on need They all deal with the exact same kind of information (tallying grand slam champions), just on disctinct scopes (disciplines) so I don't see how there can be a logical reasoning to mantain these differences. ABC paulista (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC) Well we totally disagree, but Wikipedia is like that at times. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC) Keep total as is (20/24) but remove all the links from it. They are not really needed and are too small to navigate. I had no idea this thread was still going on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC) If you were subscribed, you would have been notified. 8rz (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC) I'm subscribed to a thousand talk pages and this one pops up with new threads on the bottom almost every day. I figure one at the very top from June was done when I'm answering the bottom threads. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC) Yes, but then they'd need to get updated after each win. Something not everyone is willing to do. Without or without knowing regex.... As of one I am hearing 2 options: Fyunck and Diamond are for 20/24, no links ABC, Tennishistory and myself are for 24 (totals only), no links. Safe to say the links can be removed. As for the 20/24 or just 24...it is 3 vs. 2 BUT I'd focus on the weight on the vote instead of number of votes... How do we proceed from here? 8rz (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC) I am going to wait for a week. If I don't get any different opinions or oppositions, I am going to put the above vote/change into effect of removing the links and career totals on the "List of 5 slam champions" pages. 8rz (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC) Either way it goes I do have a question for everyone. All our other charts, and these charts for years, we never included the "(1)" for the first win. The only reason we agreed to include the (1/11) in these charts was because of the added links. Prior to adding the (1) we used (*) for the link, and prior to the linking it was blank. If the links are to be removed shouldn't we be going back to our standard of no number at all for the first win? It can actually help us see at a glance a first win or only win. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC) Not quite, because if you are looking how many different champs there were with "(1)", you wouldn't be able to find any, only multiple titles (2+) winners. 8rz (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC) I don't look for champs that had (1), I'm saying this is how it was for over a decade, and it worked well and it is how all our other charts are. We only added a number to the first win because of linking, and if linking is removed we should go back to no numbers for the first win. The only other thing I could conceivably think of that could work would be to have numbers, including (1), for multiple champs, but solo winners get nothing. But otherwise it should go back to the pre-linked blank for first win. It worked well and helped us visualize first/only wins at a glance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC) I don't look for champs that had (1). Me neither. However, some keep track of how many different champs there were. See notes below the charts: List of Grand Slam men's singles champions#Champions list and List of Grand Slam men's singles champions#Champions list. Without that (1), one could easily miscount the number of different players. UNLESS, you want to remove the # of different players note(s), then by all means. 8rz (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC) I guess I don't know what note(s) that is. Where is that located, because it sounds trivial. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC) check the end of the sections of the above 2 links (below the charts), before the next section. 8rz (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC) Oh my gosh, do you mean that note under the Champions section that says: 153 champions in 490 events as of the 2025 Wimbledon; Amateur Era – 98 champions in 261 events; Open Era – 58 champions in 229 events? That's the only reason to keep the 1's??? We don't even know if those figures are correct since there's no source. Per google AI 153 is way off. And the note (I assume) is written incorrectly even if it is 100 percent correct. It would need to be "153 unique men's singles champions", because Wimbledon has had 138 champions by itself. I think it's trivial, dubious, and should be dumped regardless. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC) That's the one, yeah. The women's singles also has one. Yes, "unique" champs. You don't need a source just Ctrl+F "(1)" and voila. 8rz (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC) If the articles already have their own lists dedicated to count the amount of players that won a grand slam, then counting manually becomes totally unnecessary, thus this reasoning to mantain the number for sole winner doesn't hold. And there are other sections that the same information can be inferred, like the List of Grand Slam men's singles champions#List of Grand Slam men's singles champions, for example. Alas, if one wants to keep manually counting, the amount of name's linkage within the list can also be used for this purpose, although I think it's kinda cumbersome. ABC paulista (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC) And another thing. "If" you go to simple (1) you cant use the ctrl f to find those players that only won one event. Because Joe Schmo who only won a single event will pop up along with Djokovic and his 24 wins. Seems like a lousy reason to keep it just for that. And what about the references section? You realize that the (12) from the mens singles references will also show up in the totals? And other articles have numbers in parenths that can throw off ctrl F. Of course (1/1) would still work the way you mention with ctrl F. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC) While I like the (20/24), it seems like if you were going to simplify things the only number we would retain was the final tally. So BillTilden would have a (10) on his last 1930 Wimbledon title but none on anything else he won. Federer would have a (20) on his 2018 Australian win and the rest of his titles would be blank. No one cares about when Nadal won his 7th major title, they want to know how many he finally won. And if you want to see all Nadals Wimbledon wins we could always make the columns sortable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC) Parentheses are displayed in square brackets [1] [1] Slam totals, in our case, are in round brackets (1). 8rz (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC) 153 Grand Slam men's singles champions is the correct figure. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC) You mean "unique" mens major singles champions, correct? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC) Yes. There were many more Grand Slam singles championships held, as many of these champions won more than one title. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC) It would be nice to find that source if possible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC) Not sure how many sources would quote the number. Maybe not many. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC) Yeah well, if readers want to know where those huge numbers like 153, 490, 98, 261, 58, and 229 come from it's better if we can show them instead of saying someone counted and we hope they are correct. And finding a couple sources will also tell us that they are notable numbers instead of trivial. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC) Possible changes - (A) Open Era, (B) Pre- Open Era Year Australian Open[2] French Open[3] Wimbledon[4] US Open[5] 1884 started in 1922 started in 1897 Maud Watson (1/2) started in 1887 1885 tournament not created tournament not created Maud Watson (2) tournament not created 1886 tournament not created tournament not created Blanche Bingley Hillyard (1/6) tournament not created 1887 tournament not created tournament not created Lottie Dod (1/5) Ellen Hansell (1) 1888 tournament not created tournament not created Lottie Dod Bertha Townsend (1/2) 1889 tournament not created tournament not created Blanche Bingley Hillyard Bertha Townsend (2) 1890 tournament not created tournament not created Helen Rice (1) Ellen Roosevelt (1) 1891 tournament not created tournament not created Lottie Dod Mabel Cahill (1/2) 1892 tournament not created tournament not created Lottie Dod Mabel Cahill (2) 1893 tournament not created tournament not created Lottie Dod (5) Aline Terry (1) 1894 tournament not created tournament not created Blanche Bingley Hillyard Helen Hellwig (1) 1895 tournament not created tournament not created Charlotte Cooper Sterry (1/5) Juliette Atkinson (1/3) 1896 tournament not created tournament not created Charlotte Cooper Sterry Elisabeth Moore (1/4) 1897 tournament not created Adine Masson * Blanche Bingley Hillyard Juliette Atkinson 1898 tournament not created Adine Masson * Charlotte Cooper Sterry Juliette Atkinson (3) 1899 tournament not created Adine Masson * Blanche Bingley Hillyard Marion Jones (1/2) 1900 tournament not created Yvonne Prévost * Blanche Bingley Hillyard (6) Myrtle McAteer (1) 1901 tournament not created Suzanne Girod * Charlotte Cooper Sterry Elisabeth Moore 1902 tournament not created Adine Masson * Muriel Robb (1) Marion Jones (2) 1903 tournament not created Adine Masson * Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers (1/7) Elisabeth Moore 1904 tournament not created Kate Gillou * Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers May Sutton Bundy (1/3) 1905 tournament not created Kate Gillou * May Sutton Bundy Elisabeth Moore (4) 1906 tournament not created Kate Gillou-Fenwick * Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers Helen Homans (1) 1907 tournament not created Comtesse de Kermel * May Sutton Bundy (3) Evelyn Sears (1) 1908 tournament not created Kate Gillou-Fenwick * Charlotte Cooper Sterry (5) Maud Barger-Wallach (1) 1909 tournament not created Jeanne Matthey * Dora Boothby (1) Hazel Hotchkiss Wightman (1/4) 1910 tournament not created Jeanne Matthey * Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers Hazel Hotchkiss Wightman 1911 tournament not created Jeanne Matthey * Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers Hazel Hotchkiss Wightman 1912 tournament not created Jeanne Matthey * Ethel Thomson Larcombe (1) Mary Browne (1/3) 1913 tournament not created Marguerite Broquedis * Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers Mary Browne 1914 tournament not created Marguerite Broquedis * Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers (7) Mary Browne (3) 1915 tournament not created World War I World War I Molla Bjurstedt Mallory (1/8) 1916 tournament not created Molla Bjurstedt Mallory 1917 tournament not created Molla Bjurstedt Mallory 1918 tournament not created Molla Bjurstedt Mallory 1919 tournament not created Suzanne Lenglen (1/8) Hazel Hotchkiss Wightman (4) 1920 tournament not created Suzanne Lenglen * Suzanne Lenglen Molla Bjurstedt Mallory 1921 tournament not created Suzanne Lenglen * Suzanne Lenglen Molla Bjurstedt Mallory 1922 Margaret Molesworth (1/2) Suzanne Lenglen * Suzanne Lenglen Molla Bjurstedt Mallory 1923 Margaret Molesworth (2) Suzanne Lenglen * Suzanne Lenglen Helen Wills Moody (1/19) 1924 Sylvia Lance Harper (1) Julie Vlasto * Kathleen McKane Godfree (2) Helen Wills Moody 1925♦ Daphne Akhurst (1/5) Suzanne Lenglen Suzanne Lenglen Helen Wills Moody 1926 Daphne Akhurst Suzanne Lenglen (8) Kathleen McKane Godfree (2) Molla Bjurstedt Mallory (8) 1927♦ Esna Boyd Robertson (1) Kornelia Bouman (1) Helen Wills Moody Helen Wills Moody 1928● Daphne Akhurst Helen Wills Moody Helen Wills Moody Helen Wills Moody 1929● Daphne Akhurst Helen Wills Moody Helen Wills Moody Helen Wills Moody 1930♦ Daphne Akhurst (5) Helen Wills Moody Helen Wills Moody Betty Nuthall (1) 1931♦ Coral McInnes Buttsworth (1/2) Cilly Aussem (1/2) Cilly Aussem (2) Helen Wills Moody 1932♦ Coral McInnes Buttsworth (2) Helen Wills Moody Helen Wills Moody Helen Jacobs (1/5) 1933 Joan Hartigan (1/3) Peggy Scriven Vivian (1/2) Helen Wills Moody Helen Jacobs 1934 Joan Hartigan Peggy Scriven Vivian (2) Dorothy Round (1/3) Helen Jacobs 1935 Dorothy Round Hilde Krahwinkel Sperling (1/3) [a] Helen Wills Moody Helen Jacobs 1936 Joan Hartigan (3) Hilde Krahwinkel Sperling Helen Jacobs (5) Alice Marble (1/5) 1937 Nancye Wynne Bolton (1/6) Hilde Krahwinkel Sperling (3) Dorothy Round (3) Anita Lizana (1) 1938 Dorothy Bundy Cheney (1) Simonne Passemard Mathieu (1/2) Helen Wills Moody (19) Alice Marble 1939♦ Emily Hood Westacott (1) Simonne Passemard Mathieu (2) Alice Marble Alice Marble 1940 Nancye Wynne Bolton cancelled (World War II) World War II Alice Marble (5) 1941 World War II Alice Weiwers † Sarah Palfrey Cooke (1/2) 1942 Alice Weiwers † Pauline Betz (1/5) 1943 Simone Iribarne Lafargue † Pauline Betz 1944 Raymonde Veber Jones † Pauline Betz 1945 Lolette Payot † Sarah Palfrey Cooke (2) 1946♦ Nancye Wynne Bolton Margaret Osborne duPont $ (1/6) Pauline Betz Pauline Betz (5) 1947 Nancye Wynne Bolton Patricia Canning Todd $ (1) Margaret Osborne duPont Louise Brough (1/6) 1948 Nancye Wynne Bolton Nelly Landry (1) Louise Brough Margaret Osborne duPont 1949♦ Doris Hart (1/6) Margaret Osborne duPont Louise Brough Margaret Osborne duPont 1950♦ Louise Brough Doris Hart Louise Brough Margaret Osborne duPont (6) 1951 Nancye Wynne Bolton (6) Shirley Fry (1/4) Doris Hart Maureen Connolly (1/9) 1952♦ Thelma Coyne Long (1/2) Doris Hart Maureen Connolly Maureen Connolly 1953♠ Maureen Connolly Maureen Connolly Maureen Connolly Maureen Connolly 1954♦ Thelma Coyne Long (2) Maureen Connolly Maureen Connolly (9) Doris Hart 1955 Beryl Penrose (1) Angela Mortimer (1/3) Louise Brough (6) Doris Hart (6) 1956♦ Mary Carter Reitano (1/2) Althea Gibson (1/5) Shirley Fry Shirley Fry 1957♦ Shirley Fry (4) Shirley Bloomer Brasher (1) Althea Gibson Althea Gibson 1958♦ Angela Mortimer Zsuzsa Körmöczy (1) Althea Gibson Althea Gibson (5) 1959♦ Mary Carter Reitano (2) Christine Truman (1) Maria Bueno (1/7) Maria Bueno 1960♦ Margaret Smith Court (1/24) Darlene Hard (1/3) Maria Bueno Darlene Hard 1961 Margaret Smith Court Ann Haydon Jones (1/3) Angela Mortimer (3) Darlene Hard (3) 1962● Margaret Smith Court Margaret Smith Court Karen Hantze Susman (1) Margaret Smith Court 1963♦ Margaret Smith Court Lesley Turner Bowrey (1/2) Margaret Smith Court Maria Bueno 1964♦ Margaret Smith Court Margaret Smith Court Maria Bueno Maria Bueno 1965● Margaret Smith Court Lesley Turner Bowrey (2) Margaret Smith Court Margaret Smith Court 1966 Margaret Smith Court Ann Haydon Jones Billie Jean Moffitt King (1/12) Maria Bueno (7) 1967♦ Nancy Richey (1/2) Françoise Dürr (1) Billie Jean Moffitt King Billie Jean Moffitt King 1968♦ Billie Jean Moffitt King ↓ Open Era ↓ ↓ Open Era ↓ Nancy Richey (2) Billie Jean Moffitt King Virginia Wade 1969● Margaret Smith Court Margaret Smith Court Ann Haydon Jones (3) Margaret Smith Court 1970♠ Margaret Smith Court Margaret Smith Court Margaret Smith Court Margaret Smith Court 1971♦ Margaret Smith Court Evonne Goolagong Cawley Evonne Goolagong Cawley Billie Jean Moffitt King 1972● Virginia Wade Billie Jean Moffitt King Billie Jean Moffitt King Billie Jean Moffitt King 1973● Margaret Smith Court Margaret Smith Court Billie Jean Moffitt King Margaret Smith Court (24) 1974♦ Evonne Goolagong Cawley Chris Evert Chris Evert Billie Jean Moffitt King 1975♦ Evonne Goolagong Cawley Chris Evert Billie Jean Moffitt King (12) Chris Evert 1976♦ Evonne Goolagong Cawley Sue Barker (1) Chris Evert Chris Evert 1977 Kerry Melville Reid (1) (Jan) Mima Jaušovec (1) Virginia Wade (3) Chris Evert Evonne Goolagong Cawley (Dec) 1978 Chris O'Neil (1) ‡ Virginia Ruzici (1) Martina Navratilova Chris Evert 1979 Barbara Jordan (1) ‡ Chris Evert Martina Navratilova Tracy Austin 1980♦ Hana MandlíkovᇠChris Evert Evonne Goolagong Cawley (7) Chris Evert 1981 Martina Navratilova‡ Hana Mandlíková Chris Evert Tracy Austin (2) 1982♦ Chris Evert‡ Martina Navratilova Martina Navratilova Chris Evert 1983● Martina Navratilova‡ Chris Evert Martina Navratilova Martina Navratilova 1984● Chris Evert‡ Martina Navratilova Martina Navratilova Martina Navratilova 1985♦ Martina Navratilova‡ Chris Evert Martina Navratilova Hana Mandlíková 1986♦ Tournament date changed ‡ Chris Evert (18) Martina Navratilova Martina Navratilova 1987♦ Hana Mandlíková (4) Steffi Graf Martina Navratilova Martina Navratilova 1988♠ Steffi Graf Steffi Graf Steffi Graf Steffi Graf 1989● Steffi Graf Arantxa Sánchez Vicario Steffi Graf Steffi Graf 1990 Steffi Graf Monica Seles Martina Navratilova (18) Gabriela Sabatini (1) 1991● Monica Seles Monica Seles Steffi Graf Monica Seles 1992● Monica Seles Monica Seles Steffi Graf Monica Seles 1993● Monica Seles Steffi Graf Steffi Graf Steffi Graf 1994♦ Steffi Graf Arantxa Sánchez Vicario Conchita Martínez (1) Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 1995● Mary Pierce Steffi Graf Steffi Graf Steffi Graf 1996● Monica Seles (9) Steffi Graf Steffi Graf Steffi Graf 1997● Martina Hingis Iva Majoli (1) Martina Hingis Martina Hingis 1998 Martina Hingis Arantxa Sánchez Vicario (4) Jana Novotná (1) Lindsay Davenport 1999 Martina Hingis (5) Steffi Graf (22) Lindsay Davenport Serena Williams 2000♦ Lindsay Davenport (3) Mary Pierce (2) Venus Williams Venus Williams 2001♦ Jennifer Capriati Jennifer Capriati Venus Williams Venus Williams 2002● Jennifer Capriati (3) Serena Williams Serena Williams Serena Williams 2003♦ Serena Williams Justine Henin Serena Williams Justine Henin 2004 Justine Henin Anastasia Myskina (1) Maria Sharapova Svetlana Kuznetsova 2005 Serena Williams Justine Henin Venus Williams Kim Clijsters 2006♦ Amélie Mauresmo Justine Henin Amélie Mauresmo (2) Maria Sharapova 2007♦ Serena Williams Justine Henin Venus Williams Justine Henin (7) 2008 Maria Sharapova Ana Ivanovic (1) Venus Williams (7) Serena Williams 2009♦ Serena Williams Svetlana Kuznetsova (2) Serena Williams Kim Clijsters 2010♦ Serena Williams Francesca Schiavone (1) Serena Williams Kim Clijsters 2011 Kim Clijsters (4) Li Na Petra Kvitová Samantha Stosur (1) 2012♦ Victoria Azarenka Maria Sharapova Serena Williams Serena Williams 2013♦ Victoria Azarenka (2) Serena Williams Marion Bartoli (1) Serena Williams 2014 Li Na (2) Maria Sharapova (5) Petra Kvitová (2) Serena Williams 2015● Serena Williams Serena Williams Serena Williams Flavia Pennetta (1) 2016♦ Angelique Kerber Garbiñe Muguruza Serena Williams Angelique Kerber 2017 Serena Williams (23) Jeļena Ostapenko (1) Garbiñe Muguruza (2) Sloane Stephens (1) 2018 Caroline Wozniacki (1) Simona Halep Angelique Kerber (3) Naomi Osaka 2019 Naomi Osaka Ashleigh Barty Simona Halep (2) Bianca Andreescu (1) 2020 Sofia Kenin (1) Iga Świątek ◊ cancelled (COVID-19 pandemic) Naomi Osaka 2021 Naomi Osaka (4) Barbora Krejčíková Ashleigh Barty Emma Raducanu (1) 2022♦ Ashleigh Barty (3) Iga Świątek Elena Rybakina (1) Iga Świątek 2023 Aryna Sabalenka[b] Iga Świątek Markéta Vondroušová (1) Coco Gauff 2024♦ Aryna Sabalenka[b] Iga Świątek Barbora Krejčíková (2) Aryna Sabalenka[b] 2025 Madison Keys (1) Coco Gauff (2) Iga Świątek (6) Aryna Sabalenka[b] (4) Year Australian Open French Open Wimbledon US Open ^ Krahwinkel Sperling became a dual-citizen of Denmark after marrying in 1933. In January 1934, she declared she would be representing Denmark and had become a member of the Hellerup Idrætsklub.[6] ^ a b c d On 1 March 2022, the WTA announced that players from Belarus will not be allowed to compete under the name or flag of Belarus following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Aryna Sabalenka thus competed as neutral player since then and her four titles are not attributed to Belarus in the "Grand Slam titles by country" list.[7] So I tried to make what I suggested above and did two styles in one chart in A/B above. In the Open Era I only included (23) being the final total a player won at the majors. It's what I suggested as one way to do it where we aren't updating a whole heap of (3/23) every time a player wins a major. Of course we don't see a number by their first title unless it's their only title. Pre Open Era I tried something else that some here might like. Again (23) as their final total, but for player with multiple titles their first title has a (1/19) style. Nothing in between (1/19) and (19) since no readers care about title number 11. They want the final tally and perhaps title number one. Both styles look way less cluttered to my eyes. Maybe no one will like either but I'm throwing it out there as a possibility. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC) I don't like it very much because I feel that there's interest on the reader's part in these numbers, in a way to compare things themselves and to build a kind of a timeline. At least, keeping the numbers do no harm to either the reader or the editor, from my point of view. ABC paulista (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC) @Fyunck(click), if you want to go back to basics, here is the original version of the men's singles, men's doubles, women's singles, women's doubles, mixed doubles list of champs before wikilinks were added. I propose we stick with that version: no draws links, (1/1) are left out, first-time champs (the players) are wikilinked and totals are counted (X/X) for 2+ titles. A note can be added to describe the numbers in brackets: "The first number in brackets indicates a player's title won in a row, second number indicates a player's slam total." Thoughts? 8rz (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC) Which I think is probably best since it worked for years. Thanks for digging that up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC) Since it follows the (X/X) format, I already consider it worse than the other presented options by default. ABC paulista (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC) @ABC paulista We can replace the (x/x) format with an accumulative total format (X), while also having no links and no first titles (1). 8rz (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC) Continued discussion So no real agreement here on changes except for no links. We've tried a few combos, even going back to pre-links with no 1's.... but it didn't fly either. There are a lot of tennis editors and when they don't chime in here I assume they are all happy with the status quo... and that's fine. The 1's may not be my choice but we don't need to change just for changing sake. We'll leave it as is minus links and move on to other things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC) I wanted to expound upon this topic by putting on the table all tournament pages who list the winners in chronological order (for e.g. Madrid Open (tennis)#Past finals, Italian Open (tennis)#Past finals) and use (1/2), (1/1) instead of (2), (3), which could be its own topic. 8rz (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC) I have no issues with folks not wanting to get involved, and if charts don't get changed that's not a problem for me either. Sometimes the saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" works good. Status Quo can be fine and we move on to other problems like folks not following the rules we already have in place, or replacing good coding with deprecated coding. There's always lots to do around here and it looks like this one at least winds up with the tiny links removed. I already started removing them from the men's singles article in my sandbox. And a big no to (1/7) on all charts. Individual tournaments work best with less clutter and I think I would keep them like Womens Australian Open of totally clear, or Halle Open with single digits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC) @Fyunck(click) I have regex on my sandbox page ready to one-shot all 19 pages which combined AWB will do it in seconds in 1 big swoop. Need time setting it up, though. Been busy with other stuff. Given you've been around more years than I can count on both hands, I propose you take up WP:AWBREGEX. Goes a looong way, saves one a lot of time of menial editing. It's all in grouping patterns. 8rz (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC) See also Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Regular expression#Regex help. 8rz (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC) @Fyunck(click), I hit the main 5: (List of Grand Slam men's doubles champions List of Grand Slam men's singles champions List of Grand Slam women's doubles champions List of Grand Slam women's singles champions List of Grand Slam mixed doubles champions) See if I missed any. 8rz (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC) @8rz: I'm glad you did it so quickly, but you made a big error on all of them. The numbers are small so the parenths should also be small. You put the parenths outside the small attribute. That was never agreed to... only the removal of links, so that needs to be corrected. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC) You put the parenths outside the small attribute Should be fixed now. 8rz (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC) :::::Double check just in case. Think I saw a few strays with Djokovic's 19 and 20th titles and Women's singles 1963, 79-96. 8rz (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)  Done @ABC paulista:, I wanted to let you know that I cleared the WC link ones with an * and the links of the main 5, JR didn't have any links. I am gonna say the following, I support the notion to unify the format across the board of the charts on all 19 pages. No links, (1/2), (1/3),... I would add on top of that the removal of (1/1) and bolding a player's latest title. 8rz (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC) Y I also removed some leftovers and the paragraphs describing the asterisks' meaning, which became obsolete. ABC paulista (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC) You didn't answer my question on what you thing of the proposal. 8rz (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC) I still prefer to keep the number of titles in some capacity, I think that they provide a useful reference for the reader in terms of timeline and titles' comparison, that they wouldn't get elsewhere. The links for the players' first appearances on the chart would also serve as a useful reference. Everything else I think is unecessary. ABC paulista (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC) I would bold the latest titles to keep track of the totals in the "Most titles won" section. Which would then include, since you want to keep (1/1), bolding of (1/1) as well. 8rz (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC) I agree. Linkage on the first title and bolding the last one should provide enough reference for the reader to locate any information regarding titles without much trouble. ABC paulista (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC) No, no. No linkage. We don't want to be going backwards now, do we? Bolding the last title. That I am okay with. 8rz (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC) A chart with no linkage at all is pretty much useless. At least, the player's name should (I'd say even must) be linked for easy access to the main subjects that the charts deal with, as MOS:UL state that proper names should be linked. Otherwise every entry should be individually sourced per WP:CSC, and I know you don't like that either. And since MOS:DL state that the link should be added on their first appearance, it stands to reason that it should be included on their first title, and it'd also serve as reference for the reader where any given player's throphy gallery started. Furthermore, with the first and last titles indicated, it'd make easier to the reader to locate the titles in between them for a given player should they desire to do so. I really do believe that highlighting the first title is as important as doing so on the last one, they are of similar significance and importance. Also, the column headers should also be linked, since they contain the tournaments' names, and this info is also of relevant interest for readers, thus they also should be of easy access. ABC paulista (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC) It should be like the singles charts in most formatting. The surface colors running up and down the columns need to go. The column headers should be linked. Only the first time use of a player name should be linked in a table. The events should not be abbreviations. And the year should actually be linked to the Wheelchair tour shouldn't it? For the women's Wheelchair we do have a 2012 link in the table, but the rest have never been created. If no link for a year has been created then we should include at least a source for the entire column (like the US Open has) or an outside link for the year if such a thing exists. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC) I agree, the cleaner look makes it better for readability, altough I'm not a fan of the inclusion of indicators for two- and three-slam winners on the table, especially when they're already listed in stand-alone charts on the same article. ABC paulista (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC) Well, you know the color variation for two and three major winners has minimal value but was easy and barely noticeable at one time. Accessibility wasnt an issue when we added it. But then rules sort of changed where color could not be the only indicator of information. That's cool but it does make things clunkier in looks adding all those required symbols... especially where the info is not really notable like winning a Grand Slam is. I think it should stay for Grand Slam winners as it is momentous (the men and women singles have only accomplished it 3x each in history). But I have no problem at all removing it from 2x and 3x winners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC) My main concern isn't about the visual pollution they cause on the chart, but mainly the lack of necessity of their presence their, since most of the articles already include sections dedicated to list these multi-slam winners. Also, in doubles disciplines it can become clunky when there are different players that won multiple slams in differente quantitieson the same year. It's not very common, but there's precedence like in the 1985, 1996 and 1997 women's doubles seasons, for example. At the time we chose to prioritize just the instance that includes the most slams, but that kinda hides the ones who won less titles on their own multi-slam case. ABC paulista (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC) Abc, I see you want to have instances included to give the shine they deserve, but what might be interesting to the editors does not mean it is for the readers (put yourself in their shoes). I propose the following keep the instance with the most slams, indicating multiple combinations are included in it. 8rz (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC) What I'm saying is exactly the opposite: Since we already have sections dedicated to these multiple slams, we don't need to also highlight them on the main chart. Aside, maybe, the calendar slam ones. ABC paulista (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC) If we don't need them on the main chart, then feel free to remove them. 8rz (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC) I just did it on the mens singles article. Background color shades are gone as are all the tiny symbols. I changed the legend and added a simple bold outline around the three players that won a Grand Slam. Sort of like what we do with the Steffi Graf career stats article. I made it green rather than red but it's bold for all our readers. I assume this works ok? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC) Nice work there. I'd just highlight the whole calendar slam year instead of each title individually, but the difference would be minor IMO so I'm not opposed to this format. ABC paulista (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC) I wasn't sure how to do it where the vertical walls would not also be bolded. But I could include the year as well. I'll to do some code searching and see if all the titles could be surrounded. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC) @ABC paulista:So more like this? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC) Yep, exactly how I though it should look like. Thank you Fyunck(click) and 8rz for your work. ABC paulista (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC) I actually had to think about how to do the 1965 row of Mixed Doubles. A rare tricky one where I could have just outlined the whole thing but thought I could get it a bit more precise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC) Glad that you were able to pull it off. ABC paulista (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC) Did the other 4 main pages. 8rz (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC) @ABC paulista, now that the symbols and bgcolors have been removed in the main 5, WC and JRs are next up for cleanup. Would you like to do the bgcolor removal yourself on: boys and girls singles and doubles, wheelchair singles, doubles, and quads? 8rz (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC) You can do it if you can, I'm currently kinda busy, barely even having time to answer here. ABC paulista (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC) Done. I am leaving the addition of (X/Z) for WC and JR to you when you are able to. 8rz (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC) I don't think that we reached a consensus on this matter yet, so I'd leave this out of the standardization, for now. ABC paulista (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC) Agreed. We only had consensus of removing links from (x/y), not removing or adding anything, and removing year colors/symbols. bgcolor is fairly quick to do if you need help. I fixed most of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC) Okay. I think this discussion is slowly reaching its conclusion, as everything on the removal list has been covered. Unless, I missed something. 8rz (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC) It has been a week since the last comment. If there are no other items to resolve, I will officially close and archive this discussion by tomorrow. 8rz (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

If we look at the table of contents at 2025 WTA 1000 tournaments you can see we use a template under "Tournament details" that shows the key. The key is fine but since it was created with an automatic === header it is listed in the table of contents as 3.1 as if it were one of the tournaments like 3.2. This is an error imho. The word "key" should simply be bolded without a header that can be edited. It's a locked template anyway that can only be edited at the template page. It being discussed at Template talk:Draw key. I had suggested simply adding an extra parameter of {{draw key|bold}} or {{drawkey|noheader}} but there seems to be a kink in the system in adding that. Would anyone be averse to simply changing the template to what we see here in the template sandbox? It's only a change to no header by bolding the word "Key." Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I support the change from === to ''' either as a parameter or default value. 8rz (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I created {{Tennis Grand Slam matches winners and runners-up}} or {{TSM}}, for short, to be used on the main 4 Grand Slam pages each season. It serves as a substitute for the "Matches" section where the finalists (winners and runners-up) for all events are listed.

Any feedback on improvement would be much appreciated. 8rz (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't really create many of those pages but there is one minor thing I could mention. Wikipedia has recently changed "flagicon" to "flag icon". Since it's a new template maybe it should conform to the new standard. No idea why they changed it but they did. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), as a redirect, it works the same. But if you want, feel free to update the template. 8rz (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I fixed it. I know it works as a redirect, but bgcolor still work most of the time too. Since this was a brand spanking new template I went ahead and changed it to two words. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Renamed the template to a more fitting title by changing "matches" to "event". {{Tennis Grand Slam event winners and runners-up}}. 8rz (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

What was the idea behind changing the look of all these tables? For the masters tournaments why was it decided to go from surface colour to the general silver colour? I don’t think it improves the look of the page especially since that section is meant to stand out. It just blends in to the rest of the page. I know my opinion won’t matter but as someone who looks at these tables a lot these changes do not improve the experience. GeneM18 (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

They were never supposed to be surface color. Someone started just doing it. The majors have their separate non-surface colors by consensus, the 1000 events have one color, the WTA/ATP Finals have a single color... all regardless of surface. It's a slow process to fix them all. A couple tennis editors had taken on the challenge of fixing, and I more recently have begun helping out. If you look at the large all finals charts it's what we use. Also what we do is if a player has only Grand Slam tournament finals, then that's the only header we use. If they have Grand Slam tournament finals and ATP 1000 tournament finals, then we use those two headers separately. If they have ATP 1000, ATP Finals, and Olympic finals we lump them under "Other significant finals" to help the table of contents and keep a separation from the big four events. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, “they were never supposed to be surface colour” says who? I’ve been following these pages for 10/15 years and they always were surface colour so this is clearly something you want to see happen. You put the work in so that is your decision at end of day. From a viewers perspective these are meant to be significant, they are meant to stand out as a result of these changes they no longer do. I fully understand how the process work but as I said over the last 10/15 years there was always a difference between the “Significant Finals” and general “ATP/WTA Finals” sections to make them stand out. That is no longer the case. Many years ago ye removed a lot of colour from the general finals section and now this. Nothing stands out anymore. Tennis pages looked a lot better previously. Best of luck to you!

Wikiproject Tennis. Just like having the color go from start of row to finish of row has been deprecated for a decade... but many articles have never been fixed. Or editors continuing to use bgcolor when that has been out of html for many many years. It just caused a problem for me in Sinner's wins over top 10 players chart. And he is a relatively new player that came along way after bgcolor was supposed to be gone. And no, the surface color is something the project has consensus on, not me. A couple of editors like Wolbo has been removing it for a long time now so I more recently jumped onboard to help. Thanks for the luck wishes... we do our best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there any projects/people working on standardising all the tables for the WTA and ATP Tour tournament category articles? I'm not sure if there's any standardisation between the two tours but within the tours there's some differences (eg. ATP 250 doesn't include past winners, but ATP 500 does). If there isn't any standardisation and we'd like to implement it, I'd be happy to figure out a format on here that we'd like to use and apply it to all necessary articles. QWisps (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't? I see past winners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean the 500 article has them included in the list of tournaments whereas the 250 one doesn’t. QWisps (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah. Well there's only 250/500/1000 for both men and women. Not a lot of standardizing for six charts. The question is do you want more or less info? Whether we really need the date the tournament was founded is debatable. It certainly doesn't need to be column #2. Same with center court capacity... that's something for the actual tournament page. Defending champion is already in the tables below... do we need them again? It's nice to have a table that doesn't need to be upgraded after every event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Something like this could work? Made this quickly using elements of the ATP Masters 1000 and WTA 500 pages. QWisps (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@QWisps:, I noticed you removed scope from the tables. I kindly ask you to restore them as it goes against accessibility, scope=col/=row help screen reader users differentiate column- from rowheaders per WCAG. 8rz (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll add those back now, my bad! (Feel free to add them back yourself though, I'm not super great table stuff lol) QWisps (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

See table scope on how to add scope back. 8rz (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

thank you! QWisps (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I propose removing the prize money column to avoid updating it after each event at ATP 1000 and WTA 1000. 8rz (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to it to be honest but I think a part of the categorisation links back to prize money? For events like the WTA/ATP 250s, they have consistent prize money across the board but when you get to the Masters there's a larger discrepancy. QWisps (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The higher up the event cat (category) you move up, the higher the prize mone discrepancy both total financial commitment and overall prize money. 8rz (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it all depends on how relevant prize money is to the event. I would argue that it's something worth keeping, though its definitely more of a pain to manage on the women's side considering the Masters money is given at the beginning of the year. QWisps (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Masters' prize money for men is given for each event at the beginning of the year, but for women's 1000 is a week or 2 before each 1000, which is of lesser relevance than before the champs columns got removed which 95% of the repetitive update after each event, which is...was... 13 events total yearly (6combined, 7 unique to 1 tour). 8rz (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

You make a good point, yeah I’m for removing it! Might be good to get more opinions than just us two though. QWisps (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Just remove it. Not here to vote on menial, petty stuff such as chart columns. Less is more. 8rz (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Qwisps I need your input on something. Which version opens faster for you?

1. Version 1
2. Version 2? After opening each version, click preview and tell me under "Parser profiling data" at the very bottom what the CPU usage time is. See here. 8rz (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

First one is 6.115 seconds, second one is 7.035 seconds. QWisps (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. 8rz (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to come back here, did we want to remove it from the WTA/ATP 500s and 250s as well or just the masters? QWisps (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Either way is fine. I took the liberty of removing it from the 1000s aka the Masters. 8rz (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I was editing the article Ana Candiotto to include her title in doubles that she won yesterday and I knew that this tournament’s singles and doubles main draw started on September 30, so I don’t know what to put there, do I put the month the tournament started or the month where the final took place (in both the text of the article and in the list of ITF finals) ? I also faced the same issue with Laura Pigossi, the winner of the singles title of this same tournament and in the respective articles of the runner ups of this tournament in singles and doubles as well

https://www.itftennis.com/en/tournament/w35-sao-paulo/bra/2025/w-itf-bra-2025-006/fact-sheet/ Haddad Maia fan (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I always put the month she won the final. Just like we do with Wimbledon when it starts in June and ends in July. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone here have a link to where it discusses the correct way to title tournament articles when it comes to sponsors? I am having a discussion with @Sashona: who keeps reverting my edits to Vienna Open and Sioux Falls Challenger where I am removing the sponsors from the main title of the page and instead adding a little note about sponsorship. I linked them to this section of our guidelines but I feel like there was a discussion about this before on the talk page here. Or have am I misinterpreted this and User:Sashona is right? Adamtt9 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Adamtt9: It's in our guidelines about using non-sponsored names. The usual practice has been to always use the non-sponsored name for the tournament as a whole, especially when it has had multiple sponsors through the years. Some events are pretty new and the only name they have ever had and are only know by is a sponsored name... so we would keep that until the sponsor changes. So the "Vienna Open" is correct, it is a term used often today, and the opening sentence in the lead should be Vienna Open. The "Sioux Falls Challenger" only has two editions and both were called "MarketBeat Open." I can't really find "Sioux Falls Open" or "Sioux Fall Challenger" so I'm actually surprised it's not at Marketbeat Open for it's title with a redirect from Sioux Falls Challenger. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Petra Kvitová has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm currently working on Tennis in Russia for GOCE and noticed the {{overly detailed}} tag. I don't know much about tennis history so I'm not sure what to remove exactly. Could someone have a look? Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 22:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I ever looked at that article before and it is horrible. The best thing I can say to help is look at Tennis in Scotland or Tennis in India or Tennis in Argentina. Anything that doesn't look like those should be axed.... especially all those circle graphs. There are 253 images for goodness sake. This may be one of the worst tennis articles I've seen in awhile and it pretty much needs to be done from scratch. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rosaece: I just gave it a massive trim of extremely excessive bloat and trivia. It needs more but this should give you a framework on which to build and trim. Not all the "Tennis in country" articles need to be identical, but they should be similar in presentation and what they include. Sure some will be larger because of massive accomplishments, but not that much larger. I hope that helps and I'll leave the rest to you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

That’s really helpful, thank you so much! Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 10:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down a bit more. To be honest, the milestones section has me stumped; it's certainly too detailed, but I don't know which milestones are notable enough to keep. I think it's best if I leave it to someone more knowledgeable on tennis such as yourself. Thank you so much for all of your help. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 21:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

IDK if this will be any help but it might be worth trying to find specific talk about the history of Russian tennis or milestones within it? If a milestone is widely reported on, it'll definitely be notable enough! QWisps (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Probably true. Usually, each of the "milestones" would have a source, or a clump would have a source. A lot of this isn't really a milestone but rather something that could be incorporated into prose in the history section. I see things like "The Russian SFSR, as part of the USSR, renews its membership in the International Lawn Tennis Federation" and "Anna Dmitrieva and Andrei Potanin are the first Soviet players to participate in the Junior Wimbledon Championships" and say those are ultra trivia meant for a book not an encyclopedia. But things like "Yevgeny Kafelnikov becomes the first Russian tennis player to win a major title" is important. A history on all the times the Russian Tennis Federation and all its incarnations were founded is a sentence in prose or otherwise kinda useless. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I was editing the article on Laura Pigossi and noticed that despite containing recent information, her singles win/loss are still saying “Current through the 2023 Tunis Open.” and on her doubles win/loss is saying “Current through the 2024 Wimbledon Championships.”, I don’t know myself how to update it but I think it would be good if someone could do it Haddad Maia fan (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Boy was that article a mess. Her numbers were all wrong for 2022 and 2023. Miscounting all over the place. I fixed 2022 and 2023 and added 2024 but prior years could also be wrong. Totals are supposed to be for main tour only, and actual tournaments... not qualifying totals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I knew it was outdated, but not that it was wrong. Thanks for your help Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Fyunck(click) I noticed that the article has another issue, since December 2024 it was tagged with this

“This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic toneused on Wikipedia. (December 2024)”, but I think it can already be removed. What do you think? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

No it was still not encyclopedic. You dont use first names and it was too much about Brazil and others rather than getting to the point about her accomplishments. Plus no scoring in prose unless some record was made. I fixed it and removed the template. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You can always place {{Update}} at the top a section/article that requires maintenance.

Notifying the project page was a good choice too. More visibility here, higher chance someone will notice it here than on other tennis pages. 8rz (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

So, I was reading the article 1977 Colgate Brazil Open and noticed that the two sections about draws and results are pretty messed up. Since I don’t have the knowledge to fix it, I thought it was better to come here and ask if someone could do that Haddad Maia fan (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I propose you move the article to draftspace before making the draw pages. You can also edit it in your sandbox. 8rz (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point, but since I didn’t do what you said, could you or someone else that has the knowledge please fix that? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I can show you how so you know for future instances if you want. 8rz (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok Haddad Maia fan (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Once you know the winners of an event in any discipline of the draw page you want to create, google them like so, <player name> itf. Open first page provided.

Navigate through the tabs: activity → year → scroll to event → click on event name which will redirect you to the draws. Select the draw(s) you need and click print. The link provided will serve as a citation for the draw page(s) (make sure to archive it at archive.ph and web.archive.org/save to have multiple backups. In case, one doesn't work, you can use the other).

Then open a random YEAR ATP/WTA Tour page, look for an identical draw size that matches your event you want to create. Copy paste any version to a draft page Draft:Event name - Discipline, publish. From there remove all instances (you can use the find-replace button in source editor for a faster removal). And add the necessary info for the event you want to create: lead, infobox, seeds, draws, notes (if any), refs, external links (if any), navs, cats. You know the usual info you find when perusing a draw page.

If you have any questions let me know. 8rz (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)