🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:TENNIS
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:TENNIS)
Shortcuts


Help update the tables on Laura Pigossi

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I knew it was outdated, but not that it was wrong.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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Excessive detail on Tennis in Russia

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

1977 Colgate Brazil Open results

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I can show you how so you know for future instances if you want. 8rz (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Haddad Maia fan (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Season slam combo charts - new design

[edit]

A proposal was made to simplify the charts in "Multiple titles in a season" to reduce space. The current charts are at List of Grand Slam women's singles champions and "if" we are to change them it boiled down to 2 possible outcomes. Either truncate the charts

or keep them

Bringing it here for a project-wide feedback. I opt for version 1. 8rz (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 makes sense, so I am in favour of that. Option 2 tries to convey too many things and fails. It claims to list surface slam winners in a certain colour, but this is ignored if the player won the calendar slam. This section isn't about winners of four majors in a year so the calendar slam is irrelevant to this particular table. Option 1 is easily understood and is accurate, so is by far the better option. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For now I prefer option 2 because option 1 really misrepresents the surface and channel slammers, but if these are charted separately from the multiple slam, then my problems with option 1 are mostly gone. ABC paulista (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it is option 2 that misrepresents the surface slammers. It claims to list surface slammers with an orange background. Graf in 1988 (for example) is listed with a pink background on Australian-French-Wimbledon winners, which is the calendar slam colour and it is not immediately apparent that Graf won the surface slam with these three titles. There are other winners in the same table that did not win the surface slam, as three of the four slams were held on grass back in their eras. The only indication is a small symbol besides Graf's name that is not immediately apparent. Everything should be immediately apparent. I think it is clear from option 1 that certain players won a surface slam, as they are listed in orange (Graf in French-Wimbledon-US isn't listed in orange due to sloppy editing but that can easily be rectified). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I found it painfully obvious that winning a Grand Slam includes winning a "Surface Slam" and a "Channel Slam." Color is secondary to the symbols because color-blind readers can't discern it. At the top of each cart we could write "Player won all four major tournaments in the same year (which includes winning the Channel Slam and Surface Slam)." But remember that choice #2 is how we have it today color-wise and number of entries. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed version names. 8rz (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of it we are split at 2-apiece for the versions. 8rz (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But these things don't happen overnight. It takes a couple weeks for other editors to see this and weigh in. There could be an influx of editors that like it the way it is right now. Some could suggest a minor tweak or two or clarification. We wait and see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As is the norm with implementing new things. A week at least. 8rz (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may find it painfully obvious that currently winning a calendar Grand Slam means winning a Surface slam and Channel slam because you know about tennis history, Fyunck. Many readers do not. Also, winning a calendar Grand slam did not mean winning a surface slam before 1978, more knowledge that many readers do not know. These option 2 tables contain winners of calendar Grand Slams before 1978 and after in the same tables: some were surface slams, others were not. The colour is more noticeable than a small symbol. The colour may be irrelevant to colour blind readers, but not to the majority of readers that are not colour blind. I would be interested in hearing from some colour blind readers to see if the colours chosen are the best ones. Colours could be altered if required. Some people are colour blind to specific colours. It's not something I have much knowledge of, so would be interested to hear from those with first hand experience. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tennishistory1877, I know just the guy. @Graham87:, can you, please, check if the above tables meet WCAG criteria? 8rz (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@8rz: I'm not your guy for this, but I've brought your question up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Question about accessibility of proposed new table. Graham87 (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Distinguishable symbols are more preferable than colors per MOS:COLOR, and colors are more limited on their application in charts than symbols because you can only easily apply one color per cell, while symbols can be applied more freely and multiplied within effortlessly, being more useful in charts that contain cells with multiple entries like these proposals.
My problem with option 1 is that all surface slam and channel slam winners will always scattered across these tables, which requires the reader to organize these informations themselves by manually or mentally counting them, whereas on option 2, all Channel Slam winners are contained inside the "French—Wimbledon" chart, and all Surface Slam winners appear on the "Three titles" subsection, which is the best option when they can't be displayed on a dedicated chart. ABC paulista (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a good point. I have to actually look and count to see who won the Channel Slam as opposed to it being right there in my face in option 2. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got involved in table design conversations until the past year of my 8 year editing history (on one occasion more voices were requested, and my input seemed to resolve a longstanding issue). I am fairly easy going with design styles, but tables have to make sense. If tables don't make sense then that's not good. In option 2 the first thing I notice is the Australian-French-Wimbledon table where there is a key showing surface slam in orange and I see Serena Williams correctly listed in orange, but Steffi Graf is listed in pink, this is plain wrong according to the key. I understand the tables double up on information, but this is wrong. An alternative needs to be sought. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer if the Channel Slam and Surface Slam had their own dedicated tables, but others didn't feel the need to, so that was the best compromise we could find at the time. ABC paulista (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I see the chart key that says Surface Slam is orange/star and see a star and orange next to Graf. Anyone colorblind only see a star in both the key and Graf. It's a trade off. If we are really being honest we don't need any color or any symbols at all in the charts. Under Australian-French-Wimbledon we dont mention surface slam , nor with French-Wimbledon-US box. But we create a separate note for those that did it on three surfaces. That's done. To the two-title boxes we simply plop (Channel Slam) under the French-Wimbledon box header. And that's done. No confusion and no color and no tiny icons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Colorblind still see shades. The backgrounds don’t magically disappear for them, they’re just not (correctly) colored. All we have to do really is ensure that we users colors with enough contrast in all versions of colorblindness. Tvx1 08:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All colors pass AAA level contrast per WCAG. 8rz (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe for people with full color vision, but not for those who haven’t. Try changing your screen to a full colorless setting and you’ll see that the pink and orange create indistinghuisable shades in that case. Tvx1 13:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have 3 diff colors, we'll use the base colors, which will give the desired effect. 8rz (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Graf is listed in pink, not orange. Fyunck, you seem to be saying you don't care what colour the tables are in because a few readers are colourblind! It is important colours are applied correctly. I would go along with no colour. I can see there is a deadlock at two votes all and I didn't want my intervention to prevent a consensus, so here is my bottom line: I will remove my vote, but only if whatever is proposed does not contain wrong colours. Removing colours would solve this issue, as the symbols indicate surface and channel slams. Also I would wish the symbols were larger if possible (larger font size). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is I never had any problem with the chart colors. The colors and symbols are what we've had for years aren't they? They aren't a new proposal, they are a continuation of what we have now. Certainly we can change them or the symbols but I was assuming this was more a bracketing change than color/symbol change. Once those concerns were made I started thinking about the symbols and colors and how they were not needed in these particular charts, as long as we conveyed the info properly. That's why I made a colorless/symboless chart. No one has to keep checking a key. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this design has been used for years is not really the point. Bear in mind table design is not my particular area of interest. I much prefer your version with no colour. I would go for that as a replacement. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Larger font size or larger symbols. 8rz (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Larger symbols. I have no preference for listing surface slams or not (the channel slams are listed automatically in French-Wimbledon winners). But if the surface slams are indicated, the symbols should be clear to see. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{legend}} has a built-in size param for customizing the text's font size displayed inside the box (example, diff). 8rz (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Different approach to chart

[edit]

So a clean no colors and no symbols would look somewhat like this:

I am fine with the table but I would unlink both players and event draws. The design, if agreed upon, will be copy pasted from all-time women's singles page and then transcluded to the list of women's singles slam records page. 2 for 1 deal, if you will. 8rz (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just copied it from your own proposal.... links and all. Why would we remove links? We would want those links in the tables. First use of a name in a table should be linked. And what page are these tables going to reside on? I'm not a big fan of transclusions except as necessary as they slow down page loading. Are these pages nearing some sort of extreme limitation? And when they appear on the Grand Slam Singles Champions article they will need to be linked... we aren't leaving all these names unlinked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, might have to use some includeonly and onlyinclude tags for this one... 8rz (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This version is acceptable to me. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, but I wonder if mantaining the Surface Slam as text-based notes won't be problematic down the line when more and more names and instances are added to it. IMO, making it its own chart, or at least a list, would be preferable. ABC paulista (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know the next time it will happen. It could be ten or twenty years from now before we see it achieved again. Couldn't we wait till that happens and simply turn it into a chart when more folks are added? We could create a chart for three people, I just didn't think it was needed yet. If you feel it needs more prominence it could be placed above the charts as opposed to below. And it doesn't have to say "note." I just moved it to see if folks like it better on top with a bullet point. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd move the note to the bottom of the "3 titles" section to not steal the focus of the reader, but to have it as a side-note, something readers would notice in passing, because the focus is on 3 titles/season, not surface combinations. I would still rather see the year links be removed. We have them already listed in the leftmost column on the 1st chart of the page. And, if we do decide to keep them, YYYY in tennis is a much better alternative than YYYY ATP/WTA Tour (why scroll through the entire season to find the slam winners, when you have them all listed in the 1st section front and center).
Otherwise the charts look better (more dispersed with succinct info instead of being crammed using valign and nowrap). 8rz (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it and I think you are correct... we do not need each individual year linked, plus some of the years have no links. But we need something, so I created a chart (B) that removed the year links and supplanted it with "major titles" inline linked to our major titles article List of Grand Slam women's singles champions. So readers don't have to scroll through a year or a tour, only major titles. I also moved the Surface Slam to the bottom but with the term Surface Slam now right up front. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added footnotes for the surface slam (visible indicator without the need to use symbols). 8rz (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I did not like it at all. That's what we are trying to avoid in the boxes... more busy marks. Otherwise we would have no need for the player names in the note. Its purpose was to keep the cells clean while conveying the information. But I did miss removing links to the Surface Slam achievers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notelist can be located in the notes section in the bottom. So, all notes are stored in 1 place and won't clog up the combo section. 8rz (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how it can work, but I didn't like the (a)'s on the years, nor did I like the a,b,c,d,e, backlinks next to the note. We don't need a link back to a chart three inches above. And if we used that approach we'd only need to say Surface Slam without the player names, which I purposely avoided. I was trying to use each table only for what it was intended and nothing more. It's more a general notation than an actual footnote. There used to be "summary" tag you could add to a table bottom but I think it got deprecated at Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find an example of that "summary" tag, I might be able to find an alternative for it. Or ask around (at VPT probably).... 8rz (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click):, found the now obsolete summary tag you were talking about. 8rz (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thiking more about the other pages where the format would be applied, because currently we are only seeing it by the viewpoint that Women's Singles give us, whereas in other disciplines, especially in doubles, there are more names and intances to count. I wonder how would these look in Women's Doubles, for example. ABC paulista (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And a very good point this is. I suppose we would have to look at each one and if the number merits it, we would create a separate chart. If womens singles gets to five we would likely create a table, with three I think it doesn't need it because prose can handle it just fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the next logical step. Add it on the other 4 sister pages. Like we did way back when when restoring said section. I might, and say MIGHT have it be implemented in WC and JR if I get around to it. Have a lot on my plate at the moment.
@ABC paulista, just count the totals individually per player, not per team. I propose you use that as a guide. Same for mixed. 8rz (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points, overall. ABC paulista (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of it, the majority is skewing towards version B without symbols or colors. I am with version B. 8rz (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per previous discussion 4 years ago, I prefer the version with less duplication and only showing the maximum number of titles won each season, as shown here (not up to date obviously). DiamondIIIXX (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fancy meeting you here after this long. Yes, but we are trying to combine the individual instances of the currently chronologically listed winners into player's totals to shorten the tables. The rightmost WIM-USO chart, especially, has the most instances in all 5 main disciplines. The goal is to truncate those. But I see where you are coming from (prefer to retain the current design by omitting the duplicates). Removing the duplicates was my initial idea, but I am in the minority here in that regard, with the argument that the note could be easily overlooked.... 8rz (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well with duplicates removed (in the example I sent) it's about half the size of the current version. I also think collating the feats by year looks messy and the switching between using full years, last two numbers of the year, and two numbers separated by an en-dash looks wrong. e.g. for Steffi Graf 1988, 93, 95–96 DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The en-dash is used for ranges so it's correct per MOS:RANGE. 8rz (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be half the size but the tables are also truncated to give us half the facts. I scroll down to look at two time winners and they are not all there. I'm not saying I couldn't live with only half the info, but usually we shouldn't have to look at other charts to get the rest of the two-time winners and place them in the right order in our heads. Space has to be at an incredible premium to do that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of space that'd be saved is miniscule in comparison to the rest of the page, so that is not the main focus here, moreso the charts' design and info provided. 8rz (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it looks like everyone likes your design change (at least for singles). Then it was a question of, as long as we are doing that, what else could we do to make it even better and easier to understand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whose design and which version? It's another one of those lengthy discussions....2 months and 10 versions and combinations later....😂 8rz (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You redesigned this set of charts completely. Right now it is like this. Without your redesign we wouldn't be talking about revisions. The colorless charts I made are simply colorless versions of your new redesign. It seems everyone likes your redesign even if we disagree with how many players to add to it or whether we uses symbols or colors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But this version doesn't show the ones who achieved the Channel Slam and the Surface Slam, which the current versions and the other proposals here do. What would be done about them? ABC paulista (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Channel Slam is FO-WIM. That's a given. We would add the surface slam note and that would be that. 8rz (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that also includes those players who won other slam(s) alongside these two, so it wouldn't be accurate to not have them cited on the same place, and I don't think that mere notes would suffice since there are many more instances. ABC paulista (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of beating around the bush let's provide concrete examples. Because this back and forth won't get as anywhere. 8rz (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just compare the amount of names under the French-Wimbledon chart between the version brought up by DiamondIIIXX and the current one to see what I mean. The former requires that the reader organize these informations themselves by manually or mentally counting them while scrolling back and forth, while the latter already gives the full picture on one chart. ABC paulista (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course only showing the highest number of slams in a year for a player doesn't show all the exact instances of two and three slam combinations. It just places greater emphasis on the instances of players winning three or completing the grand slam in a year, by reducing duplication. It's not missing "half the facts" @Fyunck(click), it's just displaying the data in a different way. We know Rod Laver won the Channel Slam when he completed the Grand Slam in 1962 and 1969, his name doesn't need to be added to each instance of the Australian—French, Australian—Wimbledon, Australian—U.S., French—Wimbledon ‡, French—U.S., Wimbledon—U.S. tables.
At least that's what I think. Nice to talk to you again DiamondIIIXX (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may know it because you already familiarized yourself with it, but that might not be as obvious as it appears for laymen, or those who aren't familiar with tennis and its terminology. Like I said before, the old version required the reader to organize this kind of information themselves by manually or mentally counting them while scrolling back and forth through mutiple charts, and intended information display shouldn't work this way. If one presents the concept and shows the path to a full display of data related to it, then stands to reason that this data should be presented in its most direct and digestable form possible. ABC paulista (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If one presents the concept and shows the path to a full display of data related to it, then stands to reason that this data should be presented in its most direct and digestible form possible. Display all the info to avoid confusion even if it means displaying it twice.
Personally, I'd go for Fyunck's "Option B (no colors or symbols) to keep it simple. with the surface slam be noted in the "Most titles in a season" section or using {{efn}} and display it in the Notes section with {{notelist}}. 8rz (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the Channnel Slam. ABC paulista (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My guy, channel slam is already solved. You keep bringing it up. Just put FO-US (Channel Slam) in the table's header and you're done. No need to add symbols, notes or anything. 8rz (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not done if the instances of 3-slam and Calendar-slam wins are removed from the table, only keeping the 2-slam instances like the non-duplication idea defends. Just compare the FO-Wim chart between the non-duplicated idea from the duplicated one. ABC paulista (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I said I am with Fyunck's Option B, that means I am on board with the duplicated info. 4-slam, 3-slam, channel slam, surface slam, (only thing that would have notes) is retained.... 8rz (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I though that you were thinking that my comment was defending the duplication idea, so I was just clarifying my stance on the matter. To be clear, IMO both duplicated and not-duplicated ideas work fine on their own terms, my true concern is about how the Surface Slam and Channel Slam (and Three-Quarter slam, on a lesser degree) are represented on all this.
Speaking of which, I prefer the way the that the Surface Slams are repesented on the Options A and B then on a notelist. I think that they are easier for a reader to spot and understand on a fist-glance then having to identify the meaning of the notelist and those who are marked by its "efn". ABC paulista (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both are the same thing, tbh. You just hover over with your mouse and a note pops up and there would also be a note immediately under the 3-slam table indicating the surface slam. But the way it is presented now is fine as well. Version B as is covers, hopefully, all the info you want to be covered. 8rz (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option B is fine enough, for now. ABC paulista (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

[edit]

I just added a chart C. It's identical to chart B but puts the Surface Slam in a small chart with added descriptive text above. I'm not saying it's better or worse than chart B, but I figured we have to be a bit flexible and perhaps some would prefer it this way? It doesn't get a new section since it's part of the three titles in a season section... it's simply a special case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved chart to bottom to keep in line with the diacussion's flow. 8rz (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely against the surface slam chart under Option C. It seems like we are going back in progress. The goal is less charts and a simple note. And ABC over here all desperate about keeping the surface slam. We ALREADY have a note on SURFACE SLAM. What more do you possibly need?...shiish. Anyway I see this is turning into another one of those 10 options/versions/combinations charts things...so I am just going to say I am option B and that's that. And going to clock on out. I am done. Enjoy the rest of the convo. Bye. 8rz (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Option C works better than Option B, epecially where the Surface Slam instances are more numerous than on this, like on the women's doubles page. But like I said before numeorus times, I'm not against the notes like they were presented on options A and B either. ABC paulista (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing is to get it as right as we can. If more would rather have a separate chart I'm certainly willing to compromise. We could even use the simple note for the women's singles as in option B but use a chart for doubles etc where we have a lot more players. I don't mind many options if we can get compromise and still keep everyone happy. These changes take a lot of work and finesse. At least this is a relatively small set of charts... there are others that if major changes happened would likely have "option Z" and a year of discussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since ABC paulista was wondering about Women's Doubles, I created the same (c) chart for that so you can see what it would look like. I used a slider on the long charts but another thing that could be done for the solo winners would be to leave them out of the chart and say something like "20 women won both these titles" as the last line with an attached note. And the note would give the the names of the 20 women and it would also list them on mouse over. But first inclination was to include them all and use a slider to keep the charts from being too large. But even so they are smaller and more uniform than what we have now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox tennis biography has an RfC

[edit]
icon

Template:Infobox tennis biography has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For two days almost every tennis player article I edited displayed an error for |residence=. I did remove a few before noticing User:Zackmann08 made that change on October 21 with an edit summary "removing support for residence per consensus", where the consensus was for {{Infobox person}}. So I stopped removing |residence=, figuring it would get reverted. I do support removing it if that is the consensus on Template talk:Infobox tennis biography. Many of tennis player articles I edited had the same location for |residence= and |birth_place=. I believe many of those may be inaccurate and they are usually unreferenced. -- Zyxw (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zyxw please see the RFC and comment there. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already done, just commented here first since I was pinged here. -- Zyxw (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

So, I am always looking for photos to improve Wikipedia articles but specially the tennis related ones and I’d like to ask if anyone knows of a website or platform that’s better than Flickr for finding recent photos of professional tennis players with licenses suitable for use on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons.

I have noticed that It’s been quite a while since Flickr has been a reliable source for new tennis images, because many recent photos there are either unlicensed properly or unavailable altogether. I’m wondering if there are other platforms, photographers, or archives that regularly upload freely licensed tennis photos.

Also, I’m not sure if this is the right place to ask, so let me know if there’s a more appropriate page for this kind of question. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used to get photos on Flickr but lately they often don’t have recent photos of players or tournaments or they have it but with licensing that is not suitable to be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons Haddad Maia fan (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reliable source for sure, in Wikipedia terms. But it is always hit or miss for new photos. It has always been tough to find new good pics of players that are ok to use here. I have had some luck in emailing the player's reps and asking them to upload a pd photo, and also had Wikipedia make it too difficult for older players like Margaret Court. She and I had to give up because of too many hoops to jump through. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m still having no success with this issue. I’ve noticed that many of the players’ articles I usually edit either have very old photos or none at all. A good source would be public domain photos from government agencies, but I don’t know how to find them online. One useful website was “Rede do Esporte,” which was run by the Brazilian government, and photos taken by their photographers were suitable for Wikimedia Commons. However, the website has since been shut down. I don’t know if someone here knows any other websites from governments that have suitable photos of tennis players but if someone does, it would be very helpful. Other suitable sources would also be great
@Fyunck(click) @qwisps @Tvx1 @Retired77777777777777, @UserComeradeAlex, @User592Franklin704, @User:GOAT Bones231012, @User:BlitzPhoenix98, @User:Dddenilson, @User:Balenciagah, @User:Shima808, @User:Ks0108, @User:Mannyhernandezz, @User:Unnamelessness, @User:WhySoSerious?, @User:Madhu Gopal, @User:Hitiste2023, @User:Michele1999, @User:The Sports Gnome, @User:Moscow Connection, @User:Legendofmv, @User:PRRfan
@User:0m9Ep
@User:@ABC paulista, @User:Wolbo, @User:Tennishistory1877, @User:8rz, @User:DiamondIIIXX, @User:Sportsfan77777, @User:JamesAndersoon, @User:Adamtt9, @User:Zyxw, @User:Miijumaaru, @User:Sashona, @User:Gap9551, @User:Japeterson2, @User:Ks0108, and @User:TNNSUH Haddad Maia fan (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what pinging users is intended for. The best way to get photos is to go to tennis tournaments and make them yourself. I attended a day of the Rosmalen Open the last two years and did just that and uploaded the pictures of all the players I photographed to Commons. Tvx1 14:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a couple of government pages that allow usage and I can work on getting those up. But I agree with @Tvx1 that attending tournaments is the best way to go. The photo issue isn't just a problem with tennis though, and we honestly have it a lot better than many other sports. Especially since there are so many smaller/mid size tournaments all around the world that people can go to and take pictures of. Legendofmv (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Haddad Maia fan I am really disappointed that a platform like Wikipedia has far fewer images than it deserves (at least when it comes to tennis) considering that so many people use it. I have mostly waited for images to be posted by some users who have been known to post good images in the past (like si.robi and Hameltion) but I don't expect them to be obligated to post all the time (and what they have done so far is too much).
I am sorry that there is no cooperation between the tournaments / ATP / WTA and Wikipedia to provide at least some images. Or that e.g. WTA and ATP and ITF have images on their websites that could be used on Wikipedia with a certain license. I do not expect images to exist for every possible tournament and that every tennis player should have a handful of images, but unfortunately some do not have any.
Also, I expected pictures to happen at least in some situations, like when Marketa Vondrousova and Barbora Krejcikova won Wimbledon, I didn't find a single picture of them holding the trophy or in some other variant that would be interesting to put on a Wikipedia page. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, that’s why I mentioned the government run pages which often have photos that can be used on Wikipedia. I also believe that many Olympic committees can have good photos as well, but I’m not sure about it. I think this is a topic that should be better tackled as I consider the photos to be a key part of the articles and in my view is really bad to have articles with only old photos or none at all, however I don’t know how we could do that Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually spoken to some photographers, and one of the big issues is the licensing requirements for Wikipedia. They don't want their photos to be used commercially by other people, and it does make some sense, since equipment, etc isn't cheap.
So you have to find people that are A, willing and able to take halfway decent photos at tennis events, B, know that uploading photos to help improve tennis Wikipedia is even a thing that exists, and C, willing to "sacrifice" their photos for the sake of encyclopedic development.
All of that needs to be done before we can even get to uploading and using the photos and at that point you only get a handful of photos. So it's a difficult process and I also don't really know how exactly we can solve that problem. The only thing I can think of is perhaps put out a notice on some forum or something, but there's no guarantee that would even work.
To a certain extent, I don't think the issue will ever be fully solved since it's not just a tennis thing. As I've said, tennis actually has it pretty good compared to other sports out there. We just have to keep trying and doing our thing and hopefully we'll get somewhere, at least. Legendofmv (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This mainly comes from my time in the motorsports area of Wikipedia but if someone's page lacks photos entirely, using YouTube to find videos labelled with creative commons can sometimes be the way to go! That's kind of the only way I know to find more photos though, especially since a lot of the tennis ones are relatively high quality in comparison to the pages you can find for other sports. QWisps (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not every creative commons license is compatible with Wikimedia‘s free content. Tvx1 09:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True but Wikimedia Commons has information on which ones are compatible with their TOS anyways. QWisps (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Cup teams

[edit]

I was wondering that as we already have articles for the Billie Jean King Cup and David Cup teams, wouldn’t it be also the time for creating articles on the United Cup teams? We already had some editions of the tournament and many teams have played on two or more of them. What are your thoughts on this? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those teams are far more important and notable, with a long history, so I would not create yearly teams for this minor event. However, the Hopman Cup is a bigger event than United Cup and what we do is United States at the Hopman Cup. The United Cup could be done the same way perhaps, but I can't see doing more than that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting… So I think I will start a draft on this same format and then I will share it here so you can help too Haddad Maia fan (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don’t think it is really good to merge the Hopman Cup and the United Cup on the same article, because the article’s title only mentions the Hopman cup and we have some countries that participated at the United Cup and not the Hopman Cup or the other way around as well Haddad Maia fan (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No... never merge them. I said we could create an article in the same way we created Hopman Cup, not merge them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said merge to refer to the way that it is right now, because if you go to the article you mentioned, you will see that it talks about both tournaments but the title mentions only the Hopman Cup Haddad Maia fan (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the US team you linked to also includes their United Cup results. Tvx1 08:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Brazil at the United Cup Haddad Maia fan (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would only be relevant to make articles for teams if they have made it a significant way into one of the events. I also believe it would be best to wait until we have ran the event at least five times, considering similar tennis team events such as the ATP Cup (the predecessor to the United Cup) don't have articles for teams. QWisps (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True this. It really could go the way of the dodo so perhaps waiting is the best choice here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis in the United States

[edit]

I have noticed that the article Tennis in the United States is largely outdated and there is a notice about a possible need of rewriting the article as a whole. I don’t know how this could be resolved, so I thought it would be helpful to reach out to you for ideas Haddad Maia fan (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

[edit]

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 19:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis&oldid=1326045483"