Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

US National Championships Mixed Doubles 1887 - 1891

Hello. I was wondering if anyone had sources for US National Championships Mixed Doubles winners from 1887 - 1891. While I realize these were unofficial events, I was hoping to update List of US Open mixed doubles champions as there are names from List of Grand Slam mixed doubles champions not in the US Open page. Also, it would have to state those years were unofficial like some years at List of French Open mixed doubles champions. I checked The Bud Collins History of Tennis book but it doesn't have those years for mixed doubles. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333, did you end up finding a source for those years? I found the results at it:Albo d'oro del doppio misto dell'US Open, and have copied them to List of US Open mixed doubles champions, but have not yet found a source. Letcord (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Letcord: No luck for me as Collins doesn't have the unofficial events. I do wonder where these stats came from. Thank you for completing the update :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"Top ten" lists

Below is a list of the tennis "top ten" templates, taken from Category:ATP Tour navigational boxes and Category:WTA Tour navigational boxes. I can't help thinking that this is a massively long list (160 or so) and I'm interested in people's thought on these. I know there sort of things were quite popular in the early days of Wikipedia but my own view now, is that I don't find them at all useful. They're WP:NAVBOXes, meant to help readers navigate between articles, but I'm pretty doubtful that they serve that purpose. In addition most of them only get updated sporadically, so we're providing out of date information to readers. And I can't help thinking that there's either going to be a large amount of effort maintaining these for no real benefit or they're almost always out of date. My suggestion is that we have a cull of these, which would hopefully focus effort on the few remaining ones. Is anyone really interested in doubles rankings? Thoughts? Nigej (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to build a list of matches where one player beat the #1 at the time. Is there a source of all open-era matches, and a source of players rankings on each week, that I could cross reference to build the list I mentioned? Or otherwise is this list already availabe somewhere? (sorry if I posted this in the wrong place, I'm new here :-) ) Gustavoexel (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gustavoexel, is this for an article or for your personal use? Male or female (or both)? Letcord (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with them. And of course there are 160+ since there are a lot of countries that have tennis federations. Now the "up to date" part of the query is a very good point. There is no chance I'm going to update the top ten Hungarian female tennis players so it needs to have a following that updates it to be worthwhile, or needs to be automated in some way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm just wondering WHY were trying to maintain them. Why would anyone want out of date information here when they can go the official site and get the correct information. We're not really in the business of constantly mirroring other sites, its not something were very good at. Nigej (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You are correct we aren't really good at it. However we maintain every single player ranking in the infobox even though those are often out of date. Perhaps it would be better if we simply give a link in the external link section to the appropriate country's rankings? Then we don't have to maintain them? In fact as I look at the source for your first item on the list I see ATP Belarusian male singles tennis players. That's really all we need in the external link section. It's maintained by the ATP and is always up to date. So as I rethink, I do have an issue with these templates... they are more trouble than they are worth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting to me that there's such a big difference between the golf and tennis projects. Maybe reflecting the effort available. For golf we don't have any of these sort of templates. Regarding rankings we have articles for the world number 1s (men/women professional/amateur), an article about men who's ever made the world top 10 and the male players infoboxes have their highest-ever ranking (provided they got the world top 100). Typically about 5 players in the top-100 reach a new career high each week. This last one is done (by me) through a centralised system. Nigej (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to link to WTA rankings by country? If I select a country under "Filter by region" at https://www.wtatennis.com/rankings/singles then the country is listed correctly but the url doesn't change. https://www.atptour.com/en/rankings/singles works differently and does change the url. https://www.atptour.com/en/rankings/singles?rankdate=&rankrange=1-5000&countrycode=blr shows Belarus. It doesn't work to try the same query string at WTA: https://www.wtatennis.com/rankings/singles?rankdate=&rankrange=1-5000&countrycode=blr (I didn't expect it to work). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that. But a cut-and-paste solution may be possible. For a relatively simple example see the snooker rankings here Template:Infobox snooker player/rankings where the rankings are updated with some relatively simple editing from https://wst.tv/rankings/ (I use Vim) and magically all the rankings get updated simultaneously (see eg Hossein Vafaei current ranking). I've never been sure how efficient this is but it seems to well work. Nigej (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean by the WTA links. That actual filtered link is hidden and I'm not good enough to see in the sourcing what it really links to. But as far as updating the templates every week it is still better to link to the WTA ranking page since it only takes one more click to bring up the country. Unless someone can figure out the actual linked page we can plop it in external links with the title of something like "Top Belarusian female tennis players (filter by Belarus)". At least it would be automatically updated even though it would take an extra click. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That would work for me. I doubt there is an actual linked WTA page. They probably generate the content on request without a url for it anywhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It's fetched from an API, e.g. https://api.wtatennis.com/tennis/players/ranked?page=0&pageSize=20&type=rankSingles&sort=asc&name=&metric=SINGLES&at=2022-01-24&nationality=USA . Players constantly drift in and out of their country's top ten, so even external links would become out of date quickly. Sod25 (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

These should be deleted as all they do is waste editor time hand-mirroring content available in two clicks on the ATP/WTA sites while becoming out of date almost immediately. Given how out of date most of them are (~6 months on average to 3+ years), they reflect poorly on this project. Sod25 (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. These have no added value.Tvx1 06:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, when they are up to date they do give value. It's just that so few are up to date or will ever be up to date. They should be removed but replaced with a link to the ATP top players by country or the WTA top players websites. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I've nominated a bunch here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Top ten male doubles tennis players templates, for deletion. Nigej (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that doubles templates do not have value. Singles players are playing doubles, example Nick Kyrgios or Matthew Ebden are singles players who just reached the Australian Open Final, on the women side Krejcikova is No. 3 in singles and No. 2 in doubles, Iga Swiatek, Coco Gauff also. If we are maintaining the singles we should be able to maintain the doubles template as well. Sashona(talk) 17:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I take the point. However, the fundamental issue is whether any of these should be kept and, importantly, why they should be kept. Anyway, the discussion is open for comments there, which is now a better place for them. Nigej (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I explained to you why they have value and would be kept. For example a tennis player like Jessica Pegula is No. 2 American player in singles and No. 9 in doubles as of 31 January 2022. So an important player in singles and doubles. People that follow tennis would want to see that information. The templates can be updated every three months let’s say if every month is too much to ask. They also could be real-time live links to the rankings and will not require any manual maintenance. Sashona(talk) 22:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I've nominated another set of these here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Top ten male singles tennis players templates where you can comment on these templates. Nigej (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

“Top ten Italian male doubles tennis players” needs to be deleted. Still showing in Wikipedia. Sashona(talk) 19:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not in Category:ATP Tour navigational boxes, which is why I missed it. I'm happy to nominate for TfD. Nigej (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Bot for renaming/moving tennis articles

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13A, where User:Tol is requesting permission to move/rename/downcase 5425 tennis pages with his bot, per the discussion above and the RM close. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

With respect to Adamtt9's query above, I made all the needed edits to the template sandboxes linked here, which just need to be transferred to the templates once the articles have been moved. I thought that would be enough to leave things in others' hands (and safely retire), but it occurred to me today that another non-trivial issue will arise that will require my attention, so I'll stay on until after the job is complete. I'll need the AWB permission for the cleanup, but it seems to be a slow process to get it. Sod25 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I managed to get the permission pretty quickly. If you have trouble, or want to be more retired, just show me what's needed. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

50 test moves are done. Take a look, all. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, the bot has done the 5425 article moves. I'm going to go slow on cleanup edits, learning more about regex as I go. If anyone wants to help, let me know. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup edits

I've been developing the replace expressions to clean up 16000+ tennis articles; see User:Dicklyon/Tennis cleanup JWB JSON. Please review my edits (mostly of Feb. 1) to see what these do, and let me know if you see any errors, or if you can suggest improvments. If we converge on the patterns maybe I can get a bot to finish the lot. Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon, I was having a look at a sample set. As an example, I am seeing "Main article: 2005 AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Singles" at 2005 AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Also seeing capped usages in tables eg at Miami Open (tennis). Cinderella157 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I fixed the "Main" links a few hours ago (but I haven't editted that one you linked since a month ago). That Miami Open article doesn't follow the usual pattern so yeah, I missed that. I'll see about adding some clauses... Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, 729 down, 16,000 to go. I'll stop there. Big work day on Feb. 2. Please review. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you might see this edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I could work on succession boxes. But there aren't many, so I'll leave them for now and later can try a pattern to target just those. Remind me if I don't. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I included the succession box fixes in my list of replaces in the bot request. Thanks for pointing it out. I found there were over 600 files, so decided not to do them by hand. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of my recent edits were incremental, as I added a few more replace rules. But all the recently edited articles should have ended up in a good place, with a few things left to fix like the occasional succession box. I mostly want to make sure there are no "false positive" downcasings, or other weirdness. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

After about the first 788 files, I get a screwup at this most recent edit]. So, work to do. Later. Dicklyon (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Got that fixed in latest patterns. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

A bot request for approval has been filed: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DoggoBot 5. Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

If anyone else in the project has looked at a few of my last thousand edits, your comments here or at the BRFA could be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Bot approval is slow, and apparently I need to learn to be more patient. This may get done eventually. Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

They didn't get around to approving a bot. I finished the edits "by hand" with JWB instead. No errors have been pointed out, but there are bound to be a few cases where case fixes are still in order. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

One error has been pointed out and reverted here. Since the redirect didn't get moved, the updated "previous" link make a redlink. There could be more like that, I suppose. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Are you planning to fix the "main article:" links in tournament article such as 1983 Australian Open? You already changed the headings, and it looks wrong to have the two casing styles right next to each other. Letcord (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Do Grand Slams have the draws' names capitalized or not? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: Do you mean things like "Men's singles" or "1983 Australian Open – Men's singles?" If so it was determined very recently that after the ndash it should be sentence format where we start with a capital after the ndash and then use lower case. The change has created many issues and red links but hopefully the problems will all be fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Dicklyon, 1908 Australasian Championships – Singles is invoking a template "Tennis Grand Slam events" that should have been merged with Template:Infobox tennis tournament event. Other ones in the series are invoking "TennisEventInfo". The 1908 events template has the parameter "| before_name =". The target is being forced by the parameter rather than by pattern (per Sod25's fixes). Forcing the "after" parameter could also be a problem but wasn't in this particular case. I would look for articles using the before or after parameter. Hope that helps if you haven't already worked it out. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I did fix the main links in most cases, I think. Not sure why that one was missed. I'll look into it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess that one missed my cleanup edits due to using the different template, as Cinderella says. I'll try another pass over files using that template. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon there are still about 1000 that you've missed, that can be found with this and this search phrase. Also there are a handful of player performance timelines that have "Strike Rate" as a header, which you missed in your latest sweep changing the tooltips to "Strike rate". There are also these and these which have over-capitalized headings such as "Wheelchair Quad Singles" and "Earlier Rounds" that need fixing (with some false positives like "Challenge Round", which is a proper noun). Letcord (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I noticed many tennis-related tournament's draws' links on various BLP's and other tennis articles have been renamed with JWB to redlinks. I already informed @Dicklyon about this, which is his doing, but now I guess, redirects are in order for the hundreds of tennis articles, that need renaming to avoid the redlinks... Oh, boy...This is gonna be doozy. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, there's work to be done. Like the "One error" reported above, the problem is that some links are to redirects, and redirects didn't get moved. It should be straightforward to collect a list and get them moved (or new redirects created, equivalently). I'll work on it... Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, @Qwerty284651: I'm putting together a list of such redirects... will be done shortly. In the meantime you can continue with the cleanup. Letcord (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me know how you go about making that list. I've got some stuff going, too, but it's kind of slow and painful. Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Progress is that I've got a list of all tennis articles with endashes and hyphens, and have a list of the pages that they redirect to if they are redirects. I'm now just querying the redirects relevant to this situation, and then I'll publish the 100% complete list. Your time is best spent finishing the cleanup I think. Letcord (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You guys, @Dicklyon @Letcord are probably using AWB or JWB. I am not experienced with either tool. The best solution would be to have the tournament's draws articles redirected from Doubles → doubles and then change the wikilinks on various BLPs from Doubles → doubles to avoid redlinks. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been using various combinations of quarry queries, a text editor with regex replacements, and JWB. Letcord, the problem is to find the redirects that are linked to but are missing. Or find the redirects that end with Singles or Doubles such that the corresponding lowercased one does not exist. Dicklyon (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, User:Dicklyon/Redirects_to_move is a list of about 581 redirect moves that I think will care of things. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I did say I had it covered, but no worries. Got side tracked with another issue which is why it took so long. A complete list of 2175 is here. Contains some non-tennis articles, mainly near the bottom, but I can filter those out later. Letcord (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Where do you, guys, have the patience and time for all these redirects and moves, honestly? And why must it all be lowercase across the board? And why do draws from the same tournament with different sponsors are renamed/redirected to a new tournament article draw subpage with the same name? Just keep the original name. Don't have to unify everything, you know? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to do anything about the ones with hyphens instead of en dashes; if there were links to them, those were not changed (I think); if links exist they should be fixed to the dash form. Dicklyon (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, so, convert wikilinks with hyphen - to en dash –? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would generally be best. I haven't run into any, but then again I wasn't really looking for them. Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

So, converting Championship into Championships, hyphens into en dashes, Singles & Doubles into singles & doubles. Any other typographical correction endeavors I may have overlooked? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There has been a massive amount of over-capitalization in sports pages; I've been working on more than Singles and Doubles, but that was one big concentration. There was a big of dash fixing, but not very much; tennis already embraced the dash. Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

There are many articles that have links using a hyphen instead of an en dash; 7000 player articles alone contain one or more of them. It's quite possible that you replaced "Men's Singles" with "Men's singles" and now there are redlinks in some, or that another editor will naïvely do it at some point. Redirects are WP:CHEAP anyway so there's no harm in creating a few more. My list should now be finalized. Letcord (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Shall I go ask the operator of TolBot 13 if he can execute those moves? Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Getting a bot to do it would probably be the quickest way, so yes. Do you plan on emptying the first two lists I gave you above? Letcord (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I've queried the operator at User talk:Tol/Archives/2022/03#Another job for TolBot 13 (same bot and operator that did the other tennis moves), Not sure what you're asking about emptying lists. Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

My 14:29, 14 March comment has two search phrases that had about 1000 articles that have over capitalized "main" templates in them, and still have around 700. It would be good to get them both down to zero. Letcord (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Right. I just now extended my main-link-fixer regex a bit and knocked off about 150 of them. The rest aren't matching. Looks like I have to do a further extension to handle the two-pipe main-template form. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, no, I missed more than that; I'm knocking off another batch of easy ones now. Dicklyon (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, those lists are down to about 100, all or most of which are false hits. Let me know if you find any pattern that will find others to fix. Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what Java codes/scripts do you use to look up such patterns. I would like to help out, but don't have the know-how to do it. Any tips? Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

WP's built-in search supports regular expressions, I just learned; apparently of the same form that AWB supports, but put between slashes to indicate regular expression, if I understand correctly what Letcord has done there; see Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Regular expression. I use the JWB script, copying his regex into it's "Generate" search. If you don't already know regular expressions, you'll have a steep learning curve, like I did. Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, @Dicklyon. Qwerty284651 (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup edits #2

Yes, the patterns are not "looked up", but rather pieced together to match certain text that you want to find in articles. In this case, I'm finding over-capitalized text in articles and then creating patterns that will match it to find all articles with the same type of over-capitalization. Dicklyon, here are a few more issues I've found that you could work on (listed in order of priority):

1. {{See also}} and {{further}} templates that need the same downcasing as {{main}} did: search 1, search 2 (~50 articles)
2. Over-capitalized "Singles"/"Doubles" in tables: search 1 (~350 articles). I can give you a specific find/replace for this one. Search 2 is not needed.
3. Over-capitalized "Round" in tables: search 1, search 2 (~100 articles).
4. Over-capitalized "Place" in tables: search 1, search 2 (~20 articles).
5. "Main Draw"/"Qualifying Draw" in external links: search 1, search 2 (~7000 articles).
6. "Official Website" in external links (not just applicable to tennis): search 1, search 2 (~1000 articles; many more outside of tennis). If you do this one, you have to completely empty search 1 by replacing with "official website", then work on search 2 by replacing with "Official website". You can also remove "tennis" from the query to search all of Wikipedia, but this will time out. Letcord (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm short on time today and tomorrow. Is anyone else here good with AWB or JWB? Dicklyon (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  None of this is needs to be done and certainly not in any short time frame, but since you asked for "any pattern that will find others to fix"... I obliged. Letcord (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  One question pertaining to AWB. Which regex would you use to find as many cases as possible of redundant/obsolete tags, such as, <center> and replace them with style="text-align:center" or {{center}}, for that matter? To remove lint errors, without having to stumble upon them by accident when visiting a wiki page for something. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  The regex for those tags is "\<center\>", and you can find tennis articles with them with insource:/\<center\>/ tennis. As for replacing them with style="text-align:center", that's more tricky. A relevant discussion is here, and the people there are probably the best ones to ask about that. Letcord (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Good; no rush. I'll get to it. Finishing this cleanup is definitely on my plate. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  I haven't usually been doing external links, as I'd have to check and see if those are actual titles. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Send me that "specific find/replace for this one". Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Try replacing "((\||!) *'* *[A-z0-9][^\{\}\|=\-–\[\]!]+ )(Singles|Doubles)" with "$1{{subst:lc:$3}}". Letcord (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done. There were a fair number of false positives to work around; I might have allowed a few to slip through. I did more case fixing in those, too. Dicklyon (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Great. A second pass will be needed for those to finish the job as my patterns didn't account for bolding (I've updated the searches and find/replace in my above comment for you to use). Here is the find/replaces for the "Round" searches:

  Done the bolds. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  • "((\||!) *'* *[A-z0-9][^\{\}\|=\-–\[\]!]+ )Round" → "$1round".

  And for the "Place" searches:

  • "((\||!) *'* *[A-z0-9][^\{\}\|=\-–\[\]!]+ )Place" → "$1place".

  Letcord (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done Place and Round. That's probably got 99% of the over-capitalization in tennis now. Thanks for the help. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon, there's some capitalization within the seeds' results in brackets in draw articles that you missed: search; replace "(\# *\{\{[^\(]+\([A-z][^\)]+)([A-Z])" with "$1{{subst:lc:$2}}". Letcord (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  That pattern is too broad, as there are often proper names in that field. I'll restrict it to just "Lucky loser" downcasing. I verified already that it's not usually capped in tennis books. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also plural "Lucky losers" and a few things like "Quarter Finals" fixed. The search is down to 420 articles, almost all with proper names. Let me know if you see any other pattern needing work there. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Another few @Dicklyon:

  replace "(== *(Men's|Women's|Boys'|Girls'|Ladies'|Gentlemen's|Mixed|Quad) )(Singles|Doubles)( *==)" with "$1{{subst:lc:$3}}$4" for this search.

  replace "('+(Men's|Women's|Boys'|Girls'|Ladies'|Gentlemen's|Mixed|Quad) )(Singles|Doubles)('+)" with "$1{{subst:lc:$3}}$4" for this search.

  replace "(![^!\|]+\|+( |')*(Men's|Women's|Boys'|Girls'|Ladies'|Ladies|Gentlemen's|Mixed|Quad) )(Singles|Doubles)" with "$1{{subst:lc:$4}}" for this search.

  Letcord (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm done too now with this cleanup. I would agree we're at 99% of the over-capitalization fixed now, with the remaining being in prose or in rare formats/table types/templates. It would be nice to get the "Main Draw"/"Qualifying Draw" external links' text decapitalized, but it's low priority. Thanks for your efforts in this area. Letcord (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup edits #3

Why don't you do a run on all tennis biographies downcasing all the links so that editors don't end up copying the wikitext for old links and changing the year to link to new tournaments, which will produce red links and therefore ongoing confusion, as redirects won't exist from the old title casing style to those new tournaments' articles. There was also an old discussion I found in the archives about changing the colour of faded text in timelines from #696969 to #767676. You could kill two birds with one stone by making those changes as well. Letcord (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

If you can prepare a search and replace for links that doesn't get false hits, I can give it a try. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

"(\[\[[^\]]+(–|-) )((Men's|Women's|Ladies'|(Senior )?Gentlemen's|Mixed|Boys'|Girls'|Wheelchair (Men's|Women's|Quad)|Quad|Legends(')?( (Under|Over) (45|50)| Mixed))( (Legends(')?|Invitation))? )?(Singles|Doubles|Champions Invitational|Draw)( Qualifying)?(#[^\|\]]+)?(\||\])" → "$1{{subst:ucfirst:{{subst:lc:$3$14$15}}}}$16$17" will do it with no false positives. This should be done for all articles with hastemplate:"Infobox tennis biography" (the bulk), incategory:"Tennis career statistics", hastemplate:"Tennis records and statistics" and hastemplate:"Grand Slam champions". The color one can be done by just replacing 696969 with 767676 (the color that Sportsfan77777 suggested as the faintest that passes accessibility guidelines, but wasn't changed to because nobody had access to the semi-automated tools). Letcord (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I tried that on Serena Williams (which needed a "See also" redlink patch), and on Rafael Nadal. Please review. Dicklyon (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

If I take out the hyphen and just do the dashed ones, there will likely be fewer such redlinks created. Dicklyon (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, replacing the hyphen by the dash is better. I'll watch for redlinks. Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I did about 500 of those (of about 10000). Let me know if you see any issues. Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I spotted a few redlinks that should be taken care of by the proposed bot action at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13B. Dicklyon (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, I've updated the find & replace patterns so that links with anchors are matched as well, which some newer articles have. Letcord (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I started over with the change in case some had been missed. But then most of the ones I had already edited got null edits, because JWB won't "skip if no changes" if something like subst:lc: is in the source but there's no change after substing it. So I'm just clicking away on Save instead of looking for when to switch to Skip, which would slow the process down. Dicklyon (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Those null edits were coming from " – Singles" and " – Doubles" links; I fixed so that they're skipped instead. Still about 1400 to go now. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Singles/Doubles links were included in the pattern in order to replace hyphens with dashes. There aren't any with hyphens now so either there were none in the first place or you fixed them all while you still had them in the pattern. Letcord (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. But only for that first "hastemplate" ("the bulk"); I'll check the others soon. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Final 300 done. Dicklyon (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it's very satisfying to see all of that finished. Perhaps you could ping the bot approval people on the request page to get the ball rolling again now that all those red links actually exist in articles. Letcord (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

One thing to be aware of, a handful (5) of the several thousand articles you've done so far linked to draws within references, where substitution doesn't work. All such instances can be found with insource:/\{\{subst:ucfirst/ (empty now), and they have to be fixed manually [1] after you've done the replacement. If the reference is just a link to a Wikipedia article, it can be removed per WP:CIRCULAR. Letcord (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I still have thousands to go. If you can keep an eye on that tweak, I'd appreciate it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

There were only a couple more (now fixed). There is a curious assortment of failed substitutions found with insource:/\{\{subst:/ -insource:"Anchor comment" ("Anchor comment" is a false positive). Letcord (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all your helping getting such things fixed up. Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, a few more tennis articles that need the same replacement: search 1 search 2. Letcord (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Some had no changes; please review. And some have this pattern to fix still. Dicklyon (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No changes happens when the overcapped links are within hidden comments, which you can edit if you untick the ignore unparsed content box, but it's not necessary as as they're just comments (and subst: might not work). The user you pinged below is partially reverting your edits where they create red links [2]. I've told him that this isn't necessary, but once all the redirects have been created it would be worth doing another pass of search 1, which contains all articles that have had this happen to them. The "pattern still to fix" was only in 5 other articles - I've just removed those see also sections as all those links are in the infoboxes. Letcord (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Letcord, @Dicklyon, thanks guys for all the work you've done so far. Just letting you know that some of those automated edits are causing red links; see Fed's career timeline here.

One more thing, could you please remove the flag icon key box form draws articles, it used to be added by some editors in the past but it's not needed anymore because the flagicons are now clickable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForzaUV (talk • contribs) 23:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, thanks for the feedback. The red links are a known problem, and there's a bot task awaiting approval to create all the necessary redirects, based off of this list.

Dicklyon should be able to remove the flag keys by replacing "\{\| *width="?[0-9]+%"?\n\| *valign="?top"? +width="?[0-9]+%"? +align="?left"? *\|\n\{\| *class="?wikitable"?\n\|\- *bgcolor="?#eeeeee"?\n\|'''Flag (I|i)con (K|k)ey'''\n\|-\n\| *\[\[List of IOC country codes(#Current NOCs)?\|List of National Flags\]\]\n\|\}\n\|\}\n" with nothing with JWB for the articles in this search. Letcord (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I ran that. Most of the search hits had no change. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it's hard because it has to match an entire table. Try again with the new pattern (please). Letcord (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Nailed it! Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You are a regex God, Letcord. Excellent work and that list of redirects should fix most if not all the redlinks but I have a question. Why the branded name is used for some tournaments but not the others? For example, in that list I see (1988 Cincinnati Open) will be moved to (1988 Pringles Light Classic) but (1990 Peugeot Italian Open) will be moved to (1990 Italian Open)?

Another task for you and Dicklyon: F-S / F–S → S and SF-B / SF–B → B. ForzaUV (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Haha no, I'm intermediate at best, it's just that matching longer strings (like entire tables) that vary slightly in format requires anticipating all those variations. That key really should have been a template. Replacing "\| *(SF|F)-(B|S)" with "|$2" for the articles in this search will do that new task, though I note that you made the relevant change to {{Performance key}} [3], so I hope there is consensus for it (I see the merit in both formats, personally). Letcord (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon: You've been undoing some of these case fix edits, possibly by editing slightly old versions. Most of these have been undone by an IPv6 user, and I undid one (you'll need to reapply your intended updates). Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Standings

Speaking of rankings, we have this oft-repeated notation:

Standings are determined by: 1) Number of wins; 2) Number of matches; 3) In two-players-ties, head-to-head records; 4) In three-players-ties, percentage of sets won, or of games won; 5) Steering Committee decision.

Can we change it to reduce over-capitalization, and maybe replace the one-sided paren with something more normal? Maybe:

Standings are determined by: 1. number of wins; 2. number of matches; 3. head-to-head records in two-player ties; 4. in three-player ties, percentage of sets won, or of games won; 5. steering-committee decision.

Other suggestions? Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Seeing no particular interest here, I went ahead and just did the lowercasing and changing of one-side parens to dots. Also added dot of end of those sentences that were missing it. And changed a few other variations to be alike. No wording changes, except maybe a few of the first ones before I stopped that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Since you criticized me for not commenting on this after you made the changes, I'll point out that there are issues with both versions. Criteria 3 and 4 are not really separate criteria. (I think Criteria 4 might go back to Criteria 3 if it breaks a tie. Is that possible?) In your version, I think it's weird to change it so that Criteria 3 ends with "in two-player ties", while Criteria 4 starts with "in three-player ties". They should both start with "in #-player ties". More broadly, I think other sports projects might do a better job of listing out these criteria than we do, so it might just be worth copying them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. I was just working on the styling (caps and punctuation), but rewording them or restructuring them might be a great idea, too. Dicklyon (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Strange socking and over-capitalization in 2022 tournament update edits

Naturally there's a lot of editing going on with 2022 competitions, but what's with all the socks and reverts, such as at 2022 Gran Canaria Challenger – Singles? Not something I would expect at pages that just collect facts. Also, now that all (or most) of the over-capitalization in tennis articles has been fixed, how might be get the attention of editors to the fact that caps are not needed in parentheticals such as "(first round)". Are they following an old script that needs to be updated? I've reverted a few just to get their attention, but at least one of those turned out to be a sock I think. Dicklyon (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That's what we constantly combat around here. No one cares about capitalization differences but rather getting the facts correct and updated, stopping all the vandalism, and making sure articles are created per GNG. Editors simply tend to follow what has been done for years and years so you'll have to stay on top of it or it will slowly unravel. Vandals and socks spring up like weeds around tennis articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

But what is the aim of those socks? Adding false factoids for some reason? Dicklyon (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Every sock/vandal seems to have a different agenda. We'll go through a spate of "deliberate factual errors", then content disputes, then section blankings, etc. Some messing around as a sock because they were banned somewhere else. It's constant, especially around the playing time of the four majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't think that these are necessarily socks or vandals. Probably just editors who create or edit a lot of these tournament articles and are used to doing it a certain way. They probably use a generic sandbox article or copy and past an older article to create new ones. Many of these editors do fine work in relative anonymity and do not often participate in discussions here so may simply not be aware of the capitalization changes.--Wolbo (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

But some are being reverted with a socking accusation. Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Over-capitalization still

There's still plenty, in tennis, in other sports, and all over Wikipedia. One item common to a few thousand tennis articles is the phrase "Win–Loss" in a table, where sentence case might be OK, so it should be "Win-loss", and also in some contexts where it needs to be "win–loss". So I fixed a few thousand of those (not just in tennis). Now User:Sportsfan77777 argues that where the abbreviation W-L is used, loss ought to be capitalized. I'm pretty sure that's contrary to MOS:CAPS#Expanded forms of abbreviations, but he wants to discuss it. He also says that sometimes the dash should be a hyphen; not sure how he thinks so. Opinions? Dicklyon (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, without any discussion, Dicklyon has just changed the tables in all of our articles from:

Tournament	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	SR	W–L	Win %
Australian Open	Q2	1R	SF	3R	SF	SF	0 / 5	17-5	77%
French Open	1R	2R	4R	SF	F		0 / 5	15–5	75%
Wimbledon	1R	4R	1R	NH	1R		0 / 4	3–4	43%
US Open	Q3	2R	1R	3R	3R		0 / 4	5–4	56%
Win–Loss	0–2	5–4	8–4	8–3	13–4	5–1	0 / 18	38–18	68%

to:

Tournament	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	SR	W–L	Win %
Australian Open	Q2	1R	SF	3R	SF	SF	0 / 5	17-5	77%
French Open	1R	2R	4R	SF	F		0 / 5	15–5	75%
Wimbledon	1R	4R	1R	NH	1R		0 / 4	3–4	43%
US Open	Q3	2R	1R	3R	3R		0 / 4	5–4	56%
Win–loss	0–2	5–4	8–4	8–3	13–4	5–1	0 / 18	38–18	68%

There is no example in MOS:CAPS#Expanded forms of abbreviations related to any uses of dashes, so you can't just cite the Manual of Style. You have to explain why you think it applies. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It should absolutely be Win–Loss. It's pretty much a tightly bound phrase when used together like this. We could have used two different rows, one with Wins and the other with Loss, but they always get combined as W-L or Win-Loss. I don't know what he's thinking. He absolutely must stop that and I have warned him as such. This is really taking things to minutia limit. Goodness. I guess it's a miracle he didn't change column nine to W–l. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Roger Federer's timeline already had "Win–loss" before Dicklyon's edits, for what it's worth. Letcord (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There are always a few. We can't check every article since there aren't enough of us. Someone changed it six months ago and no one noticed. But while you may see occasional writings of win-loss in a sentence and mostly Win-Loss... you will not see Win-loss or W-l. It's just not done as Sportsfan77777 said above. It actually looks silly written that way. I just corrected about 500 of these changes... I didn't have time for more yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

In sources, it's overwhelmingly lowercase win–loss, and it is also so in Wikipedia (though with a mixture of hyphen and dash and slash styling). For a table heading, we use sentence case, so it becomes Win–loss. This is also commonly seen in sources. What would be a reason to cap here, when our MOS says we avoid unnecessary capitalization? I certainly didn't expect any controversy around this routine case fixing work. Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ngrams can be a funny thing. Here it is overwhelmingly Win–Loss. Even your source example shows Win-Loss wins out but the ngram changes it to Win - Loss, so it's not totally accurate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

In n-grams, they treat the hyphen or dash as if it's a word; they're not looking at spaces. The point of those statistics here is to show that "Win–loss" is not an unusual capitalization pattern (contrary to what you asserted on my talk page: "You would NEVER or nearly NEVER see loss not capitalized in regards to wins."). Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is a more informative n-gram report. Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not a routine change. It's never a routine change. Any change you want to make on a project-wide scale you have to bring up for discussion here, and you have to give people time to reply (something you didn't do as recently as two weeks ago). You would know that of course because you have been WP:HOUNDING this project for at least three months now and lately more and more you have been pretending like we don't exist. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's a routine change. It's part of the Manual of Style. It's been part of the Manual of Style for as long as I've been around. We use sentence case for article titles, for section headings and for headings in tables. This is a routine change I wouldn't think about. Why would tennis would be an exception? SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is a routine change if it goes against consensus on thousands of articles. It doesn't matter how obvious it is. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Sentence case for headings in tables is the consensus in hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of articles and the long-term consensus in the Manual of Style. Making tennis articles match the rest of the encyclopedia is routine. SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we agree that the headings in the table should be sentence case. That's why the table is in sentence case. The places where it looks like it's "not in sentence case" are for good reasons (first word in a term, proper noun, etc.). That's the existing consensus right now. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That Google ngram search doesn't show the proper usage because "win-loss record" in prose is not the same as "Win–Loss" as a header. In prose, it's one term. As a header, it's two terms in the same row for convenience. It's like the article titles from a few months ago, where capitalizing multiple words is allowed because you have two parts to the title. That's why capitalization was allowed there, and that's why it's still allowed here. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Win–loss in prose is typically used with a pair numbers just like in the tables. How is it a different thing? Dicklyon (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Because in the table it says "Win–Loss" and in the prose it says "win-loss record". You see there is an extra word. That extra word makes the usage different. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Does "Win-Loss" in the table denote something different from what a "win-less record" denotes? And the difference somehow promotes loss to proper name status? I think you're grasping at straws here. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It's two names. (e.g. We could call it "Win count – Loss count" and that would be fine because both parts are sentence case.) I said this above and you are ignoring it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: it appears you did a bunch of these loss downcasings last August 15, citing MOS:CAPS. Did you see any potential controversy, or get any pushback? I wouldn't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember any problems - there's nothing on my talk page (prior to next cleanup) - but it was a while ago.

I agree that it should be "win-loss" in running text or "Win-loss" in a table header, because "loss" is not a new sentence or a proper noun. MOS:CAPS says to use sentence case in general, and WP:MOS § Heading-like material says that the rule also apply to table row and column headers. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, you have not explained why you think "W–L" is allowed, but "Win–Loss" is not allowed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Initialisms typically use caps, to indicate that the letters are abbreviations for words. The dash is a bit unusual, but it's hard to imagine anyone suggesting that w–l or W-l would be a sensible alternative. Here's a book example with "Win–loss" and "W–L" in the same line. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

But if you went by that source, and I would gather 99% of other sources, none of them use an ndash to separate W-L or Win-Loss. Just a hyphen. Yet we go against all those sources and use an ndash. I should say I have no issue with that at all, but it shows that we don't always follow most sources here at wikipedia. You just went through and changed all our events from "Australian Open – Men's Singles" to "Australian Open – Men's singles"... recapitalizing after the ndash. Here we have Win, then an ndash, then Loss. Pretty much the same thing. We have two separate ideas portrayed as a whole as if they were columns. Wins and Losses... Win–Loss. There are a lot of iffy rules here at Wikipedia, but this seems to defy common sense. You might see Win-Loss or win-loss but not very often Win-loss as a heading. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

No, of course, I have never advocated that we just follow the majority of sources. We have our own MOS. My point is just to show that styling it according to the guidance of our MOS doesn't make it an unusual outlier, caps wise. Sources show clearly that those caps are optional, not necessary, and the key point of MOS:CAPS is that we avoid unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As for the capping of "Men's" after the dash, I was not arguing for that, but we failed to achieve a consensus to downcase it, treating the Men's singles as a subtitle, even though title policy says not to do that. This is completely different; Loss is not a subtitle to Win, but rather a classic parallel "and" or "versus" relationship for which the unspaced en dash is conventional in English typography and in WP style. Whole different kettle of fish. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That example is for "Win-loss percentage" not an isolated "Win–Loss". Show me an isolated example of "Win–Loss" where "loss" is lowercase. Sportsfan77777 (talk)

If you agree that "W–L" should be capitalized, then even if you could get consensus that "Win–Loss" is not allowed, we would probably switch it to "W–L" to leave the capitalization. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

More than likely. But there is no real consensus for change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

With 5 editors in favor of following MOS:CAPS and going with Win–loss, and only 2 objecting, I think I'll go ahead. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That consensus seems clear enough here. But I don't see changing "Win–loss" to "W–L" as a net improvement. Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No it does not! Plus only two days? You have to be kidding. We would change it to W–L if it came to that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:SENTENCECAPS. We use sentence case. We don't cap after a dash or colon. Tables are not an exception to using sentence case and nor is a dash. The burden set by MOS:CAPS is to avoid unnecessary caps. It isn't necessary. If it isn't capped in a sentence we wouldn't cap it in a table either. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sentence case, please. Tony (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• For the little it's worth, I prefer retention of both capitals, or loss of both capitals, so "win" and "loss" are treated as balanced equals. But honestly, there are more productive things to do with life than get embroiled in correction of so-called errors like this, which is why I've avoided comment so far. I also feel that 2 days is far too short a time to reach an agreement in WP. Editors with strong views may not log on daily. This hasn't been handled correctly. Elemimele (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Elemimele: I think your comment and opinion are worth a lot. Thanks. I agree that "win" and "loss" should be treated as balanced equals; that's what an en dash is for – joining balanced equals. "Sentence case" should not be applied here. If you read the column vertically, "Tournament" at the top is capitalized as the first word in the table-sentence-column. Win–loss is the last "word" in that "sentence column" so it should not be capped. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Now there's a novel idea! But generally each row or column heading (and sometimes each table cell) is done in sentence case. The idea that the row headings down the first column make up a sentence is not something I've ever heard or imagined before. But you're right that the en dash signals that the two connected parts are equal and parallel. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  that's what an en dash is for – joining balanced equals
  According to whom? Certainly not MOS:DASH, or Dash.

  If you read the column vertically
  This is the English Wikipedia, where we read left to write, not an East Asian Wikipedia that might read vertically. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  According to MOS:ENBETWEEN: the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  And by capitalizing the W but not the L you're saying that they aren't equal – a Win is more important and has higher status than a loss. Or maybe a win modifies a loss, making it less bad. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ha ha. Only East Asians read table columns vertically. I don't think so. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  MOS:ENBETWEEN - fair point. However I think that applies only to the meanings of the words; it does not affects the rules of grammar and casing. Eg (first example from ENBETWEEN) we would write "Boyfriend–girlfriend problems are a cause of stress." (lowercase girlfriend) not "Boyfriend–Girlfriend problems are a cause of stress." (uppercase Girlfriend). Thus "Win–loss numbers exclude ties" (lowercase loss) not "Win–Loss numbers exclude ties" (uppercase Loss), thus "Win–loss" not Win–Loss". Mitch Ames (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly! The dash has nothing to do with the capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose sentence case because this is not a sentence. "Win–Loss" is best for symmetry with "W–L". BTW, what bothers me most in the table in question is SR as I'm not sure what it means. A brief search indicates that it might mean special ranking, but I'm still not sure. See also WP:WINNING. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  No, in those tables it means Success Ratio.Tvx1 19:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  If you say so, but I'm still not sure what that means, as a different thing from the Win %. And now I notice another issue. The cell in question seems to be explaining the nature of the bottom row of the table. But isn't that a total line or summary of the stats across the four events? Why is it called "Win–Loss" when there's a mix of different stats being summarised, not just "W–L"? I would expect it to be called something more general such as "Total". Andrew🐉(talk) 19:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Strike rate (events won/competed); see next subsection here on tooltips. Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm following this discussion because I do a lot of gnomish tasks like correcting capitalization to match the Manual of Style. Right now I'm going through and changing "Federal Bureau of Investigations" to "Federal Bureau of Investigation" or "Federal Bureau of Investigation's". It's not exciting work, but it helps make the encyclopedia better and it keeps me busy. Sentence case is and has long been the standard for article titles, section headings and table headings. It is not only used in complete sentences. I'd be just as gobsmacked if someone objected to a change from "Win-Lose" to "Win-lose" as I would be if someone believed fervently that the right word was "Investigations". This is all pretty insignificant, and if I ran across this issue and people objected, I'd probably just go elsewhere because there's plenty of other work to do, but more power to Dicklyon for sticking to it.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Use sentence case, like in every other topic. There is nothing magically special about tennis or other sports, and we have MOS:SPORTCAPS for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Sentence case. The MOS is just a guideline, but we shouldn't be making exceptions without good reason. The objections raised above, like (paraphrasing) "readers will then not understand W–L", "it implies that wins are more important than losses", and "we only use sentence case for sentences" have no basis in policy or guideline. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 04:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - "Win-Loss" is not a sentence. Therefore, I oppose lower-casing. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, lot's of comments above! Still, no one has provided what I asked for: an example of "Win–loss" being used in isolation (as in, just "Win–loss", not "Win–loss record"). To clarify, I would be happy with "Win–loss" if I saw an example from a good source, or an example of another WikiProject using "Win–loss" in a table. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel one example would be good enough to overturn normal usage. It would be great to see in a table someplace but I think it's overwhelming Win–Loss. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, to those of you above (like Firefangledfeathers) who are still confused about which policy "Win–loss" violates, it's MOS:ABBR. To paraphrase MOS:ABBR, "Avoid making up new abbreviations. For example, "Win–loss" seems like a good abbreviation of "Win–loss record", but "Win–loss" is not used by any official tennis websites or tennis reliable sources; use the full name "Win–loss record" or an abbreviation that's used in practice: "W–L" or "Win–Loss"." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Since you keep asking, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Grand Slam tournament only timeline (under the tooltip). The project's guideline isn't even consistent in its usage. As to the claim that "Win-Loss" is an abbreviation of "win-loss record", that is a really long bow to draw. The first is a shortened form of a fuller term. One sees many instances of such shortenings but it is novel that you would call it an abbreviation in the more usual sense and the specific context to which the guidance is being applied - ie contractions or truncations of words and initialisms. But if this is the case, then, until the recent amendment to the key, articles were providing no to key to what "W-L" means or that "Win-Loss" is an "abbreviation" of "win-loss record". It appears to me to be a fabricated and sinking argument. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not true. It was consistently "Win-Loss" for both ATP and WTA players before Dicklyon changed it. The fact that someone updated the guideline example recently and put in the one example of a table using ""Win-loss" without realizing it doesn't mean that's the new guideline. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I also don't see why you pretend to be more familiar with the project guidelines than the actual project members who helped put those guidelines in place. That does not assume good faith to me. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

"One sees many instances of such shortenings" --- Yes, that's what I am asking for. Show me those shortenings, and I'll concede! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not true. It was consistently "Win-Loss" for both ATP and WTA players before Dicklyon changed it. It wasn't Dicklyon that changed it. It was in the table when it was originally added here and, I believe it was copied into the guideline from Roger Federer#Grand Slam tournament performance timeline, where it is also "Win-loss". See also David Ferrer#Grand Slam tournament performance timeline. I am sure that if I keep digging I will find more. You asked for an example. I provided it and now another two - though yes, it may not have been realised or it may even have been a concious decision when the guideline was edited (neither you nor I can say). Regardless, the guideline was inconsistent and it wasn't because of DL (though it has just been amended). If nothing else, this external scrutiny is helping to clean up a few inconsistencies. I am not pretending anything. I made a statement of fact that the guideline was inconsistent. Waving around WP:AGF strikes me as being a bit WP:POT. "One sees many instances of such shortenings" --- Yes, that's what I am asking for. Well, that wasn't your original question (I answered that). This is a new question. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom ... "United Kingdom" is a shortened form. It is not referred to as an abbreviation. Similarly, Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia ... [Links added in both cases] See House Un-American Activities Committee#Precursors to the committee, where it is simpy referred to in a shortened form as "the committee". At Infantry in the Middle Ages#English longbowmen, "bowmen" is used as a shortened form to refer to "longbowmen". These are all common examples of a shortened form of a fuller term and they aren't considered abbreviations (per my statement) and, if they are capitalised, it is becase they are considered proper nouns/names in their own right. Asked and answered (again). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

When Renamed user qoTkZBdUBi (Somnifuguist) changed the guideline, it was not their intent to change the guideline for "Win-Loss" (their intent was to use a recent player's timeline as the example). As Dicklyon pointed out above, Mitch Ames was the one who changed Roger Federer's timeline. As is quite apparent from the discussion above, that change would have been reverted if it was caught. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Even though Somnifuguist accidentally changed the guideline, our actual hundreds of articles on ATP and WTA players virtually all still kept Win-Loss in the table, as we intended (except for few that were changed by Mitch Ames or possibly someone else that no one caught). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

What I was specifically asking for (and still am asking for) is:

1. A different WikiProject (presumably in sports) that uses the term "Win-loss" in a table (not e.g. the full "Win-loss record"), OR
2. A tennis website that uses "Win-loss" in a table. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I think what I was I asking for was quite clear from my original statement: "To clarify, I would be happy with "Win–loss" if I saw an example from a good source, or an example of another WikiProject using "Win–loss" in a table." If someone showed me one of those things, then I would agree with you that "Win–loss" is an acceptable usage. Do you think you provided the example I was looking for? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777, your second question was: "One sees many instances of such shortenings" --- Yes, that's what I am asking for. Show me those shortenings, and I'll concede!. My post immediately above answered that question. But answering your question immediately above now, see Thierry Lincou, David Palmer (squash player) and Nick Matthew. I stopped at three. It is consistently used in a table in squash as "Win-loss". Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I meant before Dicklyon made these changes last week. (As in, editors familiar with sports decided that "Win-loss" was appropriate. We are quite aware Dicklyon is not familiar with sports, or at least, not tennis.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777, I suspected that you might make this additional condition. However, it is notable that here doesn't seem to be any objection to the amendments at squash (or indeed, other projects). However, the table below (Template:Performance timeline male squash legend) contains "Win-loss" in a table from another project and is not followed by the word "record". It appears in all three of the squash articles I linked. The edit history shows that it was in that form prior to the edits by Dicklyon. Well? Cinderella157 (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like you're just trying to find loopholes in what I'm saying. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean examples of something like this:

Win–Loss

10–5

rather than this:

Win–loss

10–5

If we had something like

Titles / Tournaments

2 / 15

That's perfectly fine because it's two separate terms and two separate quantities. (i.e. it's starting "a new sentence".) There is no rule in MOS:CAPS against that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"Titles / Tournaments" is read as "Titles or tournaments" not "Titles or. Tournaments". The slash certainly does not represent the start of a new sentence. Similarly "Win-Loss" is not read as "Win to. Loss [record]" but "Win to loss [record]". It really is a bit WP:POTish to cite WP:AGF in one breath and then accuse me of acting in bad faith in the next. I did what you asked. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting that Template:Performance timeline male squash legend had hyphen instead of dash, and had capped "Up" in "Runner-Up"; I fixed it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ABBR (guideline, not policy) would apply if W–L were not a common abbreviation, but it is. The fact that official tennis sites use the capitalized Win–Loss in tables would matter if we used the style guides of our sources, but we do not. MOS is very clear on when to capitalize and when to use sentence case. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Terms
W–L	Win–loss	NWS	Not a World Series event
NG50	Not an international event	NH	Not held
A	Absent	LQ/#Q	Lost in qualifying draw and round number
RR	Lost at round robin stage	#R	Lost in the early rounds
QF	Quarterfinalist	SF	Semifinalist
SF-B	Semifinalist, won bronze medal	F	Runner-up
F	Runner-up, won silver medal	W	Winner

@Sportsfan77777: are you conceding now, or do you still have something you want to discuss before I get back to fixing tooltips and table headers to sentence case (without prejudice against later changes if y'all decide that all lowercase, or W–L, or no tooltips is preferable)? Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We're in no hurry as there is no consensus here either way here. But even with no consensus we might still want to use W–L instead of changing anything. Best to get it right the first time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've about done with the case fixing in tennis. Y'all go ahead and do the W–L change or whatever you want. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Without consensus it might be back to Win–Loss. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Tooltips, too

Besides the use in the table heading, I had also downcased the tooltips that said "Win–Loss" to "Win–loss", but that was apparently not an issue. Or so I thought. Now Sportsfan77777, in this revert, is saying that "Strike Rate" needs to be capped (not "Strike rate") in a tooltip. Not clear what theory of capitalization he has in mind. I'm again shocked that this routine fix can be made cnotroversial. Can anyone explain? Does WP use title case for tooltips? See Template:tooltip. Uses in other topic areas don't seem to have an issue with sentence case (e.g. see 1966 FIFA World Cup Final). Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure on the tool tip. It's not been discussed either way afaik. However, your mentioning 1966 FIFA World Cup Final is interesting. Most times when I glance through Google I see sentence case "FIFA World Cup final." Perhaps the football group would react differently if you started changing the article titles to reflect that? Not sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that's definitely a sports over-capitalization case. I don't need another just now, thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

As for the tooltip, is there some theory under which you think title case makes sense there, such that we'd have something to discuss, or should I just go ahead and revert Sportsfan's nonsense? Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a neutral way to start a discussion for three reasons:

1. You started out by calling this a "routine fix."
2. In your next comment, you called my edit "nonsense".
3. You completely misrepresented my point. I didn't say the tooltip should be capitalized. Either the tooltip should be (1) all lowercase --- there is no reason to capitalize it, or (2) removed entirely --- tooltip use is discouraged because tooltips are not very accessible on mobile devices. We moved the explanation of SR to the performance key to explain it there. Many of our articles don't have the tooltips anymore, but as far as I know there was never a discussion about whether to remove them from all articles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, it was a routine fix from title case to sentence case. Your revert was not very neutral, and was not explained by reference to any guideline or other theory. The SR tooltip is in tons of articles (now mostly as "Strike rate", which would be the normal case for such things, though all lowercase might also be OK). So your restoring it to title case made no sense. Change it to lowercase or remove it if you like, or just revert to what's typical (like in the first other article that I found with multi-word tooltips, a sample of 1). Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I started a more neutral discussion at WT:MOSCAPS#Caps in tooltips. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the topic Uppercase/lowercase, it's seems to mostly come down to WikiProject vs MoS. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:CONLEVEL, MOS wins. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

While under discussion I wouldn't change the tool tip. If it does change I might use all lower case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed Template:Performance key, a tennis project template where all the tooltips are in sentence case. Case closed? Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Key

W

F

SF

QF

#R

RR

Q#

P#

DNQ

A

Z#

PO

G

S

B

NMS

NTI

P

NH

(W) winner; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; (RR) round-robin stage; (Q#) qualification round; (P#) preliminary round; (DNQ) did not qualify; (A) absent; (Z#) Davis/Fed Cup Zonal Group (with number indication) or (PO) play-off; (G) gold, (S) silver or (B) bronze Olympic/Paralympic medal; (NMS) not a Masters tournament; (NTI) not a Tier I tournament; (P) postponed; (NH) not held; (SR) strike rate (events won / competed); (W–L) win–loss record.

To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated at the conclusion of a tournament or when the player's participation has ended.

You're just saying the same things we are saying about "W–L". As Firefangledfeathers articulates above, "The objections [you raise]... have no basis in policy or guideline." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The examples on the tooltip page use lowercase: e.g. {{abbr|TKO|technical knockout}}. If you wanted to use SR in a sentence for some reason, you would write e.g. In tennis, SR (strike rate) is the ratio of the number of times a player has won an event to the number of times a player has competed there. If it's used like that in prose, you wouldn't capitalize it just because it's in a tooltip. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It is always good to provide a link to where you are going and I guess you are referring to Template:Tooltip? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's where a couple of lowercase tooltip examples can be found. Also least one title case and one sentence case. Seems like a mess. That's part of why I inquired at WT:MOSCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

And in an example where it is talking about compatibility of the template with linking to sections in other articles. Letter-case isn't the issue of the example and it was probably written without even considering what the case should. It really isn't a good foundation for what the case should be. How we capp mid sentence isn't the issue either. Tooltips are directly analogous to other "fragments" such as headings in tables and for captions and MOS:CAPS gives us guidance on these. As you would say, consistency with the most common form used (in tennis) is very compelling. Arguing against that would seem to be more about perpetuating the argument. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

That's the issue with you Cinderella157. We're trying to have a "discussion", you're trying to have an "argument". WP:AGF. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm just observing that the tennis project has a widespread use of sentence case tooltips, so my fixing a couple of others to sentence case makes them more consistent. Yes, all lowercase could be another possibility, but it would be odd to do that just for strike rate and win–loss when the sentence case ones are so widely used via that key template. Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I've always thought the tooltip capitalization in the key was wrong. The list below the key is meant to be a carbon copy of the tooltips, yet the tooltips are capitalized and the list is lowercase. That doesn't make any sense. It's not consistent. Either they should both be capitalized, or neither should be. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the tool tips should be one way or the other, both capitalized or neither. I think this was mentioned before. It might actually be better to be lower case. But only for tool tips. Other uses in articles would need to be looked at and presented before implementing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Both capitalized (title case) is not an option compatible with Wikipedia style, but sentence case is, as is "dictionary case" as Cinderella called it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible way forward

The current proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Caps in tooltips is to "Capitalize the expanded form as if it were in parentheses following the abbreviation". That would mean "win–loss" and "strike rate", but also a lot of other downcasing in tennis templates and articles. If people are comfortable with that, I can implement it (I won't do just those two). I see just above that Sportsfan is in agreement. Dicklyon (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If there is a separate legend (as there is in many/most cases) then the tooltip is redundant and probably should be removed. See Template:Performance key as an example, which is actually a legend. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Why don't you go ahead and do that, which avoids case issues? Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I made a couple of test edits to Template:Performance key, first to lowercase tooltips, then removing tooltips. It would be good to hear what people prefer there and other contexts. Dicklyon (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Key

W

F

SF

QF

#R

RR

Q#

P#

DNQ

A

Z#

PO

G

S

B

NMS

NTI

P

NH

(W) winner; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; (RR) round-robin stage; (Q#) qualification round; (P#) preliminary round; (DNQ) did not qualify; (A) absent; (Z#) Davis/Fed Cup Zonal Group (with number indication) or (PO) play-off; (G) gold, (S) silver or (B) bronze Olympic/Paralympic medal; (NMS) not a Masters tournament; (NTI) not a Tier I tournament; (P) postponed; (NH) not held; (SR) strike rate (events won / competed); (W–L) win–loss record.

To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated at the conclusion of a tournament or when the player's participation has ended.

There's still some odd punctuation to fix in the legend. Dicklyon (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Think I fixed that. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Another downcasing task

At User talk:Dicklyon#Suggested task, another tennis editor asked for my help with downcasing "draw" and related changes. Please review there before I do much more of that, and let me know if there are any reservations or alternative suggestions. Dicklyon (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the articles they lead to are not called "draws", often because they contain much more than just the draw (such as seeding, withdrawals, etc), wouldn't we want to keep it short and simple and just use Singles, Doubles, and Mixed doubles (or just Mixed)? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Letcord: I'll hold off until you guys talk this out here. Happy to help either way you decide. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The most recent yearly season articles use "draw", so I assumed that's the preferred style. Both options work, I just saw Dicklyon's edits changing "Men's Singles" to "Men's singles" and thought changing "Singles Draw" to "Singles draw" and standardizing all the yearly season articles would be another useful change in the same vein. Letcord (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely I can go ahead and downcase "draw". As to the changing "Singles" to "Singles draw" and such I'm less sure. Also, on the ones that don't have links to anywhere, why not just remove them? Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, finished another pass with downcasing; let me know if you see anything I got wrong, or missed. As for converting to say "draw", it looks like those were all finished already in the first pass yesterday; let me know if some should be undone. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wolbo: reverted the addition of "draw" in a bunch, so I guess I don't need to worry about undoing. Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Correct, originally these year articles had the links including the word "draw" but these have been changed over the last few years (also by myself) to shorter links without the word "draw", so just e.g "Singles" or "Doubles". Main reason is to keep that box which contains a lot of tournament info as clear and concise as possible and secondly, as Fyunck pointed out, the articles which they lead to do not contain the word "draw" so the link does not have to either. Final small advantage is that the concise version always fits on one line whereas the longer version sometimes requires two.--Wolbo (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

And I also had to correct the mass changes. I'm sure there are many more that have been missed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently "correct" or "incorrect" with either option - the styling of these articles is just a matter of taste. Nevertheless, I've now removed "draw" from all the remaining season articles to keep things consistent. Letcord (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Tennis articles needing context

Tennis courts, Omagh Tennis Club With over 230 tennis articles at categoryWikipedia articles needing context from December 2015 I thought to ask for help here at WikiProject Tennis. Most need an opening lead sentence to provide context. See "View history" from article 2008 SAP Open – Doubles for an example. Thanks! JoeNMLC (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Part of the difficulty in writing a lead sentence is that the article titles in many cases (not just the 230, but thousands) are not such that they can be incorporated unchanged into a sentence. It's generally necessary to change from e.g. "– Men's singles" to just "men's singles" to make it fit into a sentence. It's worth the trouble. Alternatively, merge all the "sub-articles" into the main articles and get rid of these odd subtitled articles. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I edited 2008 SAP Open – Doubles as an example of what I mean. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NTENNIS

For those that don't have the page watch-listed, please be aware that WP:NTENNIS has been rewritten to remove any participation criteria, after the close of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. Jevansen (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. We also have our own Project Guidelines fine-tuned so I'm guessing it won't matter much unless we link to NSports. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

We've already had a few AfDs in the last 48 hrs on the basis of this change. Jevansen (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

As someone who made (and subsequently withdrew two) AfDs under the assumption that the newest iteration of WP:NTENNIS applies it is confusing that there are now two separate guidelines. I recall that before the village pump discussion the guidelines were generally in sync with one another. All this does is unnecessarily cause tedious debates and discourage good-faith editors from discussing an article's merits - it is reasonable to expect WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS to be the relevant guidelines to look at when creating an article or nominating one for deletion, especially when WP:SNG essentially states that WikiProject guidelines should be treated as essays. Of course, you don't need to be a member of or even be aware of WP:TENNIS to edit tennis-related articles.

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here as I know that I don't have much experience with editing, but I think there could be a reason to establish consensus for a participation-based criterion in WP:NTENNIS. Bonoahx (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:TENNIS guidelines should simply be made compliant with the relevant SNG and GNG. WikiProjects cannot stonewall to override site-wide guidelines. That's just not how it works.Tvx1 14:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we should come up with a new guideline consistent with what is allowed. The actual village pump outcome wasn't against having replacement criteria, just that waiting for new criteria wasn't an obstacle to remove current guidelines. Before that, I don't think there's any rush to delete anything (or everything). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

But SNGs aren't thrown in the dustbin. They are still quite viable and help us no end in stopping edit wars, stopping vandalism, creating article. It's just that nothing superceeds GNG. If an article is created via an SNG and gets challenged, you'd best be prepared to show GNG. Plus that rewrite was undone recently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Year-end championships

Speaking of Roger Federer, I did this edit trying to reduce the variability into how "year-end championships" is rendered. Case, hyphen, and singular/plural variaitons abound. Most commonly it seems that "year-end championships" is used, or "Year-end championships" for sentence case. Is the singular cool, too? I didn't touch that one yet there. Advice? Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This has always been a strange one. ATP Finals and Year-end Championships should be synonymous and sometimes they are. But you are correct that usually you will see it as year-end championships. I have no idea why that is as I would always use it as a proper name i.e. Federer won the Australian Open, Nadal won the US Open, Djokovic won the Year-end Championships. If I submit articles to magazines that's how I do it, but I'm in the minority on that. Perhaps where ATP Finals is formal many consider year-end championships to be an informal rendering. Not sure. Per tennis consensus we always use championships as a plural. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think before 2000, the Year-end Championships (in plural) used to refer to more than one tournament played at the end of the season, the ITF Grand Slam Cup and the ATP Masters Cup so it made sense "Championships" was in plural. Since 2000, there has been only one Year-end Championship (the ATP Finals). ForzaUV (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Tweaked the tennis guideline

If there's a problem from our project members let me know or revert, but I just went ahead and changed our guideline rows from Win–Loss to W–L. It matches what we already use for our columns and there are some who don't want the double capitals of Win–Loss. This seems the best compromise as suggested by @Sportsfan77777: and I'm getting tired of all the back and forth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted that change. Using an acronym when the full words fit easily looks bad, and the "Win–Loss" vs "Win–loss" discussion is still ongoing. Letcord (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree but no problem. That's why I posted the change here like I always do. But that discussion has nothing to do with how we make our tennis charts. We can use W–L if we feel like it just like we do in the columns (where the performance key tells us exactly what W–L means). It's far better than Win–loss and seemed like a good compromise to break the logjam so everyone could go on their merry ways. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Mixed at yearly articles... should we change?

Our tennis articles, such as 2021 WTA Tour, under the "tournament" column of the four Majors, says Singles–Doubles–Mixed or Singles–Doubles–Mixed doubles. I see no need for Mixed doubles as there is only one discipline for Mixed. Do we need to add doubles here? It seems tighter to use one word for the link. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No need to add doubles to the end of mixed, for the term alone is pretty self-explanatory. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that mixed refers to mixed doubles and not something else. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

While indeed you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out, mixed doubles is the proper name for those events, and it looks more professional to use the full, proper names. Mixed singles does exist, so using the full name also eliminates any possible ambiguity. Letcord (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

But also adds extra line in the table which look crowded for mobile users. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with just "Mixed", per Fyunck and Qwerty284651. No need to add an extra word. There has never been an official "mixed singles" event on tour. I don't even know if that's what they would call it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

While we might know that "mixed" invariably refers to mixed doubles in these article, we shouldn't assume that our readers—many of whom will be learning about tennis and the tours for the first time—do as well. It's always better to use the unambiguous term. Informal clippings such as "mixed" or "stats" also give the encyclopedia an amateurish feel, which we should try to avoid. Letcord (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

But there are all kinds of abbreviations in tables. We use "hard" or "clay" instead of Hard court/Clay court. We use 56S/16Q/28D instead of 56 Singles Draw or 28 Doubles Draw. On the same article we use column headers such as Grand Slam and Year-end instead of Grand Slam tournament or Year-end Championship. This is done all the time and in this case it's better to use Singles-Doubles-Mixed. No one is going to get confused and if they click on the link it will take them to the proper place. This isn't an article full title, this is a shortened form in a small table box. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move of Tennis Masters Series records and statistics

This seemed like a pretty big article of Tennis Project so I thought all should be informed of a potential move of Tennis Masters Series records and statistics. I'm not exactly sure where or whether it should be moved but maybe some here have some good ideas. See discussion at Talk:Tennis Masters Series records and statistics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Case-fixup loose ends

Now that some other distractions are passed, let's get back to deciding what we want to do. Here I list a few options in two categories (tooltips and table headers) that remain inconsistent. Other editors are invited to add more solution options if I haven't covered what they want (though adding options that are at odds with MOS:CAPS is not advised). Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Tooltips

(e.g. where currently we have mostly Win–loss or Win–Loss, Strike rate or Strike Rate, etc.)

1A. Use sentence case (Win–loss, Strike rate).

1B. Use lowercase (win–loss, strike rate)

1C. Remove all tooltips (if any are not already explained in a legend, add a legend instead)

1D. Something else

2. Table headings

(e.g. where currently we have mostly Win–loss or Win–Loss, Titles / Tournaments or Titles / tournaments)

2A. Use sentence case (Win–loss, Titles / tournaments) (pretty standard for table row and column headings)

2B. Use Win–Loss as being intrinsically linked as two equal statements. As if it was two separate columns... (Win–Loss 27–33)

2C. Use W–L. as W–L is already in the key above this is a simpler remedy than 2B

2D. Something else

Discussion

For background, please review discussions at WT:MOSCAPS#Caps in tooltips and WT:WikiProject_Tennis#Over-capitalization still. Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) and Sportsfan77777: if you have other options you want us to consider, please add them in the lists where I have "Something else". Or say here if the lists seem OK or not. Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• For 1) tooltips I would use 1B. win–loss, strike-rate. For 2) Table headings it would have to be a hybrid of 2B. Where "Titles / tournaments" I can live with but it needs to be Win–Loss or a simpler W–L. That should be 2B and 2C and have something else as 2D. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Time to say so in the poll below. Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Are there any cases in tennis where tooltips are used and there isn't a legend provided? I have a feeling not. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know. I just added the parenthetical to 1C above to say add a legend if needed. Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I also don't know, but I don't think so. It's mostly on the performance timelines and they have a mandatory key required. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Implementing 1C would be a pain. I did it for the templates that had legends already, but doing more will be hard to semi-automate. For consistency, that would mean 1A, I think. I don't know whether any "Win–loss" will show up in that process, or whether anyone but Fyunck would be bothered by that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, there are a handful of articles still with table header Win–Loss in Title Case still (like 2B; in violation of guidelines). It still looks like Fyunck is not representing the project in being bothered by that, and there's a pretty broad consensus to follow MOSCAPS, here and in general. So I'll put those back to Sentence case (like all other table headings). If the project decides to switch to W–L, having them all alike will make that easier, too. Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You make it sound like there are 100 editors replying here in favor of your view. It's usually the same handful that follow you here from your posts in MOS. And yes quite often I'm only a voice of one or two like Sportsfan77777 because Tennis Project members are being silent on this. Maybe they don't care, maybe they disagree with me, maybe they are throwing their hands up in disgust, or maybe they are afraid of you. Only they know. And mass implementation in five minutes isn't always the goal when changes are made. You get the consensus, you change the guidelines, and you make sure that new articles are handled that way. Old articles gradually get changed through the years since it's procedural and no harm is actually being done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

No guideline changes are needed, and WP:CONLEVEL tells you there's a huge consensus to follow the MOS. I'm not doing mass changes, just the few outliers – I'll go slow. And maybe tennis project members just don't want to get on your bad side, so aren't supporting following the guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done about 50 of about 200. Lots of other case fixing found in the process. Inspections/feedback would be appreciated before I do much more. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done a few more. I'm using lowercase for things like "did not play" and "not held" in table entries, which were previously title case. Since it's not a header or a sentence, sentence case didn't seem like a good alternative. Dicklyon (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Done with those. Any other case stragglers that people notice? Or more tooltips to be removed? Dicklyon (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Pause

I suggest holding off posting your !votes here until after we get the list of options finished and some discussion going. Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that after the unhappiness that was expressed with your efforts in this area, you step away and find something different to do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I did some of that. To show you how I've evolved from deletionist to inclusionist, I made for you the Square root of 6 article. Enjoy. Now also Square root of 7. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Poll

OK, I think the alternatives are fleshed out; time to poll. I'll start:

• 1A or 1C; 2A & 2C. Note that we have a lot of row headers like "Career win–loss", "Indoor win–loss", etc, that under 2C should go to "Career W–L", "Indoor W–L", etc. Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Note: also not 2B (and also not all-lowercase table headers) since as Cinderella points out below, our style guide is pretty explicit that sentence case is used there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not 2C: Using abbreviations when the full words fit easily is worse than any capitalization style. Win–Loss vs Win–loss in table headings I am neutral on, but "Strike rate" should be sentence case. In tooltips either sentence case or lowercase is fine. Letcord (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• 1B or 1C and 2B or 2C. Pretty flexible on any of those four items but not 1A/2A. One trouble is that 2A has an apples and oranges example given. "titles / tournaments" would usually be done lower case (sentence case per MOS) but not so with Win–Loss. MOS is not clear on that at all. We have plenty of article titles where after the "–" we have a capital letter. Win–Loss is quite different than "titles / tournaments." Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), the dash in tennis article titles only exists because of a local consensus and not because of a broad community consensus to keep them. Further, the dash as used in those article titles is conceptually quite different in context of usage, where it is a substitution for "to" and WP:MOS appears quite clear on this. It is not, as you would say, "apples and apples". A statement made made broadly without specific reference to evidence is pretty much opinion. If you have good reason to believe that the MOS is not clear on the matter of "win-loss", then it would be a benefit to all of us if you could clearly evidence how and where this is the case. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I was never made aware that the ndash was handled differently. I see no implied inflection anywhere. And it is MOS that has to show us where W(ndash)L is different than Win(ndash)Loss, and the way other publication chart sources handle things, not the other way around. My mantra at Wikipedia is always what is in the best interest of our readers regardless of what someone tells me. Do I lose many of those battles... sure... to the detriment of our readers, but that's the way Wikipedia works. I know that. That doesn't mean I will quit trying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

And it is MOS that has to show us where W(ndash)L is different than Win(ndash)Loss — W-L is captialised as an initialism (MOS:ACRO), but MOS:EXPABBR says "Do not apply initial capitals ... in a full term that is a common-noun phrase just because capitals are used in its abbreviation". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not done "just because".. we see W–L and Win–Loss in publication charts and MOS doesn't say we can't use Win–Loss. This isn't something etched in stone at Wikipedia. And it's not just capitals we also have an ndash. This is very oddball compared to outside articles I write. Every organization has oddities but this one is head-scratching time odd. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ENBETWEEN deals with cases where the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements. This is a case directly comparable to "win-loss". In examples where the two terms are not proper nouns (ie not usually capitalised when they appear alone) neither term is capitalised when they are combined using a dash. I don't see any reason to think the MOS is not sufficiently clear on this? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The idea that the mixed-case "Win–loss" is unusual or odd is contradicted by the data. It's a pretty common style choice. Nothing special about tennis here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

But it shows Win–Loss is much more common and it doesn't take into consideration chart headings where Win–Loss is likely off the charts more common. That's why it would look strange and unusual. There you're setting it against the value of "Win–Loss: 62–47". Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

More common in some years, but not much more. And more common is irrelevant to Wikipedia style. Table context is also not relevant since our style guide says to use sentence case there. Dicklyon (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• 1C then 1A or 1B and 2A On 2A, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Heading-like material is quite explicate that sentence case is used. Per Letcord, we should avoid abbreviations if at all possible. I believe that most tennis tables are covered by a key, a legend of abbreviations, that makes the use of tooltips redundant and consequently should be removed - hence 1C. To 1A or 1B, there is a rational case to be made for either. It would be best if a broad consensus could be established for one or the other but lacking that, it is only (as a minimum) necessary that usage is consistent within an article. However, as the tables affected are part of the tennis guideline, broader consistency is reasonable. There is no reasonable argument for title casing the expanded forms in any instance. It is already acknowledge that they would not be capped in prose even if "win-loss" was not followed by "record". See also MOS:ENBETWEEN. We would not cap "titles / tournaments" in prose (ie titles or tournaments), not that we should be using the slash in such a way in prose at all. 2A is therefore how it (the expanded form with a dash or like) should be used in headings. There is no reasonable doubt as to the guidance on this. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC) PS. 2C should only be used where it is reasonably necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Striking 1B as the consensus at WT:MOSCAPS#Caps in tooltips is for 1A. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• 1A or 1B per MOS:CAPS. 2A per MOS:HEADCAPS, or 2C (with tooltip) only if space is short. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• 1A and 2A. Keep it simple, and do what WP generally does. One wikiproject cannot make up its own "anti-rule", per WP:CONLEVEL policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Are all our tennis editors on hiatus?

General Comment for our tennis editors. I understand that most of the poll editors here are heavy into lower case since the discussion above was posted on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters page. That's ok. What I'm amazed at lately is that tennis editors whose opinions I respect have pretty much disappeared from these conversations. I have no idea what our hundreds of tennis editors think on these issues but it seems no one cares what these articles and tables look like anymore to even voice an opinion. Maybe we should just hand off all our guidelines, charts, biographies, etc and have them handled by WikiProjectMOS, WikiProjectMusic, WikiProjectMilitary, etc. It would sure be easier to maintain if we let others handle things. It seems that everyone has disappeared lately. I don't care if our opinions differ but it's strange you wouldn't get in the game. And not just this current issue either. I realize that things have changed here a lot since I joined where we had tennis editors coming out of the woodwork, but the last year or so has been disappointing in participation. We supposedly have 245 members listed and goodness who knows how many who didn't actually plop themselves on out list. It just seems strange to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should just hand off all our guidelines, charts, biographies, etc and have them handled by WikiProjectMOS — Yes please! As an AWB-wielding copy-editor-for-style over a large range of topics, I have trouble remembering all the non-MOS-compliant style quirks that every project seems to have (sports are the worst), which leads to occasional friction when I fix some style issue (eg capitalisation) on many articles in a short time (not necessarily all in one project, e.g. I might be processing articles under Category:Western Australia), only to be told that I'm wrong because "Project X does it differently" - and my appeals to WP:CONLEVEL fall on deaf ears. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Win–Loss is very iffy on that front but I'm talking in general on everything. Every time a new tournament gets created by the ATP or WTA and we have to decide whether it merits chart inclusion; every time we have a player bio where it seems something gets added that could be too trivial; every time we want to add a new column to a universal tennis table; we can just hand it off to another group so we don't have to make decisions. It gets old real fast if no one participates so perhaps MOS can handle those items too? Shall we create a new chart for this year's Australian Open... gosh I don't care why don't you ask the editors at Wikiproject Health to decide. I seem to get asked all the time to help or solve tennis article situations, perhaps because I get asked by editors who only care about one article rather than many or all of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Of the 245 listed WikiProject Tennis members, only 68 have contributed to Wikipedia in the last month (111 in the last year). Of those 68, only 31 have ever edited this page. Many of those wouldn't have this page on their watchlists, and most of those that do probably don't care about capitalization, or any given issue raised here. The end result of all that funneling is low participation rates in most discussions, but few problems need to be looked into by more than one or two pairs of experienced eyes (such as yours), so that's no reason to dissolve the project. If people care enough about an issue touching their niche, they know where to come and comment on it. Letcord (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Projects tend to not be very active or cohesive. WP:WikiProject Manual of Style has been "defunct for years". Projects have noticeboards where proposals affecting their tagged articles get listed, but MOS doesn't have that; that's why some of us list discussions manually at WT:MOS and WT:MOSCAPS; typically that will attract 2 or 3 editors to comment. I too am often surprised at the low participation; and discussions we don't notice get even less participation from anyone who cares about style. Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the MOS doesn't have a lot to contribute to your "guidelines, charts, biographies, etc" or inclusion criteria. But where they do have something to say, like on capitalization and dashes and other style issues, it would be a welcome change if you would not fight against the guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Lowercase rankings?

Since sources mostly say "ATP rankings", "WTA rankings", and such w/o caps, I've started a move discussion on those: Talk:ATP Rankings#Requested move 2 April 2022. Dicklyon (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Multiple move requests pending.

Hi, i thought to let you know about these move requests, since they are generically deserted by editors. I thought that posting here could maybe draw someone interested to take a look at them. Cheers.79.42.106.116 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Cleveland Challenger Done.

Sanremo Tennis Cup

Challenger ATP de Salinas Diario Expreso Done.

2021 Città di Forlì II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.42.106.116 (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Tennis

Portal:Tennis has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tennis. Thank you. Letcord (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Outline of tennis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Outline of tennis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of tennis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Letcord (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2009 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso – Doubles#Requested move 3 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2009 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso – Doubles#Requested move 3 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Opencross (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2009 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso#Requested move 3 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2009 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso#Requested move 3 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Opencross (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Challenger ATP de Salinas Diario Expreso#Requested move 3 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Challenger ATP de Salinas Diario Expreso#Requested move 3 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Opencross (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Big mistake on Prague's tournaments. A needed correction.

Hi, i went by accident on the official page of the ATP Prague Open and found something amiss among past finals, i double check on its reported website and found nothing, apart some comments on last year Prague winners. Then i checked with the wikipage of I.ČLTK Prague Open and found something peculiar there. After checking the history section of its website https://www.pragueopen.org/history-historie i found out the reason.

I.ČLTK Prague Open is an offspring of ATP Prague Open, that is until 2013 all past finals are correctly listed on ATP Prague Open but since 2014 they are separated and enlisted on I.ČLTK Prague Open, while Sparta Prague's editions are attached to ATP Prague Open and as you can see from the aforementioned link that was fundamentally wrong. The Sparta Prague's editions were the one who should have written under a separated article.

Upon researching what was the problem here, i found out that someone (i mean here and here) wrongly wrote on ATP Prague Open's infobox that since 2014 the tournament switched venue, going to Sparta Prague, which is clearly false since again the history page says there wasn't such a switch but only continuity on the same venue under different sponsor.

So, finally and rightly, we need to divide the two tournaments by venue. In order to do this we clearly have to cut half of ATP Prague Open's past finals and attach them to I.ČLTK Prague Open. Then we need to change the title of ATP Prague Open into Sparta Prague Open, and put in there indeed all the previous Sparta Prague TK editions, 2014 Prague Open (which by the way is wrong as it should be "2014 Sparta Prague Open" which is the title currently used for women tournament which on its turn should be changed into "2014 WTA Sparta Prague Open" or unified with men's tournament in one only article. I prefer them to stay divided), 2015 Sparta Prague Open, 2016 Sparta Prague Open, 2021 ATP Prague Open and 2021 ATP Prague Open II. All tournaments correctly played at Sparta Prague Tennis Club.

There are two other problems involving Prague tournaments. As i said above WTA Prague Open is a redirect from Sparta Prague Open. I think this title is more correct for ATP Challenger tournaments and so we should cut that redirect and rename the women's yearly tournaments as 20XX WTA Sparta Prague Open and leave under the title a line to say something like "if you were looking for the men tournaments played on Sparta Prague , this is at ... "insert wikilink". OR we need to unify men's and women's tournaments played on Sparta Prague venue. I'd rather prefer to keep things as simple as possible, so i'm against unifying them. And anyway, we need to change womens' yearly tournament edition 2014 Prague Open, because that name now goes for men's tournament.

And finally I checked other Prague's tournaments since 2001 and found out only Czech Indoor Open but it was played on a different venue from the two mentioned, so at least we don't have this headache too to think about. I didn't know where to start, since one move is consequential to another, so i didn't put any template "move" or "cancel/unify/etc.." over the pages since i wanted to check here first --95.250.109.34 (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody have any objection to naming the Sparta Prague tournaments at Sparta Prague Open Challenger or even Sparta Prague Challenger to differentiate between the different Prague tournaments. The comment above about the women's tournaments not being named the Sparta Prague Open is incorrect, so we could place the Challengers under one of my proposed titles to differentiate between the two. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Can we please change the title of ATP Prague Open back to I.ČLTK Prague Open. This tournament has been a joint tournament since 2015 and the title is not representative of the ITF Women's tournament. You can see that the website https://www.pragueopen.org/ has both ITF and ATP tournaments together. Keroks (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

You can request a page move if you'd like. I tried moving it to that title but it doesn't allow me to do so. I think it needs someone with page mover rights. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

2020 Advantage Cars Prague Open split proposal

Hi, it occured to me while re-ordering Prague tournaments that this one 2020 Advantage Cars Prague Open has a title which doesn't exist, since MD, official website and the official bulletin of the tournament show a different name. If you're interested you can leave a comment on its talk page --95.250.109.34 (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Opencross (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1992 Czechoslovak Open#Requested move 16 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1992 Czechoslovak Open#Requested move 16 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 08:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Opencross (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1989 Czechoslovak Open#Requested move 16 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1989 Czechoslovak Open#Requested move 16 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 08:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Castle page, code to convert currencies

I have tried to convert US dollars to British pounds on the Andrew Castle page, but it is not working. Can anyone help please? BrightOrion (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

ATP Tour article naming

Looking at Category:ATP_Tour_seasons, I see that the tour article and category titles refer to "ATP Tour" generally, but from 2009 to 2018 they use "ATP World Tour". Did something change during those years, or is this a naming anomaly that should be fixed? Colonies Chris (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That was the name used by the ATP for those years. The articles are correct. Iffy★Chat -- 09:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 Wimbledon Championships

I noticed that the article on the 2022 Wimbledon Championships still hasn't been created. I feel though that it's more than appropriate to create it, given the fact that the event has been discussed al lot in the press for weeks already. This because of a highly controversial decision to ban any player with Russian or Belarusian nationality to enter and the ATP, WTA and ITF's subsequent sanctions against the tournament. Any thoughts?Tvx1 12:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how far ahead we can or should normally create tournament articles but given the level of coverage on the 2022 Wimbledon Championships in reliable media it indeed seems appropriate to create the article.--Wolbo (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Usually, being this a sport related project, tournaments' pages are created when seeds and entry lists are known, i.e. the week before the events are played.

I'm not sure about what you want to write on Wimbledon dispute with ATP/WTA, but keep in mind that longstanding and intricate disputes such as Djokovic-2022 AO affaire did get only essential and resumed coverage, as you can see here and here. Opencross (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow. I would say that in regards to the four majors, I usually see them created one to two months before the event. There is always something in the news far ahead of time that is relevant to article creation. Looking at 2018, AO was two months, FO was 1.5 months, W was 1.5 months, USO was 1.5 months. 2017 AO was 2.5 months, FO was 1.5 months, W was 1.6 months, USO was 1.75 months. Based on precedent, we are a couple weeks behind in creating our Wimbledon article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you, Opencross. The articles on the individual events (e.g. Men’s Singles) tend to be created when seeds and entry lists are revealed, the main tournament articles are generally created earlier. Also, I don’t believe it’s fair to make the comparison with the Djokovic incident at the AO. The scale and implications of the Wimbledon controversy are far bigger than that. What happened in Australia affected one player and was not down to the tournament organizers. What’s brewing in Wimbledon is going to affect many, many players. The governing bodies of the sport have stripped the tournament of ranking points. This means that every player who participed last year and intended to defend their points is going to drop them entirely and multiple players might end up tumbling down the rankings and see their ability to enter subsequent tournaments massively reduced. This could well be the most controversial event in the history of the sport. As for your question what should be included, the answer is simple. An objective description of a)the controversial decision of the organizers, b)the critism of that decision, c)the sanctions of the governing bodies and the consequences.Tvx1 22:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I was talking about tournaments in general not about Grand Slam specifically when i wrote about tournaments' pages.

As per Fyunck, it seems really that the Wimbledon's page is overdue, not far ahead.

Regarding your ideas onto Wimbledon vs. ATP/WTA quarrel, it's obviously different from Djokovic's case, and i agree with you this is about the "tennis system" being broken. That was about a player. It's different.

I was just citing a similar case to that you're going to talk about, just to advise you on what kind of coverage it gets (not much as you can see), since you didn't mention what you had in mind. I didn't question the relevance of the subject. So, good editing, then. But also keep in mind the dispute is ongoing and generally speaking only "definite" events are referred to onto wikipages, so writing about that now could open the page to a flurry of edits (if the case) and possibly hard takes by other editors (potential edit war), due to the sensitive subject at its base. Cheers. Opencross (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

If any form of disruptive editing arises, Wikipedia has plenty of protection mechanisms to deal with that.Tvx1 10:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I have started a draft. With feedback and additions from the WikiProject we should be able to make an article from this that is can be moved to main space.Tvx1 19:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Any comments??Tvx1 11:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I've made a few small improvements. Once the cite error with citation #1 "1May" is fixed, I'll move it to mainspace. Iffy★Chat -- 14:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

WTA 125 tournaments

Hello,

WTA 125 tournaments are played as top level tournaments and their number is increasing every year. Could competing in the main draw in one of the top professional tournaments be an important criteria area for Tennis figures? Vecihi91 (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope, and there was actually a recent discussion somewhere (I can't seem to find it so if anyone can please link it) that competing in the main draw of ATP and WTA tour level tournaments isn't enough to deem notability. I think it would be rather difficult to show that certain players competing at these 125 tournaments meet WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

However per Tennis Project, being in the main draw of a top level event is pretty much a slam dunk for notability. It has not been discussed here where it is most important. Things were changed with no discussion here at all. But WTA 125 is equivalent to the men's challenger tour... professional but minor leagues. It is a step down from the main tour but a step up from the ITF tour. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

"Tennis Project" does not trump Wikipedia guidelines and policies. You cannot override those with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. GNG is most important.Tvx1 19:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

In many respects it can override other "guidelines" when it has support, but GNG is most important. The thing is we have always wanted sources for every article. But consensus is still the driving factor and if a page gets put up for deletion and more people come by to save it because they are interested in the topic, that consensus will easily win out regardless of any guidelines. Wikipedia Policy is a different matter. Often guidelines are very general in nature because they simply can't handle the intricacies of every situation. That's where WikiProjects shine. However all that aside, no one should be able to just change what is written at a wikiproject without input from that project. People could change all our charts and we have no say? That would be anarchy. The problem arose because people would make articles with no sourcing and that should not happen. But 125 events are still the minor leagues with minor league points... you need to win one of those events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, the way that was handled was a shambles.--Wolbo (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Some text in the bracket templates is too small

I have noticed that some text in some of the bracket templates listed at Category:Tennis tournament bracket templates is too small. The text in the whole template is set at 90%, and then <small>...</small> tags are used inside the template, reducing the size of the text below the 85% minimum threshold set by MOS:FONTSIZE for accessibility. I removed the font-size declaration from one of the templates, leaving the small tags, but then I saw that there were more templates and thought I would ask here before continuing. Do you want to remove the font-size declarations, remove the small tags, or find some other way to fix this problem? – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I do fear that removing the 90% will result in tables that are too wide for what they were designed for. I'm not sure. Especially the 32 player draws. The one you did that I looked at was this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You should remove the small tags, not the font size declarations.Tvx1 09:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I got them all. Please revert and ping me if I made any errors. Thanks for your help with improving the accessibility of Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Change "Rosmalen" into "'s-Hertogenbosch" in the ATP Tournament Rosmalen Grass Court Championships' title

Rosmalen Grass Court Championships → 's Hertogenbosch Open – I see the trouble here. The official name of the tournament is a sponsor name "Libema Open". So, according to internal tennis project guidelines, only yearly editions can bear the sponsor name in the title, but not their main articles.

Well, we have a good example of how to do it correctly with Cincinnati Masters.
It's actually known with its sponsorship name "Western & Southern" and it's held in the city of Mason, OH. Does it get called "Mason Masters"?? No, it's called "Cincinnati Masters".
So, leave Rosmalen in the location into the infobox (like it's done for Cincinnati Masters) and change Rosmalen into 's-Hertogenbosch in the title of the main article. As for the apex in the name, the official wikipage of the city has already solved the problem, and just using some semi-automatic bot, AWB for example, it can be easily changed into all the previous wikipages.--Opencross (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Just because one article does something one way, that doesn’t mean an other should too. WP:COMMON is important on deciding article titles. Cincinnati Masters uses Cincinnati because that is the geographic name commonly used in the sources (though I believe it should be Cincinnati Open instead of Masters). I have never seen Mason Masters in any source. However, Rosmalen is commonly referred to as such. I have never heard “‘s-Hertogenbosch Grass Court Championships” in any coverage. In its native Dutch language it’s always referred to as “toernooi van Rosmalen”.Tvx1 22:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Tvx1. You have to judge this on a tournament basis and look at the sources. The difference between these two tournaments is that the common name per most reliable sources for the Mason tournament is either the sponsored name or the generic name Cincinnati Masters whereas the Rosmalen tournament is mostly referred to by either the sponsored name or Rosmalen Grass Court Championships or simply just Rosmalen Open.--Wolbo (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I see.

I usually prefer to go by name of the main city the tournament is held, so it buffled me it was used this iperlocal... location, which is nonetheless correct. (Per comparision it sounded strange that we have Anif as location for ATP Salzburg Open, but in that case it sounded good since the official name was Salzburg Open).

Ok then, thanks for the reply.

ps: Can i ask you also about the location of the Grand Slam? It's postal address format for Wimbledon (do you know why we need to have "SW19" there?), neighbourhood for French Open, city for the other two.

Since we go by the common name, i never heard the French Open is in the XVI arrondissement, usually i hear it's in Bois de Boulogne. Also I think Flushing Meadows is used a lot for the US Open's location ( maybe we should add it in the infobox?). For the AO i think it's ok just the way it is. Cheers

Didn't have the time to check thoroughly about the different nametitles, following the popularity principle.

Today i have: here's the google results:

1. 's-Hertogenbosch Open 7.670k vs. Rosmalen Open 8.350k.
2. Then it comes ATP which uses 's-Hertogenbosch on its official page. ATP 's-Hertogenbosch gives 1.260k results vs. ATP Rosmalen's 251k. For WTA, google gives back these other results: WTA 's-Hertogenbosch 1.380k vs. WTA Rosmalen 516k.
3. Libéma Open, notwithstanding being the official name, has very low popularity, being cited 211k times in google.
4. 's-Hertogenbosch Grass Court Championships 44,3k vs. Rosmalen Grass Court Championships 173k. This last choice is the very name used in wikipedia, which has the lowest popularity of all the variants, thus by all means it needs to be changed.

So, all in all, summing all the previous results to get what city name has the highest grade of popularity, Rosmalen* was used 8.350k + 173k + 251k + 516k = 9.290k times, while 's-Hertogenbosch* beat it with 7.670k + 44,3k + 1.260k + 1.380k = 10.354,3k. By the argument made, Rosmalen is less popular than 's-Hertogenbosch and so it has to be changed. To me, 's-Hertogenbosch Open is the preferable choice here. Cheers. @Wolbo: Opencross (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

You are making a mistake here, with regards to your second group of hits. You are giving that undue weight. ATP and WTA don’t use ‘s Hertogenbosch as a tournament name, but merely as its location. As a tournament name they currently use Libema Open. Thus these results are irrelevant to this argument. And if you look at the remaining ones, Rosmalen is the more prevalent name as I already pointed out.Tvx1 18:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Uh? I am making it by purpose, because the problem here is not what to attach in the title after the name of the city, but the name of the city itself.

Therefore it is relevant to know which one is more popular among tennis fans, and as you can see, people, not me or you, is making 's-Hertogenbosch search way more popular than Rosmalen. I like to highlight that i just didn't pick ATP 's-Hertogenbosch over ATP Rosmalen to say the first is the right choice. That would have been equally wrong. I counted all the possible and equivalent google searches for this tournament and summed them up to see which city was more relevant in the counting and that happens to be 's-Hertogenbosch. I did the sum just for the purpose of not being biased by any particular denomination of the tournament, to avoid being picky and chose what we like or what we don't like or sound good or bad, and exclude them from the counting. There's a policy in wiki explicitly against these biases. From the gathered data it's also clear that "Rosmalen grass court championship" is totally irrelevant in the google search, which means it's highly unpopular, which means by the wiki WP:COMMON policy you yourself brought up, it has to be changed.

Of course, regarding yearly editions, the wikiproject guideline of citing the sponsor still stands. But on the main article, we have to go with the most recognizable, popular, known name used by people to refer to it, and that clearly has to include 's- Hertogenbosch. Opencross (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh? Why on earth is “Rosmalen Grass Court Championships” irrelevant?? Now, you’re making up rules yourself. Again, you’re giving undue weight to the ATP and WTA results. We‘re discussing tournament name here, not the name of the venue’s location. If you look at the results that actually deal with the tournament’s name, Rosmalen is far more prevelant. So your claim that the most recognizable, popular, known name used by people to refer to it is, is 's- Hertogenbosch is patently false.Tvx1 11:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm following WP:COMMON on the actual nametitle for the tournament. And not cherry-picking results i don't like it, that is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument.

I did some research on the popularity of the names used for the tournament, reporting the actual numbers google search gives back, and based my decision on them. 82.49.110.215 (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to log in before replying, the message above is mine. Opencross (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m not cherry picking results. And liking or not has nothing with it. Please assume good faith. I have thoroughly explained why those results have little relevance. They don’t deal with the nametitle of tournament. If you refuse to understand basic English language, that’s not my problem. Your certainly not going to achieve anything by issuing personal accusations.Tvx1 16:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

" If you refuse to understand basic English language" sounds pretty offensive to me.

I advice you to not use your loaded language to me, again. Opencross (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

And moving a page despite no one supporting you to do so and the didcussion still being open is something you should NEVER do. That’s among the lowest of behavior here. Stop forcing your own personal preference through.Tvx1 16:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Tvx1 here. I think there is a misinterpretation of the results that User:Opencross keeps talking about, and Rosmalen is actually the more common name. Just moving the pages even though the discussion is still ongoing is also not gonna help your cause. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I am following WP policy and guidelines, as stated above. I gave time for others to dig in and have their saying, but nothing emerged, apart from WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument.

Also i am moving yearly pages editions of that tournament ( quite a lot of pages ) to the correct title as per wikiproject guidelines, which is a long overdue and overlooked task. Opencross (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

No, you’re not following WP policy and guidelines. Firstly, you ignored WP:CONSENSUS. Secondly, you continue to disrespect WP:AGF with your repeated utterly false accusations of just liking it. Personal preference has nothing to do with it. We have provided clear arguments, but you’re YOU’RE JUST NOT LISTENING. And there’s no WP:DEADLINE on Wikipedia. Tvx1 17:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You seem unable to have a civil discussion without using a loaded language.

Writing "you don't understand basic English language" and writing capslock sentence is pretty rude and against WP etiquette and i must say even internet etiquette (for the capslock case).

Stick to your argument if you think you have one strong to offer, and don't insult people you disagree with. It's not pleasant and you'll have me call for it, if you insist on that line (and i'd rather not). Thanks and don't reply to me in such terms again and for the third time.

So be civil with everyone. Opencross (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Since the move has been contested i have started a move request on the tournament's talk page. Opencross (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You have to have some nerve to accuse me of being uncivil when you're the one who started the incivility by spouting false bad faith accusations here. So pardon me if I don't take nicely to people who falsely accuse me of things. Oh, and you can add WP:FORUMSHOP as another part of guidelines and policies you're not following. We're already discussing the potential move here, so there's no need to start a second one at the same time. That only creates unnecessary confusion.Tvx1 22:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Tvx1, it was actually me who advised Opencross to start an RM discussion, after I carried out your RM/TR request to fix your page move. I don't see this as forum-shopping; an RM is in fact a more correct place than this talk page to request such a move, and the listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves will invite opinions from the broader community (including additional editors who are experienced with dealing with guidelines like WP:COMMON). I think that would be a clear benefit to this discussion, which is quickly devolving into a back-and-forth, and as someone who has no opinion on the name either way, I would suggest you self-revert and let the RM continue. I see that you, in good faith, tried to redirect the RM discussion notice here (Special:Diff/1091713750), but hatting the talk page discussion and modifying the banner caused the RM bot to both remove the banner entirely as well as the RM listing. Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

DanCherek, I have no problem with making this a formal RM. My problem is with having the same discussion on two different talk pages. WP:FORUMSHOP says that raising the same issue on different talk pages is unhelpful. They should simply have put the tag here. Keeping the entire discussion together here is the best action.Tvx1 09:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Tournament's Singles and Doubles pages: what are they for?

I was recently changing a section header into a lot of tournaments' Singles and Doubles page, so i went through any single page of them in the ATP, WTA and Challenger circuit. Not only in the last years, but also way back in time. And they are pretty much the same. They are essentially a copy of the draw linked at the bottom, (which you cannot dispense of in any case since you need a source to back the wiki-rewritten draw). Apart from that, there are info on the seeds, qualifiers and such which are repeated/copied from the yearly page of the tournament. The lead is the most discomforting of them all. Usually is in the form "X was the defending champion. He defended the title defeating Y a-b, c-a, a-d" with little expansion over the tournament development at all.

This is actually the standard of the ATP Challenger Singles and Doubles page. Hardly you'll find something more.

In the ATP/WTA Singles and Doubles page, there's occasionally some elaboration related to a player retiring, or some sort of statistics about being that the 100 masters win of X player, and such. This elaborations though, are present on few tournaments, while the overwhelming rest has usually the Challenger's treatment "X was the defending champion...".
Now i saw the argument "the lead will be expanded in the future" mentioned when this issue was recurringly brought to the attention of the project. I can mention one of such prominent case, during Estoril Men's singles page's AfD. It was said it needed to be expanded from the Challenger's standard and guess what? in 18 years it stayed the same 2 lines.

So, i think this project need to face that apart few cases, the whole (ATP WTA and Challenger) Singles and Double articles will stay the same 2 lines, and will not be expanded. You can check for yourself. Just to give you an example, let's see the case for 2021: ATP has 10 Tournament's Singles articles with leads exceeding 5 lines, (excluding Grand Slam and Olympics), WTA did better with 12-13 articles but many were around 6 lines. The ATP Challenger had 0 Singles and Doubles articles exceeding 2 lines (well, to be fair maybe 10 went up to 3) out of 147 Singles page.

And just like that, we need to figure it out what to do about. They gave redundant information, the most article size is taken by copying a link into a wiki-draw, and the rest is copied from yearly edition of the tournament.

Proposal
I think those articles should not be made anymore. All the info they have is already in the yearly edition. I think we should add the official draw links there and dispense with the standalone Singles and Doubles pages altogether.
In the case some relevant and encyclopedic news are coming up, those can be added into the usually short lead of the yearly edition page, maybe under a Development section, if one want to make them stand apart, which anyway won't constitute a size problem at all for the page. That is valid for ATP/WTA and ATP Challenger Tour.
About Grand Slam pages, since they involve much more players and are divided into more competitions ( singles, doubles, mixed, boys,...) and there is usually a plethora of news coming up, (not to mention their Single pages usually exceed the 20 lines) in that case also for WP:SIZE reasons too, it's better to have those as standalone page. But i strongly suggest to regroup them by category, i.e AO Women would include both previous Women's Singles and Doubles pages, so for Men, etc... The mixed page would remain as standalone page, of course, since it hasn't the requisites to be included in any of the category mentioned. And this model should be valid also for the Olympics pages.

This proposal would have the effect of eliminating the superfluous repetition of the same info over and over (up to four time alone in the singles and double pages: lead, infobox, draw, and external link), and freeing resources to be used on more effective practice and needed articles improvements. Opencross (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)