Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Text formatting on tournament and draw pages

{{Moved to|Template talk:5-set tennis#Borders missing in latest update}}

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

I need your help

Haddad Maia fan (talk) Haddad Maia fan (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently I have created some articles about the junior wheelchair competitions from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::::::The tournaments are all notable and the yearly tournaments are all notable and the mens singles events in those yearly tournaments are notable. A pretty typical article would be 2025 ASB Classic – Men's singles. There is nothing wrong with that article. Could it have one added source like [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/tennis/asb-classic-gael-monfils-takes-auckland-title-with-masterful-win-over-zizou-bergs/NRN4BKZFQ5FHLLVHXR6QZRWJ4Y/ The New Zealand Herald]? Sure it could as that would be better. But it's extremely notable and we include the draw. It would be better to include the draw from the ATP rather than a betting site like protennislive but it works too. Remember that all our article should have a bit of prose at the top and not just be 100% data. None of our pages are allowed to have the "main" template at the top as that is against MOS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:It would be hard to believe that a four-time Soviet Union Champion wouldn't have heaps of Russian sources. I don't speak Russian or have access to Russian newspapers. That's probably why it is still here... everyone feels there are plenty of sources but no one has access. Heck, after she died in 1964 there were supposedly yearly memorial tennis events held in her home city of Taganrog. [https://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/wplayer.cgi?p=NadezhdaBelonenko Tennis Abstract] has some records, but we need some Russian news sources. You can go to a Russian famous birthday page like [https://famous-birthdays.ru/data/22_noyabrya.html this one] and find her listed. So she is well known in Russia.Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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