Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines

message: Career finals	Career finals  	Career finals	Career finals	Career finals	Career finals
Discipline   	Type           	Won          	Lost         	Total        	
Singles      	Grand Slam     	1            	0            	1            	1.00
Singles      	Summer Olympics	–            	–            	–            	–
Singles      	WTA Finals     	–            	–            	–            	–
Singles      	WTA 1000       	1            	1            	2            	0.50
Singles      	WTA 250 & 500  	5            	3            	8            	0.63
Singles      	Total          	7            	4            	11           	0.63
Doubles      	Grand Slam     	7            	1            	8            	0.88
Doubles      	Summer Olympics	1            	0            	1            	1.00
Doubles      	WTA Finals     	1            	2            	3            	0.33
Doubles      	WTA 1000       	3            	2            	5            	0.60
Doubles      	WTA 250 & 500  	6            	5            	11           	0.55
Doubles      	Total          	18           	10           	28           	0.64
Mixed doubles	Grand Slam     	3            	0            	3            	1.00
Mixed doubles	Total          	3            	0            	3            	1.00
Total        	Total          	28           	14           	42           	0.67
I would keep separate W/L records for WTA 500 and WTA 250 instead of merging them under 1 row. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I agree with you. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose this change be put into motion once the current discussion is closed. Could easily be done by referring to ITF, however it lists obsolete event cats, unfortunately. One can back check to see which tournies are the WTA 250 and 500, respectively, though. (example with outdated tournament categories). Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

text: WTA is trying to riff (not sure if spelled correctly) off what ITF has but without an outdated tournament category, which I reckon, is the second best reliable source we have (WTA's resource). Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: #0 Vertical infobox

message: Current after the 2023 San Diego Open.
Tournament             	2014                   	2015                   	2016                   	2017                   	2018                   	2019                   	2020                   	2021                   	2022                   	2023                   	SR                     	W–L                    	Win%
Grand Slam tournaments 	Grand Slam tournaments 	Grand Slam tournaments 	Grand Slam tournaments 	Grand Slam tournaments 	Grand Slam tournaments 	Grand Slam tournaments 	Grand Slam tournaments 	Grand Slam tournaments 	Grand Slam tournaments 	Grand Slam tournaments 	Grand Slam tournaments 	Grand Slam tournaments 	Grand Slam tournaments
French Open            	A                      	Q2                     	A                      	A                      	1R                     	Q1                     	4R                     	W                      	1R                     	1R                     	1 / 5                  	10–4                   	
Win–loss               	0–0                    	0–0                    	0–0                    	0–0                    	0–1                    	0–0                    	4–2                    	15–3                   	7–4                    	4–4                    	1 / 15                 	30–14                  	
Year-end championships 	Year-end championships 	Year-end championships 	Year-end championships 	Year-end championships 	Year-end championships 	Year-end championships 	Year-end championships 	Year-end championships 	Year-end championships 	Year-end championships 	Year-end championships 	Year-end championships 	Year-end championships
WTA Finals             	DNQ                    	DNQ                    	DNQ                    	DNQ                    	DNQ                    	DNQ                    	NH                     	RR                     	DNQ                    	                       	0 / 1                  	0–3                    	
National representation	National representation	National representation	National representation	National representation	National representation	National representation	National representation	National representation	National representation	National representation	National representation	National representation	National representation
Summer Olympics        	NH                     	NH                     	A                      	NH                     	NH                     	NH                     	NH                     	3R                     	NH                     	NH                     	0 / 1                  	2–1                    	
Billie Jean King Cup   	WG2                    	PO2                    	PO                     	POZ2                   	W                      	1R                     	RR                     	RR                     	A                      	                       	1 / 3                  	0–2                    	
WTA 1000 tournaments   	WTA 1000 tournaments   	WTA 1000 tournaments   	WTA 1000 tournaments   	WTA 1000 tournaments   	WTA 1000 tournaments   	WTA 1000 tournaments   	WTA 1000 tournaments   	WTA 1000 tournaments   	WTA 1000 tournaments   	WTA 1000 tournaments   	WTA 1000 tournaments   	WTA 1000 tournaments   	WTA 1000 tournaments
Dubai / Qatar Open     	A                      	A                      	Q1                     	A                      	Q1                     	A                      	A                      	F                      	3R                     	W                      	1 / 3                  	12–2                   	
Career statistics      	Career statistics      	Career statistics      	Career statistics      	Career statistics      	Career statistics      	Career statistics      	Career statistics      	Career statistics      	Career statistics      	Career statistics      	Career statistics      	Career statistics      	Career statistics
                       	2014                   	2015                   	2016                   	2017                   	2018                   	2019                   	2020                   	2021                   	2022                   	2023                   	SR                     	W–L                    	Win%
Tournaments            	1                      	1                      	5                      	4                      	3                      	1                      	5                      	17                     	17                     	17                     	Career total: 71       	Career total: 71       	Career total: 71
Titles                 	0                      	0                      	0                      	0                      	0                      	0                      	0                      	3                      	2                      	2                      	Career total: 7        	Career total: 7        	Career total: 7
Finals                 	0                      	0                      	0                      	1                      	0                      	0                      	0                      	4                      	3                      	3                      	Career total: 11       	Career total: 11       	Career total: 11
Hard win–loss          	1–1                    	0–1                    	1–2                    	0–1                    	1–2                    	0–0                    	5–3                    	26–14                  	21–10                  	19–9                   	5 / 44                 	74–43                  	
Clay win–loss          	0–0                    	0–0                    	1–3                    	5–3                    	0–1                    	2–1                    	4–2                    	15–3                   	2–3                    	5–5                    	2 / 22                 	34–21                  	
Grass win–loss         	0–0                    	0–0                    	0–0                    	0–0                    	0–0                    	0–0                    	0–0                    	3–1                    	2–2                    	5–2                    	0 / 5                  	10–5                   	
Overall win–loss       	1–1                    	0–1                    	2–5                    	5–4                    	1–3                    	2–1                    	9–5                    	44–18                  	25–15                  	29–16                  	7 / 71                 	118–69                 	
Win (%)                	                       	                       	                       	                       	                       	                       	                       	                       	                       	                       	Career total:          	Career total:          	Career total:
Year–end ranking       	188                    	187                    	250                    	126                    	203                    	135                    	65                     	5                      	21                     	                       	$10,131,535            	$10,131,535            	$10,131,535
▶ Notes
* Mixed doubles has short version with only Grand Slams & National representation (Billie Jean king Cup & Summer Olympics)
* Hopman Cup, United Cup & Billie Jean King Cup (formerly Fed Cup) counted only for win/loss, not for tournaments.
* If there is colspan in a row, should it be e.g. "DNQ" or "did not qualify", "NH" or "not held" ?
* Due to its long names, I propose these abbreviations:
** W, F, SF, 1R*, RR – for World Group (* it could be QF as it said when you open e.g. 2018 Fed Cup World Group, but since it's opening round, for me personally it's better to say "1R")
** PO – World Group Play-off
** WG2 – World Group II
** PO2 – World Group II Play-off
** Z1/2/3 – Zone Groups Round Robin
** POZ1/Z2/Z3 – when a team is playing for the promotion, not relegation.
* Having notes for 2020–21 edition of the Billie Jean King Cup, since it can be confused for some people why this edition is splitted into the two years.
* For me personally it's better to have only 'Hard win-loss' (or Hardcourt?) and no 'Carpet' as separated, because when you e.g. came to the ITF official site, you can see that e.g. they counted 'Tournoi de Québec' as a 'Hard' tournament. The reason why i'm addressing this site is because it seams to be more reliable so far (WTA official site has a lot of mistakes – e.g. for some tournament that now switched to the WTA 125K category, you can found that tournament in some player's listed matches as that category, but in the past it was different category. In addition, e.g. in 2021 there are some duplicated matches, and they still hasn't fixed it all – see e.g. Magda Linette doubles matches).
This needs revamping. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also MOS:DTT concerned. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dubai and Qatar could not share the same line row any more as they are both 1000 events since (or at least in) 2024. I have done an update to Iga Świątek career statistics as a sample, and left "NW1" (not WTA 1000) for the year they held as 500 tournaments per the tennis guideline suggests "Results from the WTA Premier Events (i.e. 500 tournaments) ... should not be included and/or separated into timelines and instead should be documented within the body of the player's article." Comments are welcome. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Unnamelessness, I wouldn't split Qatar and Dubai into 2 separate rows. They are tournaments that alternate each year. Many older players', current and former, BLPs career stats have them merged in 1 row. You can add a footnote citing Dubai is being played in odd- and Doha (Qatar Open) in even-numbered years. Let's try not to add extra rows. A footnote will do the trick. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Except they are no longer alternative afterwards. As I said, both tournaments are featured as 1000 events on the 2024 tour. Current layout no longer works. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Dubai and Doha've been featured as Premier 5 before the inception of WTA 1000 in 2021, which is the same categorization just under a different name. Current layout's just fine. But I am open to others weigh in on this. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, in 2024 we would see, for the FIRST time, both Dubai and Doha would be held as WTA 1000 events. This is something that never happened before. Before 2024, it is EITHER Dubai OR Qatar run as a WTA 1000/Premier 5 event, which meant we need TWO cells, instead of just one (becasue of row-sharing), to fill in the results in the timeline table. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

text: In a nutshell: before 2024, either or; after 2024, both and. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with two separate rows.  I think this is the only logical solution. JamesAndersoon (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just saw the new 2024 WTA Calendar. They are adding a 10th WTA 1000 tournament. Basically, adding both Dubai and Doha and returning Wuhan, which temporarily was replaced by Guadalajara, and putting it after Beijing.... Man, the last time there were 10 WTA 1000 or equivalent events was back in 2007, under the old WTA Tier I name. This calls for a project-wide discussion. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. tl;dr I am okay with the 2 row change, having heard this news. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Right off hand, I can't think of any way to do it other than two separate rows. We may need to leave the note but change the wording a bit to explain the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a discussion on the Project's talk page about the 10 WTA 1000 events. Not related to the performance timeline, moreso to the articles involving WTA 1000. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles 

message: {| class="wikitable" style="font-size:90%"	Legend
Grand Slam (7–1)	
Olympics (1–0)  	
WTA Finals (1–2)	
WTA 1000 (3–2)  	
WTA 500 (2–2)   	
WTA 250 (4–3)   	
Result	W–L  	Date    	Tournament                        	Tier         	Surface 	Partner           	Opponents                          	Score
Loss  	0–1  	Oct 2014	Luxembourg Open, Luxembourg       	International	Hard (i)	Lucie Hradecká    	Timea Bacsinszky   Kristina Barrois	6–3, 4–6, [4–10]
Loss  	1–2  	Feb 2016	St. Petersburg Trophy, Russia     	Premier      	Hard (i)	Vera Dushevina    	Martina Hingis   Sania Mirza       	3–6, 1–6
Loss  	1–5  	Apr 2018	Miami Open, United States         	Premier M    	Hard    	Kateřina Siniaková	Ashleigh Barty   CoCo Vandeweghe   	2–6, 1–6
Win   	2–5  	Jun 2018	French Open, France               	Grand Slam   	Clay    	Kateřina Siniaková	Eri Hozumi   Makoto Ninomiya       	6–3, 6–3
Loss  	3–6  	Oct 2018	WTA Finals, Singapore             	Finals       	Hard (i)	Kateřina Siniaková	Tímea Babos   Kristina Mladenovic  	4–6, 5–7
Win   	4–7  	Aug 2019	Canadian Open, Canada             	Premier 5    	Hard    	Kateřina Siniaková	Anna-Lena Grönefeld   Demi Schuurs 	7–5, 6–0
Loss  	6–8  	Feb 2020	Dubai Championships, UAE          	Premier      	Hard    	Zheng Saisai      	Hsieh Su-wei   Barbora Strýcová    	5–7, 6–3, [5–10]
Win   	7–8  	Feb 2021	Gippsland Trophy, Australia       	WTA 500      	Hard    	Kateřina Siniaková	Chan Hao-ching   Latisha Chan      	6–3, 7–6(7–4)
Win   	8–9  	May 2021	Madrid Open, Spain                	WTA 1000     	Clay    	Kateřina Siniaková	Gabriela Dabrowski   Demi Schuurs  	6–4, 6–3
Win   	10–9 	Aug 2021	Tokyo Olympics, Japan             	Olympics     	Hard    	Kateřina Siniaková	Belinda Bencic   Viktorija Golubic 	7–5, 6–1
Win   	17–10	        	Birmingham Classic, United Kingdom	WTA 250      	Grass   	Marta Kostyuk     	Storm Hunter   Alycia Parks        	6–2, 7–6(9–7)
Note: Tournaments sourced from official WTA archives
▶  Notes
* We should use current tier's names. However, when we list these finals in the table, it's better to cite the name of this tier at that time. Then, we can use notes to inform users to what current tier this one correspond. E.g. we now have 'WTA 250' that is formerly known as International tier. For the players that have 'career statistics' we have this note at the 'career finals box' at the beginning of the page and then just use this 'refname'.
* If a player ended his/her career before new system was introduced, old one should be used.
* Result in the tie-breaks should be displayed in full form (e.g. 7–6(7–4) not 7–6(4)).
In the career charts we would want the footnotes in the legend, not the actual charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubles: 28 (18 titles, 10 runner-ups) 

message: Result	Date    	Tournament             	Surface 	Partner      	Opponents	Score
Win   	Nov 2015	WTA 125 Limoges, France	Hard (i)	Mandy Minella	Margarita Gasparyan
 Oksana Kalashnikova	1–6, 7–5, [10–6]
Note: Tournaments sourced from official WTA archives
▶  Notes
* I know we have "External Links" for player's profiles at the WTA & ITF, but still, it's better to sourced every section of the page (it looks more natural – otherwise, user needs to scroll to the bottom and maybe even don't know about these profile links). Also, I saw some editors add warning that some sections need to be sourced e.g. Ekaterina Alexandrova career statistics.
* WTA 125 Limoges, France / Open de Limoges, France ? Where is also dispute about this one.
6/7 "The note you propose has issues"? Pardon?? It literally said that it is the same category but 'title (prize money)' changed. What is the problem? We don't need to add each version of these tiers. This is the purpose of notes. It looks really messy adding all these tiers. Please, don't make it complicated without reason. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC+2)
: Well, we disagree on this. I find the note much more obtrusive than 50/60. It is way longer and readers have to look down the page to find it rather than it being quickly seen in the legend. We'll just have to see what other think on this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:   |There is something called 'tooltip'. They don't need to scroll down. Still, you can't find the perfect combination for all users – ofcourse we need to think about different cases, but you exaggerate. JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not every computer/phone handles those tooltips properly. Plus Wikipedia doesn't want you to use them if something else will do, and with far less characters to boot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubles: 1 (1 title) 

message: ==== Singles/Doubles: 26 (16 titles, 10 runner–ups) ====
Legend
Grade A (3–2)
Grade 1 / B1 (6–4)
Grade 2 (2–3)
Grade 3 (1–0)
Grade 4 (2–1)
Grade 5 (2–0)
Result  	W–L  	Date    	Tournament               	Tier    	Surface	Partner              	Opponents	Score
Win     	1–0  	Aug 2009	ITF Mostar, BiH          	Grade 5 	Clay   	Alexandra Petrzalkova	Ekin Gunaysu
 Karolina Pondusova	6–2, 6–3
Win     	4–0  	Jul 2010	ITF Plzeň, Czech Republic	Grade 3 	Clay   	Aneta Dvorakova      	Marcelina Cichon
 Caroline Rohde-Moe	6–2, 6–1
Loss    	5–4  	Mar 2011	Copa Gerdau, Brazil      	Grade A 	Clay   	Aneta Dvorakova      	Doménica González
 Montserrat González	5–7, 3–6
Win     	9–7  	Jun 2012	ITF Halle, Germany (2)   	Grade 2 	Grass  	Dominika Paterová    	Blair Shankle
 Laura Ucrós	6–3, 3–6, [10–6]
Walkover	9–8  	Jul 2012	ITF Linz, Austria        	Grade 1 	Clay   	Petra Uberalová      	Christina Makarova
 Elise Mertens	w/o
Win     	14–10	Jul 2013	ITF Klosters, Switzerland	Grade B1	Clay   	Kateřina Siniaková   	Ioana Ducu
 Ioana Loredana Roșca	6–4, 6–1
Win     	15–10	Aug 2013	ITF Repentigny, Canada   	Grade 1 	Hard   	Kateřina Siniaková   	Katie Swan
 Nina Stojanović	6–2, 6–1
Win     	16–10	Sep 2013	US Open, United States   	Grade A 	Hard   	Kateřina Siniaková   	Belinda Bencic
 Sara Sorribes Tormo	6–3, 6–4
Note: Tournaments sourced from official Junior ITF archives
▶  Notes
* Regadless we have 'Grand Slams' listed in the 'Junior Grand Slam finals' it's the same situation as the senior tournaments where we have 'significant finals' & 'WTA Tour career finals' separated. Also, when you come to the ITF website, they listed 'Grand Slam' as a 'Grade A' (or nowdays 'J500')
* If a player ended his/her career before new system was introduced, old one should be used. (e.g. 'Grade 1' – nowdays 'J300').
* Walkover should be counted as a loss or neutral?
All looks relatively fine till we get to the ITF finals where we never came to an agreement on what to call the individual events. i.e. whether we would call it the ITF Turin or Bella Cup. That would need to be decided before we add that chart, and it is a chart we missed and should be included. And when there are both 75 and 80 events in a players timeline we do use $75/80. It is not pointless. In new charts I would use W80. The note you propose has issues. It is way longer than simply using 50/60, which only adds three extra characters. 50/60 is instantly viewable by readers so no need to mouseover a note where on phones it doesn't work well. You mentioned color as a way of discerning... that doesn't help those who are colorblind. Using 10/15, 50/60, 75/80 is the best and easiest way to handle the legend. When there is only one entry of $75 then that's what we would use in the legend, since there would be no need for an 80. Same with newer players who have only played under W80 events. That's all we'd use with no need for notes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  between doubles players to conserve space. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I always do this, but here accidentally forgot. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I will give a more detailed feedback on this subsection later in the day. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITF Finals 

message: Legend
Grade A (3–2)
Grade 1 / B1 (6–4)
Grade 2 (2–3)
Grade 3 (1–0)
Grade 4 (2–1)
Grade 5 (2–0)
Result  	W–L  	Date    	Tournament               	Tier    	Surface	Partner              	Opponents	Score
Win     	1–0  	Aug 2009	ITF Mostar, BiH          	Grade 5 	Clay   	Alexandra Petrzalkova	Ekin Gunaysu
 Karolina Pondusova	6–2, 6–3
Win     	4–0  	Jul 2010	ITF Plzeň, Czech Republic	Grade 3 	Clay   	Aneta Dvorakova      	Marcelina Cichon
 Caroline Rohde-Moe	6–2, 6–1
Loss    	5–4  	Mar 2011	Copa Gerdau, Brazil      	Grade A 	Clay   	Aneta Dvorakova      	Doménica González
 Montserrat González	5–7, 3–6
Win     	9–7  	Jun 2012	ITF Halle, Germany (2)   	Grade 2 	Grass  	Dominika Paterová    	Blair Shankle
 Laura Ucrós	6–3, 3–6, [10–6]
Walkover	9–8  	Jul 2012	ITF Linz, Austria        	Grade 1 	Clay   	Petra Uberalová      	Christina Makarova
 Elise Mertens	w/o
Win     	14–10	Jul 2013	ITF Klosters, Switzerland	Grade B1	Clay   	Kateřina Siniaková   	Ioana Ducu
 Ioana Loredana Roșca	6–4, 6–1
Win     	15–10	Aug 2013	ITF Repentigny, Canada   	Grade 1 	Hard   	Kateřina Siniaková   	Katie Swan
 Nina Stojanović	6–2, 6–1
Win     	16–10	Sep 2013	US Open, United States   	Grade A 	Hard   	Kateřina Siniaková   	Belinda Bencic
 Sara Sorribes Tormo	6–3, 6–4
Note: Tournaments sourced from official Junior ITF archives
▶  Notes
* Regadless we have 'Grand Slams' listed in the 'Junior Grand Slam finals' it's the same situation as the senior tournaments where we have 'significant finals' & 'WTA Tour career finals' separated. Also, when you come to the ITF website, they listed 'Grand Slam' as a 'Grade A' (or nowdays 'J500')
* If a player ended his/her career before new system was introduced, old one should be used. (e.g. 'Grade 1' – nowdays 'J300').
* Walkover should be counted as a loss or neutral?
All looks relatively fine till we get to the ITF finals where we never came to an agreement on what to call the individual events. i.e. whether we would call it the ITF Turin or Bella Cup. That would need to be decided before we add that chart, and it is a chart we missed and should be included. And when there are both 75 and 80 events in a players timeline we do use $75/80. It is not pointless. In new charts I would use W80. The note you propose has issues. It is way longer than simply using 50/60, which only adds three extra characters. 50/60 is instantly viewable by readers so no need to mouseover a note where on phones it doesn't work well. You mentioned color as a way of discerning... that doesn't help those who are colorblind. Using 10/15, 50/60, 75/80 is the best and easiest way to handle the legend. When there is only one entry of $75 then that's what we would use in the legend, since there would be no need for an 80. Same with newer players who have only played under W80 events. That's all we'd use with no need for notes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  between doubles players to conserve space. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I always do this, but here accidentally forgot. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I will give a more detailed feedback on this subsection later in the day. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles/Doubles: 26 (16 titles, 10 runner–ups) 

message: Edition	Round	Date    	Location       	Against      	Surface 	Partner           	Opponents	W/L	Score
2018   	WG F 	Nov 2018	Prague (CZE)   	United States	Hard (i)	Kateřina Siniaková	Danielle Collins
Nicole Melichar	–  	not played
2019   	WG PO	Apr 2019	Prostějov (CZE)	Canada       	Clay (i)	Kateřina Siniaková	Gabriela Dabrowski
Sharon Fichman	W  	7–6, 7–5
▶  Notes
* As you can see, in doubles table, not played matches can be also addressed but they are not counted as a win/loss.
* I need help with legend for this, since in the past we had 'World Group I/II' + two play-offs + 'Zone Groups', but nowdays it's different with 'Finals' + 'Qualifying round' + 'Play-off' + 'Zone Groups'
Then we are ok until we get to #9.
9: I do not like the abbreviation for country location. Mouseover doesn't always work for phones and many readers don't have a clue about what CZE means. Just normal Antalya, Turkey. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Tooltips hasn't worked for years on mobile. There were 2 Phabricator requests started. Both didn't yield any results, because of it being a low-priority issue. I agree with Fyunck: use Prague, Czech Republic instead, for e.g. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a legend. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Understand about a tooltip. Thank you for the legend but this need expanding, since we have another rounds as well (e.g. World Group II, World Group II play-off, Zone Group ...) and I don't know which color should I use? JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: About the color scheme for the legend neither do I. This could be discussed in greater detail on a separate discussion. What do you think? See  for reference. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but in the "performance key" there are no colors for e.g. "World Group" . JamesAndersoon (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We could create a similar legend template for BJK/Davis Cup various groups with WCAG-compliant colors and everything. I proposed  as an example. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubles: 1 (1–0) 

message: * Doubles Team of the year: 2018, 2021 and 2022 (alongside Kateřina Siniaková)
More awards could be added here... Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTA Awards 

message: I have been keeping my eye on this discussion from the getgo, but finally have the time to get to it. I am eager to discuss Article guidelines for BLP career statistics quasi-subpages in the upcoming days. Have a busy schedule, but will role up my sleeves and get to it. My plan is to ensure our readers are served the most pertinent and up to date info without going into excessive detail. Discuss with you later this weekend. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! JamesAndersoon (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I overhauled the entire comment section to best follow a logical narrative. , is this satisfactory enough so we can notify the Project's talk page there is a dicussion on progress on article guidelines, namely BLP's career statistics articles. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I invited others to chip in on the discussion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Replied to most of the subsections and gave my proposals what should be kept, added or removed. More discussion to follow, I am sure. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New comments 

message: === Men's singles ===
* Weeks as No. 1 leaders timeline
Year span   	Leader                    	Date achieved	Duration	Record
2021–present	Novak Djokovic            	             	        	
2012–2021   	   Roger Federer	             	        	310
1999–2012   	Pete Sampras              	             	        	286
1990–1999   	Ivan Lendl                	             	        	270
1975–1990   	Jimmy Connors             	             	        	268
1973–1975   	Ilie Năstase              	             	        	40
==== No. 1 leaders timeline ====
=== Men's doubles ===
* Weeks as No. 1 leaders timeline
No.	Leader              	Date achieved    	Duration	Record	No. Debut
1. 	Bob Hewitt          	March 1, 1976    	        	6     	/
2. 	Raúl Ramírez        	May 31, 1976     	        	62    	12 April 1976
3. 	Frew McMillan       	September 4, 1978	        	85    	23 August 1977
4. 	John McEnroe        	December 15, 1980	        	269   	3 January 1983
5. 	Bob Bryan Mike Bryan	December 12, 2011	        	299   	8 September 2003
6. 	Mike Bryan          	November 5, 2012 	        	506   	8 September 2003
==== No. 1 leaders timeline ====
=== Women's singles ===
* Weeks as No. 1 leaders timeline
Year span   	Leader             	Date achieved  	Duration 	Record	No. Debut
1975–1985   	Chris Evert        	3 November 1975	         	238   	/
1985–1985   	Martina Navratilova	27 May 1985    	, 28 days	240   	10 July 1978
1985–1986   	Chris Evert        	24 June 1985   	         	260   	3 November 1975
1986–1996   	Martina Navratilova	31 March 1986  	         	332   	10 July 1978
1996–Present	Steffi Graf        	21 May 1996    	         	377   	17 August 1987
==== No. 1 leaders timeline ====
=== Women's doubles ===
* Weeks as No. 1 leaders timeline
Year span   	Holder             	Date achieved     	Duration	Record	No. 1 Debut
1984–1985   	Martina Navratilova	September 4, 1984 	        	27    	/
1985–1986   	Pam Shriver        	September 30, 1985	        	44    	18 March 1985
1986–present	Martina Navratilova	May 26, 1986      	        	237   	10 September 1984
==== No. 1 leaders timeline ====
Do the following charts meet the tennis article guidelines? Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Tables good. Datacharts need to answer the question of whether they are accessible for readers across every platform (i.e. mobile readers). Unnamelessness (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Unnamelessness, both work as intended in the wiki app, on desktop and mobile browsers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I would say both are good to go. I would slightly prefer the datacharts, because I see the potential of automation, though the only concern here is it could be affected by random techinical issue. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean. had to take down a malfunctioning graph from ATP no.1 singles page, the one with oldest number ones , because of a security bug in Phabricator. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

text: , do your screen readers clearly describe the graphs in this section? Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  The HTML tables work fine but the timelines do not; the output of the timeline tag is not (and never has been) accessible to screen readers. Graham87 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Graham87, how do you propose this gets fixed? Report it to Phabricator? Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  It won't ever be fixed with that particular extension. See this discussion from 2011, which references bugs from 2006 (Phabricator was at Bugzilla back in 2006/2011). EasyTimeline was supposed to be replaced with the graph extension, but that doesn't work right now. Graham87 (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Graham87, do you then propose we remove the charts for the foreseeable future if/when the graph bug gets resolved? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, probably a good idea. Graham87 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , do we remove them? Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never been a fan of these particular timeline charts. Kinda foo foo to me. But we have to remember something. If possible we should try and accommodate accessibility issues. It's only right to do the best we can. If a chart is quite useful to sighted viewers and we can't figure out a way to make them better, we don't just remove them and hammer 90% of readers that find them very useful. These particular timelines I find frivolous but many of our millions of readers may not agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How are we to know that the millions of readers will disagree with their removal? I created them a few days ago using the men's singles one as a template. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean these particular charts, just that we don't automatically remove something useful just because it has issues with accessibility. Sorry about the confusion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, keep them until somebody complaints and removes them. In which case we start a convo on a talk page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. There is not always a reason to remove them. If they aren't useful, of course we should remove them. If they are useful to 90% of readers we don't remove them at all, no matter if someone complains. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

text: WP:BRD is the path. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Unnamelessness, meaning? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change." Unnamelessness (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline charts in articles 

message: * Weeks as No. 1 leaders timeline
Year span   	Holder             	Date achieved     	Duration	Record	No. 1 Debut
1984–1985   	Martina Navratilova	September 4, 1984 	        	27    	/
1985–1986   	Pam Shriver        	September 30, 1985	        	44    	18 March 1985
1986–present	Martina Navratilova	May 26, 1986      	        	237   	10 September 1984
==== No. 1 leaders timeline ====
Do the following charts meet the tennis article guidelines? Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Tables good. Datacharts need to answer the question of whether they are accessible for readers across every platform (i.e. mobile readers). Unnamelessness (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Unnamelessness, both work as intended in the wiki app, on desktop and mobile browsers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I would say both are good to go. I would slightly prefer the datacharts, because I see the potential of automation, though the only concern here is it could be affected by random techinical issue. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean. had to take down a malfunctioning graph from ATP no.1 singles page, the one with oldest number ones , because of a security bug in Phabricator. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

text: , do your screen readers clearly describe the graphs in this section? Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  The HTML tables work fine but the timelines do not; the output of the timeline tag is not (and never has been) accessible to screen readers. Graham87 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Graham87, how do you propose this gets fixed? Report it to Phabricator? Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  It won't ever be fixed with that particular extension. See this discussion from 2011, which references bugs from 2006 (Phabricator was at Bugzilla back in 2006/2011). EasyTimeline was supposed to be replaced with the graph extension, but that doesn't work right now. Graham87 (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Graham87, do you then propose we remove the charts for the foreseeable future if/when the graph bug gets resolved? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, probably a good idea. Graham87 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , do we remove them? Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never been a fan of these particular timeline charts. Kinda foo foo to me. But we have to remember something. If possible we should try and accommodate accessibility issues. It's only right to do the best we can. If a chart is quite useful to sighted viewers and we can't figure out a way to make them better, we don't just remove them and hammer 90% of readers that find them very useful. These particular timelines I find frivolous but many of our millions of readers may not agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How are we to know that the millions of readers will disagree with their removal? I created them a few days ago using the men's singles one as a template. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean these particular charts, just that we don't automatically remove something useful just because it has issues with accessibility. Sorry about the confusion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, keep them until somebody complaints and removes them. In which case we start a convo on a talk page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. There is not always a reason to remove them. If they aren't useful, of course we should remove them. If they are useful to 90% of readers we don't remove them at all, no matter if someone complains. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

text: WP:BRD is the path. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Unnamelessness, meaning? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change." Unnamelessness (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's doubles 

message: Do the following charts meet the tennis article guidelines? Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Tables good. Datacharts need to answer the question of whether they are accessible for readers across every platform (i.e. mobile readers). Unnamelessness (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Unnamelessness, both work as intended in the wiki app, on desktop and mobile browsers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I would say both are good to go. I would slightly prefer the datacharts, because I see the potential of automation, though the only concern here is it could be affected by random techinical issue. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean. had to take down a malfunctioning graph from ATP no.1 singles page, the one with oldest number ones , because of a security bug in Phabricator. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

text: , do your screen readers clearly describe the graphs in this section? Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  The HTML tables work fine but the timelines do not; the output of the timeline tag is not (and never has been) accessible to screen readers. Graham87 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Graham87, how do you propose this gets fixed? Report it to Phabricator? Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  It won't ever be fixed with that particular extension. See this discussion from 2011, which references bugs from 2006 (Phabricator was at Bugzilla back in 2006/2011). EasyTimeline was supposed to be replaced with the graph extension, but that doesn't work right now. Graham87 (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Graham87, do you then propose we remove the charts for the foreseeable future if/when the graph bug gets resolved? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, probably a good idea. Graham87 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , do we remove them? Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never been a fan of these particular timeline charts. Kinda foo foo to me. But we have to remember something. If possible we should try and accommodate accessibility issues. It's only right to do the best we can. If a chart is quite useful to sighted viewers and we can't figure out a way to make them better, we don't just remove them and hammer 90% of readers that find them very useful. These particular timelines I find frivolous but many of our millions of readers may not agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How are we to know that the millions of readers will disagree with their removal? I created them a few days ago using the men's singles one as a template. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean these particular charts, just that we don't automatically remove something useful just because it has issues with accessibility. Sorry about the confusion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, keep them until somebody complaints and removes them. In which case we start a convo on a talk page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. There is not always a reason to remove them. If they aren't useful, of course we should remove them. If they are useful to 90% of readers we don't remove them at all, no matter if someone complains. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

text: WP:BRD is the path. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Unnamelessness, meaning? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change." Unnamelessness (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  No. 1 leaders timeline 

message: Season	Grand Slam events	Grand Slam events	Grand Slam events	Grand Slam events	Yec	Nationalteams	Nationalteams	WTA 1000	WTA 1000	WTA 1000	WTA 1000	WTA 1000	WTA 1000	WTA 1000	WTA 1000	WTA 1000	WTA 1000	WTA 1000	Tours	Finals	Titles	Win–loss	Win–loss	Win–loss	Win–loss	Win%	POS
Season	AUO              	FRO              	WIM              	USO              	Yec	Oly          	BJC          	Qat     	Dub     	Inw     	Mia     	Mad     	Ita     	Can     	Cin     	Gua     	Chi     	Wuh     	Tours	Finals	Titles	Hard    	Clay    	Grass   	Total   	Win%	POS
2023  	4R               	W                	QF               	4R               	W  	NH           	A            	NMS     	F       	SF      	A       	F       	QF      	SF      	SF      	A       	W       	NH      	18   	8     	6     	42–8    	19–2    	7–1     	68–11   	    	1
Something like this. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Use "div style="overflow-x:auto"> for it. Isn't the goal to reduce on width not increase it? Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: For 99% of players this would be wider, plus it missed Billie Jean King Cup and the occasional changes of additional 1000 events. But for some like Federer or Serena it would be less wide. It brings in many many abbreviations which makes it harder for readers to understand what the events are. I guess I'd have to see a 10 year chart to make better sense of how it would look for most players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You need ! with scopes and col-/rowgroups id's for the col-/row headers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It also creates issues with w-l rows at the bottom. We never use them for Olympics and Davis Cup. It's why they placed where they are now as a good separator between the Majors and the 1000 events. It seems a bit strange to have the Year-end championships after the 1000 events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

text: The idea of this format is to limit the width to make sure it won't be made way too wide. Yes, for most of the players, it is wider, but for those whose career spanning across 20+ years, which usually have the width concern, its width is now limited. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Move YEC and OLY after the WTA 1000s like in List of ATP Big Titles singles champions#Champions list. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

text: The more I look at this chart, the more it is rubbing me the wrong way. Abbreviations without a legend or a footnote/tooltip something, no col-/row group id per WCAG for grouped headers. Plus, it is a complete remake from what we currently have. And even the OG performance timeline chart has been going through some extensive editing. This one would need project wide discussion and consensus on the Tennis project's talk page which frankly, I do not wish to be part of. I am up for new stuff but not this new. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: ALT solution

message: I am thinking of something like this. Citing sources below the tables to complete WP:V. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your approach but I'll wait for others to chip in before I give my two cents. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Grand Slam only timeline is all we are supposed to use if a player also has a career stats page. As for changing the full timeline I would be against it. Accessibility has absolutely no issues with it at all! It has been vetted and tested multiple times by those who are sight challenged... we had those using special browsers and they had no issues at all. This was discussed multiple times at Tennis Project. Don't fix what ain't broke. We have so many other items that actually need discussing and this isn't one of them. And it doesn't violate MOS:COLHEAD as that is specific to the use of an actual column header (!). Our tables specifically do not use them for that reason. What is more concerning is with player's careers extending you would be adding an extra width to the table that we cannot afford in the least. They are often already too wide. Now if the only thing we wanted to change was to split the career stats out of the full table but keep everything else intact, that is at least doable but not necessary. Right now it is easy to scroll down with eyes to correlate titles won and rankings without skipping a beat. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really matter if it is actually a column header (!) or not. The fact is that colspaned cells are indeed column header visually, regardless of wiki-wise. The trouble is that the current full timeline layout contains multiple headers, and for those random readers who are not familiar with the tennis category could lead to the question of which header apply to what – You have 1000 tournaments header below GS tournaments header: does that mean the Miami Open is not only a GS event, but also a 1000 event? This is what the accessibility of MOS:COLHEAD all about. That is not the WP:AINTBROKE case. And the width should not be the issue, the nowrap would do the trick. The only WP:IAR here is we boldly assume all readers to which access the career subpage are familiar with the tennis category, which is why I said it may be tolerable to leave as it is. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nowrap" combined with "div style:overflow-x:auto". Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Width is a huge concern. Scrolling off the screen is a big headache for laptops and phones. The MOS:COLHEAD is very specific about the use of ! and this was already discussed at Tennis Project as ok. We had readers use screen readers and they said all is well. Why would we make it worse for sighted people when it works just fine on screen readers? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Fyunck(click), ! with scope is bear minimum for any header, row or column, in tables. And wrapping a table in a "div style:overflow-x:auto" solves the width issue with/without "nowrap". Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now we have no ! at all mid table... there is nothing wrong with that html or accessibility wise. If we add ! we must add scope row. And width is a concern and always has been. Scrolling to the right is always something to be avoided if at all possible. In this case adding 150–200 width pixels is quite bad when we don't have to do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Margin: auto" is what we should try to avoid. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: true... Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

text: WP:RFC is probrably the next step. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I would think not. You dont want to put it up to rfc unless you can prove it is unassailable. Otherwise why would anyone want to change from 15 years of perfectly working long-term consensus? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: First step would be at least a month long discussion about the chart, followed by possibly an RFC (RFC is a maybe not a definitely). Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you two want to make any further changes to the chart or do we call it a wrap here and take it to the project's talk page? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am good with the layout. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Fyunck(click), you? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see it getting much better than what you have created. It's certainly the best proposal thus far. I wouldn't present it as up or down yet. I would post the consideration and ask some accessibility folks to vet it. You might even do that here before posting it at WT:TENNIS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone like Primefac, Redrose84, Graham87 Jonesey95? Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I started a discussion on the project's talk page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Given what is happening out there, I guess that thread is required to be pinned? Unnamelessness (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued discussion 

message: Discussion on notability of doubles players is in progress on the Project's talk page. Your feedback is highly appreciated. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability on doubles discussion on main talk page