User talk:Qwerty284651

I sure hope you aren't leaving the performance timeline of Iga in that state. That is against project guidelines. Scope can be added but it's appearance cannot change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A testing ground. Will revert. Qwerty284651 (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including style="height: 2em; border-bottom: 2px solid gray;"? Qwerty284651 (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other things. I think the top 10 win chart looks much worse and is much harder to read now. The colors should be throughout. Standard practice is also not centered. F is thistle colored.... there really are no green wins listed, only finals, and all our other charts use thistle color for finals. And we have to be careful with construction here. This is one of our most read articles and thousands are looking at it every day, especially right now. So being under construction for someone in the top 5 is bad. It should probably be worked on in your sandbox and only replace charts and such when they are done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Will revert to the latest version. Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks much better with plainrowheaders... this is a simple ascending number column, that really doesn't need to even be greyed out. I'm also not going to nitpick on it but if it stays it needs to be left aligned, not centered! Fix that and we're good, but I have to catch a plane so happy editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Serena's quadruple (Miami-Madrid-Rome-Canada) consecutive calendar WTA 1000 tournaments in 2013.

Referring to your talk page, please go through the complete discussion. It was particular to ATP Masters, specifically on USA Hard triple (Non-consecutive) and referred sourced combos from ATP website on "DOUBLES" only. I mentioned about WTA 1000 tournaments, which were never sourced combos (for Quadruples and Triples without any source; these are not even sourced combos in ATP as well) but only consecutive 1000 tournaments in a calendar year. Further, there was no agreement on this as you mentioned on Quadruples/Triples except on non-consecutive USA hard triple (no addition of IW-Miami-Cincy). It was added as a note for Serena for 2013 calendar combo achievement, similar to Nadal's 2013 calendar combo achievement in ATP article. Hope you agree on this and revert the same on Serena's 4 consecutive WTA 1000 tournaments in a calendar year without any mess..Cheers... Krmohan (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Krmohan, before I state my opionion on the matter, are you okay with taking this to the project's talk page to get more input from other editors in the community? I feel like the unsourced combos have no place there, which would then merit removal of wta doubles quadruples as well. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, will come back on this with more details tomorrow. We have to treat WTA and ATP 1000 tournaments differently due to obvious reasons. ATP doubles are sourced but all are not back-to-back but consecutive (e.g. IW-MIAMI, MAD-ROME, CANADA-CINCY but SHG-PARIS). All quadruples and triples in WTA and ATP have to be consecutive, but need not be necessarily sourced. In my opinion, quadruples have also to be tabulated on the top as they are very few and tough achievements than triples/doubles. Doubles have to be either sourced or back-to-back. Other than this, consecutive doubles in ATP & WTA should not be considered. The same will not disturb existing articles, except addition of Nadal and Serena 2013 unique achievements. Krmohan (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it is not required. It may lead to confusion/mess. Quadruples need not be sourced as official calendar combos, as the articles are not only about records but also stats. "Four consecutive 1000 tournaments in a calendar year" addition in the Singles and Doubles articles (WTA & ATP) either as records or stats is good enough. Let me know your opinion....Cheers. Krmohan (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add them as footnotes, similar to Nadal's on men's singles page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Further, Only active combinations in ATP and WTA "singles" and "doubles" are indicated in "BOLD" for Quadruples/Triples/Doubles.

Cheers Krmohan (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Define active. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titles with the current order of ATP/WTA 1000 series tournaments. Readers to refer ATP 9 and WTA 10 tournaments of 2024. Let us show systematically in all the four articles.. Krmohan (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would challenge the addition of "season end triple" as unsourced and unnotable per WP:V&N. I will also remove any unsourced quadruples (women's doubles, especially), which is a term invented on wiki and not the media.

Nadal's quadruple spans 2 sets of combinations (madrid-rome and canada-cincinnati), which I surmise is "acceptable". Serena's, on the other hand, miami–canada (madrid-rome as only verifiable double) isn't noteworthy in the combo section as it does not span across notable combinations. The regular doubles: iw-mi, ma-ro, ca-ci and sha-pa (wu-be for women's) are covered by media as they are contested very close to each other usually a week max. apart in the same month or location. The clay triple (rare feat only achieved once:winning all clay masters by Nadal is sourced). Other triples are unique, wherein the first 3 (because it opens the season-is consistent and can be sourced) and a borderline verifiable. Season end, though, are redundant, add clutter and have no place in the section. Having a season-opening triple does not merit that a season-closing/ending triple be added. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Active combination sounds confusing for readers, even for me. I get what you were going for. I would leave as it was active tournaments. Not ambiguous and it is logical. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may please. However, I am very clear about active tournaments and active combinations. e.g.

a) Active tournaments means tournaments in the current series, for example Hamburg is not active as ATP 1000 tournament, but Madrid is active tournament.

b) Active combination means Doha-Dubai-IW is active but not Doha-IW-Miami, Cincy-SHG-Paris is but not Montreal-Zurich-Moscow (triples in WTA) whereas Madrid-Rome is active but not Madrid-Paris (doubles in ATP). Players will get the opportunity to achieve active combinations only.

Cheers... Krmohan (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may please I may what?

a) That is self-explanatory. No questions there.

b) I understand the terminology but it is not WP:COMMONNAME. I propose "official combinations" as an alternative for "active tournaments" if we decide on a different name. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose active calendar combinations.

Otherwise, you may leave as it is or change as you propose.... Krmohan (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Active calendar combinations.
2. Official combinations.
3. Official calendar combinations.

Let's vote on it. I vote for 2. or 3. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for 1 or 3 Krmohan (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have a winner. Option 3: Official calendar combinations. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Krmohan (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The official combinations being: 2x: IW-MI, MA-RO, CA-CI, SHA-PA, DO-DU (whenever someone manages to win both doha and dubai on the bounce) and WU-BE; 3x: season first triple since it is sourced but not the season end triple. A season-begin does not merit an addition of a season-end triple; 4x: n/a (so far, I have found any media that referenceds a streak as a "quadruple": maybe 2 sets of 2 doubles but not a quadruple). Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the note out of the way, this now leaves us with the insertion of "quadruples". With a footnote only or an actual "quadruple" table, if sourced? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already thought over this. Quadruple winners in all four articles (ATP/WTA Singles/Doubles). From the content point of view, it is already tabulated for WTA doubles. Quadruple is better achievement for a player than triple, which is already subset of quadruple. Better quadruples of Nadal, Serena and Bryan brothers are also tabulated and remove footnotes under triples/doubles to standardize the content in all four articles. Krmohan (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are listing official combinations, I would modify the note to read "Official active tournaments and combinations listed in bold, because Stockholm/Madrid are no longer active events (madrid in its then 8-slot) as the fall double.

And remove the quadruple tables from wta doubles (couldn't find any sources listing 4 in a row at the start of year) and keep the same for the other 3 pages. Replacing the quadruple table with a footnote.

Thoughts? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better show it grammatically "Official active tournaments/combinations".

Mentioning all quadruples as footnotes is also ok.

But I think placement of quadruple at one position in the articles must be given due weightage (may be at the start or under triples table). Now, it is just as footnotes under table of triples/doubles. It should be more recognisable as triple (e.g. Miami-Madrid-Rome of Serena in 2013) is not covered in triples table but anyways in quadruple footnotes. Krmohan (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the quadruples are not official combinations, they can be placed as a footnote in the "Consecutive records" section above the combo section. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By now, one is aware that mostly ATP/WTA doubles are only sourced, not even triples & quadruples. Consecutive records are beyond single season. In that sense, there is no need of calendar title combinations topic, if all treated as normal consecutive titles.

Eventually, there are following options

1. Keep all Quadruple, triple and doubles in the form of tables.

2. Keep triples, doubles in table and quadruple as a season record in combos

3. Remove calendar title combos and keep only sourced doubles.

4. Quadruples as a season record under consecutive records as suggested by you.

In my view, No.2 is more apt for stats content and readers point of view... Krmohan (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact,I would leave all four articles as they are now rather than tinkering.Krmohan (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will add {{efn}} for the footnotes and leave the rest as is. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the season end triples as not official combinations. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with the way it is right now.

Frankly, I did not come across any official sources for season first triple, season first quadruple, autumn sweep, etc. from ATP or WTA sources.

But, there are no big title(s)(Grandslam, YEC, Olympics) between those calendar titles combinations in the four articled, which is perfect for explanation.

Cheers for closing the topic.. Krmohan (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Qwerty284651,

I don't know why you keep creating this page when there is no Wikipedia:Ten page. Orphaned talk pages are deleted via CSD G8. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created it as a redirect to the WT:TEN which does not always redirect me automatically (is it a upper/lowercase thing or something? I do not know) to the target talk page of the tennis wikiproject. And I have to click another link, which is an extra step. For ease of access for me, I tried recreating it twice now, but I guess it goes against guidelines. Oh, well.

Anyway. Thanks for the head's up about it being an orphaned talk page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the revert war. Help pages are for helping people. Being more clear is a good thing. Not a bad thing. I have this discussion many times with editors who don't edit help pages as much as I do.

Some editors may not know what a collapse box is. But they have probably seen the "show/hide" toggle on navboxes, etc.. So they then put 2 and 2 together with the longer phrase "collapsible show/hide box." See: Curse of knowledge. Please reply here. I have subscribed to this section. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me of a new term Curse of knowledge. You don't need to write that you have subscribed to this new discussion. If one has the option enabled in their preferences, they are auto-subscribed to the new topic they start. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I often turn the whole-page subscription off, and turn on the section subscription since it is not auto-subscribed. So I don't miss your replies to me. Important on some busy talk pages. And the notices for section replies show up at the top of all Wikipedia pages I have open. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the shortcut out of the template until the template is improved. See some threads I just started:

• Template talk:Shortcut#Please add a width parameter
• Template talk:Wikipedia how-to#Remove the wrench to fix the template in portrait view in cell phones

Please reply here and/or in the threads. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to post the question on improving the design here as well: Template talk:Information page and might I suggest start a centralized discussion with links from the other talk pages linking to it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to link to the threads, and/or start new ones. I only have so much health and energy.

I linked from Template talk:Information page to the other threads.

--Timeshifter (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]