Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines/Archive 4

Timeline charts in articles

Timeline charts

Men's singles

• Weeks as No. 1 leaders timeline

Year span	Leader	Date achieved	Duration	Record
2021–present	Novak Djokovic	March 8, 2021	5 years, 3 months	534
2012–2021	Roger Federer	July 16, 2012	8 years, 7 months	310
1999–2012	Pete Sampras	August 2, 1999	12 years, 11 months	286
1990–1999	Ivan Lendl	July 30, 1990	9 years	270
1975–1990	Jimmy Connors	May 5, 1975	15 years, 2 months	268
1973–1975	Ilie Năstase	August 23, 1973	1 year, 8 months	40

Current record in bold.

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	2 months	6	/
2.	Raúl Ramírez	May 31, 1976	2 years, 3 months	62	12 April 1976
3.	Frew McMillan	September 4, 1978	2 years, 3 months	85	23 August 1977
4.	John McEnroe	December 15, 1980	30 years, 11 months	269	3 January 1983
5.	Bob Bryan Mike Bryan	December 12, 2011	10 months	299	8 September 2003
6.	Mike Bryan	November 5, 2012	13 years, 7 months	506	8 September 2003

Current record in bold.

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	9 years, 6 months	238	/
1985–1985	Martina Navratilova	27 May 1985	0 months, 28 days	240	10 July 1978
1985–1986	Chris Evert	24 June 1985	9 months	260	3 November 1975
1986–1996	Martina Navratilova	31 March 1986	10 years, 1 month	332	10 July 1978
1996–Present	Steffi Graf	21 May 1996	30 years	377	17 August 1987

Current record in bold.

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	1 year	27	/
1985–1986	Pam Shriver	September 30, 1985	7 months	44	18 March 1985
1986–present	Martina Navratilova	May 26, 1986	40 years	237	10 September 1984

Current record in bold.

No. 1 leaders timeline

References

Do the following charts meet the tennis article guidelines? Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

@Unnamelessness, both work as intended in the wiki app, on desktop and mobile browsers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

I know what you mean. had to take down a malfunctioning graph from ATP no.1 singles page, the one with oldest number ones {{graph}}, because of a security bug in Phabricator. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87:, do your screen readers clearly describe the graphs in this section? Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: 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)

@Graham87, how do you propose this gets fixed? Report it to Phabricator? Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: 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)

@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)

@Qwerty284651: Yeah, probably a good idea. Graham87 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness and Fyunck(click):, do we remove them? Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WP:BRD is the path. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness, meaning? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"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)

Thanks for the clarification. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Notability on doubles discussion on main talk page

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)

ATP Challenger Tour / ITF Colors

I'm wondering if we can somehow distinguish different categories of the Challenger Tour (50, 75, etc.) using different colors. Also, it would be good to separate them from the ITF Futures. In the case of ITF events for women, the situation is different since we have already established a system. I also noticed that, for example, on the 2025 ATP Challenger Tour page, certain categories do not have assigned colors.

Example (Men): Casper Ruud
Example (Women): Barbora Krejčíková

JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Tournament Question

I'm a new editor and I'm not sure exactly where to ask this question so please forgive me if I'm in the wrong place. I've searched the Wiki and I can't find the answer. I'm noticing that ATP Tour Finals & ATP Next Gen events are sometimes counted as part of a player's yearly tournament totals and sometimes not. For instance, Daniil Medvedev's career statistics page for 2023 seems to include Tour Finals as a tournament but Jannick Sinner's 2023 tournament total does not (I'm using Tennis Abstract to count tournaments). Can someone please clarify what is included in yearly tournament totals for statistics and what doesn't? Again, if I'm in the wrong place please re-direct me. Thank you Bsimmer (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bsimmer! I may not give you a 100% correct answer, but as someone who has been editing this for a while, I have never counted the United Cup, ATP Cup, Billie Jean King Cup/Davis Cup, Next Gen ATP Finals, or Hopman Cup because none of these are considered official tournament titles for a player.

When you see that a player has, for example, 10 titles, these tournaments are not included in that count. For instance, Hamad Medjedovic won the Next Gen Finals in 2023, but as you can see, neither his Wikipedia page nor his ATP Official Page () lists it as a tournament title.

I also used to wonder whether these should be counted as official tournaments, but unfortunately, you will likely encounter many inconsistencies in Performance Timeline tables. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Problems with the timeline

The full timeline and the extended timeline are actully textbook failure of MOS:COLHEAD, which we need to sort out in the guideline. Loads of extended timelines are used in GA and FA tennis biopage, and that is concerning in terms of accessibility. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you propose would be the first step that the community needs to make to get this issue sorted out? Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The first thing is that avoid to use the extended timelines in the biopages, instead using the GS only timeline, which would resolve the issue. Then, given there are no more aricles using the extended timeline, the examples in the guideline should also be removed. Regarding the full timeline, given it is covered in the career statistics pages, so it may be tolerable to leave as it is. Of course, it would be better to have a fix to sort out the issue. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

For the full timelines, break it down into smaller chunks, i.e. tables? Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. One for GS, one for YEC, one for 1000 events, one for national representaion, and the final one for career statistics. Ideally, two tables would work. Just let me propose for one minute and a half... Unnamelessness (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Timeline

Iga Świątek career statistics#Performance timelines

Key

W

F

SF

QF

#R

RR

Q#

P#

DNQ

A

Z#

PO

G

S

B

NMS

NTI

P

NH

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

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

Tournament		2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	W–L	Win %
Grand Slam events	Australian Open	2R	4R	4R	SF	4R	3R	17–6	74%
	French Open	4R	W	QF	W	W		28–2	93%
	Wimbledon	1R	NH	4R	3R	QF		9–4	69%
	US Open	2R	3R	4R	W	4R		16–4	80%
	Win–loss	5–4	12–2	13–4	21–2	17–3	2–1	70–16	81%
YEC	WTA Finals	DNQ	NH	RR	SF	W		9–3	75%
Team events	Summer Olympics	NH		2R	NH			1–1	50%
	Billie Jean King Cup	A	A		Q	A		2–0	100%
WTA 1000 events	Dubai Championships	A	N1K	3R	N1K	F		4–2	67%
	Qatar Open	N1K	2R	N1K	W	N1K		6–1	86%
	Indian Wells Open	Q2	NH	4R	W	SF		12–2	86%
	Miami Open	Q2	NH	3R	W	A		7–1	88%
	Madrid Open	A	NH	3R	A	F		7–2	78%
	Italian Open	A	1R	W	W	QF		14–2	88%
	Canadian Open	3R	NH	A	3R	SF		6–3	67%
	Cincinnati Open	2R	1R	2R	3R	SF		5–5	50%
	China Open	A	NH			W		6–0	100%
	Wuhan Open	A	NH					0–0	–
	Win–loss	3–2	1–3	12–5	24–2	27–6	0–0	67–18	79%
Career statistics		2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	W–L	Win %
Tournaments		11	6	16	17	18	2	Career: 70
Titles		0	1	2	8	6	0	Career: 17
Finals		1	1	2	9	8	0	Career: 21
Hard win–loss		7–7	7–4	20–11	47–7	42–8	7–1	130–38	77%
Clay win–loss		7–3	7–1	12–2	18–1	19–2	0–0	63–9	88%
Grass win–loss		0–2	–	4–2	2–1	7–1	0–0	13–6	68%
Overall win–loss		14–12	14–5	36–15	67–9	68–11	7–1	206–53	80%
Win (%)		54%	74%	71%	88%	86%	88%	Career: 80%
Year-end ranking		61	17	9	1	1		$24,592,763

I removed SR column as it is redundant and Guadalajara Open (defunct as of 2024) row with a 0–0 record.. Categories column should be replaced with footnotes. Moved 2nd chart's caption as the 1st column header "Career statistics". I propose using {{twl2c}} instead of {{twp}} for the last 2 columns. Create a "NMS", "DNQ", "NH" (minimum AA-WCAG compliant) template similar to {{NA}}. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651:SR redundant? I don't see the totals listed anywhere else in the chart. There are a lot of folks who like that column that could be very disappointed it's been removed. I'm not one of them since the only time in tennis encyclopedias or almanacs or magazines that I have ever heard of the term "strike rate" is here on Wikipedia. But others may be quite upset of a decades existing column being removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed SR to reduce width with less columns. Readers visiting our page/articles can count themselves the number of times a title was won out of how many times it was played. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

But it's not redundant. People can also easily figure out for themselves the win percentage by division. People can also figure out for themselves the overall w-l by counting. Or the number of finals and titles by counting. It is an arbitrary removal based on your likes/dislikes vs someone elses likes/dislikes. Actually, for me, the most useless column is win% but people seem to like it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Let us vote on which columns to keep then. I vote for win%, but against S/R. What say you? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd probably do the same, but it could come down to dozens of others willing to use your new chart but only if SR is kept. Or perhaps most will want no part of a new chart at all. We'll see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The community will decide what's best. After all, it's a group project not an individual's one. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I made some modifications. Still unsure on whether to create a NA-equivalent template for NH, NMS, DNQ and A or just use raw text without the background param. First passes WCAG-AA, second one AAA contrast levels. Thoughts? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of its value, there are some errors. The section titles are Grand Slam tournaments, Year-end championships (with no win-loss), National representation (no win-loss), WTA 1000 is fine. Wrong bolding on table 2 which I can fix. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to edit my sandbox. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Why apply to the entire chart: style="background:#efefef? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It was there to set it off from the rest of the table as agreed to years ago. However, in a separate table I guess that could be avoided.... maybe just the first column. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

But you left off the year end championship section. This is the trouble with table 1... it really looks wonky and why we dismissed it years ago. Plus some people have issues of reading 90 degree wording. I think it creates problems where none existed before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I propose retitling the YEC, Olymp. row headers, because they vertically clutter table 1. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

While that can work for YEC it won't for National representation because it includes Davis Cup, Billie Jean Kings Cup, Hopman Cup, etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

What if we used {{abbrev}}? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You might be able to get by with "Team events" but I'd really hate to change it. I look at the chart we have as a tremendous collaborative effort between Project Tennis, and accessibility editors. It's one of our crowning achievements that I wouldn't want to mess with at all. I can sort of close my eyes if it gets split into two charts which makes it much worse to eyeball down columns to see exactly what was done in a season, but to change a very easy to see chart into a worse rendition for no real reason is beyond me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Also add all the Cups, in our example, Iga Swiatek has played in. Also, we can always merge the tables back into 1. This is only a prototype. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The Elite Trophy is the other YEC event and the United Cup is one of the team events. Moreover, both events distribute points, so they could earn a place in the table. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Those events were left out for a very good reason... worthiness. We don't have 500 and 250 level events either. People were adding them left and right and the tables were ridiculously large. The event type needed some sort of pedigree and Olympic/DavisCup/FedCup were decided on. The YEC are the main year end event(events in the 70s-80s), not the 250 level event that will never have the best 8 players in the world. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Do ATP/HOPMAN/UNITED CUP belong in the table, i.e. are notable as a national representation? I added United Cup because it is sponsored by both Tours. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Career or Career total? Does BJK Cup have different levels of qualifiers, Q1, Q2 or is it all 1 level? Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

And by using a full scope row you have introduced incorrect bolding to table two column one. Not all should be bolded. Is there a parameter to unbold specific items? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove font-weight for a specific row and then ''' ''' the data cell you need bolding. See WTA 1000 Series singles records and statistics#Champions by year, for example, the 2021 season row, in particular. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Or add a new line after the scoped datacell. Either one works. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed the font-weight. Bold what you feel needs bolding in the chart. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651:I must be missing things. In the first column under "career statistics", hard win–loss, grass win–loss, clay win–loss, should not be bolded. Can you remove it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Just remove the ! scope I added for the aforementioned rows. See example. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel a table should either have all rows highlighted with the gray background ! does or not have any at all. Combining them makes the tables look inconsistently colored. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I second that. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In table 2 the entire career statistics column is now bolded. We don't want them all bolded. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I merged both tables back into 1. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it "Win-loss" or "Win–loss"? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Win–loss per WP:DASH. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved bolding with plainrowheaders and custom ''' ''' where needed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Either way worked. I have an issue with a footnote for YEC on every single chart on every player page. If we have to do that we didn't create it correctly in the first place. That footnote should be for exceptional circumstance like a weird tournament being switched out, not a permanent fixture for the table. It either needs to go in the performance key, or it needs to be spelled out as Year-end<br />finals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I purposely used an abbreviation to not elongate the table with "Year-end finals". The footnote helps explain what YEC stands for. I avoided using tooltip/abbreviation template because those do not display on mobile devices. Footnotes, on the other hand, do. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Or move the {{notelist}} to the notes section at the bottom of the page instead of having it immediately below the table. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651:But look at the performance key that is required with every one of these tables. I placed one above your chart. It can have a YEC explanation, just like every other explanation, so no need for a note at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. That old legend. Well, that settles that. Footnotes no more. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we update the key a bit? Becasuse NMS is "not a Masters tournament", which specifically refers to the ATP 1000 series, and NTI is "not a Tier I tournament", which is stale and has been replaced by WTA 1000 tournaments. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

But aren't those terms still used in older player events? Players from 70s 80s 90s would have a lot of those terms. No idea how to write it today where it would only be two or three letters. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Three solutions:

1. Adding additional cells.
2. Extending abbr. explaination.
3. Create a new key copy that suits the current tournament format.

Unnamelessness (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

So as can be seen in the sandbox key above, I added a (N1T) for not 1000 tournament. That should cover both mens and womens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness, WTA and ATP retconed the categories when they introduced 1000 Masters as a category way back when in 2009 (WTA 1000 overshadowed Tier 90-2000 and Premier Mandatory/5 2010-2021 by calling them all WTA 1000 1990-present).

There used to be Tier I events. I wouldn't remove TI and NMS. You AGAIN would need project-wide consensus from the community as this covers a lot of BLP's and career stats pages (not all older BLP's have career stats pages).

My proposal: leave the abbreviations as they are. But edit {{performance key}} if you feel will benefit the timeline. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I like your N1K much better and changed the sandbox key to reflect that. But no matter, this performance timeline would absolutely need project-wide consensus. It affects almost every single modern player bio we have. It would need a month of visibility on the project talk page, the goods and bads, and see if others agree or disagree with the proposed change. The key addition of N1K wouldn't need that. It would be boldly changed to correspond to new ATP/WTA tournament names, but of course the project talk page would be informed to allow for revert and dissent. That would be standard practice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

We shall see what happens. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Which is how we process right now. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I replaced {{twl2c}} with a newly created {{twl2c2}} because the former would display % followed by W-L. The latter does the opposite (W-L followed by %). I filed a request at WP:VPT if they could create a param that would reverse the order of % and W-L instead of having to create a new "reversed" win percentage template, but haven't gotten any response. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I bit missing here, but what's the difference between {{twl2c}}/{{twl2c2}} and the commonly used {{twp}}? Unnamelessness (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Vertical wording is always not the first option. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD is the path. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am actually thinking of rotating the table for 90 degrees to produce a table something like the WTA Rankings#Points breakdown section if the width is really a concern, i.e. instead of one row, one line per season. This is also something done in the motorsport community, for instance, Charles Leclerc#Racing record. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I cannot picture it. Can you provide an example? (You want to swap the columns and rows, I presume). Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

ALT solution

Season	Grand Slam events				Yec	National teams		WTA 1000											Tours	Finals	Titles	Win–loss				Win%	POS
	AUO	FRO	WIM	USO		Oly	BJC	Qat	Dub	Inw	Mia	Mad	Ita	Can	Cin	Gua	Chi	Wuh				Hard	Clay	Grass	Total
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	86%	1

Something like this. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

You need ! with scopes and col-/rowgroups id's for the col-/row headers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Continued discussion

I am thinking of something like this. Citing sources below the tables to complete WP:V. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"Nowrap" combined with "div style:overflow-x:auto". Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

"Margin: auto" is what we should try to avoid. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

true... Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

And one thing. We would never go through a wholesale change of one format to a flawed format. It would need to be shown (again) that this new creation has zero issues with Wikipedia/mos/accessibility. It would need to be presented that this new table creation is a shining star of perfection. We would never want to go through it again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

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

WP:RFC is probrably the next step. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I am good with the layout. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), you? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

Someone like Primefac, Redrose84, Graham87 Jonesey95? Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the project's talk page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Given what is happening out there, I guess that thread is required to be pinned? Unnamelessness (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I like the "ALT solution" table proposed by @Unnamelessness. However, to make it less wide, I think we should split it into two—one for performance and another for statistics like numbers. When someone wants to see how a player is performing in Grand Slams or ATP/WTA 1000 events, they likely don’t care as much about the Hard/Clay/Grass win-loss record or Olympic/BJKC (Davis Cup) performance.

I also support removing BJKC/DC performances from the table (or creating a separate one for that) because of a specific issue: a player might have competed for their country during the play-offs, but their country later (or earlier—it doesn’t matter) reached the QF/SF of the highest group. In that case, what should be included in the table? The play-off or the QF/SF?

At the same time, we would need to copy the same results for the doubles performance timeline table but only change the records. To me, that seems a bit unnecessary. Additionally, if someone only participated in the play-off, QF, or SF but did not play in the final, does the trophy belong to them or only to the players who competed in the final round? I don’t understand that. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

New Performance Timelines Table

I will give you an example of how we can rearrange the Performance timeline table. Here is an example of Alize Cornet career statistics, as someone who has a lot of data.

WTA Tour

W

F

SF

QF

#R

RR

Q#

G

S

B

Z#

PO#

A

DNQ

NMS

NH

Only main-draw results in WTA Tour, Grand Slam tournaments, Billie Jean King Cup (Fed Cup), United Cup, Hopman Cup and Olympic Games are included in win–loss records.

Performance timelines

Singles

Season	Grand Slam events					Year-end		National teams		WTA 1000
	AUO	FRO	WIM	USO	W–L	Fin	Eli	Oly	BJC	Qat	Dub	Inw	Mia	Mad	Ita	Can	Cin	Gua	Chi	Wuh	Cha†	Mos†	W–L
2005	—	2R	—	—	1–1	—	—	—		—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0–0
2006	1R	2R	—	—	1–2	—	—	—		—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0–0
2007	1R	1R	2R	3R	3–4	—	—	—		—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0–0
2008	2R	3R	1R	3R	5–4	—	—	3R		—	—	—	1R	1R	F	—	—	—	—	2R	SF	1R
2009	4R	2R	1R	2R	5–4	—	—	—		—	3R	2R	3R	1R	2R	1R	1R	—	2R	1R	—	—	5–9
2010	1R	1R	1R	1R	0–4	—	—	—		—	—	1R	2R	1R	—	Q3	—	—	—	—	—	—	1–3
2011	3R	2R	1R	2R	4–4	—	—	—		—	—	3R	1R	Q1	Q1	—	Q1	—	—	—	—	—	2–2
2012	1R	1R	2R	2R	2–4	—	—	2R		—	—	Q2	1R	—	—	—	—	—	1R	1R	—	—	0–3
2013	2R	3R	3R	3R	7–4	—	RR	—		—	—	2R	4R	2R	1R	3R	2R	—	1R	1R	—	—	7–8
2014	3R	2R	4R	3R	8–4	—	RR	—		—	—	4R	3R	1R	2R	2R	1R	—	3R	QF	—	—	10–8
2015	3R	4R	2R	1R	6–4	—	—	—		—	3R	3R	3R	2R	1R	3R	1R	—	1R	1R	—	—	7–9
2016	2R	3R	3R	1R	5–4	—	—	2R		—	—	—	2R	2R	1R	1R	2R	—	3R	1R	—	—	5–7
2017	2R	4R	1R	2R	5–4	—	—	—		—	—	—	1R	1R	2R	1R	2R	—	3R	QF	—	—	7–7
2018	3R	2R	1R	1R	3–4	—	—	—		2R	—	1R	2R	1R	—	3R	2R	—	1R	1R	—	—	5–8
2019	2R	1R	1R	2R	2–4	—	—	—		—	2R	1R	3R	2R	2R	—	Q1	—	—	—	—	—	5–5
2020	2R	2R	—	4R	5–3	—	—	—		—	—	—	—	—	—	—	3R	—	—	—	—	—	2–1
2021	2R	1R	2R	1R	2–4	—	—	1R		—	2R	2R	2R	Q1	1R	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	3–4
2022	QF	3R	4R	3R	11–4	—	—	—		2R	—	2R	2R	1R	1R	2R	1R	1R	—	—	—	—	2–8
2023	1R	1R	2R	1R	1–4	—	—	—		—	1R	1R	—	2R	2R	—	Q2	—	—	—	—	—	2–4
2024	1R	1R	—	—	0–2	—	—	—		—	—	Q1	Q1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0–0
W–L	22–19	21–20	15–16	18–17	76–72	0–0	2–4	4–4		2–2	6–5	7–11	11–14	5–12	9–11	8–8	6–9	0–1	7–8	7–9	4–1	0–1	72–92

Notes:

• ^† It's no longer a WTA 1000 tournament.

Career statistics

Singles

Season	Tournaments				Finals			Win–loss				Win%	POS
	Hard	Clay	Grass	Total	Titles	Finalist	Total	Hard	Clay	Grass	Total
2005				1				0–0	1–1	0–0	1–1	50%	308
2006				2				0–1	1–1	0–0	1–2	33%	189
2007				9				2–4	5–4	1–1	8–9	47%	57
2008				23	1		3	13–13	22–8	0–2	35–23	60%	16
2009				24				16–17	6–10	0–2	22–29	43%	50
2010				20				6–9	11–11	0–1	17–21	45%	78
2011				17				8–10	3–6	0–2	11–18	38%	89
2012				21	1		2	9–14	11–5	2–2	22–21	51%	44
2013				27	1		1	19–17	15–9	2–2	36–28	56%	27
2014				24	1		3	33–22	2–5	4–2	39–29	57%	20
2015				26				19–18	6–6	1–3	26–27	49%	43
2016				22	1		1	16–14	3–6	2–2	21–22	49%	46
2017				22			1	20–15	4–5	0–3	24–23	51%	38
2018				25	1		1	12–16	10–5	1–3	23–24	49%	47
2019				20			1	13–14	7–6	4–3	24–23	51%	60
2020				9				11–7	2–2	NH	13–9	59%	53
2021				24			1	17–16	3–6	5–3	25–25	50%	59
2022				23			1	17–17	4–4	6–3	27–24	53%	36
2023				18				4–10	6–7	5–4	15–21	43%	118
2024				7				1–3	0–4		1–7	33%
Total				364	6		15	236–237	122–111	33–38	391–386	50%

JamesAndersoon (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

We'd better off with converting it to a module for a universal look and easier maintenance to meet WP:WCAG AA standards, resolve MOS:COLHEAD, add missing scope and updating {{performance key}}, in the process. I do have a few ideas for a potential workaround for the dreaded MOS:COLHEAD. And update the list of female/male players to include all of them, not just those who meet the criteria.

Will post the new versions proposals in a few days. 8rz (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Billie Jean King Cup table example needed

Since there is example for Davis Cup participation table for a male player, I would like to see example for female players (Billie Jean King cup). Or change that section name since it can be confusing. JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)