These current player pages use this infobox: Andre Agassi, Lindsay Davenport, Martina Navrátilová, Amélie Mauresmo, Justine Henin-Hardenne, Roger Federer, Kim Clijsters, Andy Roddick, Jim Courier, Gastón Gaudio, Guillermo Vilas, Robby Ginepri, Rafael Nadal, Meghann Shaughnessy, Jarkko Nieminen, Nicole Vaidišová, Maria Kirilenko, Anna-Lena Grönefeld, Marta Domachowska, Francesca Schiavone, Jelena Kostanić and Shahar Peer. As for any entry for wins and losses for singles and doubles, how will it be placed on the template (It seems like a good idea)? - Nick C18:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think too, but should this include ITF and WTA/ATP events or just WTA/ITF events? (And we would have to add the win/loss records for all exisiting articles that include this template).- Nick C12:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd say go with the records for ATP/WTA events only, these records are easily found on the ATP's and WTA's websites or the Official Guide to Professional Tennis. Only about 35 pages use this template so far, so adding records now wouldn't require too much work in editing pages. I added the 2 fields to a version of the template that I put in my sandbox. VerruckteDan00:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. So basically it will be like; Record: Number of Wins/Number of losses. Should I add it to the main template? - Nick C18:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I went and added the record to the template. I'm gonna start a new topic below with a list of player profiles that currently use the template. As I or anyone else retroactively adds the new fields, the names can be crossed off this list. VerruckteDan22:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, I'll help add the new fields, although most of the ATP Profiles do not have a Doubles Career record, they have it only for the current year. - Nick C16:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I ran into that problem too, but I just discovered that ITFtennis.com includes career doubles record on the men's profiles. VerruckteDan15:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I was browsing the ATP website this morning and found that they have added career doubles record to the profile pages. VerruckteDan14:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you think we need a 'last updated' field in the infobox, much like in Template:Football player infobox? I'm going to make this field in the infobox optional, so we do not need to fill it in in all the existing infoboxes. - Nick C20:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a optional Grand Slams double record to the infobox, which has a function like the hide/show function in{{Wimbledon men's singles champions}} and {{US Open men's singles champions}}, Should be hide by default, so the infobox will not be too crowded at first site? (Note that only the Doubles Grand Slam record will have the option to hide or show).- Nick C20:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Nickname Field
I think it would be great to have a nickname field, much like the infoboxes for football teams and players. Some tennis players have great nicknames (The Beast, Mosquito, El Mago, Fed Express, Tiger Tim, etc.) which would be a great field to enter in my opinion.
Font Size
I'm a bit surprised by the change in font size--the older size was big and easy to view, while this one looks quite a bit smaller, and is somewhat harder on the eyes...I for one favor the older one--Flute13804:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Proposal for current ranking
Hi, I would like to see the mention "current ranking" in the infobox tennis player : does it seem to be a good proposal ? Brieg2215:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
My opinion, as stated above under the heading "Font Size," still stands--the smaller text is far less friendly on the eyes, and I object to it--Flute13820:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Tables throughout Wikipedia normally have smaller text. See the country templates, for example. Otherwise they are too big. ☆ CieloEstrellado20:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
A consensus must be achieved before such a change is made--one that goes beyond merely 3 users--as per the note on the template page. If a wide enough user base agrees to the smaller font size, I will, of course, agree. Until then, however, I shall continue to stand by my opinion. --Flute13822:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with CieloEstrellado. Wikipedia uses smaller font on templates, so why are we an exception from that practice ? --Göran Smith09:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I propose to add a new section to the infobox to include any coaching experience the player might have...any objections?--Flute13812:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Retired:Active
heading name within the infobox would be improved if it were to read Tour status instead of RetiredMayumashu17:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should add the best results in the Masters Cup / WTA Tour Championships (as an #If option, since only few players will need it) and in the Olympics to the templates. What do you say? RaLo18 19:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Would this optional add (that is, Eastern forehand, Continental, Western, etc.) per the tennis grip of the player be OK? The proposed add should be right after Plays [Right-handed, etc.].
If so, I think that something like the following would then need to be added:
If there is no objection, great. If someone else would do it, even better (for me). If there is enough agreement after say a week or 3 positive responses, perhaps action could be taken then. Thanks --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Typo fixed in 2nd sentence. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added Mixed Doubles titles to the Infobox...but it will be inocuous until people start using it. Though, I need input on what to do with "Tour" titles? - Mjquin_id (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this section be completely optional. Not all players have played mixed doubles, and the infobox forces the section onto all profiles and quite frankly does not look good if the option is not used. -Pparazorback (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the infobox:
There's no mixed doubles ranking, so the highest mixed doubles ranking will always be empty.
There's no year-end mixed doubles tournament, nor an Olympic tournament, so I removed the "Major mixed tournaments"
Made mixed optional. Most of the tennis player never played mixed.
If mixed is Yes, it'll automatically add "Grand Slam mixed doubles results", instead of having another optional. Grand Slams are the only tournaments to have mixed doubles events, so this information is a must if info about mixed is added.
I still have a doubt about making "Mixed records" another optional, as this information might be harder to find.
Should the Infobox be just for statistics and leave the named titles for the article? (An effort to shrink the infobox?) -- Mjquin_id (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Height & Weight Fields Make a Mockery of Wikipedia!
Okay, I'm being overly dramatical here because I like seeking attention, but it's not totally untrue. The idea that Maria Sharapova, a well muscled athlete, can be both 1.88m and 59.1kg is clearly absurd. But as the issue has cropped up a few times on the discussion page, it appears that the prevailing view is that it is better to include information that is demonstrably false than no information at all. Is there no way omitting the height and/or weight fields altogether where necessary so the box doesn't look ugly when it's left blank. ~ Bighairything (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Are these fields really necessary? this info isn't very notable, and I don't think it's used in many articles besides this one. In addition, the template is extremely ugly and long when all info is inserted. Would anyone want such a long template in an article? RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 10:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It is an option in cases like Laura Robson. Plus those fields are not mandatory and do not appear if not used. These are necessary for notable junior players and also gives brief overview of player's junior achievements, which is what the infobox is for. LeaveSleaves10:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Abbreviation of Australian Open
I don't understand the point of TennisAuthority and the AU/AUS in the Australian Open part of the template. I understand that it is to limit the column's width, but AU or AUS is totally no correct. AU is an abbreviation when you put into 2 letters, but nobody uses it. Who calls it the AU Open, a better alternative is Aus. or Aust. as it obviously referring to Australia, and removes capitals which look ugly noting that Australia is never referred in AU. Per the disambig page AU, Australia isn't even on the page. it is on Aus or even AUS. So I don't mind if it is Aust. or Aus., but it is definately not AU, nor should it be AUS. The Windlertalk03:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I prefer the usage of Australian Open and to not shorten it because it is the career prize money that is causing the shift, which what I do not like is Aust. Let's use the full name of the grand slam like Wimbledon, French Open, US Open, Australian Open, or we could us Wimbledon, French, US, Australian! TennisAuthority22:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
{{nowrap}} is a template that forces two words to go on the one line, no matter. So if "Australian Open" went over two lines like it used to do, nowrap forces it to go on one line. Yes, I prefer Australian Open to any abbreviation. The Windlertalk21:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
How about a parameter including the Current ranking of current players. This is one of the things I go looking for is what their current rank is, and the infobox is some place I would look for that information. The Windlertalk07:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
HOF
Adding HOF to Infobox like Golf does?
}}
|style="background: #b0c4de;" colspan="3" align=center|Hall of Fame
|-Hall of Fame|{{{#if:hofyear}}}
Should this be only used on a select number of players? Is someone going to go through and change this for 100+ articles every week when the rankings come out? Maybe limit to the top 20 or 25 players. Morhange (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Tragic and infantile
Nickname? Weight? Don't you see how inane it is to include such things? The first is ridiculously fannish and unencyclopaedic. The second is utterly unverifiable. Their inclusion is strongly to the detriment of anything that claims to be an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.119.250 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Weight and grip
I think the inclusion of weight in the infobox is problematic. If it is to remain i think it need some sort of time specification. Especially for retired and dead players. Alternatively, it could be removed, and if important, be mentioned in the prose. Grip need to change from "plays" to "played" for retired and dead players. Cheers. P. S. Burton (talk)19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
What, you think maybe the weight may have changed for dead players? LOL. I completely agree with this line of reasoning for both issues raised. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be title playing weight because dead players and retired don't play anymore so playing means in or during their careers.69.137.121.17 (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Davis Cup/Fed Cup
Both of these compitions are very important and not many players win or coach a team to victory, do you think we should add a section for this? KnowIG (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Olympics Mixed doubles
We need a parameter for this as it was an event in the Olympics and has now been reintroduced, I feel that the box should reflect this and have space for the Olympic mixed dubs medals KnowIG (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Inconsistency in fields running over onto two lines
Was just wondering why it was that half the time fields such as 'Australian Open', 'Highest Ranking', 'Current Ranking' etc run over onto two lines and sometimes they don't, regardless of how much info is filled in under these fields...? What can be done to make sure infoboxes look more like these: Magnus Larsson, Florian Mayer rather than these: Alejandro Falla, Onny Parun? Thanks. Asmazif (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2012 (GMT)
To add to this, Novak Djokovic's page, for example, recently has jumped inbetween having the fields running over onto two lines and having them on one... (e.g. 'Australian Open', 'Current Ranking' etc) - what new pieces of info or recent edits cause this to happen, does anyone know or have the authority to increase the width of the box/suggest it to people who can? Asmazif (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2012 (GMT)
You could try posting a request at the help desk. I placed a request their to modify the 'Grand Slam Events' infobox template (see Talk) and User:John of Reading helped me out with that. You could point to the Ellsworth Vines article which has both the tennis player infobox as well as the wider golf player infobox and ask if somebody can make a similar wider version for tennis. Post the setup on the Tennis Talk page for discussion and see what happens. I'm actually curious to find out how exactly the mechanism works that determines the column widths in the tennis player infobox.--Wolbo (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice - have posted the request at the Help Desk and at WikiProject Tennis. Asmazif (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2012 (GMT)
the result is going to be entirely dependent on your OS/browser. there are ways to force it to stay on one line, or to force it to split to two lines, but no way to completely control how it automatically decides when to split. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
But surely increasing the width of the infobox will at least aid the problem and rectify it for a lot of browsers, making it a much less likely occurrence? Asmazif (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2012 (GMT)
the width of the infobox is set to the default used by {{infobox}}, which is also the width used by thousands of infoboxes. for consistency, it's best to try to either change the default there, unless there is a very good reason for it. if you want to force it to stay on one line, we can certainly do that. many infoboxes do that with particular labels. Frietjes (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Great - forcing the fields to stay on one line would be perfect. Thank you, that would be fantastic if someone could do that. Asmazif (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2012 (GMT)
go ahead and make the changes yourself, if you want. just replace the space between the words in the label with a " ". for example, change "Current Ranking" to "Current Ranking". Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
ah, I've come across this before - this is fine for the input text that can be filled in on the right-hand side of infoboxes, but how do you do this for the field text itself, e.g. here's a section from Janko Tipsarević's infobox:
How do I apply this no-line break rule to the fields on the left, i.e. the code? I can't just change "Current Ranking" to "Current Ranking" as it's not text, it's a label called 'currentsinglesranking' which won't be recognised if I insert something like into it... Asmazif (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2012 (GMT)
Added, under 'BristolCupresult'. Asmazif (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2012 (GMT)
We can't. There are only three tournaments with sourcing called pro majors/slams. I'm not saying Bristol Cup wasn't important, but it can't be listed under Pro Majors because of OR. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Would having 'Other Pro Tournaments' be a bit too much, do you think? Asmazif (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2012 (GMT)
It's a tough call and I'm not sure either. Maybe talk about it at tennis project and we can get some input? That TOC (Tournament of Champions) needs to be out of pro slams also, so it would also be a candidate for other pro titles. There are 6 to 8 other tournaments that would need to be included which would add at least 4 tournaments to the bottom of Laver and Rosewall but no other player would get more than two lines since the time periods didn't overlap much so different players were involved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
WCT Finals
Just added a WCT Finals field 'WCTFinalsresult' to both the code and template - now people won't have to use the 'MastersCupresult' field for both Masters and WCT Finals results. Let me know if there are any issues. Asmazif (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2012 (GMT)
Prize Money field
Changed the 'career prize money' field to just 'prize money'. This is in order to make the infobox look neater/more concise by enabling the heading to stay on one line and not spill over onto two. Of course, if anyone has any gripes, just say. Asmazif (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2013 (GMT)
Australian Open/Australasian Championships results pre-1924
Should we be entering previous results in the infoboxes? and if not, should we remove results already added? I'm not really sure where I stand on this. On the one hand it's interesting historically to display these results in Fred Alexanders and Algernon Kingscotes' infoboxes, but on the other, it was not a slam/one of the four majors yet (same for the French, which became a major, and open, a year later in 1925)...
On each winner/runner-ups' page, these results also fall under a 'Grand Slam singles finals' (and doubles) in the article itself. (so there will be a fair amount of deletion/editing required if we do want to not list these results as 'slam' results... Asmazif (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2013 (GMT)
having said this, the U.S. Nationals wasn't even "officially" a major until 1924 either, though was surely still a major tournament, but not literally a 'major' - WGCC (Wimbledon), WHCC and WCCC were until 1924/5. so on second thoughts - maybe better to keep Aus results since 1905, U.S. since 1881, French since 1925 and Wimbledon since 1877 as that are the years all four tournaments were open to any nation from... is that the ruling here I'm assuming? (as French Nationals when it was a club event are not counted as 'slams' and are not entered in the infobox) Asmazif (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2013 (GMT)
Per books, tennis history, almanacs, etc... the Aussie Open is considered a Major since inception. Yeah it was weaker back then but since those are pretty much our sources that's what we use. It's always tough sorting things out in the early years of tennis, especially with the WCCC (which was usually pretty wimpy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, officially neither Wimbledon nor the U.S. National Championships were designated as a 'Major' because that term was not yet used in tennis but according to the available reliable sources it is very clear that both championships as well as the Australian Championships are regarded as Majors since their inception and therefore so should we. The WGCC, WHCC and WCCC complicate the picture somewhat but also makes it more interesting. There's an upcoming book on the history of the I(L)TF which will hopefully give some more insight into this period.--Wolbo (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. yeh, in Bud Collins' Total Tennis (which details each year 1919 onwards), it also lists the Aus results alongside US and Wimbledon for the 1919-1924 period. I'll definitely have to get hold of that ITF book when it comes out, thanks for the link. Asmazif (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2013 (GMT)
Suggestion for wikidata usage
For field_48 I suggest to use the following code instead of what is now used:
{{#if: {{{Doublesrecord}}}|{{{Doublesrecord|}}}|{{#property:P555}}}}
. This will fill the doubles record from Wikidata if no data in Doublesrecord is available, if doublesrecord/field_48 is filled it will use field_48 like it used to do. For other properties the same could be used. Edoderoo (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
For those who, like me, are somewhat unfamiliar with the workings of Wikidata can you elaborate on how exactly this works and where Wikidata gets its data from? Perhaps you can give an example using another infobox.--Wolbo (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
You can check nl:Arantxa Rus on the Dutch wikipedia ... the property dubbelrecord is blank (actually I put a comment in it), therefor it will look to WikiData. On WikiData there is a property Doubles record that holds the actual win/loose statistics for this player. That will be updated the same way as the articles were updated, by a volunteer that passes by every now and then. The only huge benefit is, that if a Spanish volunteer will update the field, all other languages will benefit from it. Next month it is a volunteer from :en or :fr, etc.
For this field, this particular field could be updated by a bot from the WTA website, but that is something for the future.
There is no real problem. In my point of view, the person who reverted my edit puts aesthetics above up-to-date data, because he wants to have 2 or 3 dashes between the data, and currently on Wikidata most items have only one dash. This is a discussion that needs to be held on :en I think. If that extra dash is more important then the data itself, then someone needs to make sure too that the infoboxes on :en get updated separately from WikiData, or it should be accepted that Wikidata is usually more up to date then the data on :en, and that the benefits of WikiData are more or less passed. I myself only wanted to show the possibilities that can be used, if the community on :en doesn't want to use it, that is fine with me too. Edoderoo (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
dash issues should be easy to fix with {{replace}}. from the thread on the editors talk page, the real objection was over the precedence (data here first, then check wikidata). Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Frietjes, I'm fine with that! One more suggestion to think about (and I use this right now on :es, :it, :ru and some more templates. When the data comes from WikiData the template shows them in italics and else in regular script. In this way you can see in a glance where the data comes from. Regular users will probably not now nor really notice this, but for people that maintain the data this will help them a lot in evaluating what to update, and where. From the :nl community we are right now filling up WikiData with tennis player data, especially all the 'variable' fields like the win/loose stats and hopefully soon too the won amount of $$. Edoderoo (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
the representation of the data at WikiData should be uniformly formatted so it can be parsed. if some project starts using a colon to delimit the values, and another uses dashes, then it just makes it harder to parse. we can transform from one unified format to another, but the repository should have the data in a uniform format. a bigger problem, of course, is with commas and decimal points used for formatting numbers, but luckily these are integers. Frietjes (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
rather than putting it italics, I would suggest wrapping it with <span class="wikidata"> ... </span> so that you can simply put a statement in your personal css file to format it however you choose. Frietjes (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
On languages where a colon is like mandatory, I will suggest to use the {{replace}} template in the infobox template. The dot/comma issue will come back on any number format, and is therefor a general Wikidata issue. Therefor I will not discuss it here. About the span class, this is actually a nice idea, though I'm afraid that most people will not know they need to change their css-file. Anyhow, thanks a lot for your input! Edoderoo (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata Bot
I learned on the WikiData tennis project page that a bot currently adding the doubles record and singles record from the WTA/ATP-websites, and will be used too to keep the values up to date. Edoderoo (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
"Weight" field must be removed
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It has been removed several times over the last couple of years, and has been restored without any justification. On this page there are numerous arguments that it should be removed, and no arguments presented in favour of keeping it, so its continued presence is inexplicable. The weight of any person is completely unverifiable and therefore not acceptable in Wikipedia. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The data for Maria Sharapova, that was above mentioned as "impossible" is coming from the WTA website, and I do believe this data is therefore (often) sourced and not unverifiable. And why did you not login? Edoderoo (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The claimed weight would give her a body mass index of 16.7. Sensible editors already removed it from her article four months ago. Weight changes constantly and you cannot hope to find actual weight measurements of any currency for any tennis players. Their weight is of no relevance in any case. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we should remove it. Weight fluctuates quite a bit during an athlete's career, and it is not nearly as important in tennis as it is in contact sports (e.g., wrestling). I don't see any objections here, so I am re-enabling the request. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Tow: no counterarguments were presented. This means there was already a consensus. In addition, the field has been removed several times before, remained absent for a long time and then been restored without discussion. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Remove, not important stat to the sport. Height is weight is not. The only tiem I think weight was mentioned was when Serena won a couple of slams when being out of shape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.8.122 (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Weird, I did counter-argument, but mr Anonymous is just bypassing my arguments, being blind as it pleases his cause. This ain't consensus. It's pure dictatorship. Edoderoo (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add the Irish Championships (under 'Other tournaments'). It was "considered one of the main tournaments until World War I"; Karoly Mazak in his "The Concise History of Tennis" cites the Irish as a major tournament, and in equal standing with the other major events in the late 1800s/early 1900s, working out early world rankings with Wimbledon, Irish and U.S. National results. Much like we have WHCC and WCCC in the early 1900s. Would anyone object to this? Asmazif
I would say no. There are lots of "nation" championships back then that were considered big tournaments... but the ITF didn't consider them Majors. Most books other than Mazak's do not say it's as important. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That's because the ITLF did not exist then it was not formed till 1913. A. Wallis Myers in his 1908 book Lawn Tennis at Home and Abroad note the date refers to it was one of the big three important tournaments of the year.--Navops47 (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I side with no too. I edit regularly many interwar and pre WWI/WWII biographies and tournaments and I say its entry list and winners' list don't prove that point. And especially that the first non-british winner/runner-up was after WWI when it isn't considered a big event by Mazak. Also it would cause many confusion in its usage. E.g. adding the Irish Open 1978 acomplishment to Robert Carmichael's bio infobox would be an inappropriate step but how do you convince other editors to draw a line within the same tournament based on Mazak's opinion? It's not like ATP has relegated it from 500 category to 250 by time but it's solely based on one author. Too many issues with this to give it a green light. If a contemporary writer backs this claim up then maybe it's worth reconsidering but currently it's not okay I think. LajbiHolla @ me • CP09:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
in terms of the winners list - Wimbledon and U.S. National Championships were dominated by British/US players respectively in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and the names in the Irish are certainly highly-regarded champions... I would have also specified in the template 1879-1914 - but okey dokey, thanks for your comments, I see your points. not giving poor Wylie Cameron Grant credit though (was runner-up in 1908) ;) Asmazif
I can see the case that Asmazif makes in favor of the Irish Championships. There are sources claiming it was considered the second most important tournament after Wimbledon but that applies only to the very early years. At some point the US Championships took over that role. The quality of the Irish winners list for the first two decades is very high and up-to and including 1902 it is almost on par with that of Wimbledon. Many of the winners are the same. From 1903 until WWI the quality is still pretty good but no longer on Wimbledon level (e.g. no Brookes or Wilding). After that it is certainly no longer a premier event despite some illustrious winners in the 1950s and 60s. All things considered I would argue against adding the Irish event to the infobox despite the arguments in favor, on the basis that A) it was only world class for about two decades, B) it was not officially recognized as a Grand Slam/Major level event and C) using it for only 1879-1914 or 1879-1902 would be confusing.--Wolbo (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Came across an article in the Lawn Tennis and Badminton magazine from 31 May 1905 which talks about the Irish Championships and it fits well with what we have discussed. It's basically an editorial making a plea to players to participate in the tournament. It begins: "The fact that the famous Irish Championships are now within a measurable space of time brings before us many interesting memories of the past of great players and of exciting contests, for it is only in the last few years that the Fitzwilliam Meeting has somehow fallen out of favour, and from being a tournament almost rivalling — we will not say excelling — the All-England Championships in point of interest it has, we much regret, taken quite a secondary position."--Wolbo (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Mazak's book includes it as one of the four most important tournaments from inception in 1879 until 1902, He also lists the Northern Championships from 1881 through till 1908. In A. Wallis Myers book Lawn Tennis at Home Abroad (1903) on p.55 Chapter the Northern Championship. 'The Northern meeting was held then as now alternately between Liverpool and Manchester we regarded it as the third most important event of the year'. Nauright & Parish's book, Sports Around the World: History, Culture, and Practice, (2012), ABC Clio, p. 198 referring to the Irish, For a while considered as prestigious as Wimbledon. Robert Lakes book, (2014), A Social History of Tennis in Britain, Routledge, pp.48-49 'The Fitzwilliam Club of the 1880's and 1890's enjoyed the temporary status as the Wimbledon of Ireland'. 'The Northern equally ostentatious in its declarations of social prominence, as surely as one of the three great meetings of the year' and with due respect to Wolbo I disagree with your analysis I'm not a qualified tennis historian nor a former tennis player nor tennis journalist if we have sources stating these tournaments were really important it is simply wrong to exclude them on the basis of unqualified personal opinions if we have verifiable sources stating facts they should be included, We have since included the Grand Slam Cup for all of its 8 years of existence whilst these two albeit brief, were for a quarter of a century from the birth of tennis that important.--Navops47 (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your belated comments on the topic - I fully agree with your points and though I do understand some peoples' reluctance, would still like to see the Irish added to the infobox. Asmazif (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2017 (GMT)
Well Mazak's book is now fully published and updated (2017) on Amazon and we have book sources from 2012 and 2014. Important enough to be referenced in books on history of tennis/sports.--Navops47 (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Another source A. Wallis Myers no less in "Lawn Tennis at Home and Abroad" (1908) chapter the Northern Championships on page 55 "We regarded it as the third most important event of the year" the other two important tournaments he is referring to is Wimbledon and the Irish Championships.These tournaments should be added to the infobox under other tournaments will leave this for a week or so to allow for any further discussions then will add--Navops47 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I've seen it both ways in printed materials. Per the most prominent sourcing which we rely on: The WTA uses meters, The ATP uses centimeters, And the ITF usually doesn't show the players height. Wimbledon, French Open, US Open and Australian Open biographies use meters for both the gentlemen and the ladies. However Wolbo is correct in that any changes to the template like that should be brought to the attention of Tennis Project talk page to discuss. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It may be the case that in scientific type articles centimeters are more commonly used, perhaps because it allows more precise measurements using decimal points (e.g. 185.6 cm), but in non scientific communications, both written and certainly verbal, it is much more common to use meters. If you ask somebody's height in a metric country that person is very unlikely to say "I'm one-hundred and eighty centimeters" but would instead say "I'm one meter eighty" or "I'm one eighty" (example). As Fyunck(click) mentions usage within tennis is mixed with all Grand Slam tournaments using the meter as unit. With (proposed) template changes like this you have to weigh the effort against the benefit. In this case the change would affect several thousands of articles, requiring a massive update effort, and would not bring any discernible benefit to our readers.--Wolbo (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
In the English-speaking world metres are almost non-existent. I understand that it's different in continental Europe. It's worth keeping in mind that this is the English encyclopedia.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Re: "the change would affect several thousands of articles, requiring a massive update effort". You appear to have totally misunderstood the edit in question. The change is to the example documentation only, not to this template, or to {{convert}}. Nothing changes except what the example documentation is encouraging editors that cut & paste from it to do. As it is now, it's encouraging (forcing?) editors to use metres regardless of sources and/or common usage. And editors being able to use the appropriate unit is a clearly discernable benefit in my opinion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I asked some friends (all gals by the way) how they express their height and your "non-existent" meters doesn't really hold water. If 171cm tall, most actually express their height by saying one-seven-one... decimal is implied. Australian friend says she hears "one meter seventyone" and "a hundred and seventyone" equally. Dutch friend says "one meter seventyone" but always writes it 1.71 meters. So we have US and Canada using feet/inch for height, Aussies using both, and I didn't have a British friend to ask. German friend says "one seventy one" and that she rarely hears one meter seventy one", and never hears "one hundred seventy one centimeters". But she writes it 1.71. Yes, this is an English wikipedia, but heck... the US and even Canada express height in feet/inches so I never hear anything to base my opinion on. The benefit of inches/feet/yards is we take the middle unit for human height because it works well for guessing 4,5,6 or 7 feet for us humans. Yards is way too big and inches way to small. 74 inches just doesn't compute well visually, but 6'2" does. Centimeters is even tinier and meters even bigger. They don't work well for human height. We need a term for 30 or 40 centimeters. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Centimetres work just fine if you're used to them. Metres do too but they're not used as much. If you really want something in between, we have decimetres, but these are almost never used. Wolbo, I mean no personal attack but when you write "a metric country" do you mean an English-speaking one or just any one? It's just that I've noticed that you're from the Netherlands. To me "I'm one hundred and eighty centimetres" and "I'm one metre eighty" are both unlikely, the first just because of its verbosity (but that's not an issue here), the second we just don't use. As for "I'm one eighty", it's common to omit the "hundred and" and not just with centimetres. Jimp02:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Weight!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've added it and I will continue to add it because it does no harm whatsoever. Ludicrous arguments have been put forward in order to JUSTIFY ITS REMOVAL like the player is dead or the stat is wholly unverifiable or unbelievable. They are legitimate reasons for why IN SOME CASES it is not a good idea to state it so do just that. LEAVE IT BLANK IN THOSE CASES!!!!!
LATE EXTRA
To the person who said this; "Remove, [Weight] not important stat to the sport. Height is weight is not."
Weight is hugely important as it amongst other things determines the agility and build a player has!!!!!
I propose to change the label of the WTA Tour Championships from "Championships" to "Tour Finals". The "Championships" label is too ambiguous (an issue raised at the Tennis Talk page), it can refer to practically any tennis tournament and does not properly identify the tournament to a casual reader. The WTA has announced that as of the 2014 edition the WTA Tour Championships will be renamed to WTA Finals. The "Tour Finals" label therefore unambiguously identifies the event. It has the added benefit that it is the same for the men's and the women's tournament.--Wolbo (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The label for |country_represented= is "Country", which is misleading as it implies place of birth or residence. The instructions do state that the field is for the country represented, but this is not immediately obvious to readers of articles, who rarely check template instructions. The resolution for this is simple, the label should be changed to "Country<br />represented". --AussieLegend (✉) 06:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily averse to a change but standard bios (such as person, football, volleyball, etc) use "Nationality" for citizenship and "Residence" for the place of residence and "birth place" for place of birth.... they don't use "Country." So it already is different than the norm and has been used as such for years and years. That said we could use the suggestion above or perhaps "Sports Nationality", "Sporting Nationality", or things others come up with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Name
Why does the person's name appear outside of the infobox? Can it be changed to have it in the infobox and not above it. It appears just below the article name which is the tennis player's name. It looks awkward and is different from every other infobox. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, they're all that way and (I think) always have been. No idea why. I've never had a problem with it though. And it's not unique as we see with F1 drivers template such as Eddie Sachs and Lewis Hamilton. It's just another way of doing it. You could also note that while NASCAR drivers like Danica Patrick have hers inside, the racing driver template like A. J. Foyt has his inside and blocked. All different styles. I prefer the Danica Patrick NASCAR style, but I don't see it as a big deal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
For some of the Hall of Famers (Agassi, Capriati, Hingis among them) the link doesn't work properly because their page at the HoF website does not include "hall-of-famers" in its url. Can anything be done with the template to accomodate? --Deinocheirus (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm being a bit confused as to the meaning of the "Seniors" parameters. Are they meant to document players' performances at the Legends' events held at the four Grand Slams? If so why are there seniors parameters for the singles section given that these legends tournaments are only played in doubles? Or did there use to be singles events as well in the past? It is worth to note too that on the men's side there usually are two separate Legends' tournaments. One for under 45-year olds and one for over 45-year olds (e.g. 2015 French Open Under 45 Legends and 2015 French Open Over 45 Legends. And why are the seniors parameters hardly used? Tvx1 20:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Would people object to adding the Grand Slam Cup to the template? It was the ITF's end-of-year equivalent to the ATP's Masters Cup event (a similar scenario to the WCT Finals which we have in the infobox) during 1990-1999 until they merged to become the ATP World Tour Finals. Asmazif (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2015 (GMT)
updated template with Grand Slam Cup, as per no objection in over 3 months. Asmazif (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2016 (GMT)
Preview warning
After your edits yesterday, Frietjes, I'm now getting the following big red warning on previewing pages with this template:
This infobox is not working correctly on mobile. There is no indication which of the rankings/best performance at majors is for SINGLES or for DOUBLES.
I can confirm this with my mobile. The shaded boxes "Singles", "Grand Slam Singles results", "Doubles" and "Grand Slam Doubles results" etc. which you can see in the desktop version are absent from the mobile view. Maybe User:Frietjes can help? Jared Preston (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Jared Preston, should be fixed now. something changed where all navbox class content is now hidden in mobile. it used to be that only the outer navbox class was hidden, so no class definitions for the header colouring and back to the more bullet-proof method. Frietjes (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey good work. Also I saw a request above about collapsing some of these sections by default, like Doubles or whatnot. Any chance of making that happen? Clearly Jamie Murray's infobox doesn't need his 0-1 singles record being so prominent. Likewise, does anyone care about Djokovic's doubles results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't you agree that that's POV? I don't think it's a lot of info to have to scroll past, and just because a player specialises in either singles or doubles, that doesn't make the other type less important. It is merely a summary of the players' stats – I would rather understand the want or need to collapse the whole infobox, but that may or may not already be possible. Jared Preston (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so at all. Jamie Murray's singles record is clearly unremarkable at 0-1. He is a doubles playyer, plain and simple. Let's use some common sense here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that very fact a crass example in contrast to his doubles achievements? I don't have a particularly large mobile, but Jamie Murray's singles record only just takes up a third of my screen. Why would this even need to be collapsible? And why would one bother to collapse it, when it would just be easier to scroll past? Jared Preston (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Less is more. I'm not just talking about mobile, I'm talking about general usage. No one cares about Jamie Murray's singles record by default. Thus, hide it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
for consistency with almost all other biography infobox templates, I propose removing the 'width:23em' and using the default set by {{infobox}}. this will create more consistency across biography articles. any objections? Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The width of 23em, which is just 1em wider than the standard infobox template, was chosen at the time to better fit the information and make the inbox easier to scan and read. This benefit in usability in my view justifies a slight deviation from the standard infobox. The tennis project is not the only sports project to use a different width as can be seen in the article on the tennis player and golfer Ellsworth Vines.--Wolbo (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
So looking at it, the Vines golf box is a little less wide than the tennis bio box. I assume the golf box is now set at the standard width? I don't recall the 23em being chosen but the difference is slight and I'm wondering, how many people actually have two infoboxes where the difference can be noticed? I'll slide this one into "I'll leave it up to others." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I see the golf box wider than the tennis box, on Firefox 52, Chrome 56 (both on Linux) and Safari on iPad. They are the same width in the Wikipedia app, which is the only one not to wrap "Right-handed (1-handed backhand)" or "University of Southern California" onto two lines. As a general style issue, it looks odd to me to have two separate infoboxes bumped together at the top. They should either be merged (using modules) or separated so the top has infobox person, and the tennis and golf ones are each next to the relevant section of the article.--Scott DavisTalk00:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I had posted this at the Tennis Project so more editors could weigh in. Of course one reason it might have been very popular was Federer and Nadal were playing as a team. That was HUGE. In three years this could peter out, at which point it would be a minor little blip on the tennis radar that we would never include in an infobox. I hope it works out that it's very important for years to come, I just worry that it might be too early to plop in results in our main infobox. Another concern is we tend to put in events that have been sanctioned by either the ITF or ATP... usually both. This event has no sanctioning by any governing body, so it does not appear in any of their records. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why the Hopman Cup and especially the Wightman Cup (similar to a "women's Laver Cup", last edition 1989) are in, and Laver Cup is not. User:BundesBerti (talk) 26 September 2017
The Hopman Cup is sanctioned by an official governing body (ITF) and the Wightman Cup had a 66-year history. Both have much more significant place in tennis history.Tvx1 10:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Well, I believe if you edit the Template and save it without any changes, it will transclude the updated documentation that does not include LaverCupresult which does show on the Template today because it was in the documentation the last time the Template was saved, which is prior to the current save of the doc file. Ahwiv (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This text is from the template biography (so small changes might need to work per the header/data, but having the ability for tennis players signature in the infobox; means signatures won't need to be outside the infobox, like in the case of Roger Federer. 78.144.82.158 (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Except for a couple things. Rarely do we list a player's signature at all, and the infobox is for the most important highlights of a career. I'm not sure a players signature is really all that important to include it in the infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Clicking on the edit request button was what I did and that was the automatic template I used. I am confused as to how I was supposed to act differently. 78.144.82.158 (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikilinking "current ranking"
Would it be a. desirable and b. practical to have "current ranking" (or "highest ranking", or both, or just "ranking") wikilink to either ATP Rankings or WTA Rankings as applicable? I was just looking at a page's infobox (Kyle Edmund, in this case), found myself wanting to check something about the rankings, and had to search for it separately, which made me wish it was just linked from the infobox. Lowercaserho (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Descriptions of major tournaments before the Open era are inaccurate.
This template only provides major tournament parameters using the word "Open". The open era in tennis began in 1968. So articles on players, such as Vic Seixas, whose major championships occurred before 1968 are incorrect. Seixas' article, for example, says that he won the US Open in 1954. The US Open did not exist in 1954; it was the US National Championships at that time. Same issue with the article on Don Budge, which claims he won the "US Open" in 1937 and 1938. This is simply incorrect and needs to be fixed.
I would like to add parameters to this template so that championships won by players prior to the Open era can be named correctly.
The Olympic and Paralympic Games have a 3rd place playoff match, and award medals. Therefore, it would make sense to use gold/silver/bronze medal to indicate the result, in the infobox. Currently, for some players it's "W" and "F", (example: Andy Murray) while for others it's "Bronze medal" (example: Kei Nishikori). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annafromathens (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Right now, no. There are a lot of events that don't make it into the infobox and this is an event in its very first year. Some have even called for it to merge with Davis Cup because of its redundancy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): I respect the sentiment. However, as the successor to Hopman Cup, and an event that offers a huge amount of ranking points, ATP Cup should still be included. At least it still exists, unlike Hopman. Rovingrobert (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
It is not the successor to the Hopman Cup, it replaced the Hopman Cup on the schedule. There is a certain amount of prestige to being included in the performance charts. Also I wouldn't call the ranking points huge. Djokovic went undefeated and got 660. Nadal got 250 points, and his team could have won the title. Agut got 295 points and was undefeated. This is more on par with 250 Series or 500 series events and those events are not allowed on the performance charts. Plus the Hopman Cup still exists and will be back next season. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Can we revisit this decision? I agree that the points argument is not strong, but if you decided to compare it with ATP 250 and 500 in relative point terms, one can also claim that there is infinitely times more points in ATP Cup than Davis Cup (DC has 0 points). One could claim that this was one of the strongest team competitions in tennis, featuring 6 top-10 players at the time, 7 if we count ranking after the seeds were set in stone. Also, it is now a standard part of the ATP Tour calendar, and will likely be played in 2021 if the world continues going back to normal. Finally, there is a current scarceness of team competitions in tennis, unlike ATP 250, 500 or even Masters, hence, maybe we should acknowledge them more, it is a whole different style of competition where you depend on your team-mates as well. Filipradenovic (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
A suggestion
How about changing the 'Turned pro' field to 'Turned professional'?
It would make the infobox 4 characters wider than it already is and shift column two accordingly. I think that would be a poor trade off when "pro" is perfectly understandable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Added singlesrecord and doublesrecord information to documents
Editors were not made aware that if they leave the singlesrecord or doublesrecord fields blank, they will automatically be filled in by any entry at Wikidata. Wikidata gets this information from the WTA and ATP websites and this can be very helpful for current players. However the data from the WTA and ATP is pretty much wrong/incomplete 100% of the time if a player compiled a pre-1968 record. This is a known fact. It can also be wrong/incomplete for players in the 1970s and 1980s. It would be great if Wikidata stopped adding suspect data from earlier players, but I have tweaked the wording under those entries in the documentation to give editors a viable work-around for those players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
World TeamTennis Seasons Played
Is it possible to add a field for World TeamTennis seasons played where a player can have the teams/seasons played with the WTT? We could list the name of the team and the years played with that franchise.
For the infobox I'm not sure it's relevant. We don't list ATP 500 level events or below because they are lesser tournaments. Where would we put it, in a new section below team competitions? The thing is, the articles themselves barely cover WTT. Abigail Spears was WTT champion in 2019 yet there is no mention in the article charts or prose. The infobox is a super summary of the most important things about a player, and everything in it is supposed to be covered in the article body. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the lack of WTT info is an oversight and should be included on player pages. I'm going to be going through adding info on that league soon thanks to all of the free time I have right now. That being said, almost every major tennis player in the last 45 years has played in the WTT, so just because it's not currently on a player page, doesn't mean it's not relevant. It just wasn't been done yet. I think it could be at the bottom of the box in a section that says "WTT Seasons Played" or something along those lines. I'm open to suggestions. Just thought it was a glaring omission. NaviGATR(click) (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaviGATR (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I also think it should be included, at least briefly, on a player's page. Readers should know about the WTT championships a player was part of. It should have links to the WTT season. As for the infobox, I'm not so sure about that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Done I have added "Billie Jean King Cup" to the existing Fed Cup label, since you did not specify exactly what change you wanted. If editors want the label to be different, discuss the change on this talk page, or test it in the sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I think there should be a discussion, either here or at the Fed Cup/BJK Cup talk page. How should the cup titles be referred to in the infobox when the person won the cup under its former name? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Any way we can get this to fit on one line? We probably don't even need Fed Cup to be named, as we don't list French Championships/French Open for those that won the tournament pre open era (see Rod Laver). Not sure we can use "BJK Cup" though unless it's an existing abbreviation currently used in the tennis world. Jevansen (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I have changed the label to BJK Cup, which puts the combined label on one line. Will that do? If not, please change the sandbox to be the way you want it. You can see what it looks like on the testcases page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Jonesey95, sorry for the confusion. It should just be "BJK Cup", with no mention of the old name "Fed Cup". As Jevansen pointed out above, most of the Grand Slams (as well as the ATP and WTA Finals, etc.) also used to be called different names, and we handle it by just including the current name in the infobox. (The old name can be mentioned in the prose, when applicable.) I made the change in my sandbox (and also tested it). Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I think we have a problem with this change. One, as it stands now with both Fed Cup and BJK it does not fit on one line. And I'm not sure you should remove Fed Cup in favor of BJK Cup. Yes, we use US Open in place of US Championships, and Australian Open in place of Australian Championships. But those names are very similar to one another and by the time wikipedia came into being the "Open Era" was 30 years old and Everybody knew those names. People coming to our articles are not going to know what the Billie Jean King Cup is, but the will likely have heard of Fed Cup. It should probably be listed as the one that the player competed in, Fed Cup or BJK Cup, not both and not just BJK Cup. In 30 years we can combine them into BJK Cup (if it hasn't changed again by then). Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think most readers know what the Fed Cup is. If they do, they'll probably know about the name change. Do you want to leave it as Fed Cup for now? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that most wiki readers don't know about Fed Cup, but many tennis readers do... just like Davis Cup. And our old-time females have the old Wightman Cup listed and that is even less-known than Fed or Davis Cups. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Jonesey95, can you just add a separate field that says BJK Cup, and we'll decide each article on an individual case basis for now? You can copy and paste the setup from my sandbox subpage: [1]. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Lovely work. I have copied the sandbox code to the live template page. I haven't clicked around to multiple pages to see if it worked, because the test case looked so good. Please ping me if further updates are needed. Happy to help! – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Template Usage documentation lists attribute "sportswear_(racquet)" but it is not operational, should it be removed from the documentation? Damon Mah (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Could someone add the field "ATPCup result". It has the right to be included, just as the other team competition fields. There is the field WorldTeamCup, but this competition is not the same as the ATP Cup.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 7 February 2021
I suggest adding the field "ATPCup result". It has the right to be included, just as the other team competition fields. There is the field WorldTeamCup; while the World Team Cup is a similar tournament, it is not the same as the ATP Cup. User:Tomcat7 (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. No objection, but does this result merit inclusion in the infobox, or is it a lesser result than the others? Where do we draw the line? We can't include every tournament in the infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
TOC placement is mis-placed - can we get it fixed? In the infobox, as with the WHCCresult, the TOCresult should be placed under "other tournaments" but not under professional majors. There were only three of those. There could be made another section titled "other pro events" and it could go under that, but it should not be under "Professional majors" as that is misinformation to our readers. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
ATP Cup is the official, ATP-sanctioned, team competition that replaced now-defunct Hopman Cup. I can see no reason whatsoever for it to not be included in infobox, ATP Cup had already 2 editions (2020 and 2021). Klačko (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
How can it be a low event, if it is sanctioned by ATP? Wightman Cup and some Wheelchair tennis World Team Cup are definitely less notable. Laver Cup should be also included. Those are not some fun exhibition tournaments, but they are part of the annual ATP tour. --User:Tomcat7 (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
