This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis articles
Other : *Sign up as a member of the project. Tag more articles with our standard project template. Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament.
I just merged Template:AtpTourInfo and Template:WtaTourInfo into this one. The only thing that those templates provided that this one doesn't is generic light blue/pink colours in template headers, but as each different tournament should have its own colour (as per the inter-year navbox colours) this isn't much of a loss. I added the other colours where they exist - rst20xx (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just came up with this idea, when viewing the 2008 U.S. Open (tennis) page. For example, Justine Henin retired, so although she would be the defending champion, the word "defending" is misleading since she's not in competition to defend. Couple of options as I see it. First, remove the word defending and replace with something like "previous year's champion" (that doesn't sound good to me either, don't worry). The more appropriate option as I see it would be to add a provision in the template for a non-defending previous champion, such as italicizing their name with an asterisk? Maybe I'm putting too much into it, but I do feel the term defending champion in situations like the one above is inappropriate. Gnowor (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is common practice in a high number of sources to use 'defending champion'. However, I acknowledge that there's potential for readers to erroneously assume that they must be defending, what with the verb and all. If you asterisked it, and created another optional field in small i.e. *Did not participate, that could work. (This is hypothetical on my part, I'm not sure how to do any of this). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the term is used elsewhere, but at the same time, when spoken of, the phrasing "Justine Henin will not defend her title" comes to mind. Hence believing the term Defending is incorrect. Gnowor (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. Sorry to say I'm not experienced enough to know how to make that edit. Could you post an example of how that would appear? Additionally, by your comments I take it that you're confirming you believe that "Defending Champion" is deceiving? Thanks again! Gnowor (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Defending Champion" is a common term for this kind of thing, but I also see that it could be deceiving, and if we can come up with a really good but non-deceiving replacement, that would be ideal. I think that "2007 Champion" would fit this criteria, so I'll go ahead and make the edit - rst20xx (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - a problem's arisen with the infobox with regard to the 1986 Aussie Open - there wasn't one. Which means that the 1985 Australian Open and 1987 Australian Open articles need to have their succession links tweaked somehow. I considered doing that simply by subst'ing the infobox, but the mass of coding that produced was daunting to say the least. Any way around this, other than the kludge of creating a stub article saying "this event never took place"? Grutness...wha?01:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's recommended that when referring to a certain year's tournament, the sponsored name (like AEGON Championchips) should be used, but when referring to the tournament in general, generic name (like Queen's Club Championships) should be used. So could the infobox be edited so that on the last row there could be other name than on the first row? --August90 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I added the field 'Surface' to the 'Infobox tennis event' template as in my view it is part of the basic info on each tournament and therefore belongs in a summary infobox. Haven't changed a template before so just checking if this is OK or if a discussion and consensus is required prior to such a change. See 2012 ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament for an example.--Wolbo (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any objections to adding an (optional) field for the tournament director? This information can easily be sourced from, among others, the ATP and WTA media guides.--Wolbo (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tournament director has a low public profile, especially after an event, and I don't think "key facts" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox is met here. ATP and WTA need to specify who is responsible for certain things and can be contacted about some things before and during an event but is there reason to think our tennis readers would find it important? I follow tennis and have never known or cared who it is. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind attendance, but tournament director? I guess it's one of those things I've never paid attention to unless the director happened to be a former player. It's not something I'd delete if added but it seems trivial. There is usually a link to the website that could supply it for anyone interested. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as an opportunity to add something to the knowledge of our readers. I was triggered by the prominence it has in the ATP Media Guide. The WTA Media Guide also has it in the tournament info which , as you will notice, in terms of information provided looks a lot like our infobox. Then I noticed our German wiki friends already have this in their version of the tournament infobox (they even have the supervisor listed which probably goes a step too far). There are indeed quite a number of ex-tennis players who are now tournament director, e.g. Richard Krajicek, Manuel Santana, Guy Forget, Albert Costa, Michael Stich, Todd Martin. I agree with both of you that it is not absolutely essential information but nevertheless, in my opinion, useful and important enough to warrant a line in the infobox. The tournament director is afterall the person with the final responsibility and authority for a tournament and is therefore not trivial.--Wolbo (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's not trivial... the information could be. The German page also lists the tournament supervisor and whatever "Letzte direkte Annahme" means. I'd call director borderline, but if you feel it is something that readers might find useful (and obviously our German Wikipedia does) I tend to trust your judgement. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
de:Vorlage:Infobox Tennisturnierjahrgang also has a field for Spielervertreter (Players representatives), for example used in de:Toray Pan Pacific Open 2014. And they show Turniernummer (some administrative tournament ID nobody cares about). I don't think we should use them as model. ATP/WTA show their "infobox" below the draw and not at the top of an article like our infoboxes where we are more selective. "Tournament director" is longer than the current field names so if we include it then it may widen the infobox or require two lines with the name below. I just don't think it's worth it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be in favor of adding fields like 'player representative' or 'tournament number', that is probably a case of Teutonic thoroughness going a step too far. To me however 'tournament director' is on a different level of significance compared to those fields. The combined arguments of importance and media coverage in my view justify adding it to the infobox. The amount of media coverage probably depends on the importance of the tournament as well as the notability of the director (ex-player or not) but it clearly does get media coverage. Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7, 8, 9. --Wolbo (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume since it is the tournament infobox, the field name could simply be "Director" instead of "Tournament Director?" So, the "last direct acceptance" is the player that last accepted an invitation to play the event? That one is really out there microcosmicland. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Last direct acceptance" is the lowest ranked player to get direct entry to the main draw (of course excluding wild cards). Draw pages like [1] and [2] display it together with their rank. It's silly to display the name without the rank as some German articles do. The documentation de:Vorlage:Infobox Tennisturnierjahrgang does say to include the rank. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, any objections to adding an (optional) field for the attendance of a tournament? Seems to me this would be relevant information for our readers and useful to add to the infobox. Most of the (larger) tournaments publish attendance figures and at least for the Grand Slams there is significant historical information available. For instance the Wimbledon Compendium has attendance data going back to 1949.--Wolbo (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted this template to use {{Infobox}}, which should make it significantly less of a struggle to effect any changes. Everything should be working exactly as it did before, but if not, just give me a ping. Alakzi (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
@EoRdE6: Do you have a counter-proposal? "Tennis event" is inaccurate at best. The length of the title is not all that important; we can keep using redirects. {{Tennis events}} is not being renamed to "Infobox Tennis Grand Slam events"; the latter is being merged into it. Alakzi (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved by Anthony Appleyard (talk·contribs). I will add that renaming templates is one of the more pointless things to do on Wikipedia and cluttering up an already backlogged RM with these types of moves does no one any good. Just create redirects, template names do not have to be minutely accurate as they are only seen by editors. Jenks24 (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I saw in your other conversations that the two possible solutions are moving the title up to a separate line or using the nowrap function. In your opinion, which way works better, because in mine, that gray space where the title used to be makes it look weird. Wouldn't it be better if the infobox was stretched out just a little using nowrap for the long tournament names? Adamtt9 (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it would look better with the center link wrapping as that never seemed to have caused a problem, but the infobox stretched is also OK. The main problem I had was placing the title on its separate line above the other lines and then leaving empty space underneath. But any of those options mentioned earlier work fine. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Frietjes This might sound like we are moving backwards, but could you actually add back the nowrap to the tennis tournament event template. In your previous conversation with Wolbo here, you mentioned that the two scenarios to solve his problem were to nowrap to stretch the infobox or to move the title to a separate line. If his main goal is to have the arrows on the same line, it would be better for the infobox to be stretched than the title to wrap. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current solution, with the arrows always on the top line and the tournament title in between wrapping (if too long to also fit entirely on the top line) looks perfect to me.--Wolbo (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go with option 5 simply because the main point is to keep the whole title on one line. Number 4 isn't bad, but in the cases of a tournament with a shorter name, there would be plenty of gray space remaining. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. As you can see with the shorter tournament names, 5 is a neater fit than 4 because it would leave a lot of empty space. While 1 and 5 are similar, 5 looks neater with the three links separated by something. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Format 1 is way too wide. 5 looks even wider. It looks strange. Format 2 is by far the best. But it's not just the wording... it can make the whole box look overbloated. The 2007 Western & Southern Financial Group Masters and Women's Open has become huge from switching to width:23em. I must have missed the project conversation on what was wrong with the old way of doing the infoboxes, so I might need to be gotten up to speed on the issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about the width of the infobox as you'll have to ask Wolbo, but the main concern was that the tournament name was wrapping onto a different line. We are trying to get it all on one line without making the inbox huge, but it doesn't seem like it is going to work.
To clarify and recap, the original situation was Format 6 which was a problem as the navigation years (and arrows) were on different lines. Not for all tournaments, but the ones with slightly longer names, of which there are numerous. My initial request to Frietjes was to create a version with the navigation years (and arrows) on the same line which became Format 3 (or 4). That option was OK with me but the subsequent Format 2 was even better because it does not always require two lines and has less unused space. Therefore my strong preference goes to Format 2 with Format 4 as an acceptable, but less desirable, alternative. Format 1 and Format 5 should not be chosen as the width of the infobox would become variable and in some cases ridiculously wide.--Wolbo (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Can a champmt and champwt be added to the Champions portion of the template? This template has been used for NCAA championships and they award team champions along with individuals. So can champmt and champwt be added to show up as Men's Team and Women's Team above the Men's Singles in the Champions section to show up at the top of Champions? Lsw2472 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lsw2472: I'm having difficulty understanding what you're asking me to do; doesn't the template already support |champmt= and |champwt=? Could you please either more clearly specify what you are asking for, or implement your proposed changes in the template's sandbox? * Pppery *it has begun...00:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Move junior and legends events below wheelchair events. Consensus to do so was established in this discussion. The desired change has been made in the sandbox [3] (the diff looks complicated but all I did was move the junior/legends events below the WC and update the data/header parameter indices accordingly). Thanks, —Somnifuguist (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is to add Logo|Logo_alt|Logo_caption|Logo_size to the unknown parameter check. It looks like they may not be in use They are in very limited use, something like 100 out of more than 8,000 transclusions; they should just be fixed and then removed from the template instead. Parameter naming consistency is valuable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed these non-standard parameter aliases from the template after removing them from all of the articles I could find that were using them. As far as I can tell, they were neither discussed on this talk page or documented on the template page. There are still 120 articles in Category:Pages using infobox tennis tournament year with unknown parameters, a handful of which may be using a capitalized parameter in addition to one or more other unsupported parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Currently there's a lot of excess capitalization of Singles and Doubles and Team in infoboxes, since using lowercase there is not the default. This should be fixed by making lowercase = yes be the default. Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. This is not an uncontroversial request. For some reason, the consensus style for the words "Singles" and "Doubles" in tennis article titles appears to be initial-caps. I'm not saying I agree with it, but making this change requires some discussion, probably at a more populated venue than this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a discussion at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Overcapitalization in_ nfoboxes. We'll see what it goes. Predictably, Fyunck likes his caps, even though it's not done at tennis article titles in multi-sport events. And the title arguments don't have much to do with the infobox over-capitalization (with the exception of Fyunck's argument that "it's a proper name", which is clear nonsense). Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template-protected edit request on 30 January 2022
How does this request adhere to the close, which says No consensus exists for the secondary proposal that all letters after the dash should be lowercase? It seems that you are asking the post-dash terminology to be lower-cased here, but I could be misreading. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: the RM proposal was to move e.g. "... – Men's Singles" to "... – Men's singles", which consensus was found for. The secondary proposal was to move the articles to "... – men's singles", which was not agreed upon. My changes for these templates accommodate the original proposal, the moves for which have now been completed by a bot. Sod25 (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. The proposal and the outcome were confusing to me, even after reading them three times, but your explanation helps clarify. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Πρέσβης του Βιετνάμ που απελάθηκε: I just made two changes (1) the years used for linking in the defending champion section are now the before_year instead of the current year, with the option to change these on a per label basis for non-consecutive years (e.g., Legends for the French Open which was not an event in 2020 and 2021), and (2) I have fixed the Legends linking for the French Open where in 2022 they switched from +/-45 categories for men to only one category for men. the code checks to see if there is a "senior" entry, and if not, shows a combined label. let me know if you see any problems. Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request - legend mixed doubles needs it's own header
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
With the new addition at Wimbledon of the "Mixed invitational doubles" event the infobox does not put in a header saying as such. At "2022 Wimbledon Championships someone had to put in "..... Mixed invitation doubles" so it would show. I see we already have the parameter of "champxl=" but it doesn't seem to add a proper header. Could we please have someone fix it so it adds the proper "Mixed invitation doubles" header? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
Done. -- Tavix (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done No response. Please feel free to re-open once you've answered my questions. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Done Elli (talk | contribs) 21:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the