Talk:Tennis Masters Series doubles records and statistics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expanding the article[edit]

@ForzaUV: as you've noticed I've been adding sections similar to those in Masters singles, but don't want to all of them, since that would lead to unnecessary clutter. My question here is: what sections would you like to be added to this article that aren't already in it? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerty284651: I was pleasantly surprised because I though it would be hard to find a reliable source for the career totals of doubles, you did great. It's definitely not needed to add most of those sections in the singles article. Only the "most titles per tournament" chart I find important. If you could also add one table for "most titles in a season" and another one for "most consecutive titles" the article would be complete imo. So only three tables are needed, you can put them all under one section. ForzaUV (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about consecutive titles across consecutive tournaments played OR consecutive titles per 1 tournament? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerty284651: Across consecutive tournaments played of course. By the way, is Zimonjic really still an active player? ForzaUV (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ForzaUV Yes, Zimonjic is still active, as seen on his wikipage. Consecutive tourn within a season or can span across 2 season? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. You can help out with the tables now that they have been prepared. Here is a head-start → A blast from the past. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No issue if the consecutive stats span across different seasons. I will try to complete some of the title tables by tomorrow. ForzaUV (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Use these for reference:
Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ForzaUV:, thanks for the assist. Did a great job with the 3 tables. Mind if I add a few of my own? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerty284651 Not really. I like the article in its current state but if you have some new then feel free to add it. As long as it's not some made-up or trivial stuff like the USA triple, total sets players won in their careers, etc there would be no content dispute. ForzaUV (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was going to add some more charts based on tables in the singles article, not the rejected trivial tables as you implied. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New comments[edit]

@ForzaUV:, I added new sections with records and statistics, where applicable. Tell me what are your thoughts on it. Also, if you want, you can add some of your own or remove if you find them unnecessary. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've done great work on this article so thank you. I'd say the last three sections are an overkill and unnecessary, especially the last two. In the consecutive section, I'd limit the finals streak to 4 and winning streak to 14 or 13. ForzaUV (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ForzaUV, it's good to have you back after a long time. Yeah, the last two sections I added quite recently. Also, added the same sections for decades and countries to singles, but they can be removed if you want so. See, if the footnotes I added in the winning streak table in consecutive records section are appropriate/needed. Limit the tables as you wish. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add, I know the Statistics section is a bit of an overkill but I would still keep it, because I was just matching the info on the Masters singles article, and it took me way too long to make that section... Was going to add youngest/oldest winner and finalist, but looking up that info would have taken me too long and it's all not all that necessary. This article has enough stats as it is. That would be all. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerty284651 sorry I wasn't clear enough. What I meant by the three last section is the Titles won by country, Titles won by decade and All countrymen in final, not all the seeds statistics. I have no issue with those and I figured it must have taken you a lot of time to make them.
The bars to be removed but how important to you is the All countrymen section? Would you mind removing them from both of the singles and doubles articles?
Secondly, a section about youngest/oldest doubles winners would be a nice addition, limit it to only the top 3 and no need for a youngest/oldest finalists section. Speaking of which, I actually find the finalists section in the singles article redundant of the youngest/oldest winners and I'd like it to be removed. The winners and the finalists are almost the same players so let's keep only the winners, what do you think?
Regarding the singles article, you made a mistake starting yet another pointless discussion with that troll, it's been exactly a year since he's been doing this. I reverted him many times, same with you, Fyunck and others but he still insists no one other than him gets it right and refuses to accept consensus. Don't worry about him though, I'll restore the article to the last consensus revision and report him if necessary.
Lastly, I noticed you have added links to the yearly winners again but they do clutter the table imo, one link to the ATP results archive is more than enough I believe. Another option is a link to UTS Masters timeline. Cheers. ForzaUV (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ForzaUV All countrymen subsection is up for debate. Oldest/youngest finalists can be removed, but leave the winners to top 5, no need to limit it. Yes, they are pretty much the same players, since most of them went on to win the title.
If you want to add the youngest/oldest doubles winners, be my guest. I am not doing it, because It'd take me way too long to garner the info. For reference it took me 6h just for WTA finals youngest/oldest winners last year. So, I am good.
You are correct, I should have gone with BRD and 3R, instead of starting another discussion. I guess WP:ANI is the last resort.
I restored the links for the singles winners, because you never know when the ATP is going to change stuff or rename and all those links are lost. I archived them just for that purpose to retain them, especially the draws. The ATP is at least thoughtful to have the links. Had it not been for those singles and doubles draws, I wouldn't have had the complete list, with which to make the stats for the doubles article. If one draw had been missing, the stats I would have made, would have felt incomplete. You understand what I am saying?
Unlike ATP, the WTA only has available draws for most recent tournaments; anything before 2018, except slams, is not available. You have the winners listed, yes. But not the draws, which are vital for a list of stats page. I've been meaning to make an article about the WTA Masters winners, but I am gonna need a Hail Mary and then some if I am to find all the draws needed. ITF has some, but not all of them....
Looking at the UTS Masters link you sent. I feel they copied that from Wikipedia, the Masters singles winners, and it also doesn't reflect correct data, because prior to 1990 during the Grand Prix Super Series the Masters events played in 1 year varied from 6 to 16. In the timeline they only display 9 Masters/year throughout from 1970-Present...which is incorrect. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good then but I would still insist in keeping the one link to the ATP results archive for the singles champions table but I will move your individual archived links of the the yearly draws to the articles which actually have draws included, 2022, 2021 etc in the next couple of days. That way we avoid the clutter in the singles table and the links are retained in Wikipedia. No intention to limit the top 5 singles winners to 3, I was taking about the doubles winners. You are correct regarding UTS not reflecting correct data for the series prior 1990. In UTS, the 9 tournaments with the strongest participation of top players before 1990 are considered Masters tournaments. ForzaUV (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice alternative you've found for the links. As long as they're located somewhere. Oh, okay. I though you were talking about the singles winners as well. Good luck finding info about the youngest/oldest winners. With 150 different winners over the years to comb through; no thanks, I am good. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Very minor, but "Tennis" in "Tennis Masters Series" should not be capitalized in this title if it is being used as a generic name for the series rather than the proper noun "Tennis Masters Series", which was the official name for the series from 2000–2003. Letcord (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Tennis" Should be replaced with "tennis" or "ATP". ForzaUV (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the article, and it being an uncontroversial move, you can just WP:Boldly move to the new title @ForzaUV. Alternatively, seeing as this article now contains statistics beyond the simple counting of titles (e.g. match records, consecutive match wins), you could move it to Tennis Masters Series doubles records and statistics to match the singles article. Letcord (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Letcord: I'll wait until the move request in the singles article gets closed. I will then move both of the articles to Tennis Masters Series singles records and statistics and Tennis Masters Series doubles records and statistics. ForzaUV (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tennis_Masters_Series_doubles_records_and_statistics&oldid=1200656747"