Template talk:Performance key

Recent structure changes

Structural changes have been made recently on this template by unregistered editors. Since this template has impact on thousands of article, I believe it is best to generate consensus before any change is implemented. SOAD KoRn (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

100% agree. I think it's fine the way it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not an argument, and what are you agreeing with? 87.254.85.56 (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Honestly, I don't think it's not good as a key, as it doesn't actually line up the meaning of the symbol with the symbol in and clear fashion. The more I look at it, the more I think it's a very poor key, actually, and the anon's changes were in every way an improvement. It's not as compact, but the improvement in aiding unfamiliar readers' understanding is worth the trade off. oknazevad (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I rather keep it compact because most terms are very straightforward and easy to remember. A reader encountering them for the first time has to spend a little more time understanding the terms, but will subsequently benefit forever by the keys taking up less space. Gap9551 (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"Not as compact" is an understatement. It's huge, and would be on every player's article as a huge chart. It's just not needed that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

There's got to be a happy medium we can figure out, though. Just the fact that the symbol and the meaning don't line up at all, other than appearing at the same relative position in the lists, makes its utility as a key far less than it could be. oknazevad (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you suggest? It's hard to align anything without increasing the size significantly. Gap9551 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I liked the vertical alignment much better. I mean, the career tournament charts that this acts as a key to are alone much larger than even the vertical one. So while I can appreciate the desire to minimize other things because of that, I think it may be a case where trying to focus on one thing, size, it detrimental to the overall purpose in the main. oknazevad (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing is the charts themselves tend to be very long horizontally, and the key works quite well along the top horizontally. And it has for years and years. Plus, each box has a separate mouseover that tells us the meaning in addition to the prose. So it's double covered. A change of this magnitude would need the tennis project onboard. I find the vertical chart a distraction to our articles. Many players have minimal prose as they are new players... the key might take up half the article. I really don't like the vertical alignment at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Mouseover didn't work on mobile devices. That's something else that we should probably account for. oknazevad (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"And it has for years and years." this is an anti-argument. 87.254.85.56 (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I think not. Long term consensus use of a chart that works fine is a huge reason to keep it as is. Tweaks certainly do happen, by consensus, but this is a BIG difference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point about the mouseover. So, having an easily readable table is mostly useful for mobile users that are new to these tables then, an even smaller group. Also, the most common abbreviations are listed first in the chart, so even if someone has to read the explanation, it's probably only the first part. Gap9551 (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Template parameters

On my request editor Frietjes has updated the template with a parameter that determines if the standard version of the legend is shown or a shortened version. The shortened version can be used for current players who only need the Grand Slam tournament info (e.g. Victoria Azarenka). We had a separate template for this called {{Performance key (Grand Slams)}} which is no longer needed and now redirects to this template. The parameter setting is:

• {{performance key|short=yes}}

In addition there is a parameter that determines if the text "To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated either at the conclusion of a tournament, or when the player's participation in the tournament has ended." is shown (default=shown). This can be used for retired players such as Suzanne Lenglen. The parameter setting is :

• {{performance key|short=yes|active=no}}

See the template documentation for examples. --Wolbo (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete strike rate, please

Request: Delete "SR=strike rate (events won/competed)" from template since it is not in the key itself and not used in tables (Win-Loss is normally used instead).

(W) Won; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; (RR) round-robin stage; (Q#) qualification round; (A) absent; (NH) not held. SR=strike rate (events won/competed)
To avoid confusion and double counting, these charts are updated at the conclusion of a tournament or when the player's participation has ended.

0m9Ep (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

0m9Ep: The strike rate is used in tables, e.g Naomi Osaka#Career statistics, Roger Federer#Career statistics, and is in the Tennis WikiProject's guidelines for such tables. Whether it should be in the guidelines is another matter. Unless you're talking about a different sport? Somnifuguist (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

And as you wrote yourself, it is in the key and explained. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck(click): They meant that the strike rate is not in the graphical key (every other part of the key's explanatory text corresponds to a cell in the graphical key). However, although we use tooltips in newer timelines to explain that SR = strike rate, in older timelines like Billie Jean King's, the tooltips aren't used, so I think it's necessary to keep the strike rate explanation in the key. Somnifuguist (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah. I think you are correct. Also, tooltips don't work for all phones and older computers (not sure about those with sight issues). Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Tooltips and abbreviations, for that matter. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Preliminary rounds

If there are no objections, I'll add a preliminary rounds cell to the key. This is needed for certain Grand Slams, particularly the 1968 and 1972 French Open singles draws, which had rounds in between the main draw and the qualifying that were until recently either misnamed or omitted entirely. A preview of the changes can be viewed in the sandbox. Somnifuguist (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

This has now been added. The players who have a P# in their infobox or timeline are as follows:

• Iván Molina
• Allan McDonald (tennis)
• Kim Warwick
• Torben Ulrich
• Nikola Špear
• Lita Liem Sugiarto
• Sharon Walsh

There are more who would need it if an article were to be created for them, or a timeline/infobox were to be added to their existing articles. Somnifuguist (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The preliminary round cell will now only be shown in the unshortened key, as only a handful of players need it and otherwise the extra text causes the explanation to flow over two lines instead of one, which looks messy. Somnifuguist (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

The current formatting of the template is a bit undesirable. The fact that there are two keys is a bit redundant. For brevity, it would be better to have one list that associated letter, color, and meaning all at once. Currently, the first key is not useful for mobile users, who are generally about half of web traffic, and who cannot use tooltips.

Below are some examples from Match of the Century (tennis). Sportsfan77777 asked these changes be discussed more broadly before adopting there. Does anyone have any preferences or comments? -- Beland (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Current style

Key

W

F

SF

QF

#R

A

(W) winner; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 3, 2, 1; (A) absent;

Proposed style

This was adopted for Paul Lim and was the result of a discussion with DLManiac, who did the lovely design work. -- Beland (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Performance timeline legend
A	Absent	#R	Lost in the early rounds of the tournament (RR = Round robin)	QF	Lost in the quarter-finals
SF	Lost in the semi-finals	F	Lost in the final	W	Won the tournament

Compact table

A - Absent	#R - Lost in early round	QF - Lost in quarter-finals
SF - Lost in the semi-finals	F - Lost in final	W - Won tournament

Compact horizontal

(A) Absent; (#R) rounds 3, 2, 1; (QF) quarter-finalist ; (SF) semi-finalist; (F) finalist; (W) won

• To be clear, I did not say I wanted changes adopted there or anywhere. I'm fine with the current version of the key. I also said to discuss it with the Tennis Project, not here. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• I see no reason to change as the version we have now is far far better. I have no idea why we don't use our standard key of {{performance key|short=yes|active=no}} in that article. This allows mouseover tooltips or not. If we need a shorter version still, that can be added to the code, but for one article it's not really needed. I changed the article to our standard guideline key. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Honestly, I don't see why we need a complexly coded template that requires parameters at all, let alone one that is so large. I endorse the idea of making a more compact universal key that appears the same everywhere and is fully accessible without redundant coding or appearance. oknazevad (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  The coding isn't that complex, really. In tennis articles, two types of performance timelines are generally used: Grand Slam only timelines, e.g. Serena Williams#Career statistics; and full timelines, e.g. Serena Williams career statistics#Performance timelines, that show results for events like the Olympics and Fed Cup that have non-standard rounds that need extra explanations. The short parameter is for the GS-only timelines which don't need the extra explanations. The active parameter allows a warning to be shown to editors not to update timelines before players have completed tournaments; something that isn't necessary for retired players' timelines. Somnifuguist (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• None of the proposals are complete substitutes for the current template, so must automatically be Opposed for now. The "Compact horizontal" proposal would be worth considering if a full version were to be presented, but the other two are more bulky than the current template so I wouldn't vote for them anyway. Somnifuguist (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed. There might be some use for the "Compact horizontal" version, though I can't think of any right off hand. And we absolutely need flexibility in the template to handle complex and less complex charts, and to sometimes let editors know not to update until the tournament is over. The current timeline is very versatile and has worked quite well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  Err...none of them are intended to have all the fields in the existing templates. They are just demostrating different styles. -- Beland (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Change is still needed

Apparently nobody is very happy with the tooltips, and combining those with the text keys below them is actually pretty obnoxious to the reader. So I support the proposal above to make a more transparent key, perhaps as used at the time in Match of the Century. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)