Talk:2021 French Open – Men's singles

Tennis High‑importance

This article 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

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tennis To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Take an item off the Cleanup listing
Copyedit : Roger Federer, Leander Paes, Rafael Nadal, Justine Henin – to be used as examples for ideal page structures
Expand : Grab a Start article and expand it, or peruse the List of articles.
Photo : Add photos to Tennis or Tennis people articles
Stubs : Bring a Stub up to our standards.
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.

France: Paris Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Paris task force.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Grand Slam (tennis)#Multiple Career Grand Slams|double Career Grand Slam]] The anchor (#Multiple Career Grand Slams) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Ranking tables?[edit]

I noticed the addition of a table showing detailed ranking point differentials for each seeded player. This seems a bit excessive, as the seeds and withdrawals sections already show the relative rankings of the players, and these tables if used across the board would add an enormous amount of overhead for each tournament, especially for slams where there are 9 (5 senior + 4 wheelchair) events. --Somnifuguist (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC). ~~Update: the tables have been moved to 2021 French Open#Singles seeds; I think discussion is still warranted.~~ --Somnifuguist (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that these should be removed. Wikipedia is not a stats site.T v x1 13:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was already discussed and consensus was reached. Those charts of seeds and wildcards, etc.. only belong on the individual discipline articles, never the main page. They go under the brackets. The detailed seed table was iffy that it was really needed at all since there is already a seed table above the bracket. Just look at the last four majors and see what was done. The 2020 French Open is how things are supposed to be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): The "iffy" seed table is precisely what we are discussing here. The "Other entry information" section, which isn't being challenged here, along with the seed table was moved by Qwerty284651 to the main tournament article. You've half-undone this by removing it all from the tournament page without adding it back to the event pages, leaving that info now nowhere on-wiki. Also, when a citing consensus to shut down a discussion, it's best to link the talk page(s) where it was supposedly reached so that that claim can be evaluated and the discussions built upon. --Somnifuguist (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was answering hurriedly and didn't have a link to the discussion. There were a couple of discussions and some of them were done because the main article was cluttered and readers were complaining about not even being able to find out who won and event. Part of it was discussed here. And I wasn't sure if I could just undo Quertys removals or if much more reconstruction would need to happen. So I left it for others to fix. I have now moved his first removal back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for that link. I also found another directly relevant discussion here. As you mentioned, the past 4 slams have the seeds/other entry info that used to be in the main tournament article in the individual event pages instead, which works fine except for the seed tables as we already have seed sections. Consensus from the discussion I linked was unclear, which is probably why the tables were created again for this tournament. Pinging PCN02WPS, Ed Cormany, Savvy10, Donmika, Lofanm, HawkAussie, Amakuru, Bagumba, ApprenticeFan, Tvx1, who participated in the previous discussions so that we can settle this. I see 3 options:

Keep the seeds/ranking points tables (ex.) in the event pages
Move the tables (but not the other entry information) to the main tournament page, where they were for slams prior to 2020, e.g 2019 US Open (tennis)
Delete the tables altogether

--Somnifuguist (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Support 3 per WP:NOTSTATS, as the ranking points info in the tables has little lasting significance and is unsourced. Somnifuguist (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1, as I believe the info could be useful to some, though personally I'd have no problem doing away with the tables altogether. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support 1 From previous edit wars I know the table is important to some but it does clutter the page. Personally I don't really much care for it either. If it remains it should be hidden in a collapsed table and labeled "Detailed seed chart". A huge problem with the table is no legend for the pink color plus you can't use color only to describe something on wikipedia. Those with color-blind issues can't see it. Absolutely do not move it back to the main page as prior consensus was to remove it from there, so that ship has sailed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1 or 2 I still think the information is valuable. Especially when a player earns the #1 ranking or extends a streak, it is useful to see how they did so. Was it a narrow thing, or was it mathematically guaranteed? That is part of the narrative of an individual sport like tennis. I can see the argument about this information being "primary" in some way, but so are the results of matches, or the tabulation of results in an election — which I doubt many people would advocate removing. —Ed Cormany (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1 I hope I am not too late to the party. I vote for the table to stay but in their own respective sections (no need for clutter). The tables are important to many editors and readers alike, plus, it provides useful information on the progress of ranking points distribution during the tournament, be it a slam or masters tournament. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is clear to keep the tables in the event pages, then. —Somnifuguist (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

epic[edit]

It's tabloid nonsense to use words like "epic" to describe something. That isn't impartial.