Talk:2021 Australian Open

• I am wondering if there should be any reference to the current COVID-19 infections e.g. from the BBC.^[1] and controversy over travel restrictions. Noxoug1 (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am leaving this here just as a notice that I have made some bold formatting edits to the page, in order to bring it up to par with recent Grand Slam articles (like 2020 US Open (tennis) and 2020 French Open) that were successfully nominated for ITN. Given that this article, like those, is WP:ITN/R, it automatically qualifies at ITN barring the quality of the article, and I will be writing sourced prose about each event as I did at each of the above linked articles. I ask that any editor that opposes or has doubts about these changes discuss them here rather than reverting them. Thanks! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Has there been a broader discussion to delete (not move or change "formatting" of) the player seed charts? A large swath of useful content has vanished from this page, while it still remains on pages for previous editions of the tournament. I'm not surprised that the response would be a reversion. —Ed Cormany (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ed Cormany, I am basing these changes off of discussions and past advice seen here and here, in which poorly formatted and prose-lacking tennis tournament pages were improved in order to qualify for an appearance on the Main page. In an effort to get a jump start on this, I elected to go ahead and make the changes now, as this tournament qualifies as notable enough to appear at ITN, the only barrier being quality. I moved the seed charts to their respective tournament pages, but they were deleted by Savvy10, though I'd be fine with collapsing those tables under the collapsed singles tables already present in the article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

All looks pretty much what was agreed to by consensus on this article where everything that could be better placed on the "singles" and "doubles" pages was moved. Much better now. There was some flak last year about moving the "day-by-day" info too soon, but I think it's better to move it out asap. Those seed charts are overly trivial and we don't need them, plus they don't pass Wikipedia muster for sight-challenged individuals with color coding only. You don't see them in last years tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I can see the argument that the seed charts are bloated (although I've found them useful for many years) but the withdrawal reasons were deleted, not preserved in this article or the individual event pages. The reason Roger Federer is not playing in this tournament seems noteworthy and shouldn't be tossed out for…the purposes of a Main Page feature that lasts a day or two? —Ed Cormany (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ed Cormany, I think information about notable players not participating would fit better in the prose section for that event rather than in a series of tables. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The chart showing the ranked players, and if they are still in tournament or not, and how their scoring changes, and who they play next was the MOST USEFUL INFORMATION THIS PAGE HAD. all other information (what's now left of the page) is actually better available from smart phone app. so your edit effectively made this page useless. thank you for that, and congratulations for the consensus who decided to ruin all the Grand Slam pages. astonishing. can you please point me to where this information is now kept and updated so i dont have to waste my time on this page. Donmika (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sure. You can get it at tennisbase betting site by paying $100 a year. Who they play next is at the draw article which is easily found without wasting your time, as is the seeded players and if they are still in the event. Very little effort required. If you don't like the consensus then maybe show up more than once every three years and help rather than complain. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree that the Seeds data, as well as the associated withdrawals detail, was in my opinion the most useful part of the content pages for each major. It provided current adjusted ranking points through the tournament as they changed as well as a subsequent historical record to which I sometimes refer back. Speaking as a user, its positioning on the main page for both mens and womens draws, together with the daily summaries that have now been moved, provided a single point of reference to quickly ascertain the latest status in one place mid-tournament, without necessarily having to visit the individual sub-pages. Now I found myself having to go to multiple pages, and still don't get the seeds data anywhere. I am a relative enthusiast of the sport, but not enough to bother going to other sites to find this info. My preference is that this data is all kept on the main page and then transferred off at the conclusion of the tournament. I am an enthusiastic consumer and financial contributor to wiki, but have never maintained content and am grateful to those who make the effort to do so. Triggered by a change mid-tournament, this is the first time I have been sufficiently upset by really useful information being removed - particularly when it had been available. I recall many years ago when I first saw it, how impressed I was that this useful seed data was now available. I suspect, like myself, many readers are upset by this but until today I was unware there was a discussion on the change or even a means to provide an opinion about it here. I would humbly suggest that those who were involved in the consensus decision are likely to be far more enthusiastic tennis fans who already have access to pay sites and other tools and don't objectively see the value of this info. In fact I find the idea stated above that this seed/rankings data is trivial to be severely misjudged. Also the comment that this is simply following the standard set for last year does not justify continuing to stick with what I consider to be a poor decision. I don't pretend to understand the complexities of maintaining the data or the standards for presenting it. Surely if there is a problem regarding the color coding, then that is something that could easily be replaced or augmented by providing the same info and value through an alternative, simple method? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lofanm (talk • contribs) 16:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, i try to help, by pointing out a mistake. but you are just giving excuses and bad attitude instead of thanking me for the contribution. let me get this right, very useful information was removed, and no longer is available in wiki. and somehow this is acceptable? at very least if you make such edit put the seed table somewhere else i wiki then. otherwise, return it to this page. while aus open has an excellent app it doesnt have the seed table. but the app has all other information, making the page currently useless. maybe you should remove the whole page? Donmika (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The mens seeds are located here, and the womens seeds are located here. That should help you out. Items like points won before, in 2020, and points after, have absolutely nothing to do with this 2021 Australian Open. That would be trivial to the tournament. Items like the round they lost in are included and by clicking on the seed number you can see in the draw who they lost to. So it's pretty much all there already. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

that page does not have the one look table which changed color to pink (?) when someone is eliminated etc. just because you dont think points adds value doesnt mean it wasnt of high value and interests to others. and its typical wiki editors arrogance, which continues to drive people off this platform, to just brush that fact off instead of owning mistakes. whatever, have your play ground your way. if this is the way forward i know to look elsewhere and not waste my time. let me repeat, information what's now left is better served by the excellent AO app; and apps are the future, not web pages which are on slow path to become obsolete... whether you have realized or even accept that or not.Donmika (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

No it does not have that table that turns pink. Consensus was that it was trivial, plus that changing to pink to show when someone was eliminated is against Wikipedia protocol. Color can't be the only means of information as colorblind people cannot see it. Cool though, use the app, it's great. There is always some trivial thing that is of high interest to some. We could flood the encyclopedia with billions of trivial things that a few might be interested in. My guess is that 99.99+% of our readers don't care about your pink info and are better served with what we do have. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

you keep referring "consensus" which is highly flawed, i could ask you to prove how this consensus was obtained, but i wont bother. maybe you just stood in front of a mirror and talked with yourself, all we know; as most people who miss that table would have no idea how to complain, and prior had no way of participating on whatever means you used before deciding it was not needed to try and defend against the deletion. especially during pandemic when people had more important things to do than follow tennis tournaments which got moved to odd dates. example, in this talk page there are at least two people complaining the loss of it against you, single person defending removal. so actually that famous consensus here clearly is that it was useful and should be returned based by your own logic. but you wont, because you have an attitude problem, you cant admit a mistake was made, instead you defend the mistake with ridiculous excuses to the point you remind me of someone with orange face. the points information on it clearly wasnt "trivial", as it no longer exists in the wikipedia. considering how many years that table existed with all grand slams, i cant think it was causing some kind of unknown problems or seen as "spam"; it was information that a lot more people that you are ever willing to admit found useful, and relied upon on years and years, and are now missing and wishing it would come back. by far most of these people dont look at talk pages, or consider complaining because this is just wikipedia, place which is notorious for information, true and false, coming and going. i thought the point of wikipedia was to have useful information, useful as defined by the larger community, not someone on a whim of thought. but i clearly was wrong, so thank you for pointing that out. have you ever wondered why not too many people participate actively; and not too many people donate money? its because people like you. you (as plural) are the cancer of wikipedia. your attitude works against the very place you hold dear; how ironic.Donmika (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Have a good day because I'm done with your trash-talk. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Donmika, consensus was reached at ITN/C here and here. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

While I think the day-to-day summaries definitely are better off on a separate page, I think a compromise could be reached regarding the seed tables. Like I mentioned above, I think the seed tables could be collapsed and put under the other collapsed tables that show men's and women's singles players (perhaps doubles could be added there to match), so long as the seed tables can be properly sourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

But we are also not a tickertape parade. And the last post is very suspicious as a person's very first post. The seeding is handled on each individual event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you were referring to my post, I am amused and intrigued why you should question it being my first and therefore somehow consider it suspicious? I can assure you that it was! I also don't understand your reference to a ticker tape parade. I simply have used these features frequently for many years, often multiple times per day during tournaments, have personally found them most useful and conveniently located and was very annoyed by the changes that have been made, particularly when what I consider to be useful data is being totally suppressed. It is only in the last couple of days with these same changes being implemented yet again for this event that I was irritated enough to make the effort to learn how to comment on it. Is that so strange? But I don't understand why that should make it suspicious. Simply one of the silent majority offering an opinion. I admit as a user I like the efficiency of finding the most useful data located together on the main page, even though I appreciate from a logical point of view it may belong elsewhere at a different level and I am totally unaware of the wiki conventions on such detail. I also don't get the significance/relevance of the final comment that "The seeding is handled on each individual event"? Does that mean any changes made for this event would not carry through to other majors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lofanm (talk • contribs) 02:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Lofanm, I think "event" in this context refers to events within one major (e.g. men's singles, women's singles, etc.), rather than another major. Also - make sure you remember to sign each of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

By the individual events I mean specifically 2021 Australian Open – Men's Singles. There we have all the seeds listed, the round they went out, and it links them to their place in the draw. We also list the male players who withdrew, the wild cards, etc... We do the same with women's singles, both doubles, and mixed doubles. That's where the seeding should be... with the individual events. By a tickertape let me try and explain. On the draw chart we fill it in as a player wins or loses... no erasing. If you have a chart that is being shown to our readers, and it frequently has to have erasures and recalculating to make it correct, that should be a HUGE warning sign that it shouldn't be there to begin with. So with the performance timelines, we the write in the round the player makes it to only when they are done with the event. We don't write in 2nd round when they might make it to the quarterfinals. We wait. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your feedback and clarifications. Unfortunately I was unable to remember to sign my posts as I was until now unaware that it was needed, and am still unclear why it is significant - however I will now attempt to remember to do so. I take your point about only wanting to update data that is finalized and no longer subject to change (and have no concept of the effort/difficulty involved in maintaining it as it changes) but I disagree with the opinion that the ranking points (unfortunately complicated at the moment due to covid) have nothing to do with the tournament itself. One of my primary purposes for accessing your pages, and specifically the seed table, is to be able to follow during the tournament how a player's current position in the draw has already affected, or may ultimately affect, their final ranking position. (To that end, my personal preference would be to have the 'seeds' table expanded to a larger group and include any unseeded players making it to, for example, the 3rd round when the points they are earning start to have a more significant effect.) I consider the resulting changes to a player's ranking points are almost as important as their tournament performance. It is effectively the championship standings that apply in many other sports. I am not a soccer fan but, for comparison, just visited the wiki page for the Premier League Season 2020/2021 which appears to be currently in progress. That seems to provide interim league championship standings as of right now, mid-season, which include the non-standard color codings that you state are non-approved, as well as other tables that reflect season-to-date statistics. I'm sure your argument would be that this page doesn't follow the appropriate site standards. However I suspect that the Premier League pages are heavily used and that if this essential 'tickertape' data were removed there would be a huge outcry. I don't understand why the data in the seeds table here is any different.

The now suppressed seed table contained a combination of ranking points/position data not found elsewhere and redundant next/final opponent that can be determined from the Draw table. The presence of the redundant data made sense to me when the seed data was conveniently located on the main page for both singles events, together with the day-to-day summaries, since as the tournament progressed these provided a simple single point to track results of leading players, upcoming opponents and schedule of play in the main stadia, i.e. the main things I want to track. Moving this data to the subordinate, individual event pages may be more appropriate, in which case can it not be incorporated into the seed list already provided there? Or, better still, replace it but with those links into the draw section added. Equally, if the seed table doesn't belong on the main page, then why does the 'Singles Player' data that shows nothing more than the players eliminated in each round? This is just as redundant as it contains no additional data that isn't available in the Draw table detail. I personally find this chart unnecessary as I never want to just know in which round a player lost, but typically also other info related to the loss such as to whom they lost, the score or who they beat in earlier rounds to get there ... for which I must go to the Draw.Lofanm (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I throw my two cents of knowledge in here and say why are you complaining about this when this is the third time that it has happened in constitutive Grand Slams (talking about French and US Open here) and only now you want to create a account and bring it up @Lofanm:. From my personal opinion, I do feel like it a lot more cleaner without that massive table that for most of the time is unreferenced. HawkAussie (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

And the thing is, that's not what Wikipedia is for. We are an encyclopedia, not the Australian Open or WTA website. We are not a repository of every type of tennis data, only the most notable of data. Plus those table were not formatted properly as is as those with vision problems could not make out the changing colors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, as I explained before, probably like many of your other users, I wasn't even aware that there was a way of offering an opinion otherwise I would definitely have done it sooner. I had even wondered whether the change for the US Open was a one-off, possibly an accidental deletion, since I believe for that major, and subsequent events, the seeds table was initially present. I appreciate other sources may be available for stats (although I am not aware whether they would provide the same level of presentability for the seeds data), and that it might not have been appropriate to have been included in the first place (it seems it was initially developed from an interim version of the seed list that included the opponent as well as the round of defeat). However the precedent for providing this data for each major was set years ago and I would assume many of your users have come to expect and rely on this data ... yet obviously, for the majority, not significantly enough to waste time objecting to its disappearance. I get your point about the color coding but this seems trivial since that does not in itself provide any additional information, but merely highlights the data already present in more detail in the Status column, i.e. removing the colors does not take anything away from anyone but simply adds value for those able to benefit - just as we don't stop traditional printing for the majority simply because some people need braille. I was intrigued that earlier posts complained that people weren't offering opinions, or doing so in a timely fashion, but I see from the tone of the feedback in some comments here that these don't seem to be really wanted or valued. I appreciate and applaud the effort going into providing this data but, from what I observe here, it seems to be driven by a few individuals making sometimes-subjective decisions that may not reflect the view of your consumers as a whole, or sense what is of value to them. There seems to be a trivializing of opinions they don't share, illustrated by unverifiable comments above like "99.99+% of our readers don't care about..." How on earth could you know that? Or maybe in the real world 85% of your readers do care! Who knows but, regardless, such ridiculous statements do seem odd claims to be made on a fact-based site. I was amused that nobody addressed the elephant in the room of the Premier League comparison, which seems to go against the arguments supporting your apparent 'consensus' decision. That in itself leaves me questioning the validity of why these tennis pages are considered as needing to be treated differently, and to a higher standard, than those of other sports, where your tickertape data is considered highly menaingful? I have made you aware of my opinion and I can see that it's not really wanted. I remain unconvinced by the explanations I have received so far, but I see nothing is likely to change so I'll leave the whole issue there and withdraw from the conversation.74.108.133.237 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just a note - you seem to be Lofanm editing under an IP address. I'd highly recommend logging in, or at least stating out front that you are Lofanm, rather than posting as an IP and assuming other editors will notice. See WP:LOGOUT for information about editing while logged out. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'm not going to bother making an account for this because, either way, it will be my first post with it and someone will surely accuse me of just showing up conveniently and having opinions that align. I have no desire for fake, power-tripping bureaucrats (something that Wikipedia, as it's said, is not) shoving policies down my throat. From experience, it's a very big turn-off for people who might actually want to contribute to and improve Wikipedia. Now for the important stuff. I can appreciate the moving around of elements of data for appearance; personally, I've been scrolling rapidly past the Day-by-days for many years now with little desire to read them. However, I would do so to get to the seeding table, which, as someone mentioned above in all caps, was indeed probably the most useful thing on the page. I was most relieved when I found the Wildcards, withdraws, etc. on the draw pages, but I have to say that it's been a disappointment not to have the big table. I do agree with earlier commentary, though, that it should probably should be (and should always have been) collapsible, as it was always a bit chunky.

I think that a fair question here is: since the table has been removed, where can I find how the players were seeded? Nothing here anymore tells a first-time looker how they were seeded, just that they were seeded. I suppose that's fine for any active tournament; I can, as someone mentioned, go find the information elsewhere, probably very easily (although honestly, at present, it doesn't even tell me that the ATP and WTA rankings are used at all; I would have to infer it). The problem comes when, say in the future I want to look at an older tournament that lacks the table, and information regarding the rankings at that point in time, as well as the relevant points defending, is not easily available to me without actual investigation or, worse, actual math. This problem is exacerbated when you consider the old Wimbledon seeding system, which did not conform to rankings at the time. I noticed a few years ago that the opening blurb on the draw pages started telling me things like "Players X, Y, and Z are in contention for the No. 1 World Ranking." This information is nice, but when I see these theoreticals on older tournaments, my next move is usually to see the context: the actual rankings at the time. Although points are not included in the old doubles seeding tables (for very good reasons of simplicity), with them gone, there is still no real indication of the method, or at least that there was a method in the first place.

Once again, sorry for not bothering to sign up just to write this with my name on it. I would hope that what I wrote takes center stage as opposed to the fact that an apparent nobody wrote it. Although, I must admit that the above commentary is compelling in that, and this goes for all talk page arguments I've endured reading: it does often feel like opinions are not really being valued. There may be a consensus, but that consensus only exists between the people who particpate in the consensus-building. Even worse, it seems like the backlash to the modifications made as a result of the consensus was swift, which tells us that the consensus could have been built in an echo chamber and is perhaps not the true best practice. On the bright side, at least it's not unilateral nonsense. Additional apology for my snark. Thanks. 174.105.28.46 (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

There may be a consensus, but that consensus only exists between the people who particpate in the consensus-building. This is how a consensus is formed, no? The discussion was open to everyone (as all discussions at WP:ITN/C are), and the opinions expressed there reflect those that turned up and participated in said discussion. That seems quite transparent enough, as it would be impractical for all users to get a notification any time any article is nominated for the Main Page (several times a day), and seems like best practice to me. Further, the discussions here and here, which was where the changes originated, was most certainly not an echo chamber; there were a good many users with whom I worked to improve the quality of each of those articles, to the point that the articles would be qualified to appear at ITN. Upon the conclusion of this tournament, there will be a similar nomination and discussion at WP:ITN/C, in which you, and any other users, are more than welcome to participate if you'd like. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

While the chart seems overly trivial and largely duplicates what we already have, I suppose we could have a collapsed version on the individual disciplines articles. For instance the 2020 Australian Open – Men's Singles could have the larger chart with ranking/points details placed at the top of the "Other entry information" section in collapsed form. The colors must be removed because it does not have a key plus you can't use color at Wikipedia as the only means of conveying information. The red green combo constantly changing as the event gets closer has got to go, plus it's part of the tickertape problem. It would work sort of like this entry right here, or if it was needed to be in the same section as the seeds it could work like this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

PCN02WPS, I think that my point did not ring clear. I think the concept of consensus-building is absolutely best practice, my issue is that this consensus reached for these pages is not necessarily the best path forward, merely acceptable for the purposes of achieving ITN. You have been linking to "here and here", but I must inform you that, after reading them, I don't see your point at all. There was little actual discussion, and most of the conversation landed on three aspects: the blurb (irrelevant here), lack of prose, and the article being inundated with tables. I can see the moving of the Day-by-days being discussed and appropriately moved, but somehow the Seeding table got the axe while the Players table did not. Furthermore, the only section referencing the seeding table specifically did not have a proper resolution, relying on the general outcome for support. After adding some additional prose, the article was accepted - this does not mean what was changed was the best possible choice, merely acceptable enough to advance. What I am suggesting to you is that while the article has been improved for a particular purpose, achieving ITN, the article has perhaps become deficient in other aspects in the eyes of everyday readers, as possibly evidenced by people coming in and wondering where the table has gone. Theoretically, commentary on the general improvement of the article exists in its talk page, not just where you have suggested in this month's ITN nominations. You will find that I, and any other users, are more than welcome to participate here, too, and that growth of the article can take place in more than one location.

Fyunck(click), you are right, it does a seem a bit repetitive, especially as the simplified version at the top is too valuable for parsing the bracket itself. Personally, I think that the "Singles Players" section on the main article should be thrown out in favor of the seeding table if either is going to exist there, as I'm not so sure of the former's usefulness. The information in the "Singles Players" table is readily available in the draw page, albeit a bit spread out but in the same order. At the very least, the seeding table provides some unique information. I imagine there are fewer times when someone wants info about an unranked player - usually when they either are significant on their own or have done something significant. If either is the case, I'd hope that it would be in the prose already. As for the colors, I have no opinions as it does not bother me and I am not versed in best practice for the colorblind. At this point, I saw the second version you edited in, and it definitely feels repetitive. I hesitate to suggest combining them, as that would throw off the apparent established format of all tennis tournament draw pages. I would suggest that, no matter what, if the seeding table survives it should get reduced in size, like the existing Player table in the main article. 174.105.28.46 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

As I've said a few times before, I'd have no problem having the table collapsed under (or in place of) the existing "singles players" tables, so long as it is referenced and any reliance solely on color coding is eliminated. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fyunck(click), can I ask why you removed the prose from the event summaries? That was a key part of the article that brought it up to par and is needed for the article to be of the quality required for the Main Page. Prose for the other events was set to be added in the coming days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I was simply bringing it in line with last years Australian Open article where it was more of an easy list to go through rather then a longer scroll to find the discipline you want to click on. But we can certainly discuss the changes. We have all talked about why we moved items out of the "xxxx Major tournament" article and into the more precise displine. Some of this prose is the same type of creep, and it's redundant as no get out. Look at the 2020 French Open for example. It's the same lines in every one of those events and it's really a load of filler. "The Women's Singles event began on 27 September with the first of seven total rounds. 32 players were seeded, while the other 96 players were not." "The Men's Singles event began on 27 September with the first of seven total rounds. 32 players were seeded, while the other 96 players were not." That stuff is all in the discipline articles in a chart. At worst it could be here with a button in front. The mens added prose at 2020 French Open – Men's Singles has more prose than the actual individual discipline article at 2020 French Open – Men's Singles. That should never happen and that's why we have links to the main articles. A sentence or two is fine but we should not be duplicating what is on the Men's Singles article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fyunck(click), I'm sorry that my writing was redundant, do you think there should be some information about the final and the competitors playing in it? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It wouldn't be a bad idea. I don't recall in the original consensus that we were going to add prose to each section. Do you have that discussion at your fingertips? I recall that one of the reason for changing the article was that no one could find the winner of the singles and doubles events. They were buried under the weight of the page and we had to put links at the top so people could find anything. Looking at the 2016 French Open, oh my goodness it's a mess. It's so much better now. Awesome job. But when we scroll down on that 2016 article we get down to the "Champions" section. I thought that was going to stay in the same format so that readers could very quickly go to the discipline that interested them, where they could then get more details. Too many details on the 2021 Australian Open page would make scrolling slower, but I guess it's still easy to find things. What you do not want however is the page it links to to have less prose and info than exposé you have written for the 2021 Australian Open. Otherwise why go to the link? So I'm split as to whether we add anything. I guess if I added anything like you did, it would be the biggest highlights, not the draw size. Not who lost in the first round unless it was last year's winner. I wouldn't repeat the score. No more than one, two, or three sentences. The rest is what should be on the article discipline page, but the draw size is usually included in the article infobox.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. If you want to bring back what I moved, I won't revert it, we'll just continue discussing. The important thing is to get it right for our readers... That's my only concern. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Basically every suggested change came from the ITN nomination for the 2020 U.S. Open (tennis) page. That's where I got the idea to do the prose summaries and to move most of the tables. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@PCN02WPS:Good point. Why don't you move back what I removed. The points of my own would be this... In that approved US Open event the number of seeds and players is not present and I think for a summary it should remain out. Too detailed. Also, since it's prose we usually do not show the score unless it's some sort of record. Plus it's already in the heading. I also would be careful about overlinking. If the two players are linked in the heading, they don't need to be linked again below it. Otherwise leave your synopsis. I might think it's too long, but others have already said it's not. Sorry for the confusion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I like the prose in each section; much better than a dry listing of all of the event finals. I can see how the seeding table morphed into some of it, though I obviously think it (the prose) could stand on its own without those details. I agree, the highlights and circumstances of the match and its leadup should be there, but not giving it all away, just things that can be expanded upon in the draw page (though this probably gets difficult considering the number of participants in the wheelchair events). 174.105.28.46, EditorSeto (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fyunck(click), I will move back what you removed as it was at the time, and make some of your suggested revisions (and add prose to other events) tomorrow. I agree with your suggestion to cut down on the amount of redundancy and I will try to give some background on the competitors in each final and give some info about that match while not going over the top. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 09:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just saw you self-reverted, striking above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 10:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply