Template talk:Tennis player2

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search


This is looking better but there are a couple of problems: The Wins are incorrect. For Grand Slams, it is 11 victories overall, NOT how many times he participated in the Slams. So it should show 11 victories, with 6 in singles and 5 in doubles. Hayford Peirce

Keep in mind I'm just working on the template format, not the data. --Robert W King 11:48, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Having said that, I'm not sure what you, Hayford, are referring to? The table currently shows 11 wins of which six were singles and five were doubles. That seems to be what you want? There is no participation figure for grand slams, although, a participation number is included for the Davis Cup in the text field. Chris Day (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Hmmm, are there *two* templates? This one and another one? This one seems correct, the other one is wrong.Hayford Peirce 12:00, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
One's a header template, the other is the data box.--Robert W King 11:59, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Under Biographical, there's a colon in front of Birth and Death is indented, which looks funny. Hayford Peirce 12:08, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

That's fixed now. Chris Day (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Yaaaaaaaaa Chris killed the template!--Robert W King 12:39, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
You can always revert :) What i was trying to do was stack if statements to account for players that have no info in the "Davis info" or "Trivia" fields. We can wait until we get the style sorted out before considering such factors. Chris Day (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
That reminds me, today I'm going to download firefox and hopefully fix the NFPA template.--Robert W King 12:43, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
What are the chances that a catalog worthy player has not been a member of a Davis Cup team? We may need to code with if statements to remove the Davis Cup section for such a player. Or, at least, code it to say s/he was not a member of a team. Chris Day (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
In the old days, almost all really great players were on the David Cup teams -- it was a great honor. Today most of the top players simply ignore it -- John McEnroe was an exception. Also, it's only for men.
Also, in the template now, the info about "on 4 winning teams" has vanished.Hayford Peirce 13:20, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Whoops.--Robert W King 13:24, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I removed that information. It is redundant with the number of Davis cup wins. Chris Day (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Can we drop the font one point? --Robert W King 14:32, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

I just set it to 95%. May we can experiment to see which is best. 90 % is far too small. Chris Day (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Also, looking at the actual page now, the number of Davis Cup years played is kind of out of place. I think it should be relocated, or a part of the davis cup trivia section.--Robert W King 14:39, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I agree. Not sure what is best though. Chris Day (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Can you move it to the Davis cup trivia section so it comes before the actual trivia? Maybe an additional line between the trivia and DC trivia, or after DC trivia, or maybe on the same line...--Robert W King 14:48, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Alternatively, if women don't play, then the Mixed double cell is available. I'm not sure how this would be made obvious, possibly a superscript star on all those numbers linking to a note at the bottom of the table. Or a mouse over note? Or the cell could be a different colour with a note at the top of the table? Chris Day (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I think if you refer to someone who wins a cup, you just say, they're a "6-time Davis Cup Winner" or "Winner of 6 Davis Cups".--Robert W King 15:02, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
But this is not how many won the cup but how many teams they played on. Chris Day (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I just added the word "wins" to the Williams entry at Famous tennis players -- take a look. What do you think?Hayford Peirce 16:07, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I added it to the template. Does that work for you? Chris Day (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
That looks fine! Hayford Peirce 16:51, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Word Wrap the event column and center?--Robert W King 15:08, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Try it. Chris Day (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2007 (CDT)


Sorry, I don't see how I put my comments in that box. Anyway, I don't know what to do about it, but it seems wrong to have a single wide space for Nationality and then use it just to put in a couple of initials. In my Famous tennis players I used the entire word spelled out (since there was, of course, no space constraints). What could be done here? Maybe just put the nationality into the Bio info? Hayford Peirce 11:55, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm thinking we could have images for flags to put along with the abbreviations --Robert W King 11:54, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
There were arguments and revert wars at WP about the Nazi (and Franco) flags being used for players during those epochs, ie, for Gottfried von Cramm, the great German player of the 30s, who was anti-Nazi, actually.... Hayford Peirce 12:05, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I could go without flags. There seems to be a flag mania on WP and I would hope we could avoid that here in CZ. Is there a good reason to use flags? I suppose it is easy to scan a list for a competitor from a particular country, but only if you know your flags. Chris Day (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Fair enough, I can agree to that.--Robert W King 12:13, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I'm not hot for flags myself. I have no particular objection to them (if there's space), but it seems pointless to me. WP childishness.... Hayford Peirce 12:15, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Could you turn the header Nationality into two lines maybe, Nation- and ality below it? That would narrow the space and leave more room for the other categories. But I dunno what it would look like.... Hayford Peirce 12:18, 6 July 2007 (CDT)


Could the handedness be on the line above Amateur or Professional? I think it would look better, and there seems to be ample space to do so. Hayford Peirce 12:20, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

How about now?--Robert W King 12:38, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Yes, that's nice! Hayford Peirce 12:56, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

"Tennis" colours

Yes? No? Maybe? --Robert W King 12:49, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Seems like a very garish combo to me! The yellow *might* be OK, but together with the green it seems very jarring.... Hayford Peirce 12:56, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
A bit bright on my monitor, althoug we could adjust saturation and brightness (similar to here User_talk:Chris_Day/Archive_2#Approval_and_style_stuff) once a base colour is agreed upon. Chris Day (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
What base colour should be used? A yellow (as in the tennis ball) or a green(say for the court?)--Robert W King 13:11, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I like the green idea. But would defer to the tennis edits on this. After all, they are the ones that have to look at it the most ;) Chris Day (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I liked the pale color, whatever it was, for the Triva section across the bottom. I can live with the yellow, but that green on the left distubes me. Wasn't it blue before? There are also blue courts. Hayford Peirce 13:22, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
They can always be changed back; I was just experimenting.--Robert W King 13:25, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Removed green, put very pale yellow for temporary tolerance.--Robert W King 13:30, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Yes, that yellow is quite agreeable.Hayford Peirce 15:04, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

#1 ranking

I just experimented with an extra cell for the number one ranking. The cell could be pushed to the right, or we could go back to the bracketed version? Or we could remove the number all together since it is self evident from the number of years listed. Chris Day (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

I think the number is redundant if the years are listed. --Robert W King 13:52, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I agree. Chris Day (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Sure. But will I be able to eventually put in 1949, 1950, 1952, say, for a guy who was No. 1 in '49 and '52 but was only the co-No. 1 in 1950? Even if I have to add the boldface myself? Hayford Peirce 14:14, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Yes, I see that I can do it. I just boldfaced 1913 at Famous tennis players]. Hayford Peirce 14:18, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
On my talk page I mentioned that this would probably have to be done manually (as you mention here), when you list the years in the template. I can't think of an easy way to code for it without you specifically identifying such years in the template, which is probably more work than just bolding them yourself. Chris Day (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
It's very little work for me to do!Hayford Peirce 14:23, 6 July 2007 (CDT)


I don't understand at all what you're doing with these "caps". In any case, I don't think we want anything in the info boxes that isn't instantly comprehensible by the casual viewer. I think that all the info for each player ought to be 100% self-contained within the specific boxes (which would include the trivia and Davis Cup boxes at the bottom). Hayford Peirce 15:18, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Ah, now I see what you were doing -- looks great! Hayford Peirce 15:24, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
So you like it with teams? I tried a few different things, as you saw. You think that is enough to distinguish it from the mixed doubles result above? Chris Day (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I don't think it's 100% clear, no. The problem will come when there are 50 or 60 players and the viewer is way down at the bottom of them and has forgotten what the headers are. Maybe this info should just be written out in the Davis Cup info below -- and we change the name to remove "trivia". It's hard to believe now, but 80 years ago the Davis Cup was about the equivalent of the World Cup today.
In some respects, I agree with this sentiment that you'll have to scroll up to remember what the headings are. What if we swapped the "events" with the "record"? 3 columns across and 5 down as opposed to the other way?--Robert W King 15:43, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
It may be more difficult to accommodate the #1 ranking with such a configuration. Chris Day (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

rank times

I see that this is still there but apparently inoperative.... Hayford Peirce 15:42, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

I can add it back to the template if you wish. But where to put it? Originally, it was bracketted right at the beginning of the dates. Would you like it back in that location? Chris Day (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
I don't think it's actually needed. Except for a couple people like Gonzales, Tilden, and a couple of others, everyone else was No. 1 only for a year or so -- it's easy to grasp. In my original listing it was easy to say: "4 years, 1945, 1946 etc...." But in this table it isn't needed. Hayford Peirce 16:02, 6 July 2007 (CDT)