 | This template 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 | | | Template | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. | | Tennis To-do: |
|---|
|
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
| |
|
|
Making a change to a template that will be on multiple article requires WikiProject Tennis input. First this was created simply to add the VTE to the sidebar bottom. That was a simple edit even if it changed the coding substantially. But centering, increased width, adding much more un-needed info to make it longer... that needs more input. I reverted it back to look more like the original until we got more input, but it keeps getting reverted back. I think it likely we won't need this template on many articles since the bottom navbars work well for that, but we still need a few eyes to check it out. I think it is totally unnecessary to add each Major to the sidebar. We don't add each Masters event or each Challenger event. The link to the Grand Slam article should suffice and keep the infobox bloat to a minimum. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just going to copy near verbatim what I wrote on my own talk page:
- Well, I just don't think the template is complete without them; the Grand Slams by their nature are far above any other individual events on the tour, with only the WTF approaching (which is why it is also explicitly linked; actually, I'd find it really odd to link the WTF but. It the Grand Slams, because they are so much more prominent than any other tournaments). Honestly, I too think it would work better as a footer, instead of a sidebar, myself. I can see what it was intended to do: contain the links to the overview articles of the various levels of the events in the men's tour(s), which is why I was trying to rescue it by making it into an actual template (not a bunch of bloated code dumped on to each page, as it was when I found it) and clean it up somewhat using the existing tools for sidebars that we have. I really don't think it's bloated at all, especially compared to some other overview sidebar navboxes I've seen. The spacing doesn't really bother me at all, and takes up so little extra room. But I can largely agree that it'd work better as a footer navbox.
- Truth of the matter, the abbreviations were a genuine hindrance to comprehension and navigation, as they assume readers' knowledge, which I think is a mistake. I've been noticing that at some of the tennis pages, which I've recently begun looking at more thoroughly lately (I've been around for a while at Wikipedia, but for tennis-related things, I am a Johnny-come-lately). As a set of fresh eyes on these pages, I'd like to offer the general constructive criticism that sometimes the project's standards are incomprehensible to those who don't already know those standards, or other tennis jargon. Like the draw listings in the tournament infoboxes. With no key, nor any additional explanation in the body text (despite that infoboxes supposed to summarize the article), the abbreviations used are completely inscrutable. It may make sense to the project members, but how does that help the average reader who arrives at an article from a Google search (because they don't know anything about tennis) and is not only not a tennis wikiproject member, but not even a regular wikipedian? It's not uncommon from any wikiproject to become internally focused like that (I've certainly seen it from transportation-related wikiprojects), but it must be guarded against. In other words, I'd like to get involved, if only to add some fresh eyes to the project. oknazevad (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Majors are more important, but they are contained under Grand Slam tournaments. If someone doesn't understand the terms they can find it in that article. But you are putting the cart before the horse. If you feel that you have better eyes than the tennis project, by all means state your argument there... everyone may agree with you. But to ram the template down our throats when there is an objection is WRONG. Put it back to where it was and discuss. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
