Talk:2021 ATP Tour Masters 1000

Grey colored cells - Opinions?

An editor recently changed some internal code on these top two charts so that it reads differently for those with vision problems. Whether that's better or worse for a screen reader is a matter of opinion but the new html they added is perfectly fine, and if written properly it makes no difference to the actual chart view. However if certain parameters are not included it will shade the left column (Tournament) grey. That's not the way this chart was created so I thought it should be discussed if that change is to be made. It affects both charts in this article. Right now, as before, all cells are white/transparent but they could be turned to grey.. It's sort of an aesthetic preference but I'm not sure how others feel. I'm partial to a cleaner all transparent look for the top two charts, but maybe some only want the top chart transparent. Maybe everyone wants both charts grey. Hoping for some opinions on what looks best for these particular charts. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Grey colored cells? Really?. Headers are shaded and bolded by default and for a reason. This is how they're designed and how they should be. No idea what you're trying to do here. I think the 'Tournaments' chart should be unbolded because it's secondary and the 'Results' chart bolded because it's the main one as it includes the tournaments winners but both need to be shaded for sure.

By headers design (default): shaded & bolded

Tournament	Country	Location	Surface	Defending champion	Date	Prize money
Indian Wells Masters	USA	Indian Wells, California	Hard	Dominic Thiem
Miami Open	USA	Miami Gardens, Florida	Hard	Roger Federer	Mar 24 – Apr 04	$4,299,205
Monte-Carlo Masters	France	Roquebrune-Cap-Martin	Clay	Fabio Fognini	April 11 – 18	€2,460,585
Madrid Open	Spain	Madrid	Clay	Novak Djokovic	May 2 – 9	€3,226,325
Italian Open	Italy	Rome	Clay	Novak Djokovic	May 9 – 16	€2,563,710
Canadian Open	Canada	Toronto	Hard	Rafael Nadal
Cincinnati Masters	USA	Mason, Ohio	Hard	Novak Djokovic
Shanghai Masters	China	Shanghai	Hard	Daniil Medvedev
Paris Masters	France	Paris	Hard (indoor)	Daniil Medvedev

By headers design (plainrowheaders): shaded & unbolded

Tournament	Country	Location	Surface	Defending champion	Date	Prize money
Indian Wells Masters	USA	Indian Wells, California	Hard	Dominic Thiem
Miami Open	USA	Miami Gardens, Florida	Hard	Roger Federer	Mar 24 – Apr 04	$4,299,205
Monte-Carlo Masters	France	Roquebrune-Cap-Martin	Clay	Fabio Fognini	April 11 – 18	€2,460,585
Madrid Open	Spain	Madrid	Clay	Novak Djokovic	May 2 – 9	€3,226,325
Italian Open	Italy	Rome	Clay	Novak Djokovic	May 9 – 16	€2,563,710
Canadian Open	Canada	Toronto	Hard	Rafael Nadal
Cincinnati Masters	USA	Mason, Ohio	Hard	Novak Djokovic
Shanghai Masters	China	Shanghai	Hard	Daniil Medvedev
Paris Masters	France	Paris	Hard (indoor)	Daniil Medvedev

No bold and no grey shading (parameters tweaking)

Tournament	Country	Location	Surface	Defending champion	Date	Prize money
Indian Wells Masters	USA	Indian Wells, California	Hard	Dominic Thiem
Miami Open	USA	Miami Gardens, Florida	Hard	Roger Federer	Mar 24 – Apr 04	$4,299,205
Monte-Carlo Masters	France	Roquebrune-Cap-Martin	Clay	Fabio Fognini	April 11 – 18	€2,460,585
Madrid Open	Spain	Madrid	Clay	Novak Djokovic	May 2 – 9	€3,226,325
Italian Open	Italy	Rome	Clay	Novak Djokovic	May 9 – 16	€2,563,710
Canadian Open	Canada	Toronto	Hard	Rafael Nadal
Cincinnati Masters	USA	Mason, Ohio	Hard	Novak Djokovic
Shanghai Masters	China	Shanghai	Hard	Daniil Medvedev
Paris Masters	France	Paris	Hard (indoor)	Daniil Medvedev

There are thousands of charts and templates at Wikipedia that have default settings. Everyone knows that. But they also have parameters that can be set to tweak things as editors and wikiprjects desire. You seem to be saying it's default or the highway. I call baloney on that. Parameters are there for a reason. These charts coding were fine before you started changing things. You made some changes for the better. That's cool. You made some coding changes to make the first column a header for those with screen readers. After some research I was cool with that also, as long as the visual chart could be kept the same, which it could with two added parameters. Object to those and that's fine too. What is not ok is to revert it a second time once I objected to the change. Then it required you to start a discussion to change peoples minds. You didn't do that.... I had to start the discussion. Oh, and while the discussion was posted here you went and reverted to your new version again. That's really poor etiquette at wikipedia. I tried to get more people involved in the discussion...and maybe they will agree with you. But until they do stop reverting to a non-consensus chart. None of the charts you listed here are the original charts before you started messing with them. I could have reverted all your changes and brought it all to a discussion, but I thought most of your changes were good ones. Just not these two items. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Prefer the third (current) option but second would be acceptable. These are not table headers but actual table values so see no reason to shade them and certainly no reason to bold them, per MOS:BOLD. As an aside, the value "USA" used in the country column is deprecated per MOS:USA.--Wolbo (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

True, it should be United States in this case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I didn't mess with anything, I'm only trying to improve tennis articles with my contributions here and you should know that by now. The thing is I don't think this transparent parameter you added is good in any way. I've just finished reading the whole discussion you had on WT:Accessibility and all people there told you as much. Some of those people are admins and template editors I'd assume so why another discussion? --ForzaUV (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it has no bearing at all on accessibility. Have none of your actions ever been questioned and overruled before? It's pretty commonplace at wikipedia. Most of what you have changed in the recent past has been great. This is just one instance where it's not. And that was a discussion on whether using headers in the middle of a table are ok... that's all I asked them. And I was told it's ok as long as you use the "scope" statement. Otherwise it's not ok. I hadn't known that so I learned something. After that I left the discussion. We don't have to use scope, we don't have to use headers in the middle of a table. Only our most archaic tennis tables have headers in the middle. Most have been fixed. Our basic premise years ago when we talked extensively with the accessibility folks was, do our tables give screen readers and sight-challenged people problems. Any that did we fixed. Just because some prefer one style over another, as long as they work with screen readers and such, we are good with accessibility. The chart worked before you messed with it and was longstanding in the transparency across all columns. You made tweaks to the coding that I reverted because I wasn't sure it was kosher. I later found out it works just fine and reverted myself. But you had bolding and grey that really changed the chart look. You changed the bolding parameter against the default settings and I further changed the grey against default settings so the charts are as they were before except for your coding change and added columns. What we now have is a content dispute. Pretty basic and minimal but it happens all the time at wikipedia. It's why I started this discussion to see if any other editors here have an opinion. And here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)