Talk:ATP Masters 1000 tournaments/Archive 1

Winning is all?

The article looks great, but it seems that it is focused solely on those who won tournaments (and runners-up, because, well, they were there). Especially in the part about the records and trivia, there's a lot of stuff pertaining not to winning, but to, for instance, the most participations in a given tournament, or the combination of all nine. Let me give an example of a trivia that I added to the Gustavo Kuerten article: Kuerten is the only non-North American player to have appeared in the finals of all four AMS held in North America (Indian Wells, Miami, Canada and Cincinnati). Of course, he didn't win all four, but still an impressive achievement (and naturally, the other North American players who also managed to reach the final match at least once in every one of the four events should be mentioned in the trivia section of this article). I suppose Andre Agassi would appear in a lot of those AMS-related trivia records ;)... But the bottom line is: it is not all about winning (and who won).
And incidentally, you guys do remember that up until 1999 or 2000 (can't quite put my finger on the exact year), the Miami AMS's name mentioned Key Biscayne, it was the Key Biscayne AMS, not Miami, at least in the name. Maybe this should be reflected in the article (particularly in the board header)? Regards, Redux 16:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Tsk Tsk. I think it's a nice roundabout attempt in cooking up an elaborate scheme to get Kuerten's name in here somehow. While winning isn't everything, a trivia about some non-"North American" player making all finals at North America seems extremely contrived. What's so special about being a non-"North American" or what is so special about "North American" Masters series tournaments? There's absolutely nothing inherently worthy in this kind of trivia, especially for an encyclopedia. Additionally, the sheer contrivance of your example trivia about Guga (or, your lack of knowledge in tennis statistics; pick any of the two) is further exposed when we consider the fact that Roger Federer, another non-"North American" player, has not only reached the finals of all "North American" Masters series tournaments, he has actually WON all four of them (Indian Wells & Canada '04, Miami '05, Cincinnati '05), a fact mentioned in this very article. Even more, Federer has also won the OTHER Masters tournament, the year-ending Masters Cup, in Houston, TX, USA. That makes five out of five in North America for Federer. Don't let your fanboyism blind you.

Lendl

One record states:

Most titles at one tournament

   * 6: Agassi (Miami: '90, '95, '96, '01, '02, '03)

However, Ivan Lendl has also won six titles (in Canada): 80, 81, 83, 87, 88, 89.

He also qualifies for the "Most consecutive wins at one tournament " record, with three consecutive in Canada (the others listed also have three).

Unless these records only count from when it was officially declared as the Super 9 or whatever.

(Neosystems (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:Tennis Masters Series.gif

The image Image:Tennis Masters Series.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Error maybe?

Winners of the AMS tournaments on the three surfaces

   * Edberg (Indian Wells '90, Paris '90, Hamburg '92)
   * Sampras (Cincinnati '92, Rome '94, Paris '95)
   * Agassi (Miami '90, Paris '94, Rome '02)
   * Muster (Rome '90, Essen '95, Miami '97)
   * Federer (Hamburg '02, Indian Wells '04, Toronto '04)
   * Nadal (Monte Carlo '05, Montreal '05, Madrid '05)

--

Why Nadal has won on the 3 surfaces? Montecarlo is clay, montreal is hard and madrid is hard indoor? then why Federer has won that also? Because Hamburg is clay, indian wells is hard and toronto is hard also.. there's no indoor here right?

81.184.38.52 (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think both Federer and Nadal should be left in this list, and not removed, as it has been done. Nadal for his victories on clay (many), hard outdoor (Montreal '05) and hard indoor (Madrid '05). Federer for his victories on clay (many), hard outdoor (many) and hard indoor (Madrid '06).--Colinmaillard et tartempion (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Dates of competition

The indian wells discussion page is protected (?) - so I'm putting this here. THat page has no info about WHEN during the year the tourney is usually held, would benefit from that from a knowledgeable editor. That nice person could also check the other tourneys to make sure similar info is included. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Indian Wells Masters says "The event, held in March", and Talk:Indian Wells Masters is not protected. Are you referring to another page? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Error in 2012 Rome tournament

it's not over yet! The result Djokovic-Federer 6-2 7-6 is the semifinal, not the final — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.249.71 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reverted it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Year when "Super 9" series was created

I think this page is an excellent addition to the tennis articles on Wikipedia and is very informative. I presume that the records on this page start from 1990 becuase the was the year that the ATP took over the running of the men's tour from the ITF. However I'm fairly certain that the ATP did not create the "Super 9" series and give these tournaments special status until 1991 or 1992. I'm not 100% certain about this, but if I'm right then info on this page relating to 1990 (and possibly also 1991) is slightly misleading. Zaxem

I don't agree with you Zaxem : I remember well that these turnaments were advertised by the ATP as having a "special status", as early as 1990.--Colinmaillard et tartempion (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit : the series took the name "Super 9" in 1996, not in 1993 as stated in the article.Colinmaillard et tartempion (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Monte Carlo Country Club

The Monte Carlo tournament is located in France, not in Monaco. Read the article Monte Carlo Country Club. 85.69.175.250 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done yep, some knucklehead changed that one and two more. I fixed all three. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): So how do the calculations of Masters title tallies work? According to the article, "No man has ever won all 9 singles titles in his career, with Novak Djokovic winning 8, and Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal each winning 7 out of 9 titles." There is a table of Masters wins at Tennis Masters Series records and statistics. It checks out that Djokovic has won 8 titles, since according to that table he is only missing Cincinnati from his trophy collection. Nadal has won 7 (missing Miami and Paris), as has Agassi (missing Rome and Monte Carlo). But how is Federer's tally calculated? According to the table, the only Masters tournament Federer has not won is Monte Carlo, which would mean that he has won 8 titles (equalling Djokovic's record). But here he is listed as having 7. This can't be counting a specific period of time, because Agassi's listed total extends from 1990 to 2004. Unless this stat wasn't updated when Federer won Madrid 2012, there has to be something I'm missing here. Rovingrobert (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rovingrobert:Federer hasn't won the Italian Open either. Remember, that chart is shown in chronological order. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Ah, my bad. Sorry about that. Rovingrobert (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Eurocard Open

It's possible that Eurocard Open was held in Essen only on one occasion. There is discrepancy between locations/editions listed in this article and those listed in the Eurocard Open article. This needs to be checked, which is correct. 213.149.51.252 (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done I think I see what you were talking about. 2000 and 2001 were mistakenly listed under Essen for the Haas and Ferreira victories. I corrected it to Stuttgart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Doubles counts

The total counts of tournaments in the doubles table should not break between 2008 and 2009, both for consistency with the singles table and because there is no fundamental reason to separate pre and post the "1000" denomination. Aerthis (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. The totals should carry across. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Aerthis (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Stuttgart indoor turnament, in 1993, 1994 and 1995: the 10th "Championship series"

Hello, tennis fans

As far as I can remember, in 1993, 1994 and 1995 the Stuttgart indoor (aka "Eurocard Open"), played in february, was part of the Championship Series. During these 3 years, there were 10 Championship Series turnaments. In 1993, for instance, Stuttgart indoor was a "$2.25-million event, the richest on the ATP Tour apart from its season-ending world championship" (cf. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-21/sports/sp-869_1_pete-sampras). It was granted the same number of ATP points as other Championship series turnaments, like for instance Miami: 400 points for the winner. Cf. http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/St/M/Michael-Stich.aspx?t=pa&y=1993&m=s&e=0# One can see that Stich earned 414 pts (and 355 k$) for his victory in Stuttgart. Cf. also http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Sa/P/Pete-Sampras.aspx?t=pa&y=1993&m=s&e=0# One can see that Sampras earned 409 pts (and 209 k$) for his victory in Miami.

Then, in 1996, the ATP decided to go back to 9 turnaments (that's one of the reasons why they changed the Series name to "Mercedes Benz Super 9").

A few years ago, the ATP decided to discard the Stuttgart indoor 93-94-95 from the list of big turnaments.

I think that this is a form of "revisionism" from the ATP. At the time when these turnaments were played, Stuttgart Open was as important as the 9 others. So I would suggest to modify the article, so as to put the 1993-1995 editions of this turnament in the list of the Masters Series. Or, at least, to signal that during these 3 years, the ATP was considering this turnament as part of the Series... and changed its mind years after. I will take care of the modifications if I get a good feedback. --Colinmaillard et tartempion (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's so weird that this got no response. Tournament's rank is determined by points awarded (and prize money which positively correlates). So no matter what ATP says (at some point they didn't acknowledge Grand Slam Cup titles which was the final tournament at the same level (maybe even higher) as their's Finals, but they changed their minds)— this is encyclopedia, and information in it must be objective, not depended on some subjective opportunely decisions, even by its governing body. We are not sheep. —if it awarded points as the other tournaments it should be in the article; along with other tournaments with footnote that "even though the tournament had he highest prize money and awarded the same amount of points it is not recognized by the ATP for reasons unknown." 213.149.61.42 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Anonymous for your answer (and your support): It took "only" 7 years and a half to get the first answer to my topic!!! It seems that nobody cares. Former organizers, staff (and players) of the Eurocard Open 1993-1995 probably never come here. By the way I have found a new reference dated 1993 (The Independent, Wednesday 17 February, "From JOHN ROBERTS in Stuttgart") that briefly evokes the Eurocard Open : "an example of Tiriac's enterprise being the dollars 2.25m (pounds 1.6m) Eurocard Open, the richest stop on the ATP Tour, which is taking place here. Tiriac's decision to almost triple his prize-money was the result of impatience with the ATP Tour, who did not grant his tournament Super Series status." I think the last part of this text must be interpretated as "...who did not grant his tournament Super Series status before this year". See https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis-car-jet-and-house-to-agassi-1473595.html. Colinmaillard et tartempion~enwiki (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Mistake

There is a sentence in the article that starts No player has ever won all 9 singles titles in his career,... and Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray are mentioned BUT there were 10 or 11 (Eurocard Open-Stuttgart and German Open-Hamburg) Masters 1000 tournaments during their career (available). I understand what is meant to be said but it's not true. Maybe somehow reword it; I'm not sure how. Maybe something like Nadal won 7/10, Federer 7/11, Djokovic 8/9, Agasss 7/9 that were that rank at some point during their carrer; that are just thrown numbers to give the idea. 213.149.61.42 (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to provide a link for reference that the wiki page differs greatly to this link https://www.atptour.com/en/news/atp-masters-1000-stats-records-tournaments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.169.80 (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Name in English: Masters One Thousand

I am from Spain and the first time I heard it, I misunderstood the name of the tournament: I thought it was named MASTERS MILD. So I think it should be clarified that in English, it is pronounced MASTERS ONE THOUSAND, in Spanish, MASTERS MIL, and in French MASTERS MILLE.

Except this is an English encyclopedia. I don't doubt that every single language on the planet pronounces it differently, and we can't accommodate all of them. For the Spanish article goto the Spanish Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Order of Rome and Hamburg

Why not have the actual order of Rome and Hamburg between 2000 and 2008, instead of the inverted order with a note? I have made this change before but it was recently reverted. Aerthis (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Does not compute

"The remaining 21 titles were won by 17 different players, with only Alexander Zverev and Daniil Medvedev winning multiple titles, 5 and 4 titles, respectively," If Zverev won 5 titles and Medvedev won 4, that leaves 12 titles won by 15 players. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks. ForzaUV (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2021 and 28 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SallyStudentEnglish.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Separate section for post 2009?

Why are masters section after 2009 kept under separate heading? It's only a matter of semantics. Shouldn't they be put under just one heading? Coderzombie (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no reason to separate them. In its own articles, the ATP always lumps them together. (For instance, an article on their site today says Filip Krajinovic would "become the lowest-ranked Masters 1000 champion since Hamburg in 1996" even though it was technically the Super 9.) Especially for things like title count, it's confusing/misleading to say that, for instance, Djokovic has 4 Masters Series titles and 26 Masters 1000 titles. Does anyone have a reason to keep it the way it is? Shmarrighan (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I copied your related discussion from the other article (ATP Tour Masters 1000) because another editor @Letcord: has proposed to merge the two article. I support his proposal and I've already merged them in this edit but self-reverted to see if the majority agree to his proposal before going with it. ForzaUV (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(I moved it back, because merge discussion are had on the destination article per WP:Merge.) Letcord (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem. :) ForzaUV (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. Letcord (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

---

I propose merging ATP Masters Series into this article (ATP Tour Masters 1000). That way, all the history and results since 1990 of this series would be in the one article, which would be easier to navigate and less confusing for our readers. Letcord (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Letcord (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support makes sense so why not. ForzaUV (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The former article is 4 yrs older so it makes sense we merge the newer in the older so as not to move old history logs, but rather the newer one. Would take less time. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  No history logs will be moved, ATP Masters Series will just be redirected to ATP Tour Masters 1000 after its content has been merged into that article (the standard merge process). A history merge cannot be done for two articles with parallel histories anyway. Letcord (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Letcord Well, in that case. All we need to do is come up with a name for the merged article. Any suggestions? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  The current title of the series, ATP Tour Masters 1000, is fine, but I ultimately don't mind as long as the articles are merged. Given the two older comments at the top of this section that strongly suggest a merge would be logical, and the three supports for this formal merger proposal, I think @ForzaUV can safely go ahead and implement it by reverting his reversion of the merge that he tested. Letcord (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention. Done. As for the title, I don't think we need to change it or do we? I'm not sure.. ForzaUV (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No, there's no need to (but of course anyone is free to propose an alternative). If all the useful text in ATP Masters Series has been merged, you can redirect it by following the Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge process. Letcord (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Letcord and ForzaUV: We should wait at least 7 days before proclaiming this merger official. In case someone wants the newly merged article to be renamed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If someone wants the newly-merged article to be renamed, they can start a WP:RM. That is a separate proposal to this merger discussion. Letcord (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

S/D vs. Singles/Doubles layout dilemma

@Letcord: I am against your proposal to convert S - D into Singles - Doubles, because it adds vertical clutter to the individual tables per year, 2009-Present. I get it you that you want consistency across all tennis articles, but unless the width of the columns of each tables is reduced or set to default, for that matter, then the newly added Singles and Doubles make the text in the tables' first row all skewed up. Mayhaps a legend box explaining both singles and doubles would do the trick, like I did in the top of the Finals section? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: I appreciate the idea, but don't like the legend for this use case. Just having "S" and "D" by themselves looks amateurish in my opinion, and when all other season articles use "Singles" and "Doubles" in full, there's no real justification for not using them in full here as well. The vertical clutter aspect is device/screen-size/browser dependent, and you can always nowrap the long names as you have just done. Letcord (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Letcord: The long name nowrap is not the problem here, but moreso the first column of each such table. This is my proposal:

Example 1: Table with nowrap

Masters Singles champions Singles runners-up Score Doubles champions Doubles runners-up Score Indian Wells Singles – Doubles Dominic Thiem Roger Federer 3–6, 6–3, 7–5 Nikola Mektić Horacio Zeballos Łukasz Kubot Marcelo Melo 4–6, 6–4, [10–3] Miami Singles – Doubles Roger Federer John Isner 6–1, 6–4 Bob Bryan Mike Bryan Wesley Koolhof Stefanos Tsitsipas 7–5, 7–6(10–8) Monte Carlo Singles – Doubles Fabio Fognini Dušan Lajović 6–3, 6–4 Nikola Mektić Franko Škugor Robin Haase Wesley Koolhof 6–7(3–7), 7–6(7–3), [11–9] Madrid Singles – Doubles Novak Djokovic Stefanos Tsitsipas 6–3, 6–4 Jean-Julien Rojer Horia Tecău Diego Schwartzman Dominic Thiem 6–2, 6–3 Rome Singles – Doubles Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 6–0, 4–6, 6–1 Juan Sebastián Cabal Robert Farah Raven Klaasen Michael Venus 6–1, 6–3 Montreal Singles – Doubles Rafael Nadal Daniil Medvedev 6–3, 6–0 Marcel Granollers Horacio Zeballos Robin Haase Wesley Koolhof 7–5, 7–5 Cincinnati Singles – Doubles Daniil Medvedev David Goffin 7–6(7–3), 6–4 Ivan Dodig Filip Polášek Juan Sebastián Cabal Robert Farah 4–6, 6–4, [10–6] Shanghai Singles – Doubles Daniil Medvedev Alexander Zverev 6–4, 6–1 Mate Pavić Bruno Soares Łukasz Kubot Marcelo Melo 6–4, 6–2 Paris Singles – Doubles Novak Djokovic Denis Shapovalov 6–3, 6–4 Nicolas Mahut Pierre-Hugues Herbert Karen Khachanov Andrey Rublev 6–4, 6–1

OR

Example 2: Table without nowrap

Masters Singles champions Singles runners-up Score Doubles champions Doubles runners-up Score Indian Wells Singles – Doubles Dominic Thiem Roger Federer 3–6, 6–3, 7–5 Nikola Mektić Horacio Zeballos Łukasz Kubot Marcelo Melo 4–6, 6–4, [10–3] Miami Singles – Doubles Roger Federer John Isner 6–1, 6–4 Bob Bryan Mike Bryan Wesley Koolhof Stefanos Tsitsipas 7–5, 7–6(10–8) Monte Carlo Singles – Doubles Fabio Fognini Dušan Lajović 6–3, 6–4 Nikola Mektić Franko Škugor Robin Haase Wesley Koolhof 6–7(3–7), 7–6(7–3), [11–9] Madrid Singles – Doubles Novak Djokovic Stefanos Tsitsipas 6–3, 6–4 Jean-Julien Rojer Horia Tecău Diego Schwartzman Dominic Thiem 6–2, 6–3 Rome Singles – Doubles Rafael Nadal Novak Djokovic 6–0, 4–6, 6–1 Juan Sebastián Cabal Robert Farah Raven Klaasen Michael Venus 6–1, 6–3 Montreal Singles – Doubles Rafael Nadal Daniil Medvedev 6–3, 6–0 Marcel Granollers Horacio Zeballos Robin Haase Wesley Koolhof 7–5, 7–5 Cincinnati Singles – Doubles Daniil Medvedev David Goffin 7–6(7–3), 6–4 Ivan Dodig Filip Polášek Juan Sebastián Cabal Robert Farah 4–6, 6–4, [10–6] Shanghai Singles – Doubles Daniil Medvedev Alexander Zverev 6–4, 6–1 Mate Pavić Bruno Soares Łukasz Kubot Marcelo Melo 6–4, 6–2 Paris Singles – Doubles Novak Djokovic Denis Shapovalov 6–3, 6–4 Nicolas Mahut Pierre-Hugues Herbert Karen Khachanov Andrey Rublev 6–4, 6–1

Which example, in your opinion, looks better? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It's tough to say. The wrapping makes the table narrower on narrow screens and so requires less horizontal scrolling, but the nowrapped version is neater. I'd lean towards the nowrapped version personally just for the cleaner look it has, but you probably have more experience in this area, so I trust your judgement on this one. Letcord (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Example 1 with nowrap looks much cleaner on my own screen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Fyunck(click) Is that desktop or mobile screen you are talking about? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Qwerty284651: Desktop and a laptop. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Got ya. Nowrapped looks too wide on mobile compared to wrapped for me.Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's never an easy compromise when comparing a tiny phone screen with a 15–30 inch screen. When I look on my iphone I also would rather see example 1. The scores get so bunched up I have trouble reading them. Plus player names columns on my phone may take three lines with flag on top, then first name then last name on the bottom. I find scrolling much preferred and easier to read. Maybe it's because I'm older, but that's how I see it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  But then you have to scroll vertically while browsing wiki, not just this specific example for this particular page. Therefore, it's a balancing act between preference, age and digital aptitude, which can be tricky at times, frankly speaking. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is absolutely correct. It is a balancing act. I still have to scroll with both versions but less so with option 2. I said, for me, I would much rather scroll more and see everything clearly than scroll a little less
  and
  have
  everything
  bunched
  up.
  Scrolling comes natural to me I guess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Fyunck(click)@Letcord So, it is a unanimous vote for Example 1 if I am picking up what you are putting down? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Count my reply as a comment, not a vote for either option. Mobile users are a significant proportion of our reader base, so how things look on mobile is important. Letcord (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

New proposal

Are the Singles - Doubles links for each Masters final really necessary to have? One can always just click on the year link, which redirects one to the Champions list on the corresponding tournament page for that and that year, which also includes women's champions alongside the men's; gives an overall (p)review of all tournament's winners for that year. I would rather have them removed to keep it less jumbled up on mobile. If Grand Prix Super Series don't have any such draws links, why should this page, its successor, have any? Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say yes, as they are a useful navigational aid, and many readers searching for tennis masters info will be wanting to see the latest draws. Grand Prix Super Series probably doesn't have the links as many/most of the draw articles haven't been created yet, so it would just be a sea of useless red links. Letcord (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Letcord Albeit the draws aren't created on Wiki, that does not mean that the ATP does not have an archive of the missing draws. I've checked and it does, in fact, have still valid links of both singles and doubles draws of all the currently played Masters. Furthermore, since you want the Singles - Doubles links to stay, wouldn't it be better if shortened them back to S - D so they take up less space and make scrolling easier on mobile? Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I tested both formats of S-D and Singles–Doubles and put them next to each other for comparison and you know what? The charts take the exact same vertical space, scrolling is the same in both versions. Check it out here. That's why I told you before there was no difference for me. I hope it's all good for you now. ForzaUV (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's because of pre-determined width in column 1. Here you go: width removed in both tables' columns Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The S–D chart you have there looks a bit shorter on mobile but I think it's only because the table cells are still empty. When the tables are complete there is no much difference as far as I can see. ForzaUV (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Defunct events' surfaces

@Krmohan, instead of removing the Defunct event part of the table, I suggest updating it by adding the missing Madrid indoors and correcting the erroneous surfaces. I am not going to revert your edits, I'll let you do it yourself. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

All he had to do was adding a simple note as I've just done. ForzaUV (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That also works. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651 As explained, the data is not corrected by ForzaUV. I still think it is unnecessary as explained.... Krmohan (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

If I remove the [[Tennis_Masters_Series_singles_records_and_statistics|paragraph] about which events were played on which surface and when, will you leave the prose in this section we are discussing about as is? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@ForzaUV You have added notes on Madrid Indoors, fine, but it is already there on the top of the table in the "tournaments" section. Also about Hamburg. But Euro-card Open (Stuttgart) was on Hard (1998-2001) as well as carpet indoors (1995-97). Same for Stockholm Carpet (1990) and hard indoors (1991-94). Surfaces mentioned for both tournaments are not fully correct. Since updating the table every year, i do not think it is necessary add info in the table about defunct tournaments. Adding one simple sentence in the tournaments section is good enough to remove all defunct tournaments (Hamburg, Stockholm and Stuttgart) from the table in my opinion. Let us simplify things and ATP MASTERS 1000 series tournaments are from 2009 and carried forward from the previous series. It is there in the article. Krmohan (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

What? So you want to remove the defunct tournaments because some of them changed their surfaces whey they were active? This is about the tournaments, so the surface is a trivial info here, but if it's so important to you, you can add one single note for those tournaments which changed their surfaces and that's it. Easy but for some reason you always tend to complicate things. ForzaUV (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, cut it out, Krmohan. You're adamant on changing the events' surfaces by year, using the paragraph I added on the singles Masters page's lead. Just leave it as is. No need to further convolute things. Keep it simple. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh God...It is completely misunderstood. I do not want to remove due to change of surfaces. This is not trivia but data is not correct. We are not updating the content of defunct tournaments in the table as rest of the table content is done. I do not want to change the event's surfaces by year. I want to keep it simple and correct in wikipedia. If you want to keep the defunct tournaments data, it is fine by me. Secondly, the article is about Masters series. Since 1990, it is elaborated in entirety. It was known as ATP Masters series before 2009 and ATP 1000 series started since 2009. That's it. No need to assume in a wrong way. To cut it short, I will rectify the data.. Hope it is fine and ok with you to leave the stuff as it is. Krmohan (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If we had different articles, one for the Masters series, one for Masters 1000 and one for Super 9, etc then you'd have a point. But we have only one article for the series as whole which began in 1990 not 2009. ForzaUV (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, by nomenclature/name of the actual categories he is technically correct. @Krmohan, you are correct about the post-2009 choice of name. As far as the ATP Masters series as a name is concerned you are partially correct as more cats. were prevalent leading up to 2009 not just the aforementioned "ATP Masters Series". I know both of you already are well aware of this, but just, in case, I will post again here. A list of the cats of the Masters: https://prnt.sc/APx1L9leN7vj. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651, @ForzaUV Here are some inputs to add "since 2009" in the article (which is being removed after addition)

1. We do not have two separate articles in any case (may not be required also at this stage)
2. Article with title "Masters 1000" is also not correct with this content. But title change may not be required at this stage.
3. formerly known as ATP Masters Series (can not add "before 2009", as there are several names before 2009 for the series)
4. Can not add "since 1990" like for the masters series singles records article as the title does not suit the content written.
5. Since 2009, there is a change in the organization, points, tournaments (2 to 1 indoors, started in Asia, surface changes etc.)

Seen several discussions on this. The article is about "Masters Series since 1990" which is elaborated in the history, tournaments, and all the years data. The data to be correct and easily understandable to the readers. One may simply say all this is unnecessary, but otherwise we need to take care of rest of the points (1 to 4) to become simply correct or leave the stuff as it is. I am not complicating but simplifying this with one addition. Krmohan (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Krmohan, I am gonna be straight with you. I've tried my finest to understand your attempts into changing the aforemwntioned data and renaming the article and whatnot, but I couldn't truly understand them, no matter how hard I tried. So, I suggest you do 2 things: either take this with the WP:TENNIS to reach a broader consensus who can hopefully understand you and agree with you. Because I am done with this. If the project's consensus reached there won't meet your expectations, for a lack of a better term, then I propose option 2. Request an Rfc. That would be all from me. I am finishedwith this. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651, I never tried or attempted to do any changes in renaming the article and in fact, there is no need for that at all. I have added "since 2009", which you mentioned technically correct and the other editor changed. I have given enough explanation on why it was added. That's all.. Krmohan (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The topic is about series. But the sentences used about tournaments. In that case, there is ambiguity and incorrectness as per the explanation.... Krmohan (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I am ok with the changes done by you. Thx ForzaUV. This can be closed now. Krmohan (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Not yet. I didn't mind your recent edit because at least it's an improvement of what you were trying to do before but I think it should be "Currently known as ATP Masters 1000" instead of "known as ATP Masters 1000 since 2009". When the series name was changed is not important and there is a whole section for that. Furthermore, 2009 is now written twice in the first two sentence which seems unnecessary. @Qwerty284651, you can decide which sentence we go with so we forget about this discussion. ForzaUV (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, @Krmohan, to avoid redundancy with "2009" I say we use Forza's first sentence "Currently known as ATP Masters 1000" and be done with it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651, I completely disagree and prefer to keep it the way it is done already (i.e. known as ATP Masters 1000 since 2009). The tournaments and changes are specific and continuing since 2009. One does not have to go through the entire subject and clearly indicates the title. Rest all is fine. Krmohan (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Further to keep it simple, the second sentence may be closed with since the inception of tour 1990. Continents need not be mentioned. Rest everything is in the History section and later on specifically. This is to keep it simple and improvise.. Krmohan (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

No need to emphasize when the name was changed since the article is about the series as the whole, which started in 1990. That's why I prefer "currently know as ATP Masters 1000" without the date. As for the second sentence, the most important info there is the 1990, not the continents. Actually, we can close the first sentence with 1990 and remove the second sentence completely. ForzaUV (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Forza about the 2nd sentence. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks good now. I think we can forget about the article's lead for now and see how we can improve the tournaments table. ForzaUV (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Krmohan, remember we have all the info pre- and post-2009 info in the history section. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

We have to keep it simple and general. Asia is not happening all the time. It has to be general. May do some changes and see if it works. Let other editors also comment on the content rather than views only.. Krmohan (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

ForzaUV, It is not fair enough as the agreement is left to Qwerty. U do not have any authority to revert as both are ok for you. With so much of removal and redundancy of 2009 removed, let Qwerty convince me for consensus. Just be off and it is already over from your side without any solid explanation to the current context. Thanks in advance... Krmohan (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course there was a solid explanation, you've been told many times it's not about the name but the series as a whole but you refuse to listen or understand. Nobody cares when the name was changed except for you, it's absolutely trivial info and there is whole a section for all the details. Why is it so hard for you to understand such basic concepts? ForzaUV (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It is about the series. Every one knows. Fail to understand why so adamant on removal of 2009. There is no series name of "ATP Master 1000". It is either "ATP World tour masters 1000" (2009-18) or "ATP Tour Master 1000" (2019-present). There is no harm in mentioning tournaments are from 2009 (known as ATP Master 1000 tournaments since 2009). It clarifies in the beginning itself about title and rest can go through history prose. If nobody cares, why there is so much of discussion and reverts. Leave it as it is when changed. Atleast it clarifies basics. Krmohan (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651, @ForzaUV.. Appreciate SIMPLE approach to kill and remove the key content, if there is no contribution from other editors. Krmohan (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)