Talk:Andre Agassi

citizenship

Andre Agassi is also an Iranian citizen since his father is an Iranian citizen. It is not possible to renounce the Iranian citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CB:DF07:E000:94D8:C51D:529C:64CA (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Current photo, 2006

Suggested replacement, 1999

Hmmm, Luk, do you really think there is a significant difference between a photo being 12 years old and 19 years old? We can barely tell it's Agassi in the 2006 photo, let alone how recent the photo is :D Surtsicna (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

'Greatest returner' lacking due weight nowadays?

I googled the sources for "greatest returner tennis" & many (if not most) of them bring up Djokovic (& sometimes Murray) in the equation. It seems less people would now consider Agassi the best ('one of the best' though is another story). According to some of the stats, he is actually ranked relatively low in that aspect: https://www.atptour.com/en/stats/leaderboard?boardType=return&timeFrame=Career&surface=all&versusRank=all&formerNo1=false https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/statsLeaders. Only in the 2nd serve returns is he the highest, so if we're going to keep this, it'd have to be changed to "one of the greatest" or "greatest 2nd serve returner" at best...Barely made one (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That happens to all players over time. Djokovic will soon be relegated to ho hum also. It's sad. As for the subjective term of goat, it should not be in these articles at all. Both Agassi and Djokovic articles should simply say they are considered great returners or at most among the greatest of returners. Nothing more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Winning a major on all three surfaces

Jimmie Conners did not ever win the French Open which is played on a clay surface. However, Jimmie Conners played and won the US Open on grass, the US Open on clay, and the US Open on hard court surfaces. 2600:100D:B019:3A1B:C966:580D:572D:13E5 (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity

In Andre's father's book, he discusses his family history and states both sides of his family are Armenian. Neither Andre or Emmanuel make any mention of being Assyrian in either of their respective biographies. This appears to be a case of false information being forked by other sources, which mistakenly believe it to be true. Emmanuel Agassi apparently could speak Assyrian and attended some Assyrian-American cultural events, which may be the origin of the factoid. But he makes it clear his father was an Armenian from Kiev and his mother was an Armenian from somewhere in Ottoman Armenia. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility improvements to table

@Fyunck(click), could you let me know which of the changes I made to the table in this article are of concern to you? Was it the addition of row and column scopes? The addition of a caption? Making the opponent column sort correctly by player name? Thanks. Bsherr (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Those tables have longstanding consensus per guidelines at Wikiproject Tennis. There is consistency for countless thousands of tables. If coding can be updated without changing appearance it's fine, but other wise no. Win/Loss is standard, with no centering. The colors are standardized. The event should not be centered and it is never bolded per wikipedia standards of over-bolding. Also, when you have a section header that says the same thing, a caption in this instance is overkill. The help with player sorting was fine. The changes you made would need to go through months of vetting at Tennis Project. You are welcome to bring it up there to change thousands of articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Tables? Bsherr (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. But using scope and changing headers does not have to change the appearance of the table. We do it all the time at tennis project. There is also consistency among 1000s of other tables, or poor readability for sighted users. We look at all of that. I said, if you change the coding to match accessibility and it looks the same, we have no issues. If you change the look there is a problem. Look at current tennis players like Djokovic or Swiatek. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

And you are familiar with Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes/Wikitable, right? Bsherr (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Consistency. Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Consensus? Are you familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines? Are you familiar with MOS:NOBOLD? Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Advanced table formatting? We could do this till the cows come home. That chart's appearance has longstanding consensus and cannot be changed without extensive discussions. Coding can change but keep the look the same. I can't be clearer than that. You realize that row and column scopes are not required, right? We have had screen readers checks on most of our tables and they do great. Is it fine to use them for even better accessibility... sure. Knock yourself out. No problem with that as this is an older table for a long-retired player that hasn't gone through every update. But the visual appearance should be pretty much identical with regard to links, alignment, bolding, wording, colors, etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to offend you. I am grateful you share the purpose, or at least will not impede, making Wikipedia accessible. I'm asking questions about your familiarity with the guidelines because what you are saying, and characterizing as some obvious consensus, is directly contradictory to the guidelines. You say you don't want this table to have a caption, but the Manual of Style requires all tables to have captions ("Data tables should always include a caption."), or they aren't accessible. You say you don't want the row headers to be bold and centered because "it is never bolded per Wikipedia standards of over-bolding", but the default style of the wikitable class is that all table headers are bolded and centered ("Row headers are formatted by default as bold, centered and with a darker background. This is the common behavior across the Internet, and the default rendering in most browsers."). So I am asking these questions to understand whether perhaps you are unfamilar with the Manual of Style and table classes, or whether you have some disagreement with the projectwide consensus about these things, or whether there is something somehow unique about tennis that requires its tables to deviate from the Manual of Style. I'm asking about your familiarity with table classes, because you seem to suggest that I am the one changing the styling of this table, but I am not; I don't care what color it is or whether it is bold or roman, I am just trying to make it accessible. But when I change a cell to a row header (change a "|" to a "!"), it is automatically bolded and centered. That is the default style of a wikitable. I didn't code this table as a wikitable, that's how I found it. If you don't like it as a wikitable, do you want to change the table class? That's what I don't understand. I am happy to have a wider conversation about accessibility at the tennis WikiProject page, but I would like to better understand you. --Bsherr (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia:Consistency. May I ask what that is? --Bsherr (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that is a mistake you are making. The chart's appearance is not contradictory to our guidelines at all. I didn't say do not add a caption, I said if the only thing in the section is a header that says the exact thing as a caption would, we shouldn't need to repeat it. Had all you done was add a caption, I wouldn't have done anything. A column header is usually bolded, but the items in it are not, nor should they always be centered. That would look ridiculous and most tables are not done that way. Column one with won/loss has all sorts of variables. Many times that column has numbers and numbers should NEVER be centered per html and wikipdia. They should be left or right centered. Just because there is a default does not mean that other ways are bad. We have far more flexibility in what is allowed then you seem to be insinuating. We use plainrowheaders with ! so that the column is not bolded. Plus you centered and overbold the tournament. That is not project standard and does not mess with MOS in any way. You also wrecked the links. We link the year to the tournament year article, and the plain tournament name to the general article. This is so our readers can find all the info they want. You changed standard tennis terminology in the charts as well. had you done 10 edits perhaps I could have tweaked some and kept some, but that wasn't the case. Consistency is that wikipedia tells us to keep things consistent within articles and in similar articles, so as not to confuse readers when they expect the same format throughout their reading. We don't want them to be confused when 10,000 articles have a chart with a certain style of giving us info and then run into one chart that is different than the rest. You want all the charts to be the same across the subject matter, you want center/centre spelled the same within an article and spelled the same for each country across the subject matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You said, "a caption in this instance is overkill". A caption in this and every instance is required by the guidelines. Perhaps you meant to say a section header is overkill? I welcome whatever edit you want to make to the section header.

Here is the code for an example row header from my edit

! span=row style="background:#ebc2af;" | [[1991 French Open – Men's singles|French Open]]

Notice that there is no manual application of bolding or centering? I am trying to explain that I did not "overbold" or do anything to change the style. Rather, because this is a wikitable, as the MoS says, "In the following cases, boldface is applied automatically, either by MediaWiki software or by the browser: ... Table headers and captions...". I point out that all of the tables at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines are wikitable class, not wikitable plainrowheader class. Despite that, you are saying you want me to change the table class to wikitable plainrowheaders?

I moved the wikilink to the tournament to the row header: (1) so that year cells could be merged. (2) because using the year to link to the tournament is less intuitive than using the tournament name, pursuant to MOS:EGG. (Consider also that the closest guideline table at WikiProject Tennis uses month and year, not just year. Do you want to use month and year? That would be a little more intuitive.) (3) because the link makes more sense in the row header cell. It is not a hill I want to die on if it holds up the other changes.

The column I made the row header is the tournament column. I don't understand the relevance of making a column containing numbers a row header. I cannot think of any kind of table in which it would be appropriate to do that. The first column isn't automatically the row header. The column that is the relational key for the other columns is the row header. Do you think a different column fits this role in this table?

Can you provide me a link to the MoS page that talks about "keeping things consistent ... in similar articles", please? I would like to review it.

"You changed standard tennis terminology in the charts as well." Could you show me this? I don't see it.

--Bsherr (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You mean where you changed won/loss to win/lost? Look, what I'm saying that there is not one style only for wikipedia. There never has been. You are mentioning some things here as if they are ironclad. Yes there are defaults but there are also additional ways to change defaults that don't don't break MOS. That's why all these things have allowances for different parameters like centering, left align, right align. What I'm saying is you need to figure out a way to handle the coding so it stays the same or don't mess with it. Look at a table like Iga Swiatek's wins against top 10. We worked extensively with folks from MOS, folks from Accessibility, etc... to build that table. We worked with multiple people with screen readers. So all across the aisle. Note the alignment, note the bolding. Most of the charts on her article are updated and vetted. Agassi's could easily be outdated coding. And I said coding could be updated as long as the appearance stays the same, just like all the charts on Swiateks article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. I wasn't thinking of that as tennis terminology. The reason the text changed is from the use of Category:Unified table cell templates. These are projectwide standard formats for widely used cells, like "won" and "lost". They also have an important accessibility function because they apply a class to the cell that can be modified at the browser level by a user with accessibility needs. Do you feel a wider discussion is necessary before using them? --Bsherr (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I should also note that the WikiProject does not seem very particular on that language, as the article guidelines contain tables that use both "win/loss" and "won/lost". --Bsherr (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the example table you linked above. I notice that the tournament column in that table links to the tournament for that year, like my proposed edit. I also notice the years are merged and link to the ATP tour article for that year. Is that acceptable to you here? The table also does not contain a caption and has no row headers (which would explain why nothing in the table is styled as a row header would be). This contravenes MOS:ACCESS. (The table also has left aligned cells containing numbers, which you and I both agree is undesirable.) Thoughts? --Bsherr (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, my oversight, the number column is styled as the row header. Unusual. You don't want to number the rows in this table, do you? --Bsherr (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, number columns should never be centered. That is poor html. Numbers are either left or right aligned, not centered in columns. That's html 101 and taught at every university. Win/Loss is standard tennis nomenclature which has been discussed for years at Tennis Project. It's a done deal. As is the linking. We link the year to the yearly event. The reason it's not done on Swiateks example is because it has no first column of years to link to. her identical table of Grand Slam final links the same as Agassi's. It's what every article does. This table's appearance should not deviate from what it is right now... I'm not sure how to be clearer. The code can change as long as the appearance does not. And I can't find where our project guidelines say won/lost in a table. If it does it was missed years ago in an update because we are very particular. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, one thing that could be clearer is, if win/loss is "standard", why does the unified cell template use won/lost, and why does the Davis standard table at WikiProject Tennis use won/lost? Also still waiting on that link to the MoS concerning consistency of articles with similar topics. --Bsherr (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the numbers, I thought the disagreeable part was that numbers representing values were left aligned when they should be right aligned. CMS 3.70—as you say, as taught in college. Perhaps I was mistaken in inferring your agreement. I wasn't suggesting they be centered. --Bsherr (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone ever saw that it was not corrected in that 2010 table. I missed it just looking now. I fixed it. I said it was standard in tennis, is has longstanding consensus, and it's why we use it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)