You know, I've been fortunate in my life to have witnessed Laver and Rosewall walk out on to the court to play each other; to have heard the applause, to have heard dead silence from the crowd as a point was in progress. The years came and went as did the antics of Nastase, Connors and McEnroe... as did the stoic determinations of players like Borg, Evert, Sampras and Federer. Between submitting articles to tennis magazines, I've watched the ladies game move from lithe of foot players like King and Goolagong, to athletic powerhouses, using hi-tech equipment, such as Navratilova, Graf and Williams. Service has changed from having to keep one foot on the ground or just getting the ball in play, to players who can fire a dart that only high speed cameras can behold. Of course I wasn't there in the 1920's when tennis truly went international and the ILTF wrote into their bylaws that no Major championship could claim to be a "world championship" or that the language of tennis would be "for ever in English." But the repercussions of those early days, and binding together of adversarial organizations, laid the groundwork for what we have today. The sport is special to me and it always will be.

Things have changed a lot at this English Wikipedia since I started. Guidelines and policies were not as complete and it was certainly more "English alphabet" oriented. Vandalism and personal attacks happened to be sure but not to the extent it does today. I've been attacked and lied about by one or two editors, with no repercussions because of whom they knew around here. It's a shame but it's sort of the way things work now. Sourced spellings of tennis player names, English spellings found as commonplace in the press, books, organizations, etc, are now banished (expurgated from this Wikipedia). The percentage of English-first speakers has gone down in numbers, and that may have something to do with English spelling being excised. Fun things like the "List of cryptids" article are fully censored (with administrative blessings), even though there is really no difference between those creatures and beasts from Tolkien's world, Harry Potter, and Greek mythology... whose articles are abundant. It is blatant bias but, once again, it's the way things work now.

One of the worst things is, where consensus used to mean trying to work with everyone to find common ground that all can live with (whether minority or majority), it now seems to be an all or nothing, my way or the highway type of decision. Maybe wikipedia is just mirroring the divisiveness of modern politics. I'm not sure, but it's bad in building an encyclopedia.

I tend to be one that weathers these things, but the disappointment simply can't be masked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotEdit

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
1,258   Taiwan, China (talk) Add sources
83   Who Was...? (talk) Add sources
5,136   Serena Williams (talk) Add sources
77   18th Wing (talk) Add sources
627   Marbella (talk) Add sources
1,151   Jimmy Connors (talk) Add sources
5   2009 Western & Southern Financial Group Women's Open – Singles (talk) Cleanup
104   Virtuos (talk) Cleanup
3   2012 Dubai Tennis Championships – Women's Singles (talk) Cleanup
17,285   Japan (talk) Expand
12   2012 in tennis (talk) Expand
504   Saturation diving (talk) Expand
112   World number 1 ranked male tennis players (talk) Unencyclopaedic
2,402   Political status of Taiwan (talk) Unencyclopaedic
559   Kim Clijsters (talk) Unencyclopaedic
3   Pamela Nasiyo Kamugo (talk) Merge
3   Grammatical tense in Latin (talk) Merge
9   The Reverent Wooing of Archibald (talk) Merge
40   67th Fighter Squadron (talk) Wikify
38   Tea garden (talk) Wikify
19   2012 Novak Djokovic tennis season (talk) Wikify
2   Gil Yepes (talk) Orphan
3   Cuisine of Pará (talk) Orphan
16   PowerSwim (talk) Orphan
4   Marcel Vacherot (talk) Stub
7   André Vacherot (talk) Stub
18   Anna Blinkova (talk) Stub
11   Tamara Zidanšek (talk) Stub
7   Paul Aymé (talk) Stub
8   Silvija Talaja (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Best wishesEdit

Best wishes for 2019! Hopefully it will be a good tennis year, both on the courts as well as here on Wikipedia. Who knows, maybe this is the year I finally get used to the new tournament tables. On a side note, I'm pretty sure your latest friend at the 'World number 1 ranked male tennis players' article is another sockpuppet. Fits a pattern. --Wolbo (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wolbo: To you too my wikipedia comrade. I do seem to have a buddy over there. Right now I'm kinda bummed that this may be the last Hopman Cup I get to watch on tv. It has been a favorite of mine for quite a number of years but the new ATP World Cup looks like it will squash the good old HCup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Happy New Year to BOTH of you! And may you watch many great tennis matches! I just watched some more of the Hopman Cup on the monitor of the treadmill at my fitness center a couple of hours ago. Fed. beat the Greek guy in two tiebreakers. Now that he's 37, he's MAYBE almost good enough to go up against Big Pancho when HE was 37. Or even LITTLE Pancho, who was sure another great player at 37. It would be interesting to see a round robin with the three of them and maybe Ellie Vines and Don Budge for good measure. And, I suppose, the Rocket, just to add some spice. I'd go with the old guys, but maybe that's BECAUSE I'm an old guy, and in a couple of days I'll be yet ANOTHER year older! But that sure hasn't improved my lob or drop shots! Hope you and the rest of the tennis people here, like the mysterious Carlos C., have a great 2019! Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

CryptidsEdit

You really do need to find better sources then some you are adding. I really am not sure that society or community websites or newspapers are going to meet most peoples criteria for RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Those sources work for most articles. Heck, this is the Sierra Club. A wikipedia notable organization with 3 million members and a 100 million dollar budget. That's more 5x the readers of the daily Los Angeles Times. And it's their national magazine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
What is this [1]? Are you looking to get topic banned? Come on. Please revert yourself and don't add content with dodgy sources like these entries. Jehochman Talk 00:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jehochman: The Sierra Club? Really? A dodgy source? I've never heard of such a thing. It's a very notable organization here on wikipedia with its 3 million subscribers... 5x the number of LA Times readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
For cryptozoology? Not reliable. For their own views? Perfectly good. Reliability is relative to the use. Einstein is reliable for physics. He’s not reliable as source for other topics such as economics though he might have commented on such. Jehochman Talk 10:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jehochman: Well, let's see here. I have been told that cryptozoologists are not reliable for listing cryptids. I have been told that cryptozoology books are not reliable for cryptids. I have been told that cryptozoolgy websites are not reliable for the term cryptid. I have been told that encyclopedia's are not reliable for the term cryptid. So then we go to magazines such as the sierra club... not reliable for the term cryptid. How about newspapers... nope, not reliable for cryptids. Something sucks here! You bet it's reliable per relativity, but with the parameters I keep getting told, it's impossible and that is not right. Whichever one I try to use I get told something else. That's baloney. I have edited here for 13 years and I have NEVER been hemmed in with revolving parameters such as are given to this article. I usually have a lot of fun editing and helping out, but the bullying and lies from one specific editor that have happened to me trying to help out are no longer worth it on that article. Rules get changed on a daily basis over there and I'm not a mind reader to know what the daily password is to sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Compared to all the other articles I work with, I've never seen the ridicule of sourcing like I do at that article. Sierra Club, not reliable, home town newspapers, not reliable, books by cryotozoologists defining cryptids, not reliable. Especially when all that is trying to be shown is that these creatures are called cryptids. Something is wacky over there that I have no idea how to comprehend... no question I am clueless on that topic's special restrictions. I guess it's time to move on as I get shoved out of the area. No big deal I guess but it certainly is perplexing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I've had the same thing happen to me. The more I try to reach a reasonable grounding of the rules some of the main advocates behind the obscure guidelines behave like I've insulted them ore something... Sorry that happened to you mate, we might need to find a better way to reach a definitive consensus.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I've pretty much had to throw up my hands on it. The more you try to reason or make compromises there, the more one particular editor pours out lies and attacks. And no one seems to care. There are so many articles I enjoy working on and helping out with when asked, that if one series of articles gets censored and bashed by a few knuckleheads... and then condoned because they are a group of friends, then it's just not worth it. A loss for our readers, which is all I care about, but it is what it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thailand Open (Pattaya)/Thailand Open (WTA)Edit

Please check if the article is where it should be. It has been at Thailand Open (WTA) since 2015, but was recently cut&pasted to PTT Pattaya Open, which you then moved to Thailand Open (Pattaya). I've reverted the cut&paste, and the article is now back at Thailand Open (WTA). If Thailand Open (Pattaya) is preferable, an WP:RM/TR might be in order. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed it was a cut and paste, but I do see why the original editor made the move. When you have three events called the Thailand Open, all put on by the WTA (though two of them defunct events), it could confuse the reader when they see Thailand Open (WTA). We try not to use sponsored names for events and his move to PTT Pattaya Open was not in accordance to Tennis Project standards. The event covered many years and it was not always sponsored by PTT. It was however always in the city of Pattaya, hence my move to that name instead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

World Number One Ranked Tennis PlayersEdit

Can you please block Wolbo from making his deletions? He is going to systematically delete all the useful information I spent hundreds of hours researching and inserting. I just find it reprehensible that he is doing this whereas a year ago he never had any concern when I started doing it. He is cutting out even the level of detail that was in there from the original authors. Winners of all majors; who they defeated; all the stuff I added is a fascinating summary of the male tennis season and why its top 4 players got there ranking. It explains why the number 2 guy was ranked higher than the number 3 guy and often the number 4 guy is close behind the number 3 and won a major or the year-end finals, or was a finalist in maybe 2 of majors. Informed analysis (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what way works best there and I'm not going to get into yours and Wolbos edit war. I do know that when there is an argument over content at wikipedia, if one version has been there awhile, it is the responsibility of the editor who wants to change it to bring it to talk. I was out of town for a couple days so I'll keep an eye on the situation but it's supposed to work as I just said. Someone changes something longstanding...then they get reverted... they should not change it back again and instead should bring it to talk to see what others might think. That's what I know should happen here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Fyunck, you created an archive of the talk page but I noticed that it does not contain talk page comments from the early history of the article. Do you know if there is any way to add these to the current archive? --Wolbo (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know that. Someone must have deleted and not archived items. I look at it right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anything earlier than March of '11 so maybe no one discussed anything? Unless it was a cut and paste move that has a talk page elsewhere? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Strange, I was browsing through the history of the article and somehow landed on an old talk page with discussions from around 2007/2008. There was quite a lot there but I can not for the life of me remember anymore how I got there. Will add a link if I can find it again.--Wolbo (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I was gonna try and do the same but I can't find it either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Found it. It was actually a link in the current archive (see "2. old discussion"). This in turn links to two even older archives.--Wolbo (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I found it at the same time and had and edit conflict. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm in discussion with admin Drmies about the best way to fix it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit comment on Stella MaxwellEdit

I saw your edit comment (photo is likely a copyright violation), and would like to assure you that the photo is quite OK. It's actually a frame from a Creative Commons Attribution licensed video, published by Love (magazine) on YouTube. You can look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:LOVE_(magazine) where numerous similar images have been uploaded by multiple people, and possibly more important, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_review ed by multiple people. So while this video has been removed from YouTube now, you can be confident that it was up and properly licensed at the time the frame was taken. --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@GRuban: Here was my problem then. That editor had just done the same thing for 2 other articles, and those photos were instantly removed from commons as copyright violations. And if we are talking about the same photo in the description it says "Own work" from Feb 19, 2019, which would be false. This would have been a derivation of another persons video. It's a better picture than what is there now to be sure, and what is there now has all the proper attributes to Love Magazine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I misunderstood which photo you referred to. Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
No prob, take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all your work on the Connors statistics page.

I notice that you are very helpfully added colour coding to the level of event that Connors won. I notice that recently the 500 series equivalents (coded in Green have been added). Where I am confused is that on the Connors statistic for 'High category : Grand Prix Super Series (1970–1989), WCT (1968–1989) ' has a total of 49. But in the recently green coded specific events only total 15. Do you know what the total should be?

Thanks for all your great work - Tim Tmartin prof (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Championships vs TournamentsEdit

Hi, as mentioned in my edit comment I have always used the term 'Championships' for the Grand Slam finals overview and 'Tournament' for the regular career overview to distinguish between the two. Don't really see a problem with that distinction but if you disagree let's discuss it at the project talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree so we should discuss. All the main entries use Tournaments as does the charts we have at guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

can you block a vandal from the federer nadal rivalry page ?.Edit

he will not listen and keeps adding the walkover match as a win. can you help ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.195.73 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. All you can do is revert obvious vandalism or file a complaint. I will take a look at the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

New Chairman RM too soonEdit

Several people are still hoping the closer of the previous RM will change his mind and revert his close to allow someone else to close it for several reasons noted at the closer's talk page. If that fails, then the next step is probably WP:MR. I think starting a new RM at this time is premature and unhelpful. Can you just remove it, please? --В²C 23:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I personally think that is the messier way to go when we have narrowed it down to two choices.? Why go messy when we have an easier path. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
How is it messy if he reverts and someone else closes? How is it messy if a consensus at MR agrees to reverse his close because there was consensus there? Another RM now is guaranteed to be messy. People are already complaining. --В²C 23:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
An MR is already active! --В²C 23:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

For crying out loud, you opposed your own RM proposal? And everyone else is !voting for a speedy close. And the MR is open. I speed closed it. You're welcome. --В²C 23:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

RMs are often opened by those who oppose it. I'm one for the process. Not all are complaining. And for one who is complaining about a poor closure, someone this involved should not be speedy closing it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't happen often and I think it should be prohibited. If you don't support the proposal you're proposing, you're unlikely to present a strong argument for it. It's disruptive. I'm glad you finally saw the light, though it's a bit disappointing it took so many to weigh in before you did. Did you learn anything from this? --В²C 21:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
No. And stop acting so high and mighty about it. I presented a balanced argument between the best two choices so we could come to a decision. Sorry I didn't propose a biased, full of puffery, argument for either term as it sounds like you would have. I leave that kind of cr@ppola to politicians. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleting other user's comments.Edit

I presume there was an edit conflict which you did not handle correctly to cause the removal of my comment in this edit of yours. Please be more careful. Thanks. --В²C 21:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: Strange, actually, all I did was add my edit. It took it with no issue on my end. No idea why yours was removed. Sorry about that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboardEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Ythlev (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

How lovely of you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Evonne Goolagong - consecutive titlesEdit

You reverted the All-time tennis records – women's singles page with the comment "She won the 1977 event". Do you mean that Goolagong won the December edition of the Australian Open of 1977? Goolagong did not compete at the January edition. I think Mr. Anonymous 2605:6000:EF43:6100:D5B7:57ED:8092:5DAB was right on this point.

Yeah, I don't think she did compete in January, but she did compete in December 1977, and won. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thus she had only three consecutive titles: 1974 1975 1976.Rard 1968 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Assuming the WTA agrees with you, then yes you are correct. She won it 4 consecutive times, sort of non-consecutively. The Tennis Hall of Fame says she won four straight Australian Open Singles titles (1974-77). It's a weird year when you have two of the exact same event and she's giving birth during the first version. The Australian Open itself claims she won it four consecutive times, as does The Guardian. Like I said it's strange when that particular year had five majors instead of four. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Joan Hartigan has a similar result as Goolagong. She won the Australian three times in a row of the events she attended: 1933, 1934 and 1936. She did not compete in 1935. But this meaning of "consecutive" is not what the section "Consecutive titles per event" is about. Rard 1968 (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you are correct. She won 3 consecutive titles non-consecutively. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

vandal on the Federer-Nadal rivalry pageEdit

Hi I would like you to block a vandal from the above page please. They are making harmful edits to the above page. the account was only created yesterday and has only made edits on this topic and keeps removing info. the IP is 49.207.56.28 can you block them if they vandalise the page again please ?. Regards 80.233.89.228 (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have that power, as I edit just like you do. I will take a looksee to see what the issue is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
if vandalism continues they can be blocked though right ?. I remember this happened before. regards 80.233.89.228 (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
If an administrator looks into it and deems it blockworthy, then yes. But usually the first step is a temporary IP stop of editing that article, which unfortunately would include all IPs including you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Laver cup results on atp tour site are added in errorEdit

If you look at it the atp has only added some results for players and not for others. They have included two singles matches for rafa and one for roger a win even though he played two singles matches in 2017 why is the second match not included ?. Federer also played a singles a singles match against krygios in 2018 and this is not included at all. btw the Laver cup was a non sanctioned event in 17 and 18. this seems to be an error I would not add them until all singles matches are included. check it out for yourself btw 92.251.195.215 (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that those are the only discrepancies in the ATP totals? There are many through the years. Many missing scores. Those results are simply the best we have easy access to. The ATP, very slowly, has been recognizing scores from before the ATP even existed, and we use those totals in our wikipedia records. If we find a source that contradicts the ATP, we add it but include the extra source. Almost all the time the ITF and ATP agree, but not always. The Laver Cup and Hopman Cup were sanctioned events by the ITF, but the ATP has always been iffy on whether scores are included. We use what they have unless they tell us otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I actually went through Federer's ATP results since 98 season per season to get the totals. the discrepancy was in 2017 with one win was added from the Laver Cup singles even though he has played in more than one singles match in the event and the others are not included in his totals. is that right ?. The other thing that proves this win should not be added is, Federer won his 1,200 match win against Monfils and the ATP made a big thing about the milestone, if the 2017 Laver cup win is counted that would have put Federer on 1,201 wins with the Monfils match can you explain that please ?. Regards 178.167.238.7 (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that Monfils win was a big deal back then, but the ATP is constantly updating and changing their totals. Every 6 months Borg and Connors totals get changed. You can email the ATP and see if they will remove that 2017 Laver Cup, or perhaps add all the Laver Cups. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
What is their email address ?. my point is you can't add these results for rafa and not for other players ?. yesterday's win was quoted as his 950th on tour I think we should remove this win and loss until we get information from the ATP. We can't just add for one player right ?. regards 92.251.227.95 (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, the only source we have is the ATP results, but we could also put in a footnote explaining the situation. However, since in May the Laver Cup became an officially sanctioned ATP Tour event, I expect all the previous editions to shortly find their way into ATP records.Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Stuggart Open TennisEdit

a User keeps splitting up the finals section in the above tournament. He has broken the tournament table up into two sections one is Clay Court finals and the other is Grass Court finals. I do not think there is any need to split the table in two. It was fine before with a colspan column used to point out the Clay and Grass court eras, it also kept all the finals in one grid. can you have a look at this please ?. Regards DooksFoley147 (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, see WP:DTT.Tvx1 18:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tvx1: You're going to have to be more specific. We have no tables that split into two tables just because of a surface change. And from what i did see, that is specifically referring to column headers. We don't use column headers in that way. From conversations with readers with assisted devices, they have no issues in the least. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Avoiding_column_headers_in_the_middle_of_the_table. When I made my edits, the table DID have column headers spanning the entire width of that table. The above users just kept blanket revering, refusing to accept that the issue and the guideline exist. And I'm apparently not the only user this overly aggressive editor has clashed heads with. Well your edit has not appeared to find a solution that keeps table wide mid-table cells without the issues, it doesn't quite follow the guidelines on table captions.Tvx1 19:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tvx1: Gotcha. I did see you removed those bad headers and an anon kept blanket reverting. He is wrong in doing that. But my edit was standard Project Tennis and is no different than what you did include in your own edit with "Information unavailable 1916–1948 ". The article you are citing is not a guideline or policy, and it was never vetted as such. Where I see a lot of misuse of mid-table headers is in player performance timelines, especially under the "career statistics" section. I have removed countless "!" headers from those charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Grand Slam Titles and the French OpenEdit

Hi how are you ?. I am doing a bit of work on the Tennis Grand Slams and I want to double check something with you. Am I right in saying that the French Open is not considered a grand slam event prior to 1925 ?. So all the events prior to that date do not count as majors is that correct ?. Regards 178.167.196.130 (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi some players as listed as grand slam winners on their pages prior to 1925 and some are not. this is very confusing, should these events be added or removed please ?. Regards 178.167.196.130 (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The wording has to be careful. Which ever players you are talking about, prior to 1925, they are French Championship winners, but they are not Grand Slam tournament winners. So we would say the great Suzanne Lenglen won six French Championships, but only two of those were Grand Slam tournaments/Majors. Prior to 1924 the ILTF had listed another three tournaments as Majors; World Covered Court Championships, World Hard Court Championships, and Wimbledon. Sometimes those are included in player bio totals, but it should be crystal clear what tournaments are being included. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Not really because the other two tournaments you mentioned are not included in grand slam major wins either ?. I have never seen them listed. So am I right in saying there has only been 89 French Open grand slams in mens singles is that right ?178.167.196.130 (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC).
Depending on the source they are sometimes included, especially the World Hard Court Championships. Our article at Tennis male players statistics has the very first chart with those titles included for the old-time players Major totals. But yes, only 89 men's French Championships are considered Majors as of 2019. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I did check on one article you edited, H. Briggs. Instead of removing the chart you could have simply re-titled it to "French Championship finals" instead of "Grand Slam finals." That might be the better option since it was a big event in France at the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Pro Slam 1967Edit

Hi Fyunk just found this slightly contradictory news article from ABC News Australia its says the Pro Slam of 1967 was achieved by winning the Wimbledon Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro and French Pro read here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-27/rafa-nadal-novak-djokovic-australian-open-mens-final-live/10754522.--Navops47 (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Link doesnt seem to be working ill try again https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-27/rafa-nadal-novak-djokovic-australian-open-mens-final-live/10754522 .--Navops47 (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Navops47: Yeah, I recall reading that a couple times. As amateur tennis crumbled under the weight of every player joining the pro ranks, Wimbledon finally has a on-off tourney for pros on it's hallowed grass. Laver won all four events that year. Or just like the Tournament of Champions was sometimes the biggest event for pros. And in the 70s-80s papers were writing that only Wimbledon, US Open, and French Open were majors... that Australia was a second rate event. I guess there will always be anomalies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

TennisFan] Just to reiterate the obvious and most important point of this discussion, Laver himself was completely unaware of winning anything in 1967 called the Pro GS, it was something which did not exist in the pro world of 1967. Laver gave a list of "important" events which he won that year, but it did not correspond to anything like the Pro GS, a frivolous concoction which was manufactured much later, and bears no relationship to reality. Cheers.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan —Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Wimbledon 1970Edit

Hi Fyunck, if you read the Sports Illustrated articles from that era on Rosewall, it discusses his trouble with hay fever at Wimbledon, which caused his upset losses at Wimbledon in 1968 and 1969. He apparently found some steroid injection treatment for the 1970 Wimbledon and had better results on the court that year, but if you take a look at the 1970 Wimbledon final match available on Youtube, you will see that Rosewall is essentially dragging himself around the court from the beginning, is well below form (especially compared to his more animated gait at Forest Hills that year), and is frequently pulling out a handkerchief to blow his nose throughout the match. That is a sure sign of very active hay fever. That alone explains Rosewall's loss here against a player whom he beat on all other occasions that season.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to look for sources. I assume it's true but we need some exact sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I just read two things that said he "ALWAYS" suffered from Hay Fever; that he always had a hanky hanging out of his pocket. If that's the case, the 1970 Wimbledon final is the norm for him. Graf was always at her worst at Wimbledon too because of her allergies. Another article says he tried cortisone for relief for the first time in 1971. Grass events always brought it out. A quoted Rosewall said of Wimbledon, "I lost the first two because I was too young and lost the last two because I was too old." Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

TennisFan] He always suffered from hay fever at Wimbledon, but not at Forest Hills, take a look at the video clips from that 1970 Forest Hills, he shows no signs of pulling out his hanky, as he does throughout the 1970 Wimbledon Youtube record. So it was 1971 that he started getting cortisone injections at Wimbledon, very interesting. That explains his good showing in 1974.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hoad rankingEdit

Fyunck, I really think that some perspective should be brought to bear on that strange television rating, showing Hoad at #19, Gonzales at #22. If you think that it is important to point out that Hoad ranked #19, then it should also be pointed out that Hoad ranked above other greats such as Kramer and Gonzales.

I do not understand why you think that ranking in relative terms is unimportant..without providing some context for Hoad's 19th place, in particular his relative ranking with his contemporaries, the ranking for Hoad is without meaning. Could you explain that?64.229.32.48 (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

Sorry, but I think that the Hoad ranking is the only thing that really matters in a Hoad article. The link is there, so if people want to see how he ranks compared to others they have only to click and compare. I wouldn't even have it in the article. I'm not sure what the rankers (or is that wankers) were judging on, but most of the rankings from that tv show are a total mess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
[TennisFan] Why not simply remove that reference? I am happy to do it, given the confusion and controversy which has been engendered by that ranking. I am not sure who could have added that ranking. If you have no objections, I will delete the ranking from this article. 64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Someone else might care, but you'd have to remove it to find out. I have no problem with removal. Wikipedia guidelines are to add an edit summary, and be bold in your edit... ONCE! If there is an objection then you'll have to bring it to talk to convince other editors as to why it should be removed. By the way you should always sign the end of your posts with a blank space and then four tildas ( ~~~~) Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be removed immediately. It is certainly the most ridiculous ranking I have ever seen. If it is based solely on amateur records, then I imagine that Tilden would be #1, which would actually make SOME sense. On the other hand, it would also probably put Emerson at #2 or #3, and Sedgman at #3 or #4, because both of them had fantastic amateur records. Emerson had a good record as a pro, and Sedge had a VERY good record as a pro. But Emmo was never in the same ballpark as Hoad, Gorgo, or Kramer. Sedge was in the same ballpark but just a SHADE behind them. So, PLEASE remove all references to this strange, strange ranking. Hayford Peirce (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hayford Peirce: I've seen many ridiculous rankings through the years. And how do we know it took no professional records into account? It's not in the Wikepedia article. And maybe Tilden wouldn't be number one since Helen Wills utter dominance is unmatched. Hoad missed many top 10 lists even in the 1960s. His number 19 ranking doesn't bother me as much as who is ranked above him. The trouble is, one person's ridiculousness is another's dream lineup. Once pandoras box is open to allow one person's rankings, it's tough to start limiting them without looking like a hypocrite. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I thought I saw somewhere in this, or a linked thread, that the Tennis Channel's rankings were based solely upon amateur rankings. Maybe I missed something or misunderstood it. As you say, Helen Wills is unmatched. And one person's opinion is just that -- but I DO think that a ranking such as the one from the Tennis Channel that is SO out of sync with just about every other ranking you and I have ever seen, should either be FULLY explicated or just ignored. If someone wants to go the FIRST route, I won't argue. But even so you'll have a hard time convincing me that Hoadie, Gorgo, and Big Jake were never better than about #20 in all-time ranking. Could be, but I'm skeptical. Cheers, however, for continuing this dialog. Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hayford Peirce: Remember, the women were ranked alongside the men. No other poll I ever saw did that. But let's look at a sampling of the men. Let's say you grabbed the names of the greatest singles players of each generation and simply threw them into a bowl. You'd probably have Federer, Nadal, Djokovic... Sampras, Borg... Laver, Rosewall, Emerson...Gonzales, Kramer... Vines, Perry, Budge... Tilden, Cochet. Right there you have 15 names. Unless you start looking at doubles, Hoad's totals of Grand Slam tournaments, Pro Slams, Tours, etc have a hard time matching the above players. His Davis Cup play was great so you can't dismiss it. Otherwise he made lots of finals but usually lost to the best of his day. But let's say he was the next one on the men's list behind those others. That's 16th.
I said there were 15 so far. There are probably a similar number of women players, so another 15. If you shuffled up those 30 and randomly pulled them out, then it's not inconceivable that Hoad winds up a very respectable 31st. Instead he winds up 19th. When you look at it in that perspective, 140 years and hundreds of top tier players, 19th for Hoad may be too high on my own list of men and women. You do need some sort of results other than runner-up. It's very subjective, and with the women added (apples and oranges) it really makes it tough. I'll tell you one thing though. It's never put in these terms but if we are talking greatest of all-time as far as singles, doubles, advancement of the sport, ambassador, etc... the only face that would belong on Mt Rushmore would be Billie Jean King. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
An interesting argument, and food for thought. I would substitute Sedge for Emmo, however, he achieved far more as a pro. And as for Mt. Rushmore, I think you could argue that Big Bill did as much or more than Billie Jean. At least it could *argued*, and I doubt if it could be for anyone else. Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Everyone knows the two gigantic problems with Tilden and monuments. Because of those issues, he couldn't even get a historical marker at Philadelphia’s Germantown Cricket Club, which is his home court. I don't doubt it keeps him way down on many lists because of the questions that would surface. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes indeed. But he must have been one heckuva player if he could still beat Don Budge occasionally when he was in his late forties. My old tennis coach Ray Casey, who once extended Tilden to three sets in a two-out-of three, told me that his only weakness was his overhead and that someone like Kenny Rosewall (or Riggs, I suppose) would have exploited that.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. It's hard enough to find any players who can hold their own in their early 40s or late 30s. What were his reasons for not playing Wimbledon from 1922-1926? Or the WHCC other than 1921? Monetary reasons? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Monetary, I think. He was making too much money as an amateur in the States to be bothered. And, I would say, he, and most other Americans of the time, considered the U.S. championships to be at least as prestigeous or even more so. I suppose we could find more precise info in DeFord's book. Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Lake CalhounEdit

Im sorry that you dont like the fact that im trying to tell the truth on this webpage as the name on it is incorrect and untill the minnesota supreme court rules for the name change it is still called lake calhoun and the locals in the area still refer to it as such so i dont appreciate some out of town people trying to tell me what the name of the lake in my city is called so untill it is legally changed by law your webpage is invalid and lies to the readers and is a disgrace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmac13 (talkcontribs) 12:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Willmac13: The truth or non-truth doesn't matter. Sources and Wikipedia consensus does. Per previous debate and consensus it should not be changed. You can bring it up on the talk page and use any evidence to change peoples minds, because that's how it's done here. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fyunck: If the truth doesn't matter then what is the point of this website? just to confuse and lie to people? if this website isn't about telling the truth on subjects such as this then it has no purpose to even exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmac13 (talkcontribs) 23:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
That's the way it works in encyclopedias. I know 100% truthful things about particular musicians, because they told me personal things. There are no sources for it so it absolutely won't be written here. On the talk page you present your information, other editors present theirs, and the group decides what is best for the article. That's what I suggest is done here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Many years ago, when WP was new, and I was a new editor, I tried to put in stuff that Robert A. Heinlein had told me. I fought and fought and fought with other editors who kept taking it out. After a while I *finally* up, but it graveled me for years that I couldn't use it. Finally I said to myself, "The hell with it, either I do it the WP way or I don't do it at all." As Heinlein himself put it at the end of The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress: "You can't fight City Hall." Sad but true. When Larry Sanger founded Citizendium to get around some of the WP restrictions, I tried the same thing over there. *HE*, at least, found a work-around for me to use to get the info in, but it was never in the main article itself.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
So we aren't out here seeking to be as truthful and honest as possible? well then should i just assume that all pages are biased then? and if so then what is the point of this website other then being a propaganda machine? no wonder most most places wont let you use wikipedia as a source for things its all biased good to know that thats the goal of the editors and administrators here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmac13 (talkcontribs) 01:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Somewhat correct. We aren't here to be truthful, we are here to add information to an encyclopedia that is based on factual sourcing. No factual sourcing, then no adding of material no matter how truthful. And certainly you should never use Wikipedia as a source... no school or university would ever allow a source from a place that allows anonymous IPs and regular joes to make edits. We try to be diligent in sources but all you have to do is look at any politically charged article and you will see horrendous bias everywhere. Anyway, this is not a forum page or blog. If you have something valuable to add within Wikipedia rules, then welcome to editing. If you don't want to follow Wikipedia rules then it's best you edit elsewhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Quick response regarding your edit/revert on Talk:Kiev/namingEdit

Honestly, I have no issue with your reverting my edit. The odd thing with it existing is that it contradicts the message above it:

"This is a subpage of Talk:Kiev for discussing the name of the article Kiev. Please take all discussion of the name here, reserving the regular talkpage for other matters. I hope that this division will benefit both the regular talkpage and the name discussion itself. Happy editing. Bishonen "

...as well as this message that appears on Talk:Kiev (well, Talk:Kiev/naming/old discussion list as well at this point):

"A special subpage has been created for discussing the name of the article, Talk:Kiev/naming. Please take all naming discussion there!"

...I removed that message since it seemed to be newer than the conflicting statements, but I have no desire to "push" to reimplement it since I thought removing that was cleanup work. So, I suppose all this info I'm providing you is essentially an "FYI". Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Steel1943: I understand, but I don't think it does contradict. It's one thing to discuss, it's quite another to make a formal move request. I actually think it helps to make the formal move requests on the main talk page rather than a subpage. More eyes, more fair. Formal requests only happen about once a year and most of the stuff on the subpage is the same garbage month after month... just complaining from native Ukrainians that it should move. I realize you were just cleaning things up, but that notice has been there for 10 years and I think it was added by a regular who forgot to log in. In that time length, consensus is implied. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Steel1943: No prob. You can bring it up at talk... maybe a majority wants that tag removed and they would prefer all RMs be on the naming page. I may personally think that it's better to have an official RM at the main talk page, but I'm cool with whatever the majority wants. It's not really a big deal. Cheers and thanks for tightening up the archive pages. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ash BartyEdit

You reverted my edit to Ash Barty's article stating that inserting her nickname into her full name is "Not where you would put this, plus Ash is just a common shortening of Ashleigh". However, there appears to be inconsistencies regarding this topic. The likes of Rafael Nadal's and Alexander Zverev's articles both have their nicknames inserted into their full name as I did with Ash Barty. So if it's truly not the place to insert nicknames, this should be changed for all pages including the two named – "Rafa" and "Sascha" should be removed. In Nadal's case, Rafa is just a common shortening of Rafael and yet continues to be an accepted edit on his article. Again, an inconsistency. TurboGUY (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@TurboGUY: Those are also incorrect placements per Wikipedia MOS, but especially so for common renderings. If the name is Frederick, Fred is a common expected rendering. Same with Ash for Asleigh. Not so with Sascha. See the recent discussion about Cori Gauff article. It can also make a difference if a nickname is by far the more common way to see a person's name. But then the article itself would be titled that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it depends entirely on the circumstances, and that you're never going to have a 100% consistent approach to it. We do indeed have "Rafa" in the Nadal article, but he is NOT always known as Rafa. On the other hand, we have John Albert "Jack" Kramer in the Kramer article, but he was ALWAYS called Jack, never John or Johnnie. But then we have William Tatem Tilden II (February 10, 1893 – June 5, 1953), nicknamed "Big Bill," was an American male tennis player, in which (in MY opinion) "Bill" should be in the "William (Bill) Tatem Tilden II" part. And then we have Ricardo Alonso González (May 9, 1928 – July 3, 1995), usually known as Pancho Gonzales, as well as the slightly different Francisco Olegario Segura (June 20, 1921 – November 18, 2017), better known as Pancho "Segoo" Segura.... In the case of Barty, is she, like Jack Kramer, USUALLY called Ash, or not? That could be the deciding factor. Hayford Peirce (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hayford Peirce: Wikipedia MOS was explained to me by an administration thusly:
If a player is far and away known by his nickname, his article should be at that nickname, even though it's not his given name. So looking at the article Jack Kramer, that's what was done. If and only if that is the case the first line of the lead should be bolded and say John Albert "Jack" Kramer. If the article is not under the nickname then the nickname should not be in quotes and should be separated from the given name, as was done with Cori Gauff.
MOS tells us: If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial; the quotation marks are not put in lead-section boldface. Tennis Example: Bunny Austin has: Henry Wilfred "Bunny" Austin. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the very clear explanation. Do you think it can be applied consistently across, say, just the *tennis* articles in WP? I suppose so, if someone as conscientious as YOU, wants to be involved with many of these articles. Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's singlesEdit

Dear Fyunck! I was very surprised to experience my edit was not constructive and had been reverted. I don't think that if you indicated the two finalists without any score (maybe the box for the score can be marked as yellow), it would cause any confusion. On the contrary, at least it does not seem that the page was not actualized for a year. However, if this is the wikipedia policy, I follow the rules, but honestly I am not the supporter of this, and it makes sense to reconsider this policy in the near future. At least on the teahouse-chat base. Thank You! Mrandrew16

@Mrandrew16: You have to understand that this time of year we have all types of vandalism to tennis article, especially people trying to put their favorites in purposely incorrect positions on charts. By the way, I'm not the one who reverted your edit. That said, I should have worded your talk page much better. It sounds like this was an accidental bad placement on your part and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. My bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Any suggestions?Edit

...on how to deal with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talkcontribs) 13:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: Maybe I'm reading MOS:BOLDAVOID wrong, but from what I see the term Men's Singles should not be bolded, and I'm not sure the term needs to be there. Per the Mississippi example in BOLDAVOID, natural English can also be used (unbolded). The sentence in question already contains the words "singles final". It's pretty obvious he's a man but I guess you could add "men's" to the term "singles final", but I'm not 100% sure it's needed. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the anon is ignoring the desirability of context, which I think is important - we can't assume that everyone reading this understands what men's singles are or knows that the tournament comprises several different competitions. Deb (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
By the way, I have now asked for semi page protection on the mens and womens articles. I hate wikipedia during major tournaments, and we go through this again in five weeks at the US Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
That sounds sensible. Deb (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Kerber loss to Lucky loserEdit

@Fyunk(click): I think this article from WTA website should be added to 2019 Wimbledon Women's Singles, but I can't edit it. I saw that you recently edited & thought you could put it there. The article notes that Kerber is 1st defending champ in Open Era to lose to a Lucky Loser. https://www.wtatennis.com/news/wta-rankings-update-2019-halep-returns-top-5-gauff-soars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:C580:246F:6C06:CDE6:725F:2A30 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Interesting find so I added it with a source. Thanks for finding that and letting me know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

kiev namingEdit

Hello at Talk:Kiev/naming, I give an argument that Kiev is no more a Russian name than Jennifer is a Welsh or Cornish name. Do you feel this is valid or are there better examples? I thought of this I know Jennifer has roots in cornish and Welsh, just as some say that Kiev has roots in Russian, but what I am saying is that Kiev is no more a transliteration of Russian no more than jennifer is a translation/translitoration of a Cornish or Welsh name. Do you feel there are better examples? thanks. 38.111.120.74 (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Sorry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, darn wifi issues. Anyway, people like Roman Spinner on the talk kiev naming page state that Kiev is a Russian transliteration for the capital of The Ukraine, however this is not the case. I am stating that Kiev is no more a Russian name than Jennifer is a Welsh or Cornish name.

38.111.120.74 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Tennis againEdit

Could I ask what this edit is for? It perpetuates the idea that the articles about the singles competitions deals only with the draw, when we've previously discussed that there should be a proper written summary/introduction included. Deb (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: Well, when I looked it seemed far too long up at the top compared to what we had been writing. Two things. 1) This link is already in the article way at the bottom under "Champions" and linked under its full name, so it's not like it's gone 2) There was only one reason we also added it to the top... heaps of readers were complaining that the only reason they came to the article was so they could see the mens and womens singles draws and nothing else. They had trouble finding them while wading through everything else. I thought about that and realized I was the same way... nothing was more important than seeing those two draws. Since that's what readers wanted we discussed it and gave them an easy way to find those two things. If anything I would refine it further and add a #draw to the links to go directly to the draw. Anyway that was my reasoning for changing it back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Did they really only want to know about the draw? I really don't think that's what the encyclopedia is here for. And I think it's misleading to suggest that we have articles that are only about the draw. Deb (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Deb: For the most part yes, especially with ongoing events. There is a lot of information in our tournament articles and I would wager that far and away, when a reader (and I include myself) wants to know what happened in say...the 1989 Wimbledon ladies singles event... They want to know who won and who lost, and they want to see the full draw. I'd bet 90% of searches look for just that. They want to know it was Graf vs Navratilova, with Graf winning in three sets, and they want to see a visual draw just like they do on ESPN. They could care less about the seeding and they probably read only the first sentence or two of the lead. The full information is there for those who want it, but most won't want it.
Lets look at the 1989 Wimbledon Championships article. While that prize money info is great, I'll bet it's rare for anyone to really look at. If it was at the bottom we'd have the champions list, the seeding list, and then the prize money. That's probably correct as far as in order of importance. Flash forward to our 2017 Wimbledon Championships article to see what we do 30 years later. That Champions list is buried! The most important info of the event is hard to find and we were getting complaints, especially since most readers only care about mens and womens singles. And moving the stuff around is a big undertaking with lots of complaining. We could tweak the wording and make the links direct by saying:
I'd hate to remove the word draw but I guess we could make it:
Anyway, that's how I see things as far as helping our readers. One thing that maybe could be done is to remove the further topic help and move up the info in the main body. We could limit the table of contents (which has gotten so bloated) and have what people really want right at their fingertips. Like this version here. To be honest, the infobox has gotten ridiculous also. Per MOS "The purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose." The smaller infobox would dump the kids and exhibitions and look like this. But that would probably start a riot of complaints here. Just a thought. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the second alternative is better, but I still find it hard to believe that this is the only thing people want to know about the individual competitions, not once they are over, anyway. If it were, there are other websites that can tell them equally well; we're not a sports news site. I think a draw can be of a different level of importance in different sports. Clearly in some US sports it's vital, and in football competitions like the F.A.Cup it's quite critical, but even in an article like 2018–19 FA Cup, the summary of results comes before the draw. At Wimbledon, you know beforehand that the seeded players will be in a certain position in the draw. Or do you mean something different by the word "draw"? "Who beat whom" and "who played whom" are two different things. Deb (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Deb: I'm not sure I would say it's the only thing readers look at, but it's what they come for. And those seeded players positions are right there to see in the draw bracket too. When I say draw I am specifically talking about the full bracket and its results. And have you tried to easily find this equally-well info on other websites? When you have your hand-held device most people have an imdb app, a news app, a weather app, a wikipedia app. They don't have wimbledon apps, and tennisbase apps, and tennisforum apps. It's easiest to goto wikipedia. And if you goto the wimbledon site and want to look up individual years you have to go to the archives. From there you choose which discipline, and then it shows what else.... the draws/scores and pretty much nothing else. And it's not that easy to even find the archives to begin with but they focus on draws because it's highly important and more visually tactile. You can see what happened without any prose. Anyway, I hate discussing too much without the entire tennis project able to see the discussion as I'm only a tiny cog in the mechanism, but the reason that further info was put at the top of articles was because of complaints that readers couldn't easily find the mens and womens singles draw brackets. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that reasoning - but bear in mind that all information is supposed to be referenced, so we shouldn't actually be including the results before they have been published by a reliable source. "I saw it on TV" is not a guarantee of the result being correct. I would propose that we put the kind of protection on articles about current tournaments that I have put on the Women's Singles, i.e. any changes made by new and unregistered users have to be reviewed. That would slow down the determination of casual users to be first to update the score. I'll make that proposal on the Tennis project. Deb (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

disruptive accusationsEdit

Please explain to me the accusations by you and an Alabama-based user (dermise I think) of me being disruptive? Thanks Nahom

I will try this once and only once. The Kiev talk page is for specific sourced reasons for page improvement. Not to bait someone into answering questions.... questions that have been asked and answered hundreds of time before in past archives. It is not a forum. If you have something brand spanking new and sourced to add that could change minds, then great. We just had a lengthy move discussion about the same topic that was overwhelming in its finality. We don't need the same things drudged up again and again so soon. It is detrimental and disruptive to do so. I tried to explain that to you in summaries and on my talk page. If you still don't understand the overkill you were creating then I suggest you talk to the administrator who closed it again and to read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I hope that clears things up, but if not I can't help. Also if someone deletes something you wrote from their personal talk page, DO NOT RE-ADD IT. Signing off. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Navratilova first Grand slamEdit

When she won her first GS, Martina was not a US citizen yet, and be corollary she was still a Czech national (despite the illegal removal of her citizenship by the government at the time). Ninel (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ninel:That flag is not for citizenship, it is for the country she represents in international play. And you must have a country backing you or you can't play. For all of her majors she represented the USA. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Which draw template is preferable?Edit

Hello again, you seemed pretty experienced regarding tennis articles, so could you help me decide which template is preferable of the two compared in User:Calbow/sandbox?. I'm currently adding qualification draws for Australian Open men's singles, and all the years made before I started (1998-2019) use the less compact template, but don't have any byes, unlike the earlier years I'm adding. Should I in your opinion be consistent with them, or use the compact template that shows byes better? Thanks, Calbow (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

That kind of call is always tough and I usually search our Guideline draws for the best way to handle it. When it comes to compactness I would turn to my betters and see if perhaps @Wolbo: could better answer the query. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I ended getting a template made that combines both, i.e. non-compact and shows byes properly. Calbow (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Nicknames.Edit

Wikipedia is all about the person and their info. Why is nicknames that this person uses not allowed? Every time I add one it's deleted. Also, why does is matter how there name is registered on ITF? This is a Wikipedia page not an ITF page. Further more there name on there official Twitter page and Instagram uses their nickname and not there birth name. So ITF takes precidence over their own Twitter or Instagram page? Further if you look up Colleen "CoCo" Vandeweghe Wikipedia page her nickname is in quotations and no one is deleting that nickname. Princeofearth (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Princeofearth: I explained all that earlier on your talk page. I'll do so again. To play professional tennis you MUST register the name you want to play under. No exceptions. So far she has chosen Cori Gauff. She can always change it, but she hasn't yet. CoCo Vandeweghe has done so at the ITF. Now, as to how nicknames are handled at Wikipedia. If the article is titled with the nickname, such as CoCo Vandeweghe's article, then the real name is shown in the lead with the nickname in parentheses (if it's unusual) such as Colleen "CoCo" Vandeweghe. If the article is titled with the real name, then the nickname (if it's unusual, not shortened) is shown afterwards with a separate phrase such as "also known as Coco Gauff." If Cori Gauff decides to change her name to Coco or perhaps if the article gets changed to Coco Gauff because of more and more usage, then we have a totally different situation and we will re-look at the phrasing. There was just a discussion on what name to put the article at and "Cori Gauff" won out. I didn't make these rules at Wikipedia. More can be found at WP:NICKUSE, and MOS:LEGALNAME. I hope that helps a bit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


@fyunck(click) I read the link you sent me on Wikipedia regarding the use of nicknames and that link has been superseded by this link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Pseudonyms,_stage_names,_nicknames,_hypocorisms,_and_common_names
Scroll down to where it says nicknames and you will see where it says that if the person is known by a nickname either in place of their legal name or along with their legal name then their nickname should be between double quotation marks like this example. Cori "Coco" Gauff (Born.....). It states this right there on the Wikipedia link I just pasted above. According to that I had her nickname in the proper format and you deleted my changes. Same goes for my edits to Jessica Pegula. As for common use of their nicknames on the internet, both of them have their official Twitter pages and Instagram pages listed only with their nicknames and several articles refer to them by their nicknames also! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeofearth (talkcontribs) 01:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Princeofearth: Again... that's when the article is placed at the nickname. If the article name was Coco Gauff, then it would be appropriate. But it's not.. the article is titled Cori Gauff. Jessica Pegula is a different story completely. "Jessie" is a common shortening of Jessica so it will never be put in quotes in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click) The Wikipedia page about nicknames makes no mention of whether or not the article name uses their nickname or their legal name to differentiate if the nickname appears in quotations or not. Where on the Wikipedia page does it mention what you have said?? Jess is an abbreviated form of Jessica. Jessie is not a common abbreviation of Jessica. It's more of a nickname because it totally changes the name by adding 2 letters. I have copied and pasted the Wikipedia page regarding how to use nicknames below.
Per Wikipedia's own instructions.
If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism[d] of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial; the quotation marks are not put in lead-section boldface. Example:
Bunny Berigan has: Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan.
A nickname can eventually become a professional alias, even the most common name for a person. Such a case loses the quotation marks, other than in the subject's lead section if introducing the nickname in mid-name. If the monicker is dominant (in general or in a particular context) it can often be used in other articles without further elaboration. Example:
Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. (born August 14, 1959) is ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeofearth (talkcontribs) 03:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Princeofearth: Those examples show exactly what I was telling you. The Magic Johnson article is at Magic, as is Bunny Berigan at Bunny. Coco is at Cori. Look, I'm not going through this anymore on what we do at wikipedia. I have tried to help you out and be specific on the issue because you are a new user. This was even explained by administration in the Cori Gauff archives if you had thought to look. If you are appreciative of the effort, then fine. If you aren't appreciative, then fine. But I'm done explaining so I suggest you move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
You can't reason with a troll -- it's a fool's errand. For some reason, though, you seem to attract them in spades. You must have special pheromones. Cheers! Hayford Peirce (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
LOL. I don't know, they are a new user seemingly with limited English comprehension. Maybe a kid. I tried, I reported them to administration, and will move on. I hate passing the buck to administration if I can help solve it, but that wasn't the case here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
You have far more patience than I! But that's why you're a more valued contributor! To put it into tennis terms, you are more of a Ken Rosewall or Lew Hoad, while I am more of a Pancho Gonzales or John McEnroe, hehe. Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Since I sometimes have back pain I'll have to be Hoad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Yikes, sorry to hear that! I've only had it a couple of times in my life, knock on wood, and it's terrible when I do have it. How he (and others) ever managed to play tennis with it is hard to understand. Hope you never have any again! Hayford Peirce (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Live WTA rankingsEdit

Hi! I have noticed you have removed the Live WTA rankings update from Naomi Osaka. Is there some rule against using live ranking updates? I also notice that Naomi Osaka's ranking has been updated these days with the ranking from yesterday after losing the match with Belinda Bencic, so I wonder why a further update after Svitolina Konta match not be accepted?--185.53.197.61 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@185.53.197.61:We use the actual real rankings from the WTA/ATP. They are the ones who rank so that's what we use. They never update rankings in the middle of an event, but otherwise they do it on Monday mornings. That's when we update. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The answer is only partially satisfying. I think that since Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, with possibilities of fast updating as its name (Wiki) indicates, not maintaining a quick updating (by Live WTA ranking or some other source like TV News reports, etc) gives a misleading impression of slowness/outdateness, which I'd say is unacceptable. The mentioned slowness would have been acceptable many decades ago when written newspapers had a large market share in media, in the infancy era of internet, especially when the World Wide Web had not appeared. In the present times such delay is not to be accepted.--185.53.197.61 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@185.53.197.61: There are two problems with that. One, their rankings do not change instantly. They only change on Mondays. Updating it before would be inaccurate in that sense. And two, we are not a crystal ball and things can actually change. If a player retires their ranking will be immediately removed and all other players rankings will move accordingly. Drug suspensions can have the same affect. Any other ranking site other than the WTA/ATP/ITF is not official, it would be an unofficial projection. Plus when people start updating before then often the number of weeks they are ranked gets all skewed up by the next person who edits. That is why it makes the most sense to go with the official results. It's easier for everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

RedirectionEdit

Hi, it appears that you tried to create a redirect at 2018 Zhengzhou Open, but didn't do it correctly. I've fixed it now. For future reference, the correct redirect syntax is:

#REDIRECT [[target page name]]

You can check redirects with the Preview button before saving them. If you have created a working redirect, the preview will show the name of the target page alongside a bent arrow (or "Redirect to:" label in text mode). Smjg (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a late night oops. Thanks. By the way you should always sign your posts with ~~~~ so I know who's leaving me a message. I fixed your post. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. BTW I normally do remember to sign my posts, but just slipped up on this occasion. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk page discussion closing task-forceEdit

Hi, do you belong to 'Talk page discussion closing task-force' that has authority to close discussion before a week has passed? I checked your user-rights, and failed to see you among the aforementioned task-force. Given that, it seems like your repeated closing of discussion on Talk:Kiev/naming is disruptive and goes again WP:Talk page guidelines quote Closing a discussion means summarizing the results, and identifying any consensus that has been achieved. A general rule of thumb is that discussions should be kept open at least a week before closing, although there are some exceptions to this. . Asking also for advice from @Roman Spinner:, given that I apologized to him in that discussion diff and he was not even able to respond to it. I absolutely, did not want to be the cause of other uses behaving WP:non-civilly towards him (which unfortunately happened) and feel that I own it to Roman Spinner to apologize and for him to respond (which he didnt' get a chance, since you closed the discussion within minutes of the last comment).--Piznajko (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Piznajko: This was a continuation of the same balderdash that was just closed and archived. When a brand spanking new discussion opens that is likely to bring forth all new ideas, certainly it should run its course. When pretty much the same thing and same people keep arguing the same tired points that all the recent rms discussed, it's more like trolling for a fight. That is something that is not in wikipedias interest. Even an administrator complained of the same "re-litigating." When I see the same thing happening again I tend to close it. If you want to remove the close be my guest, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's closed again soon thereafter by an administrator, because it's really getting ridiculous. All I can say is please be careful in picking the same fight there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Fyunck(click) I appreciate your advice, and I value your contribution: I can see that you are genuinely good-faithed editor and your recent comments on that talk page speak positively of you and show that you strive to be constructive, that you're truly WP:HERE to bring encyclopedic & academic discussion that is within WP:Civility guidelines (which unfortunately cannot be said of the majority of contributors on the Talk:Kiev/naming discussion for the last 10 years - 99% of editors on that TP are WP:NOTTHERE to bring encyclopedic & academic discussion that would help clarify which usage is now common within English language, but instead have warmongering mentality and strive to WIKIHOUND and force out any editors who disagree with them (the recent case of the User:Vigilante Girl - is the prime example of that uncivil behaviour, which has led to a potentially exceptional contributor self-expulsion from the project, but there had been dozens if not hundreds of cases like of that in the last 10 years, affecting both newbie-Wikieditors and established ones with years-and-year of exceptional wikiediting history) .
You know very well that I will not reopen that discussion after it was closed, merely from self-preservation perspective: a number of English WP admins (who are - let's call it "interested" - in Ukrainian topics) will mostly likely block me for an unspecified period if I do - they've been dying to do it for a while now (as is evident from their recent messages on my TP) and I would hate to willingly give them any pretext for that and empower them to do so via the usual admin WP:Gaming the system route. In conclusion: as you can see, I cannot reopen the discussion you've archived without you-know-who admins blocking me, so that's exactly why I came to your TP in good faith to ask YOU to unclose it yourself and let R. Spinner at least a chance to respond to my apology --Piznajko (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Piznajko: My thoughts are this. I will unclose it since you think I overstepped my bounds. But know this, there have been far far more unwavering, un-knowledgeable editors demanding that Kiev be changed to Kyiv. And the anon IPs are usually the worst. They must get attracted by some Ukraine newspaper about Wikipedia. They don't read the archives where their same arguments have all been shot down and they bring up the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... etc... That is very disruptive and starts arguments and then I see multiple editors being blocked. I hate to see that happen. R Spinner should be replying to that kind of stuff on Your Talk page... not on a Kiev talk page. And you should be writing that stuff on his talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

WidthEdit

I am wondering why we have to add width limitations to the performance timeline table. Everything was okay without the extra style="width:35px", but once they are limited, the some columns are automactically wrapped, like:

  • 3 /
    57
  • 34–
    13

etc.

instead of 3 / 57, 34–13 OVVL (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@OVVL: They have been part of Wikipedia Project Tennis Guidelines since before I was here. I'm thinking they wanted uniform widths for the performance table years since it looks much better. The smaller table years columns have no width statements at all (although the years have no links in the example). Since both are shown it's possible both are ok to use, but nothing wider unless approved by the Tennis Project. The tables were tested on English versions of Firefox, Explorer, Chrome, Edge, and a couple other browsers as well and it has always worked well. Perhaps you have your Chrome browser has it's language region set to Ukrainian? You can bring it up at Tennis Project talk and see if others would agree to widen it to 40, but players who have been on the tour a long time like Federer already have overwide tables. And a different language region browser might need to be set to 45 to work well. There are too many language regions to appease everyone so I'm guessing that English browser versions are the defacto standard. I'm not really partial except in following whatever our Guidelines tell us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Mary MagdaleneEdit

why did you revert my edits? the part i moved is a nonsensical fringe theory of an obscure scholar, shouldn't be in the lead section. please change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.10.144 (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@99.238.10.144: It probably got caught up in the vandalism sweep for the IP address. I suggest you sign up for a free account before that IP address gets blocked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Tennis GuidlinesEdit

Hey!
I saw that you one of few people that really take care about tennis guidlines, but I have a question. I follow things that are made in guidliness, but I usually meet people that want to change some things that is not as it is in guidliness. They made arguments like "it's better, I like it this way" etc. that for me is kinda ok, but in the same time I want every page to have same rules. Reason why I change some titles like "Malaysian Open, Malaysia" to "Malaysian Open, Kuala Lumpur", cuz I have problems with some people that say it ridiculous to say ex. Malaysian Open, Malaysia etc. Same things with other stuffs, background color of some cell, width of columns, not include prize money in last cell (but in guidliness it should be) etc. Reason why I wrote you this is that I want to ask you, is there some way to stop people from doing this or everyone should do want they want? I don't have problem with every oppinion, but if on one page is Malaysia Open, Malaysia, it should be on EVERY page, or if there is bold text for total amount of tournament played, then it should be. I really don't want to spend my time "fighting" with some "people" or better say "users". I'm really against vandalism, but it's pointless if everyone can done whatever they want to the infinity. Note: I don't refer to anyone specifically, I'm talking in general. Thanks for your answer :)
JamesAndersoon (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I run into the same things, and I really don't have an answer for you on how to stop it. I do my best to follow the guidelines and from there to follow what has been common consensus. Tennis Project deemed cities as unnecessarily trivial, especially since we have links if you need more detail. It keeps the tables narrower and tighter, plus gives the charts a uniform look. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
One thing... please don't change essential Tennis Project Guidelines. These were were worked out by many debates. Sure, if a tournament name changes, or their is a syntax error, be bold and help out. But changing parameters, etc would require much input from others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Order in performance timelinesEdit

Hey!
Why you changed the order of "Year-end championships" and "National representation" on Anastasija Sevastova page? In Tennis guidliness it said first National Representation, then Year-end championships. But I see that on ATP Performance timelines it's opposite. Is it some mistake?. Cheers
JamesAndersoon (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon: Interesting... I hadn't noticed that the women's chart is different than the men's. That's an error but not sure which way is more proper. I'll bring it up at Tennis Project so the charts can be consistent. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Overall Win-LossEdit

Can you tell me where you find information about correct score of Win-Loss for some player? Talking about ATP players, I found that information on their official site, but what about WTA players? So far, I used to count number of w/l manually, but it takes a lot of time. And if there is not a information about w/l score, can you tell me what are all included for that "Overal Win-Loss"? Ex. Somewhere I find that Fed Cup's results are included, somewhere not. And if Fed Cup's result are included, is it means all matches at fed cup tour, or only on world group, play-off maybe? Thanks for the answer.
JamesAndersoon 18:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon: That is something I don't usually add to player charts, so I'm not sure where the info is being gathered. Usually the ATP and WTA tours include Davis and Fed Cups in all their info, so those sites numbers should include them if you add them up. TheTennisBase.com also has all those results but it's fee based. When I glance at a player like Bianca Andreescu, our chart has her at 137-48. Her WTA website overview has the exact same number right up front. So does ESPN. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Yeah, I understand it, but ex. if Bianca Andreescu has 137-48 record, it has to be together with ITF, cuz she is so young so it's impossible that she already played 48 tournaments. However, thanks for you answer, so as answer on another page that I posted :)
I guess it's adding by hand because of WTA errors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Simona Halep pending requestEdit

Hey! Today, I edited something on Simona Halep's main page, and meet we something I never seen before - pending changes. I have question, if it prevented us from vandals, then why not more pages have that? Then edits will have more sense, otherwise, it's really messy. What do U think? :) Cheers. JamesAndersoon talk 17:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Sally Jaye 2008.jpgEdit

 

The file File:Sally Jaye 2008.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

CheersEdit

  Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well F. MarnetteD|Talk 20:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Joyous SeasonEdit

price money wta playersEdit

Hello Fyunck(click), i found the additional information "femal" next to both Kerber's and S. Williams' overall carer earnings in their info-boxes, whereas there is no such information on Kvitovás earnings in her info-box (the top men don't have the lable "male", either). Is that correct? Do you know any WP-rules on that issue? Either way (keeping or deleating the additional information "female"), I'd argue for a consistent use. Thanks and greetings, --LH7605 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@LH7605: I guess it's one of those things that some editors include and some don't. I'm pretty sure there is nothing at Tennis Project either way. To me, it's understood they are separate organizations with separate totals and we need neither "female" nor "male" in the sentence. I agree with consistent use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that there is nothing at Tennis Project on thtat matter. It seems like someone already deleated most of the "female"-lables and for consistency reasons, as well as for logical reasons (agree with you that it's clear that WTA and ATP are separate organisations with seperate totals), I deleated the remaining lables.--LH7605 (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

U.S. Pro at ClevelandEdit

Fyunck, you are right, we should reconcile the number of Gonzales' acknowledged U.S. Pro wins with the number of actual U.S. Pro wins...there appears to be only one officially sanctioned Gonzales' U.S. Pro Championship win, and that was in L.A. in 1954.

Here is the link to the Wiki article on the U.S. Pro, and in note (b) is summarized the problem with Cleveland, which was, in fact, the authorized U.S. Pro in 1950, but not thereafter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Pro_Tennis_Championships

Footnote [9] gives the source from the USPLTA website "Renowned players grace USPTA Championships" which explains that the organization did not authorize U.S. Pro events after 1951, when the U.S. Pro was held at Forest Hills. The only exception to this was 1954 at L.A.

The successor event to Forest Hills 1951 was the U.S. Pro at L.A. Tennis Club, referenced in the L.A. Times on this Wiki page. Segura was deemed to be the defending champion from 1951.

It's complicated, to say the least. But Gonzales at the time used the term "National Professional Championships", not quite the same thing as "U.S. Pro", and I do not doubt that Gonzales was aware of the distinction.Tennisedu (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tennisedu:Sanctioned means nothing. Per historians/sources today this is the list of U.S. Pro Tennis Championships. Gonzales won 8. He also won a Cleveland event in 1954 and 1964 that were not the US Pro Championships. It's the same sort of thing with the two events "U.S. National Indoor Championships" and "Memphis Open." At times those two events overlapped and at other times both were in existence. We just need to be careful like we did with Borg and Connors that we don't give credit for the same event twice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, it was a little more messy than that. Cleveland was the USPLTA-sanctioned U.S. Pro in 1950, and the USPLTA gave the Cleveland promoter the Benrus Cup that year to award to the winner, Segura. And the USPLTA gave the Benrus Cup to the Cleveland promoter to use again for 1951 for the expected U.S. Pro event for 1951. However, Kramer and Riggs managed to rent Forest Hills in 1951 (Kramer had lost to Segura on the Cleveland clay in 1950) and the USPLTA switched recognition for the U.S. Pro to the Forest Hills event. Segura won the Forest Hills event, but Segura still believed that Cleveland was the rightful 1951 U.S. Pro (won by Kovacs, who received the Benrus Cup for winning at Cleveland).
The USPLTA did not sanction a 1952 U.S. Pro, and the Cleveland promoter petitioned the USPLTA to use the "U.S. Pro" billing for the 1952 Cleveland event...but the USPLTA refused the request. Cleveland then retained the billing of "Cleveland International Professional Championships" which had been used in 1951, when the U.S. Pro title had been moved to Forest Hills. Also, Cleveland billed itself as the "International Pro" in 1953, when Gonzales won over Budge.
Now, we can understand the claim in the L.A. Times for 1954, which citation I gave you. The article claims that Segura, as winner of the 1951 U.S. Pro, was the "defending champion" of the USPLTA-approved 1954 L.A. U.S. Pro, carried over from that Forest Hills event, in other words, there had been NO U.S. Pro event since that time. And that is confirmed by the newspaper coverage of the 1952 and 1953 Cleveland events, which used the term "International Pro" as billed for the Cleveland.
So when did the Cleveland start getting called "U.S. Pro"? It appears not before the mid 1960's, or perhaps even after the Cleveland event was no longer being held. In other words, it is not history, but appears to be an anachronistic usage deriving from a history rewrite.
As far as I can see in the histories, USPLTA had the authority to sanction the U.S. Pro, and Kramer had obtained that approval for both of his events, the 1951 U.S. Pro at Forest Hills, and the 1954 U.S. Pro at L.A., which was also a Kramer event. It is entirely possible that Kramer also got USPLTA permission for the use of the U.S. Pro billing for the 1963 Forest Hills event, although that is based on Kramer's history of 1951 and 1954, and his mention of getting USPLTA approval for Forest Hills in the final day press coverage of the 1959 Forest Hills TOC. Tennisedu (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Tennisedu:Please learn to indent properly and to sign your text with four tildas at the "end" of your text, not at the beginning. Otherwise it's harder to follow. I indented your last post for you here and moved your signature. Thanks. A lot of tennis is after-the-fact. The Grand Slam tournaments have retroactive acknowledgement back to the 20s and 30s. Heck in 1920 there were five international Major championships, not four. But history and usage change things. The same with the US Pro. Historically, tennis tournaments have often been a bit fuzzy about when they started and ended, and they sometimes move to new places and retain the same name. Or restart in the same place under a new name and management. Perfection is not possible with this sport. But we can't give players more credit for wins just because an event has two names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, but I would like to see the tournament which we label as "U.S. Pro" actually make some credible claim to that name at the time it is actually played, and not decades later. Especially if we are claiming that it is a major tournament, and that is another sore point for Cleveland, the fields were very weak in some years.Tennisedu (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The fields were weak in all the Major pro events in some years. That was the nature of the Pro events. Small fields and variable draws. And we aren't claiming they were major events, sources given are claiming it was one of the three major pro events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but those sources were written years after-the-fact, and really have no more status than what we could write today, they were not official statements by anyone connected with the management of these purported U.S. Pros. Sometimes it may be better to just acknowledge, as the USPLTA does on their history, that "in some years the U.S. Pro was not held", just as in some years the French Pro "was not held", or in some years the Wembley Pro "was not held". I think that is better than scouring the landscape looking for something to fill the gap. In 1942 the U.S. Open golf tournament was won by Ben Hogan, but he did not get credit for it, the title was withdrawn just before the tournament was played, due to wartime. Now, some golf historians believe that Hogan should get credit for this U.S. Open because all the golfers were there ready to play the U.S. Open, and it was a very prestigious event. But there is no acknowledgement of this win as an official U.S. Open victory in Hogan's record. We could say that Hogan certainly deserved to get a win registered for this win, but it does not appear on his official record.
That may be a similar situation with these Cleveland events, everyone wants them to be acknowledged as U.S. Pro wins, and so that is what happened in the 1960's, the Cleveland event was reinvented in tennis histories. Well, each to his own, but it doesn't register on my radar as a major. Kramer, for some reason, did not supply his top field of players to Cleveland to make that a credible major.Tennisedu (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Postcript: Fyunck, sorry, my indents are still not working properly, I will keep working on my technique.Tennisedu (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea about the golf situation, but the Pro tennis situation was an entirely different beast than the tennis authorities today. It doesn't exist anymore and the entire landscape was a lot of fighting and scrambling for dollars. per today there was nothing "official" about any of it and hence the reason the ATP doesn't even act like it existed. And the fields for some of the current Open Era majors has been just as depleted in the 1970s because of other infighting, yet those are still considered Grand Slam tournaments. Field strength is only one indicator value. My own thoughts might be totally different than what we have sourced but my own thoughts mean absolutely zero here on wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Errors by purposeEdit

There is a user 188.105.94.86 that always do errors by purpose, never explane why he done this. I'm alluding on changing US$ to $ without explanation (he always do this), resized font of ITF / WTA 125K table, without explanation, not responding to messages that i left on his talk page (he also didn't respond before). I'm just wondering, just you so into these guidliness things, do you think it's ok that he do it , and maybe i'm wrong, I don't know anymore, but I think it's fair if you correcting me for mistakes, to do also with him. Also reverting some of my edits without explanation. So, if you are intresting, some of pages where it happened:

Thanks. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Now, see it also on Maria Sakkari (you can see on his last edit, what he made - removing "career total", removing bold for year-end ranking, full form of american dollar sign, resize of tables. - - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll look at it. The US$ thing I have no idea what is wikipedia consensus. I'm not sure if we have a guideline on legend font size, but all other tables should be at 100%. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The guy who has begun with those undid revisions (since Sep 2018) is: JamesAndersoon - see f.e. Fanny Stollár, Lauren Davis... - 188.105.94.86 (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
You used to change things without explanation, and you was told before to not do this, but you ignore, that's why your edits were reverted. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennis format question (related to Kayla Day)Edit

Hey so I had a general question about the performance timelines. Does Kayla's timeline go above the ITF tournaments since they are ITF tournaments, which is like minor leagues? I was under the impression that the timelines go towards the bottom, like for Caroline Dolehide. Also saw the format of putting timelines towards the bottom here Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Format. Appreciate your assistance. michfan2123 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Michfan2123: There is no guideline at all as to placement, just a strict guideline as to content. We were discussing this the other day at tennis project that some of us feel there is no more important chart as our performance timelines. They are the single most informative bit of information and they are the same for all articles. I have been putting them right at the top of the career statistics to show them off for our readers as opposed to having them buried in the middle of other less important charts such as low-level ITF events. If a player has a career statistics secondary article we use a small Grand Slam tournament only chart on the main page, at the top of the career stats. Does that help at all? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Makes sense, thanks. michfan2123 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources For ClaimEdit

Hi. Regarding this edit, and a few others you've made, I believe that I mentioned that the US Open is not a WTA event. You replied that it's "part of the WTA schedule." Just because something is on your schedule does not mean that you own it.

If you are going to claim that the Slams are ATP and WTA events, please provide reliable sources which explicitly state so. Otherwise, your scheduling argument could be labeled original thought. I've added some reliable sources to the Grand Slam article which explicitly state that the Slams are not owned by the ATP or WTA. Therefore, Grand Slam titles should not be labeled ATP or WTA titles (see Roger Federer). This is not about "splitting hairs" or being antagonist, it's simply about Wikipedia policy. -- James26 (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The four majors are part of the ATP and WTA tours. They also give 2000 ranking points. They don't own them, but by agreement they are part of the tour. And there is no wikipedia policy saying otherwise. If you want to change how we do things please bring it to Tennis Project talk. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

". . .by agreement they are part of the tour."

What exactly does this mean? How does this pertain to editing? Is there some formal agreement in place to list ATP titles and WTA titles as Slam titles on Wikipedia? Please link me to it. I wasn't aware. The Roger Federer article clearly makes a distiction between "ATP Tour" and "Grand Slam."

According to policy, claims added to articles, especially about living persons, have to be verfied. Unless you can verify that her US Open title is "a WTA title," that claim does not belong in the article, and discussion is not required to remove it. Please source your claim. -- James26 (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, the infobox uses just a short WTA instead of WTA Tour... same as ITF instead of ITF Tour. Otherwise the Grand Slamd tournaments would go under ITF in the infobox... they don't. We simply use WTA to mean events sponsored by the WTA or ATP tours. In the infobox we shorten it to WTA or ATP. It's that simple. The WTA and ATP total the Grand Slam events and give points just like they do all their other events. The WTA website says she has 3 titles... that includes the US Open, Canadian Open, and Indian Wells Open. Argue with them. If you want to change how we do things then please bring it up on the Tennis Project talk page and get others to agree with you. I don't think you'll find any at all. And Federers article simply says 103 titles. We do not list his ITF titles as it's so trivial so we don't have to say ATP titles. If Andreescu wins a couple more WTA titles the 125k challenger and ITF titles will be removed from the infobox as also being trivial. It's what we do at Tennis Project. It's pretty obvious you aren't retired as your talk page says. Perhaps you should change that? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Consensus is supposed to respect Wikipedia policy. Purposely adding something incorrect to an article, especially about a living person, is not respecting policy. Also, I did not see a consensus on Project Tennis to explicitly list Slam titles as WTA or ATP titles.


The WTA site may incorrectly call it a Grand Slam title, but I've cited other reliable sources which contradict this. Again, purposely adding something incorrect to an article is not proper. -- James26 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I've done my best to explain things to you, but it doesn't work. I'm done here since you won't follow through with bringing it to tennis project talk. And you brought some frivolous claim to ani. My goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
You explained it to me just fine. I simply disagree with purposely including something false in the article. It's either a fact or it's not. Note: the ANI wasn't meant as an attack. Just trying to resolve the matter, as I'm short on free time. -- James26 (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Resolving DisputeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. James26 (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

LOL... and they wouldn't accept it. Bring it to Tennis Project Talk as I said. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: March 2020Edit

I don't really have time for this now. I've taken it to another notice board for assistance. I asked before: Provide me a link to this "long-standing consensus" that specifically states that Slam titles shall be listed as WTA titles. Do that, and I'm fine with leaving it be. -- James26 (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Longstanding consensus is just that. Tennis Project has used this formula on countless articles. Another overkill source was added to the infobox also. You need to convince others at Tennis Project talk that your new longer way works better and so far that hasn't happened. You can't just keep reverting everyone or you will certainly get blocked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
James, I have no dog in this hunt (except being interested in tennis and being a longtime contributor) so I don't really care one way or another what you and Fyunck end up with. But I just wanted to second what Fyunck says above -- make too many reverts and you will sooner or later get yourself blocked. Best to work out a consensus with the other people at the Tennis Project and then go along with whatever is decided. Whether it's what you yourself would have preferred or not. That's the way of Wikipedia, and, as they say about City Hall, at some point you can't fight it. Cheers! Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Indian Wells 2020Edit

Many of media outlets said that the 2020 Indian Wells has already been cancelled as it was truly confirmed on March 8, 2020; as several websites shown being linked up:

Stated on the links above, 2020 Indian Wells is cancelled and wait till next year. ApprenticeFan work 02:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@ApprenticeFan: Per the tournament itself, "We are prepared to hold the tournament on another date and will explore options." So we need to wait and see before we start changing all articles to say canceled. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

Can you tell me what's your problem, dude? Removing Russia/Kazahstan from Elena Rybakina page (in Performance timeline table - but Navratilova and Gavrilova should have this???). Removing separately ITF reference??? Don't you think it's better for people to have faster access to draw of some tournament, rather than saying oh we sourced from this site. You remove Premier Mandatory/Premier 5 performances from Kurumi Nara that I edited, why??? I really don't understand what problem you have with me, but dude, you have serious problems. You don't care about most articles being such a mess. I guess you don't have other job except distroying my edits. - James Andersoon

p.s. and talking about "ugly" row (ofcourse for you) with source reference on performance timeline, then tell me why ex. 2020 WTA Finals have it??????

A couple of things. Wikipedia has a problem with flag icons. We allow them for players, not places. Russia/Kazahstan is fine, the flags are not. Remove them if you see them. Thanks. And there is no need to fill the charts with reference after reference if it is esentially from the same source. A single link works better. But making any new rows or columns would require tennis project approval for sure. And i have no problem with you at all. I only have issues with changing are charts will-nilly with no approval. Following rules goes a long way and if someone points it out then you should be willing to accept rather than forcing your way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Once again, you don't answer me, then why these pages have this? WTA Finals has it every year. That's the reason why I said you have something against me. I think it's really unfear, if you say something is ruled; that why noone arguing about that on WTA Final page or Daria Gavrilova. It's not something that happened two days ago. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@JamesAndersoon:I guess i don't understand. Russia/Kazahstan is still there. What else is missing? But really? You look around and find a flag error on Martina Navratilova's article and assume two wrongs must make a right? Di you happen to notice Martina Navratilova career statistics does not have that flag error? Did you happen to search the edit history on Navratilova's article and see it never had those flags except someone slipped it in on 28 July 2018‎. Sorry, but we miss things. Two other things. The 2020 WTA finals is not the same as the player performance charts. It's a different chart entirely. Someone decided it was better to have it on the bottom for that year (the other WTA finals years don't have that row). That chart also has formatting html errors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Remember what JamesAndersoon yesterday said to me (- isn't it just the way he is editing here ?): "vandalism is when you want on purpose to change some things against guidliness, cuz you don't like it. US$ link could be here, but it's not nessecary. In that case we have it. If you don't like, move on, and edit other things. Just because you think something is excess, that it should be removed? There are so many things that need correction. so 'be of benefit' and do something good." - 188.105.94.86 (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@188.105.94.86: Yes, I wrote it, but what Fyunck has with that? And what bad I said? It's obvious than you can't do whatever you want. Not only you, everyone. Don't undrstand your point? Ofcourse it's vandalism when you remove stuffs cuz you don't like it. I also don't like something, but keep it, cuz it needs to be there. Maybe not for me, but for others. Thing with US$ link is that something like 2 or 3 months you didn't say a single word why you want to remove it, just like some other stuffs. I saw you changing ex. Australian Open, Australia to Australia, Melbourne cuz you like it more that way. I told you to try to find consesus, but you never respond. Fyunck also warned you a couple of times. I really don't have problems with don't having US$ link, even if I like it more with link. Point is that you can't do it on your own, without explanation and consesus. Everytime I made something that is against guidlines, I was told to correct it, and I did it. In past I had some arguing about this with Fyunck and others, but in the end I understand my mistake and go on. I don't understand your obsession to follow every step I take, even to go on User page's talk to respond to my post that don't have anything with you. p.s. Sorry Fyunck, some users don't have regard. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
And you now go to Petra Martic's page and do things against guidliness (that was told so many times before not to do) and you come here to say that I'm vandal? I'm confused (read it ironicly). - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
You also done it on Monica Puig career statistics. Sorry Fyuck cuz I write it here, but he wants answers. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon:@188.105.94.86:While I'd rather you two talk this out on your own talk pages, if you can solve anything here or come to some compromise here, that's fine too. But if it's only going to be back and forth kicking & yelling, please do it somewhere else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Totally agree! But he mentioned me here for doing vandalism, so I was forced to respond. That's why I say sorry to you. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking to collaborate on tennis articlesEdit

I'm trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Honda Sports Awards and the award winners.

When I started work on this about a month ago, 14 of the 40 Award winners for volleyball did not have an article. I've created at least start class articles for each of them.

I'm now planning to turn to tennis. The good news is that more of the 38 winners have an article; only nine are missing:

I see that you are an active participant in the tennis project. I'm hoping to convince you to collaborate on creating the articles for these 97 players.

  • 1977 Kathy Mueller

* 1981 Anna Fernandez (Update, just found this one)

  • 1984 Lisa Spain
  • 1998 Marissa Catlin
  • 2005 Zuzana Zemenova
  • 2008 Amanda McDowell
  • 2010 Laura Vallverdu

* 2015 Robin Anderson Update, found another one

  • 2019 Estela Perez-Somarriba

If you are interested, my plan would be to start barebones drafts, either in draft space or user subpages, then work on them together until we think they are ready for prime time. Any interest?

(I also note that Michfan2123 has identified an interest in " mainly focused on American female players," so I will reach out, but that editor hasn't been active in a month, so I don't know whether that will work.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: To be honest, I'm not sure the stance at Tennis Project on winning the Honda Sports Award. It does not pass and Tennis Project notability guidelines, but I'm sure the winners pass Wikipedia GNG guidelines. The award is not just for tennis ability but also the ideals of team contribution, scholastic endeavor, school and community involvement and those personal characteristics as stated in the philosophy of the NCAA... I'm not sure it is in the scope of Tennis Project. There are players that have won professional tournaments that are not notable per Tennis Project Guidelines because while professional they are the minor leagues. Even junior players have to win a junior Grand Slam event or be ranked in the world top 3 to get an article with Tennis Project tagged on the talk page.
All that said, these awards are notable, and the winner would meet GNG so some editors at Tennis Project, who are great at stubs, may want to help at creation. Editors like @Tamolyn:, or @WTC7812: might want to take a crack at it. I would not tag the player's talk pages with a WikiProject Tennis banner unless the player also meets Tennis Project guidelines in some manner. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), I'm fine with the Tennis Project deciding who is eligible for a Wikiproject Tennis banner. That's not my area of interest. I have also steered away from debating what confers auto inclusion - I've always felt that if there isn't enough material to support an article, then what's the point of an article? If there is enough material, then automatic standards aren't needed.
My main area of interest is women's basketball, so I have limited familiarity with the "status" of awards in other sports. In wbb, the top award is the Wade, and perhaps the Wooden Award, with the Naismith and AP POY close behind. The Honda Sports Award is probably in the next tier, but ahead of USBWA and some others. I can't imagine a women's basketball player winning the Honda Sports Award and not deserving an article. Maybe that's the case in other sports. I recently saw an AfD denied simply because the subject was a Honda Sports Award winner, although I don't recall which sport. It may be the case that the award ranks differently in different sports, but I'm not sure why this matters. I brought up the Award to explain how I am choosing the articles to work on; I am not making any presumption that the recipients are worthy of an article without consideration of gng, or whether they ought to have, or not have some banner on the talk page. I'm happy to leave those decisions to editors who are close to the sport.
When it comes to women's basketball, I am very familiar with the types of sources that cover college and pro activities, but when it comes to other sports, I know very little about the pro leagues, what's important or where to find it, so I was hoping to work on generic material, and collaborate with someone who knows more about the professional sources, as well as the intricacies of the infoboxes.
I've made some progress on User:Sphilbrick/Kathy_Mueller_Rohan, a bit challenging because she predates much of the internet. I've barely touched her pro career, and don't know how to look up some of the usual info in the infobox. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Usually the best place to look for those items is the WTA or ITF websites. On the ITF site I found Kathy Mueller. She tried to qualify for a couple big tournaments and never made it. I see no minor league record. On the main WTA tour at the WTA nothing comes up either. However records are much sketchier at that time, and maybe some newspaper articles would turn up a tournament or two. If she played on the WTA tour (or its equvilent back then) Tennis project would certainly want a banner on the talk page. Right now it looks like she won the Honda award and went on to some other business. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), Yeah, I figure if her best pro ranking was 150, she probably didn't win anything notable. I'll try those sites on some of the other players, who may have had more significant post college careers. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

ITF Challenger names for WTA playersEdit

On Kamilla Rakhimova page you said that is probably best to put Challenger name instead of ITF + tournament's city name? I think it will be bit diffucult to do that cuz a lot of tournament don't contain name of city in tournament's title. Some of examples:

What's your opinion on that? - JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Some of these are a tough call. On one side, we really don't need the city name if there is a tournament name. Just the tournament name and country is fine like we would do with Canadian Open, Bavarian Championships, Italian Open, German Open, Swiss Indoors, US Open, etc... If readers really want to know the details of the city they can go to the link. However a name like "Torneig Internacional de Tennis Femení Solgironès" is ridiculous. All that title says is International tennis tournament for females sponsored by Solgirones. We absolutely frown upon sponsored names if we have any kind of an alternative, and the ITF page calls it the ITF La Bisbal d'Empordà. The Al Habtoor Tennis Challenge hs the same sponsor problem but the entire area its played in is actually called Al Habtoor City. Bredeney is the name of the tennis club it's played at so no problem there. These are very tough calls I would agree with you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Yes, understand you. A bit tricky, but it must be look individualy. Definitely, it can't be same rule for all ITF tournaments. Thanks! - - JamesAndersoon (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Probably true. A general philosophy but case by case. And if someone puts up a stink I just move on and work on hundreds of other things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Header vs bgcolor=efefefEdit

You also told me before that "!" is bad html. Should that mean that also row with years should also be with bgcolor=efefef instead of "!"? If this is case, then it should be changed in Tennis Project Guidlines? - JamesAndersoon (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon: "!" is header html meant for the top of tables. It is exactly what we should use for that top row of years. It's in the middle of tables that it breaks wikipedia accessibility guidelines as it's only supposed to be used for the first row of years. And some screen readers for the blind don't do well when it's in the middle of a table. We got hit with that many years ago by the accessibility hounds and fixed most issues. I think our tennis project charts are up to date on that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Rolland Garros French OpenEdit

Hello Fyunck(click). I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Rolland Garros French Open, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: may be useful; users may query official name, plus does not apply as it is a result of a good-faith page move. Thank you. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 06:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Rolland Garros French Open" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rolland Garros French Open. Since you had some involvement with the Rolland Garros French Open redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Agathoclea (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Agathoclea: Very strange non deletion though since the Rolland is misspelled and it would never be placed at Rolland Garros French Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Subjective Rankings in Pro TennisEdit

Fyunck, I noticed that Laver's ranking was removed from the lead in the Lew Hoad article, you mentioned that subjective rankings are inappropriate in a lead. I notice that many other bio articles for tennis pros have subjective statements and subjective ratings/rankings in leads. Should those also be removed?Tennisedu (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I presume that subjective ratings/rankings in a lead could be moved into the body of the article, assuming that the same material is not already inside the body of the article.Tennisedu (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The usually discussions have tried to keep the very subjective all-time rankings to a legacy section of prose. And in prose it should have a year attached because we find former players or historians change their minds on greatness all the time. This is not a policy, just consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Understood. Well, then no objection if I follow the consensus and do some relocating of puff/subjective ratings/rankings from the leads of some tennis players into the bodies of the articles?Tennisedu (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You'll note his No. 1 ranking is in the lead. And with many sources in prose I think general consensus was mixed on saying "one of the greatest players of all-time." But I think even that is better left in a legacy section. So no complaints from me on moving missed players stuff to prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ilie Năstase's playing careerEdit

His career section looks like a mess. Can you work on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.103.69 (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Not very specific but it looks like someone is working on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ashley Cooper (tennis)Edit

 On 23 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ashley Cooper (tennis), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)